Homes At 1303-1309 Ashland St.

[fwki]

Setting aside all the flyers I got in my mailbox from opponents warning that development in the Heights would come to a screeching halt with the ordinance, here is an argument made in the previous thread I started that got shut down after the usual juvenille name calling erupted.  Basic argument is that the property would have to be sold at a major discount in order to be redeveloped under the ordinance.  In essence, the same thing as saying that the ordinance makes redevelopment infeasible:

 

200+ feet of frontage with alley access, and from what I could find, this block has no MLS or MBL in place. Outside the historic district, this would be 6 to 8 detached homes or ~12 townhouses.

Since new construction must receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the HAHC, the buyer (assuming he demo's the warehouses) is subject to the following restrictions:

- Residential: width, roofline and eave height compatible with typical contributing structures (read: ~1300-1500 s.f.)

- Commercial: height not to exceed that typical of existing current structures.

They're asking $1.35M for the land. Let's assume it goes for less than that, add in demo costs, and say $1.25 for the land, cleared. If HAHC only lets someone build 4 1400 sf houses, add in construction and finance costs, and the total cost could be, say, $2M (round numbers). So they'd have to sell each one for north of $600k to make a profit. Not much market for that size house in that price range.

Only other option is to redevelop as commercial, which, depending on how rigid the HAHC is, could be the more likely outcome.

This will be an interesting test of the impact of the ordinance on redevelopment. I for one would be surprised if they get the $47/sf asking price (seeing as how is 50% above the current going rate).         

 

Fuhget about your consecutive attempt at hyperbole with the flyers comment, NOBODY made the contention you set forth about warehouses unless you were doing some time picking up trash on weekends.  No, in essence, it is not the same.  If they sold at premium and they lose their ass, they still develop, just next time they don't pay as much, if the HAHC concedes, and if I have my way they will concede, investors continue with bigger development.  Either way, an interesting test is not a screeching halt.  But you still refuse to acknowledge the argument that has kicked your butt here numerous times (hint: it's the argument right before you go quiet)....these history buffs are idiots and unless they re-populate the HAHC with normal people and spank Marlene, the PC will continue to issue sanity checks on you and your ilk. What a waste of time and money.  The HD's ought to pay a special tax to cover the tab.  The same development goes on without waste on my side of the tracks.

[s3mh]

The main argument has never been what you claim. The main argument has always been that you have no right to tell me how to renovate my home.

 

Let me give you a definition of onerous and offensive. I have been trying to get permitted for a renovation to my home that has no effect on the front or sides of the house since January. As of today, I am still trying to get the permit. Your posts have suggested that you have little understanding of economics and what influences building costs, so I won't try to explain it to you. But, everyone else knows what a 3+ month delay in construction does to construction costs. If not for the fact that my architect and contractor are friends, this delay would be cost prohibitive.

 

THAT is onerous and offensive. 

 

I don't, but the municipal government does.  In countless jurisdictions across the US, the municipal government enforces historic preservation ordinances. 

 

If it is taking you three months to get through HAHC, you really only have yourself to blame.  If the staff refuses to recommend, go get a denial and appeal to the planning commission.  It worked for the couple on Harvard.  Only added two weeks for the appeal.   

 

A three month delay is not the norm.  The norm is having plans approved by unanimous consent on the first try.  That is why there has been no affect on market prices for homes in the HDs.  It isn't that difficult to get through the process.

[Angostura]

It happens all the time.  HAHC has rarely pushed back on the basis of scale.  9 out of 15 residences on the 1300 block of Ashland are over 2000 sq ft, and 10 out of 15 will be over 2000 sq ft once a renovation and addition just underway is completed. 

 

 

Ordinance requires that width, roofline and eave height be compatible with typical contributing structures.

 

There was a huge furor a while back about the 4 houses on Rutland and 15th being "out of scale" with the surrounding neighborhood. Some of those protesting the construction of those houses even went so far as to vandalized the construction site and paint graffiti on the fence. 

 

Well, those houses were only 2300 s.f.

 

I don't doubt that a developer with the right connections will get their CoA. The HAHC has pretty much complete leeway to do so. But it's a stretch to say that 4000 s.f. McVics are "compatible with typical contributing structures".

 

Then again, maybe the developer will just put up 4 1500-s.f. bungalows, then let the buyers add camelbacks later.

[fwki]

...........It worked for the couple on Harvard...........It isn't that difficult to get through the process.

 

Ok, since you have no idea no matter how you sound, let's ask the couple themselves how much fun they had....oh, and let's ask Peggy with the demon windows last week.  I met her at the PC meeting, and let me tell you we had so much fun.

[RedScare]

I don't, but the municipal government does.  In countless jurisdictions across the US, the municipal government enforces historic preservation ordinances. 

 

If it is taking you three months to get through HAHC, you really only have yourself to blame.  If the staff refuses to recommend, go get a denial and appeal to the planning commission.  It worked for the couple on Harvard.  Only added two weeks for the appeal.   

 

A three month delay is not the norm.  The norm is having plans approved by unanimous consent on the first try.  That is why there has been no affect on market prices for homes in the HDs.  It isn't that difficult to get through the process.

 

You're so cute when you are ignorant. My application was approved unanimously. The problem is that it must be turned in several weeks ahead of time, then put on the agenda, voted upon, go back to staff, wait for the approval letter, then begin the permitting minefield, which is far worse since they are worried about violating HD rules. It takes time.

 

But, you wouldn't know this. You only talk smack. Wait until you have the money to rehab your shack. You'll see.

[SilverJK]

As someone considering a major renovation (within the next 24 months), I sure am glad I'm not in the district.   I guess it is different for those of us with teeth in the game...

[Ross]

I don't, but the municipal government does.  In countless jurisdictions across the US, the municipal government enforces historic preservation ordinances. 

 

If it is taking you three months to get through HAHC, you really only have yourself to blame.  If the staff refuses to recommend, go get a denial and appeal to the planning commission.  It worked for the couple on Harvard.  Only added two weeks for the appeal.   

 

A three month delay is not the norm.  The norm is having plans approved by unanimous consent on the first try.  That is why there has been no affect on market prices for homes in the HDs.  It isn't that difficult to get through the process.

 

If a permit requires more than a day to obtain, then the process is overly onerous. The main concerns of the city should be life safety and drainage. There are no historic houses in the Heights, only old ones.

[Subdude]

How to make an argument like RedScare:

 

Step 1:  Take a very valid and coherent argument like not wanting to see historic bungalows demolished in order to build homes that are lot line/out of scale and that do not reflect the existing architectural style (faux Victorian or New Orleans Italianate on a block with all craftsman architecture). 

Step 2:  Remove a significant premise from the argument (demolition of existing historic housing).

Step 3:  Add a premise that has never been argued:  It is preferable to have an old warehouse than to have new construction/all new construction is bad if it is bigger than 1000 sq ft

Step 4:  Bend the facts as needed (All houses on 1300 block of Ashland are 1000 sq ft; only McVics are being built as new construction when many builders have done a very good job of replicating craftsman 4 square/two story homes; only 3500-4000 sq ft homes are economically viable--see Sears catalog inspired single story bungalows on the 1000 block of Rutland that sold in a heartbeat). 

The result is the above argument. 

 

No.  I have never argued that there should be no new construction.  I am against the demolition of perfectly good historic housing in favor of building form book Italianate/Creole things that are out of scale and out of character of the existing craftsman architecture.  It is 100% consistent to want to see the preservation of existing housing and be glad that the definition of neighborhood non-conformity (a big ugly warehouse) is demolished and replaced with new construction. 

 

Wait, maybe this is all to throw us all off the scent of the invalid argument repeatedly made by historic opponents that this kind of property could never be redevoped because of the onerous historic ordinance.  The Heights was supposed to turn to a slum with dilapidated rentals and houses left to the termites in hopes of a demolition permit. 

 

Reported posts.

 

Stick to the arguments and avoid personal references and flaming other members.  Any more posts with personal attacks will be deleted.

[s3mh]

You're so cute when you are ignorant. My application was approved unanimously. The problem is that it must be turned in several weeks ahead of time, then put on the agenda, voted upon, go back to staff, wait for the approval letter, then begin the permitting minefield, which is far worse since they are worried about violating HD rules. It takes time.

 

But, you wouldn't know this. You only talk smack. Wait until you have the money to rehab your shack. You'll see.

 

And you wonder why your posts keep getting deleted. 

 

The deadline for turning in an application is two weeks before the meeting.  You do not have to turn it in several weeks ahead of time.  The HDs do not slow the post COA permitting process.  The permitting process is slowing down because there is a huge surge in construction in the City and there has not been enough hands on deck in the permitting dep't to keep up. 

[RedScare]

I'll take my actual experience at HAHC and Permitting over your made up fantasy. Thank you for playing.

[Subdude]

Reported again. 

Topic closed.