What’s the most ridiculous zoning rule or decision you’ve ever heard of? Here’s a candidate: Alexandria, Virginia (which wants a Portland-like streetcar) has told property owners in one neighborhood that replacement of rusty chain-link fences violates the city’s historic preservation ordinance.
“While many feel that [chain-link] fences have negative connotations, this material has played an important role in the development of mid-century vernacular housing and their cultural landscape,” the city’s historic preservation staff noted. “By eradicating this ‘simple fencing solution,’ the applicant would be removing an important contextual clue to the original occupants of this neighborhood.”
It is important for the blood to flow properly into the direction of penis and viagra on line browse these guys when that does not necessarily mean that ED condition is developed. Herbal pills will make levitra brand Learn More Here your life better by curing ED for once and for all. Therefore, how to increase penile strength is by using the herbal delivery overnight viagra pills like Mast Mood capsules are the best herbal supplements to prevent soft erection, are Umbelia, Valvading, Ashmaz, Girji, Adrijatu, Lauh Bhasma, Abhrak Bhasma, Himalcherry, Valvading, Embelia Ribes. In the early 1940, it was describe only medically, but people came to know all facts related to it at purchasing cialis present days. This particular part of Alexandria was apparently built as working-class housing just after World War II. Apparently, there is not enough such housing left in the United States, so we have to preserve some of it, even if it means keeping an ugly fence when the owners want to replace it with a prettier one.
As Stewart Brand observed in his book (and TV series) How Buildings Learn, one of the distinctive features of low-cost, vernacular housing is that it was designed to allow the owners to improve the homes as soon as they could afford to do so. This is in contrast to the Postmodern style, which is often designed to look like someone has already made several changes in the building but which actually is very difficult to alter. Denying someone the right to improve vernacular buildings actually violates the historic character of the neighborhood.
The Antiplanner is all for historic preservation, and has been involved in at least one major preservation project as well as being a member of various preservation groups. Of course, I think historic preservation should be undertaken via voluntary efforts or private contributions, not by legislative fiat. Plus I don’t see much virtue in requiring property owners to maintain one of the most common (and ugliest) forms of fencing around. The next thing you know, some historic preservationist will demand that people maintain their television antennas when they convert to cable.
Come on planners, jump to this poor, beleaguered city’s defense now. What has the world come to, when a bunch of planners (who may have almost earned their master’s degrees in “running other peoples’ lives”) have their decisions questioned by Mere Ordinaries?
Spare no effort in explaining away this planning decision. I suggest a couple appeals to ridicule, authority, and majority, not necessarily in that order.
I don’t have a problem with Alexandria enforcing rules like this in the Old Town area of the city, which is historically significant, where at least some of the housing stock dates back to before 1900 (and some of it before 1800).
But Old Town’s geographic limits and restrictions are pretty well known to people. Outside of Old Town, Alexandria’s not that different from other suburbs of Washington, D.C. – and restrictions like those discussed by Randal do not make much sense.
Maybe there should be limits on how old a community has to be before it can be designated as “historic?” My suggestion is at least 100 years of age, and maybe higher.
For those that are interested, a map of the Alexandria Historic District can be found here (Adobe Acrobat .pdf, 1.28 MB).
The map seems “reasonable” in light of what I know about Alexandria, though I find it curious that the boundaries shown on the map include a portion of the Potomac River south of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge which is in Prince George’s County, Maryland.
CPZ – The corner of Jones Point Park south of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge has the original survey marker setting the boundary for Washington DC. It is still there.
The term “Hysterical Preservationist” exists for a reason.
DS
“Maybe there should be limits on how old a community has to be before it can be designated as ‘historic?'”
The National Historic Preservation Act allows buildings that are 50 years or older to be nominated for the National Register of Historic Places. Good luck trying to change that number.
In the national parks I worked, just before the 50th birthday of some shed or hut or other outbuilding, fire fighters torched the building for “training” purposes.
Once again, an area of significant agreement between “antiplanners” and the new generation of planners.
Frank wrote:
The National Historic Preservation Act allows buildings that are 50 years or older to be nominated for the National Register of Historic Places. Good luck trying to change that number.
In my opinion, not old enough.
In the national parks I worked, just before the 50th birthday of some shed or hut or other outbuilding, fire fighters torched the building for “training†purposes.
Would that be called “park renewal” (as opposed to urban renewal)?
I would call it an unintended consequence. Certainly, burning buildings that may contain asbestos and lead paint in a national park is…well, par for the course. It’s also sad as some cool lookouts from the 1960s are going to be demolished because superintendents don’t want to have to pay to protect them for-EV-er.
I would call it an unintended consequence. Certainly, burning buildings that may contain asbestos and lead paint in a national park is…well, par for the course. It’s also sad as some cool lookouts from the 1960s are going to be demolished because superintendents don’t want to have to pay to protect them for-EV-er.
Agreed regarding asbestos and lead paint. Just about any building erected prior to the 1970’s is likely to have one or both.
By lookouts do you mean lookout towers for forest fires? Please understand that with a few exceptions (notably Joshua Tree and Muir Woods), I have not “done” many National Parks in the West, though I have visited many of them along and near the East Coast.
This Hysterical Perversion is counter to property rights, specifically eminent domain (partial taking), in many ways.
We have been outlawed against ingesting certain things (drugs), which has broadened into many foods.
Many other behaviors will be further controlled — for excuse of lowering costs — especially under the new gov-mandated health insurance, which will morph into much worse crap.
Buildings need to have an appearance per municipal dictators?
Even a majority/mob-rule is unjust.
Also, the Constitution has nothing about protection of non-humans, not to be offended. (Nixon was awful — not W-gate (very minor) — the price controls, NAPA & the en-dangerous creatures, was awful for society)
Next anti-human laws for a few other humans?:
Publicly, only acceptable clothing, appearance (uglies stay home) & hygiene.
The Historical Preservation Act is a good example of how government regulation creates adverse incentives. It basically says that if you let a building survive 50 years, then forever after you can’t do anything to that building without incurring lots of cost, delay and uncertainty.
Preservationists see the law as giving them a chance to preserve history, and all the property owners see the law as a reason to destroy anything that is close to 50 years old.
So a good analyst would look at regulations from both sides.
Teal, I doubt more than a handful of property owners in the history of this country after passage – operating from robust ignorance or delusion – have destroyed property just to avoid a chance of being designated for preservation. Especially if designation means increasing property value. Not even close to passing the smell test.
Again, I’m not a hysterical preservationist so please no cheap opportunists falsely accusing me of something please.
DS
just to avoid a chance of being designated for preservation
The premise is false. This isn’t a chance to be designated for preservation. It’s a forceful grab by government. No one stops the private landowner from preserving the property of his own choice. This law, as it applies to private property, is absurd. If the feds want to apply it to their own abodes on federal property, fine, though.
“I doubt more than a handful of property owners in the history of this country after passage – operating from robust ignorance or delusion – have destroyed property just to avoid a chance of being designated for preservation.”
I concur. Getting private property designated is a long and possibly costly process. If dealing with the SHPO and navigating the channels of bureaucracy isn’t enough, then there’s the cost of hiring a public historian to research the property. Doubtful much private property was destroyed to avoid having to protect it since it is not automatically going to be eligible for protection just based on its age.
However, I would say there are quite a few cases on federal lands, especially because once the age threshold is passed, studies will have to be conducted, and that’s a drain on time and resources. $h!t, the Hysterical Preservationists in the NPS get hard ons for CCC-era trash heaps along roads, and I can see why management would be anxious to dispose of 1960s era outbuildings before they, like chain link fence, become part of the “cultural landscape”.
This fence thing is interesting. I lived in a historic district in CO for about 10 years and the rule there was 50+ years and it had to be on the foundation. There were no historic fences, and for the most part the preservation program was accepted by the community. On occasion there was a lot with a run down shed that was on a foundation (affectionately referred to as a historic P.O.S), and the property owner was stuck with doing something expensive with it, but this was rare.
“This law, as it applies to private property, is absurd. If the feds want to apply it…”
I’m not sure how it works in other communities, but in the historic district I lived in the townspeople had to lobby the federal government hard to get the designation. We wanted it. I’m not sure the federal government just goes to places and stamps them “historic.” My understanding is that it’s a bottom-up process.
I’m not sure how it works in other communities, but in the historic district I lived in the townspeople had to lobby the federal government hard to get the designation.
You probably wanted to get on the Nat’l Historic Register. Local codes vary by location and may or may not be bottom-up. I worked on the groundwork for an app for a Nat’l Historic District, and the effort was all bottom-up. No one from the gummint solicited us for designation.
BTW, speaking of onerous rules in HDs, AIUI PDX gives you certain incentives flexiblity in development rights (over and above some portions of zoning) and relaxes seismic requirements. Might make it both cheaper and more profitable to have a bldg designated. If you’re strict about it, you are going to preserve the character anyway.
DS
Many Hurricane Katrina recovery projects were held up so a historical and preservation survey could be done on buildings schedule for demolition or replacement.
One of my favorites was a shed in a 1970s subdivision in St. Bernard Parish that had been used as the sales office when the development was new. I think it held up recovery money for the immediate area for six months or so.