Kestas
Staff member
On the other hand, we can only hope that the tree will be there longer than the plastics plant.
"Tear-down" Phenomenon
- Thread starter JHZR2
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
How long was the plastics plant there for? A LOT of chemical facilities date way far back... think of some of the DuPont properties, etc. People didnt think of stuff the same way back then... Historical site? Tree with some significance, etc., etc.? Chances are it was as historic then as it is now... Someone just got to make some $$$ by selling the land to the builder, and the builder thought the tree interesting enough to keep. Am I close in such a guess???
JMH
JMH
where in Saco is there anything historic?
That's exactly what's going on just north of Detroit. My wife's aunt & uncle moved 2 years ago from their $450,000 McMansion in a rather large development of nearly identical homes in Shelby TWP to an even snottier subdivision of $550,000 homes in Troy. I'll never understand it either.. I'd never give the $$ they did for what they got.
There are several historic districts here in town. Recently, a new property code was instituted dictating the degree to which the properties in one of the districts will be maintained. Many of the residents are elderly and probably least able to afford the high degree of maintenance specified by the code.
One hapless elderly woman had the misfortune of replacing (upgrading) all of the windows in her home to a more energy efficient style. The district was insisting that she remove them, because they were not on the approved list. I don't know how it turned out.
I am in the midst of renovating a very old (1850ish - around here, that's old) commercial building in another historic district. Among many other things, I had to have the colors approved before I could even get a building permit. Sometimes it seems like it would be easier to nail Jell-o to a wall.
Many old properties are likely destroyed simply because it is so much easier and vastly less expensive to just tear them down, and build new. You really have to want to preserve old buildings.
Great point, Win. Most "antique" categories require most comparable items to be destroyed. They have to be unfashionable, unreliable, or inefficient to be unwanted enough to make rare the remaining.
Forcefully keeping old windows =
One way to avoid upgrading like most others is through poverty of the owner.
If I were to try to predict a future collector car, I would have to look at today's "beaters". That could be, say, a 1988 Pontiac Fiero GT. Today it's some kid's ride to school. Ten years from now it might be interesting and worth something. But I would have to undo a time period of neglect.
Same thing with estate houses. Somewhere sometime soon I bet that huge tree that grew in front of all the windows will get protected.
Incidentally, Bret, I'm in Standish now, though I used to be in Saco, right on route one/main st in the middle of town, in a historic mansion that got "remuddled" into lousy apartments. The pressure treated wood fire escapes sure detract from its potential historic charm.
Forcefully keeping old windows =
One way to avoid upgrading like most others is through poverty of the owner.
If I were to try to predict a future collector car, I would have to look at today's "beaters". That could be, say, a 1988 Pontiac Fiero GT. Today it's some kid's ride to school. Ten years from now it might be interesting and worth something. But I would have to undo a time period of neglect.
Same thing with estate houses. Somewhere sometime soon I bet that huge tree that grew in front of all the windows will get protected.
Incidentally, Bret, I'm in Standish now, though I used to be in Saco, right on route one/main st in the middle of town, in a historic mansion that got "remuddled" into lousy apartments. The pressure treated wood fire escapes sure detract from its potential historic charm.
quote:
Originally posted by eljefino:
Incidentally, Bret, I'm in Standish now, though I used to be in Saco, right on route one/main st in the middle of town, in a historic mansion that got "remuddled" into lousy apartments. The pressure treated wood fire escapes sure detract from its potential historic charm.[/QB]
I do have to deal with this historic crap the most when we put buildings up in York.. the last one we did in York was a body shop that was a 80X125 metal building. the town required up to clapboard the front, install two cupolas and increase the pitch of the roof to 3/12.. they originally wanted a 4/12 roof until it finally dawned on them just how tall that would make the building (32ft... about 10 feet taller than any other building in the "historic district").
This is like arguing against zoning (for those in favor of " mine, I'll do as I like"): Move to the boonies, park the used trailer where you will, and decorate the front yard with all the used appliances available.
I live in a part of town with nicely-size lots, homes with some architectural character (not to mention good natural ventilation and lighting due to the number of windows), and modest size predominate. Not a "historical district", a confusion shown in some above posts. An area increasing in value at 10% or more per year the past 8-years on some streets.
Developer comes in, tears it down (land price is too high to justify remodel/expansion, so is said), and puts up a shoddily-built McMansion which takes up most of the lot and sells it for beaucoup money.
Reasonable restrictions on height, on setback and some architectural standards goes a long way. It is essential to zoning, and to keeping the value of the area intact for all homeowners, present and future.
In this area we see what I call "false-front" houses go up (pseudo French, Norman, etc) with stone ornamentation over brick. Then, on the flat-as-a-warehouse sides, brick only. Finally, at the rear, little brick and much Hardiboard.
The house torn down may have been all Austin Limestone facade, front, sides and rear.
The older house had a minimum of two windows in every room with at least one window on two different walls, ensuring light and ventilation. The modern house, but one.
With something so simple as a requirement as "window placement/windows per square foot", most of the architectural needs of the neighborhood are met as to preserving "character".
Our current 1,600 s/f single-level, pier & beam house [built 1925] has [4] exterior doors, [11] interior doors and [23] windows, 9' ceilings and great unmodified interior trim (we bought from family which lived here since 1928).
Character can be maintained, and new construction can be decent. But, as with other things, there needs to be a minimum everyone meets.
Now, if only the construction quality were as good, and zoning laws/building codes represented state-of-the-art instead of lowest common denominator, campaign-donation "reality".
I live in a part of town with nicely-size lots, homes with some architectural character (not to mention good natural ventilation and lighting due to the number of windows), and modest size predominate. Not a "historical district", a confusion shown in some above posts. An area increasing in value at 10% or more per year the past 8-years on some streets.
Developer comes in, tears it down (land price is too high to justify remodel/expansion, so is said), and puts up a shoddily-built McMansion which takes up most of the lot and sells it for beaucoup money.
Reasonable restrictions on height, on setback and some architectural standards goes a long way. It is essential to zoning, and to keeping the value of the area intact for all homeowners, present and future.
In this area we see what I call "false-front" houses go up (pseudo French, Norman, etc) with stone ornamentation over brick. Then, on the flat-as-a-warehouse sides, brick only. Finally, at the rear, little brick and much Hardiboard.
The house torn down may have been all Austin Limestone facade, front, sides and rear.
The older house had a minimum of two windows in every room with at least one window on two different walls, ensuring light and ventilation. The modern house, but one.
With something so simple as a requirement as "window placement/windows per square foot", most of the architectural needs of the neighborhood are met as to preserving "character".
Our current 1,600 s/f single-level, pier & beam house [built 1925] has [4] exterior doors, [11] interior doors and [23] windows, 9' ceilings and great unmodified interior trim (we bought from family which lived here since 1928).
Character can be maintained, and new construction can be decent. But, as with other things, there needs to be a minimum everyone meets.
Now, if only the construction quality were as good, and zoning laws/building codes represented state-of-the-art instead of lowest common denominator, campaign-donation "reality".
there is a certain rationale to tear downs. When land was cheaper better sites were available for houses. Old houses are a money pit. My 125 yr old New England farmhouse is a beautiful house with a lot of charm. It also had carpenter ants, powder post beetles and just plain rot, a hodge podge of inadequate wiring and plumbing. Worst were the shoddy repair and "upgrades" done by ***
In my 28yrs of owner ship, I have enlarged, and renovated so much, that only about 1/4 of the house is original. One stick at a time, with much more trouble than if I had started fresh.
Faced with a similar situation, a friend of mine opted for a teardown. In a day, a nice looking old houses was torn down and carted away. Sad, but the renovations required to the old place were staggering. I took a tour, looking for good stuff. Everything structural in it was compromised by age, there wasnt a right angle left. We wondered how something so bad could look so good from the street.
In my 28yrs of owner ship, I have enlarged, and renovated so much, that only about 1/4 of the house is original. One stick at a time, with much more trouble than if I had started fresh.
Faced with a similar situation, a friend of mine opted for a teardown. In a day, a nice looking old houses was torn down and carted away. Sad, but the renovations required to the old place were staggering. I took a tour, looking for good stuff. Everything structural in it was compromised by age, there wasnt a right angle left. We wondered how something so bad could look so good from the street.
- Status
