Community Chat

[lulu2]

I saw a segment this morning and they said houses in this area range in value from $120,000-$1,000,000+. It would appear this lot is in the lower priced homes area.

The fact that the lot was empty makes you wonder what the historic council wants. They do not want new homes built to "look" old as they say it devalues the other home values. A vacant lot usually ends being an eyesore.

[evelomaddict]

On 5/1/2014 Dagna said:

On 5/1/2014 Irshgrl31201 said:

On 5/1/2014 evelomaddict said:

i don't find the people who live their to be evil at all.

i do question the motives of the new home builders other than making a name for themselves.

there are many places to have built their dream house and not in a historically known area.

Yes, these people chose specifically to live in this neighborhood because of its history. I can understand why they would be upset.

I do wonder why the new home builders would want to live there too because the rest of the neighborhood kind of looks like a little village you would see in a book illustration.

Time will tell.

Especially when their attitude seems to be that the neighborhood "should" welcome change and "move forward" and not "remain stuck in the past."

I can't imagine these comments are endearing them to their neighbors.

entitlement. it's all about them.

[pinkskates4]

On 5/1/2014 lulu2 said:

I saw a segment this morning and they said houses in this area range in value from $120,000-$1,000,000+. It would appear this lot is in the lower priced homes area.

The fact that the lot was empty makes you wonder what the historic council wants. They do not want new homes built to "look" old as they say it devalues the other home values. A vacant lot usually ends being an eyesore.

No they didn't say that - Cherry the architect and owner said that building old homes devalues authentic old homes - to bolster his argument that they should accept his modern design.

According to the article all the houses are 19th century and early 20th century design - his modern design leaps 100 years into the future.

His argument is that since it's a good design, they should be happy - and that it will move their neighborhood into the future.

Apparently some people (altho maybe not those actually living in this neighborhood) agree that Oakwood should "evolve." The president of Preservation North Carolina apparently wrote an article saying this.

I'm wondering if since he is a known architect (altho he had not built other houses in this neighborhood), he was given a pass initially with the assumption that all would be well. Then when a neighbor appealed, they had to actually look at the house in comparison with the guidelines.

[Lila Belle]

Change is good.

[Emma bunting]

On 5/1/2014 Lila Belle said:

Change is good.

....as you have demonstrated on this very board......

[maryebrown_1]

On 5/1/2014 reese ~ said:

On 5/1/2014 croemer said:

I have to say I thought the neighborhood was a much more upscale location. These just look like normal homes in a normal neighborhood. Hmm...not sure what the big fuss is?

That's how I feel after seeing the pics in the link posted, too. Then there is this:

September: The subcommittee of the Raleigh Historic Development Commission votes 3-1 to approve Louis Cherry and Marsha Gordon's new build.

The commission, which is appointed by the Raleigh City Council is supposed to judge whether new homes meet the historical guidelines architecturally.

Construction started in October

February: Neighbor Gail Wiesner appeals to the Board of Adjustment and it votes 3-2 to revoke the approval for the house.

Their justification is that the commission failed in their duty to apply the proper guidelines.

The secretive board usually handles permits for day-care centers and minor city code violations.

In other words, the appropriate commission voted that the house was fine, but some secretive board that usually handles permits and such votes to overturn it? Sorry, something's not adding up. I think the woman in the pistachio house has too much time on her hands. I agree with whoever said that elements of her house are very similar to the new one being built, including the windows.

Thanks for posting this, reese!

[circles]

I have to say that the modern home looks ridiculous in that neighborhood...I don't understand how it met with an approval...or why the couple would want to build a home so different from the rest....

I can't imagine how unwelcomed the family will be once they move in...

[Shorty2U]

I see nothing wrong with the house (It would be different if it was some dump). I think it should stay. Here in our little hick town they have codes for business to look historically appropriate. I think its stupid unless again something is a dump. We don't live in the little town but outside it, in the country (Our homes only 16 yrs old and well kept which to me is ALL that matters).

[pinkskates4]

So then basically people shouldn't be allowed to establish ""historic districts"" and/or set standards for homes within them?

[shoekitty]

I have worked with historic zoning and a sat as a member of a Historic Commission for years. Personally, the home builders should have had better sense to build a structure as modern as theirs in a historical distric. There are many areas who would welcome their home with open arms. There are many at fault here. the plans should have been approved by the committee that sits on the historical heritage committee. Most cities have a planning commission right? Homes are approved at each stage through there. Those that are in certain areas usually have a committee (paid or usually unpaid) that approves structures in Historical areas. If a home or area is reserved as historical, most of the time the homeowner is receiving a tax cut from the state for upkeeping a historical home. In California it is the Mills act. Of course many homeowners do not want restrictions so they opt out. If they are just upkeeping an older home (older than 96 years) , what they do is their business. They still have to follow city zoning laws though. However, if they live in a historical DISTRICT they need to follow the laws and ordinences. That is the way it is.

IDK about tearing the home down, but they could ammend it a bit. They didn't follow the law, or the law didn't follow them. But something is wrong here. Can they paint it another color, add stone?

Biancardi

Green sherbet color homes and lavendar are Victorian colors. The green house looks like it is not that old, maybe 1920-1925 though? Bubble gum pink was the rage too! Usually lighter colors were applied in hotter areas.