Tag Archives: historic preservation

Looking for new houses that don’t give off a McMansion vibe

Posted on by

A discussion of some new homes in Mt. Airy, Pennsylvania involves which homes do and do not give off a “McMansion vibe“:

“What’s THAT?” she said suddenly. “That’s just not okay.”

She was looking at two identical McMansions near the intersection of Lincoln Drive and Wayne Avenue, tall houses too big for their lots with boring beige stucco and stone that lacked the tell-tale Wissahickon schist sparkle.

I had a similar reaction to a house on the corner of Bryan and Durham, in a close-knit neighborhood known for the quality and variety of its Halloween decorations. It’s a neighborhood where kids play in the streets and everybody lives in almost identical row houses and twins with deep porches and sparkling stone walls. The new house looks like something from a soul-crushing suburban development, and the owners haven’t bothered to plant anything in the huge sunny side yard. The most notable feature of the house is a No Parking sign on the front of it.

So I was relieved when I looked at the listing for a new house being built on one of my favorite streets in Mt. Airy–St. Georges Road. It’s one of two planned homes by Blake Development.

From the looks of the plans, the house suffers a little from a common East Coast malady, multiple siding disorder, where the vertical exterior surfaces have a little too much variety. They’re stone, no they’re stucco, no they’re wood-like planks made out of concrete. But overall the house holds true to the character of the neighborhood. I’m encouraged by the interior shots of the developer’s other projects. The rounded door under the stairs is very Mt. Airy, and the kitchens
are good quality but not overly fancy. They’ve also won a bunch of awards for historic restoration.

It seems that the primary trait of what distinguishes between a McMansion vibe or not is whether the new home fits architecturally with other homes in the neighborhood. So, the definition of a McMansion could then differ quite a bit from place to place depending on whether the new home is near 1950s ranches, early 19th century Cape Cods, or other styles.

This could also lead to an interesting question: should new homes always fit in with existing homes? More broadly, should all new buildings fit in with nearby buildings? What happens when architectural styles change? I suspect the answer in practice is that it depends; not all homes or buildings are perceived as worth preserving and it often requires dedicated groups of residents or local actors to defend existing styles.

By the way, what neighborhood wants to be known primarily for “the quality and variety of its Halloween decorations”?

Fighting McMansions in Miami

Posted on by

The group “Save Miami Beach Neighborhoods” is looking for help in fighting McMansions:

Miami Beach homes comprise a variety of architectural styles that reflect the history of our City, which is not yet 100 years old. Unfortunately, recent zoning changes have allowed for out-of-scale McMansions which threaten the historic character, authenticity and desirability of our single-family neighborhoods.

Our goal with Save Miami Beach Neighborhoods is to ensure that new construction is in line with existing neighborhood context. We want to stop oversized McMansions that are popping up seemingly all around us…

As homeowners and concerned residents, we must act to limit new construction size and scale before our neighborhood character is lost forever.

I would say the one photo of an 18,000 square foot McMansion in the neighborhood is pretty emblematic of what critics do not like about McMansions: large, taking up much of the lot, unusual design compared to the house next to it, and much larger than the next house (which is probably only 5,000 square feet).

At the same time, I wonder if outsiders would look at this and say it is simply an argument between wealthy people about something nebulous like “community character.”

Turning Chicago’s Pullman neighborhood into a national park

Posted on by

Some are hoping to create Illinois’ second national park in Chicago’s Pullman neighborhood:

Pullman would be one of the more unusual sites for a national park and among the easiest to reach. The Metra Electric Line has two stops in the community of about 8,900 residents. It also would be one of the least bucolic.

Two residents said they’re pushing for the park because the increased tourist traffic would help sustain retail businesses that otherwise can’t survive in the neighborhood. A massive Wal-Mart is scheduled to open nearby this summer, but the area has been barren of dry cleaners, salons, restaurants and coffee shops for years…

At the request of former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and the state’s two U.S. senators, Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk, the National Park Service is in the midst of studying the neighborhood’s suitability as a national park site, said Mike Reynolds, the park service’s Midwest regional director. The study should be complete by May.

“Pullman’s significance is of no question,” Reynolds said when asked what the study would conclude. “Then we have to ask is there another one like it already out there in our (parks) system? In this case, I doubt there is. … Finally, we come to feasibility — the how, what, where. That’s the challenging issue in this case.”

The neighborhood is indeed historic and I’m sure the neighborhood and the city of Chicago love the idea of more tourists. I imagine there is a lot of potential here, particularly for school groups who could visit and to highlight Chicago’s important industrial past.

I don’t know the particulars of the National Park System but I am in favor of more urban sites. We need to preserve nature as well as notable urban locations that have heavily influenced American history.

Trying to save a Sears home in Oakbrook Terrace

Posted on by

Historic preservation is a common topic in older suburbs and one effort in Oakbrook Terrace features a more unusual Sears home:

The city purchased the house of the late longtime city clerk Lorraine Fik in 2008 with plans to demolish it to create a retention pond when it builds a new police station east of city hall. That work is expected to start this summer.

Saving the house, located across from city hall at 17W245 16th St., would require the city to provide water retention by other means, such as under the police station — a more costly option.

The move to preserve the house began after the recently formed historical society contacted architectural historian Rebecca Hunter of Elgin, who found proof of the home’s authenticity in the markings on the basement floor joists. The prefabricated home was built by Lorraine Fik’s husband, Edward, around 1950, and Lorraine had her clerk’s office in the basement until the city got a building of its own.

Kelly Fik, Lorraine’s youngest son, provided the historical society with photos of the house being delivered by truck and read a letter from the Fik family at Tuesday’s city council meeting.

These mail order Sears homes were produced in the early 1900s. Here are some more examples of Sears homes from the Chicago suburbs. On one hand, such homes are unusual and prior to the post-World War II era, mass produced homes were more rare. The era of the large-scale builder had not yet arrived. On the other hand, the homes don’t appear to be too unusual. Why save these homes just because they happened to come through a catalog over other homes built in the same era?

Another note: it is interesting to look at some of these examples and see how people have altered the Sears homes over the years.

Online discussion of how to avoid selling a home to someone who will build a teardown McMansion

Posted on by

I ran into an interesting online discussion originating out of the North Center neighborhood in Chicago: how can a seller keep their home from becoming a teardown McMansion? Here is the discussion starter:

To my wonderful North Center Neighbors,

My partner & I will be selling our late, well built, 2 bedrm late 1800’s home in a few months( through Baird Warner-realtors need not contact me). We have lived here for 20 yrs, and love North Center with all of it’s old homes & history, which seems to be on the endangered list, becoming prey to developers of McMansions. So…my question is this; Is there a way to ensure(legally) we don’t sell to a developer, or sell to someone who would want to do a tear down? I am a firm believer in preserving & protecting our well built old homes, which also serves to lessen the impact on the environment.

Thank you in advance for any insight.

Here are a few of the responses (separate responses in each paragraph):

No, unless it’s a landmarked property, people can do whatever they want. The good news is, many people WANT a sweet old house with a yard and will not McMansion a home if it’s a solid, well-functioning property. Good luck with your sale!

You could do a restrictive covenant. A restrictive covenant is a type of real covenant, a legal obligation imposed in a deed by the seller upon the buyer of real estate to do or not to do something. Such restrictions frequently “run with the land” and are enforceable on subsequent buyers of the property.

Yes, restrictive covenant is an option but it will decrease your ability to sell. As said, the covenant runs with the land so not only does it restrict next owner but it will also restrict future owners as well. So this will significantly bring down the sales price. I’ve actually not heard of this being done in a sale situation, just through estates and gifts of land. My guess is that your lawyer will recommend against it. However, you could discuss putting conditions in the real estate contract (which only run to the next owner). Talk to the lawyer you intend to use for the sale.

Another solution is mentioned by another commentator: blocks or neighborhoods could enact or argue for particular zoning rules that could limit what kind of teardown home could be built. Of course, it takes more work to get a lot of neighbors to agree and then have the powers-that-be put the new restrictions into practice.

I suppose another option would be to rent the current home and purchase elsewhere. Thus, the current owner still retains some control over the property even though they would then have to manage it.

Thinking more broadly, I wonder how many Americans would go the extra step to try to preserve their existing house. I suspect most Americans tend to see their homes more as temporary housing solutions rather than structures they really care about and would want to preserve for future generations. This could be a function of having suburban neighborhoods where homes may be somewhat interchangeable, an American interest in mobility, or a rise in disposable consumerism where more goods are seen as temporary.

Comparing the architecture of a Phoenix Frank Lloyd Wright house to area McMansions

Posted on by

A letter to the editor in The Arizona Republic contrasts the worthiness of a Frank Lloyd Wright home and McMansions that are typically found in the area:

The horror of this melee about a Frank Lloyd Wright house is that the men who bought it claim they didn’t know Frank Lloyd Wright from the Wright brothers (New York Times, Oct. 25) and yet they, if left unhindered, decide the fate of a master work of architecture.

In this Mcmansion craze, people employ the horror of the unaesthetic, the death of art. Unlike Wright-designed and constructed homes that seem composed of what nature predicates, “living buildings” that fit the surroundings, these faux Tuscany tract homes on steroids rise up out of the ashes of demolitions in Arcadia, changing the entire landscape of what was once a unique Phoenix neighborhood with their attendant assault on beauty and proportion.

Phoenix does not need to buy the property for the inflated asking price. What the city and its officials need to do is vote for the historic landmark overlay on Dec. 5.

While McMansions can be defined by several characteristics, this letter’s argument relies exclusively on the architecture and design argument. The Frank Lloyd Wright home is a “living building” meant to fit into its surrounding landscape. In contrast, McMansions poorly mimic other housing styles (in this case, importing Tuscany to the Arizona desert), contrast with the landscape, and lack beauty because of their poor proportions.

Frank Lloyd Wright homes are of limited number and according to this Wikipedia list, there are not too many Wright designed buildings in Arizona. See more of the story about the house here and a gallery of images here. According to one of the captions, “The [spiral] house was designed to twist around a central courtyard and also offer views of Camelback Mountain to the north.” And the house may have been a testing ground for another famous work that came later: “Wright chose a spiral design akin to the Guggenheim Museum’s. He had drawn plans for the Guggenheim by then, but it was still some years away from construction.”

Chicago’s Prentice Hospital building gone via an economic report

Posted on by

Chicago’s landmark commission pulled the plug on the distinctive former Prentice Hospital building designed by Bertrand Goldberg:

The final action came after a six-hour meeting during which some 120 speakers came to the microphone to either praise old Prentice or support Northwestern’s position. Allan Mellis, on the preservationists’ side, urged the commission not to take the unusual step of voting a building up and down in the same session…

The four-page economic impact report essentially repeated Northwestern’s argument that the Prentice site was the only viable piece of property for a new research facility.

In the 33-page report on the preliminary landmark designation, the commission staff hailed old Prentice as “a boldly sculptural building.” It called Goldberg “a Chicago architect and engineer who rejected the rigid glass-box that had become the dominant form of modern architecture.”

The vote to give Prentice preliminary landmark status was unanimous; the subsequent vote to strike it down was opposed only by Commissioner Christopher Reed.

This is an interesting “fancy bit of parliamentary footwork” in that the commission will be able to say it thought the building was unique and was worth saving but the economic report made it clear Northwestern’s new use was more important. In other words, they wanted to save the building but Northwestern’s case was more compelling. But, in the end, I don’t think anyone is too surprised by this ruling; Mayor Emanuel came out against the building earlier this week, Northwestern is a powerful entity and a new facility offers new jobs and prestige alongside improved medical care, and the building is unique but not exactly endearing.

Thinking about this more, I wonder if the style of the building itself was its main downfall. It is certainly different and comes from an architect that made a mark in Chicago. Yet, it is not as conventional as many other buildings. It features a lot of concrete for a building meant for more public use and viewing. The concrete doesn’t look so great after the wear and tear of Chicago weather. The exterior is not warm. Its shape is irregular. The windows are a different shape than normal. Americans like some kind of modernism, such as the steel and glass skyscraper which signifies business and progress, but they don’t tend to like modern houses or brutalism. Additionally, it was only constructed in 1975 so it doesn’t have a long history, and it is in a desirable area so even if Northwestern didn’t want the land, others might.

A new process to designate historic districts in Salt Lake City

Posted on by

After a contentious recent debate over a possible historic district, Salt Lake City decided to redesign the process:

The goal of the whole exercise is to preserve historic neighborhoods or just plain nice, older neighborhoods from demolitions, outsized remodels and McMansions. The new process can lead to a historic district or landmark site, or it can lead to something less restrictive called a character conservation district.

In both cases, property owners can start the ball rolling by circulating a petition. If 15 percent of property owners within the proposed district sign petitions within six months, the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission write reports and hold hearings. Ballots would then be mailed to all property owners of record, who would have 30 days to vote for or against the district. If a simple majority supports designation, then a simple majority vote of the City Council could create it. If less than a simple majority of property owners favors a district, then a two-thirds vote of the City Council would be required to create a district.

As you can see, this is not a pure democracy. The City Council could create a district even if a majority of property owners voted against it. But zoning by referendum is not a good idea, either, because sometimes the public interest should trump the wishes of property owners.

A petition to designate a district also could be started by the mayor or by a majority of the City Council, but the same signature and voting processes for property owners would apply.

Lots of communities with established neighborhoods struggle with this issue: how to balance the concerns of property owners and neighborhood residents? This new process seems to put the onus on the voters who have an interest in each neighborhood; if they have a strong opinion about a historic district, they have time to vote. And it seems like the process recognizes the potential for another common issue that arises in communities: how to get enough people to participate in order to reach a consensus? The threshold for moving a petition to the City Council only requires 15% of property owners to be involved and later, the Council can approve a historic district with less neighborhood involvement.

I would be interested to see how well this new procedure fares. These sorts of cases between communal and personal interests are not easy to sort out, particularly when the potential large teardown McMansions are involved. Neighborhoods do change over time but local residents who bought into or who are used to a particular atmosphere or character can be quite resistant.

Architect discusses “natural historic evolution of neighborhoods”

Posted on by

An architect discusses historic preservation and ends with two paragraphs on the changes that neighborhoods experience:

Yet embracing historic preservation too fervently and dogmatically can be problematic. Not all old buildings in historic neighborhoods are salvagable. Some are functionally, technically and architecturally beyond redemption. And over time entire neighborhoods change in ways that necessitate appropriate physical changes. For example, homes constructed 50 or more years ago, perhaps unrealistically small and impractical by today’s standards, may need enlarging, upgrading of windows and exterior materials, and new environmental systems.

Furthermore, insisting that all new buildings look like old buildings in a neighborhood is an overly restrictive policy. Good architects can design modern buildings that, without being historic replicants, aesthetically harmonize with historic buildings. Indeed, mindlessly creating architectural clones denies the natural historic evolution of neighborhoods, towns and cities, where community fabric is collectively enriched over time as human needs and desires, available technologies and aesthetic styles play out.

Perhaps the trick is ensuring that this “natural historic evolution” happens more smoothly and both sides, those who want to preserve some of the older buildings and those who want to build new structures, feel like they are getting something out of the deal. I wonder: are there neighborhoods that have successfully done this?

Additionally, what is the time frame for this natural change? A few decades? Fifty years? I would suspect this would depend on the neighborhood, particularly if the older neighborhood had buildings people wanted to save. I’ll be very curious to see what happens to suburban neighborhoods. Particularly for post-World War II suburbs, how much will people want to save? If McMansions are lower quality construction, as critics charge, will they last long enough for people to want to save them?

San Francisco neighbors of Twitter founder don’t want his teardown house

Posted on by

Even people with lots of money can run into problems when they want to build a teardown McMansion:

Williams bought the $2.9m property – hardwood floors, an open plan salon and four bedrooms with breathtaking views over three storeys – last year. It was built in 1915 by the architect Louis Christian Mullgardt and was listed in city records as a “potential historic resource”.

Earlier this year Williams, 40, and his wife Sara revealed plans to demolish the house and, with the help of architectural firm Lundberg Design, build a 7,700 sq ft successor into a slope. It would be 20ft lower than its predecessor and be a “zero net energy” home using solar panels, a green roof and sun-friendly windows.

Even before the application was submitted to city planners, neighbours and critics from as far afield as Canada had filed form letters of protest, a backlash which in another medium might have been called trending. “This is such a unique property and it adds diversity of architectural interest to the neighborhood,” wrote one neighbour, Elizabeth Wang. “It would be criminal to demolish it.”

Some accused Williams of plotting to erect a McMansion. “A complete teardown of such a home would … set the stage for numerous future demolitions that will alter the character of our beloved SF Neighborhoods,” one group, Friends of Parnassus Heights, wrote to the real estate blog SocketSite…

Not all agree. Williams’s defenders, such as property site Sfcurbed.com, said Mullgardt was an “architectural footnote” and that in any case his original design was ruined by a 1970s remodelling. “It may have once been charming, but … has been stripped of its dignity and details over the decades, subdivided into apartments and then rebuilt by architect Thomas Eden in what’s best described as faux-Frank Lloyd Wright with trapezoidal windows.”

Is it still NIMBY if a person in Canada is objecting to a possible house in San Francisco?

It appears that even the green features of the home will not mollify some of the neighbors. If the house can’t/won’t be saved, is there anything Williams could do to make the new home palatable to the neighbors? I wonder if Williams has made any efforts to reach out to the neighborhood. What about an ultra-green house that is built in a similar style to the existing homes?

Of course, one way to avoid these situations or to at least make more clear the process by which changes to homes can be made is to declare the area a historic preservation district. If a majority of neighbors are indeed against new houses, perhaps this is the way to go.