Quote:

It is a nice compromise. Too bad the city's own preservation nazi doesn't stick with the 1938 photos when it doesn't suit his own tastes. I totally get where Sutherland is coming from about being forced to restore nonexistent historic elements. When I had to replace my own windows, the 1938 tax assessment photo showed simple sash windows like the ones in the photo above. Dan still made me get the much more expensive 6 over 6 paned windows from Marvin because he thought they were prettier - even though there was nothing in the historical record to show those type of windows were ever installed in my building. He supported his argument for installing the 6 over 6 windows by showing me photos of old buildings in Greenwich Village - not JC, but the Village. WTF. Even when the actual historic record is against him, he'll just make up something.

The upshot was I ended up having to spend $600 more per window. What pisses me off about the whole process is that there's NO room for compromise or consideration of the homeowner's means - plus we're subject to one person's aesthetic whims. So we end up with with a lot of homeowners who either do things on the sly to circumvent the whole process or they let their homes go because they can't afford the ridiculous demands.

Restoration to the 1938 tax photos is a nice compromise. It doesn't require us to recreate history long-gone and unavailable by any historical record, but at least it gets us back to something before the hideous renovations of the 1950s, '60s and '70s.

In general I think historic RESTORATION can be and is a very nice thing. But it shouldn't go unrecognized that we have a historic PRESERVATION ordinance in JC. So at least as it's applied in most jurisdictions that means basically a home owner may replace "kind with kind". This should mean that if your house does NOT have a historic element, when you need to replace that element you should NOT be required to RESTORE the NON-EXISTENT historic element. But you should be allowed to replace it with the type of element you have now or something better. For instance if your existing door looks nothing like what the original may have looked like, you should not be required to RESTORE the original door. But if the city would like to ENCOURAGE you to RESTORE that missing element, perhaps they should give the home owner a tax credit of some kind. It should be recognized that DEVELOPERS are treated much differently than resident HOMEOWNERS when it comes to the haphazard application of our existing Historic PRESERVATION ordinance. Developers are typically held to much lower standards than residential homeowners.

Of course I do like the look of a home when the home owner RESTORES missing elements. But the application of the rules as it's been applied has been grossly distorted.

I love it!!! The little things ARE important.

Im glad someone cares about the historic character of our neighborhood, otherwise the white door is what you would see all over.