apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

We had something like that happen in downtown sacramento in 95 or 96. The developer stored large drums of paint in the top floor of an old building her was arguing with the city about. In late July during a heat wave, they exploded and did lots of damage. The building was not being painted at the time so there was no reason for them to be there. I think the developer fled the country but his daughter or niece is still around running the company.

All citizens in a city benefit from a historically rich environment, not just the owners of these structures. City governments should protect the asset of historical buildings for all citizens and hold owners responsible for their upkeep. Governments can also help by offering tax credits and other incentives for preserving these buildings. Old buildings hold memories and are the heart and soul of a city.

-resident of St. Louis Mo, an excellent city filled with historic architecture

To me it seems like that is really nothing of a building. If seeing this get torn down upsets you I suggest you don't ever visit a rust belt city.

Demolition by neglect is very common around the country. Maybe not so much around a city with money and tight/expensive living like San Fran but for the rest of us we see it non stop. If the neighbors are smart and really care they would have been documenting it the entire time. What to do after that? Lawyer up, god knows we have to here in Buffalo.

I don't mean to draw attention away from this post but I dug up an old post from Buffalo Pundit which talks about this very subject.

http://buffalopundit.wnymedia.net/blogs/archives/6616

And yes, after much fighting, bitching, and money raising that building did end up eventually getting saved... well most of it.

http://archives.buffalorising.com/story/bright_future_for_whites_liver

Even so, I can name 10 buildings falling down with in 10 minutes of my apartment. Including this one...

http://www.buffalorising.com/2009/03/summit-building--now-nearly-roofless.html

Good for the building inspector for noticing that. Often, municipalities are too interested in the increased tax revenue a new, bigger dwelling would bring to care that a property owner is intentionally blighting the property. And even though it's not a Queen Anne rowhouse, in it's uber-dilapidated state it's clear that the house has some redeeming architectural features. It strikes me as needlessly wasteful.

In theory, the owner should not be allowed to do something like this, but I also wonder (a) why the building has been vacant for years, (b) why it's not protected on some local historic register and (c) if there are zoning ordinances that will restrict the size of any new structures on the lot.

I think it is sad to see an old building get neglected. The biggest issue with this building (like the article states) is that it is one of the few structures that survived the earthquake. So, to lose a piece of history is sad.

the fire.

There are actually quite a few pre-1906 houses still in SF (though that doesn't make it less sad to see one neglected). My place in the Mission was built in 1880; most of the Mission survived the quake and the fire. They're cute little houses, mostly old worker's cottages.

I find it odd that it's the oldest house I've lived in. I grew up in New England, but the places I lived in there were mostly from the early 1900s.

Although it may be sad that a building is neglected, I would prefer the government not get too involved. If someone doesn't want to preserve they shouldn't have to. What are we really protecting here...a building? There are much more important things for the government to be concerned about.

Britain is overly ridiculous about protecting old structures. Many of them are quite ugly and in complete disrepair, and you have to get the local government to approve everything you do to them. Is that what everyone wants?

Balance is a difficult thing, how do we know when to stay out of someone's business?

This same thing happened in Louisville where I live. The owner of the 'Frickle Pickle' (Home to the original fried pickle chips) bought the old Victorian style house next to his restaurant so he could tear it down and expand his parking lot.
The neighbors realized what was happening and got the building put on the historical buildings list. This didn't stop the man from paying kids to knock out all the windows, and graffiti the side of the building. It'd been sitting vacant and dilapidated for years now. He was called to court for all this, and showed up the the hearing late and drunk. It's really sad to drive past this building on what is otherwise a well kept historic street.
Needless to say very few Louisvillians eat at the Frickle Pickle anymore. Sometimes even getting the building protected doesn't stop people from destroying historical spots.

The problem with incentives and municipal or even national protection is that of defining terms. People sometimes go crazy with "historic preservation" and want to protect buildings that are barely 50 years old and of no significant architectural value. Ya gotta have a sound reason for saving something. In the case of this cottage, it predates the fire. That alone should be enough. It's a tough call any way you look at it.

I'd like to second and expand upon what Expat said above. Just because something is _old_ doesn't mean it's _historic_. Trying to wrap this blanket definition around anything that is more than X years old is silly, and in my mind it devalues things which are truly historic.

What differentiates things that are historic from those that are merely old? There has to be significance of some sort. Being particularly well preserved. A famous person lived there. A major event happened or was planned there. There has to be something to make it stand out.

Based on the pictures, that place is little more than a run-down shack. If it was the only structure in the neighborhood to survive the fire or quake, it might be worth saving. If it was a front for a major bootlegging operation it might be worth saving. If a person of note was born there, it might be worth saving. But as it is, it seems to me that the owner should be let to do what they please with it, within the constraints of other relevant structural safety laws. And it sounds like those laws are saying "tear it down".

IMO - the owner "sold" this place to a development company that he owns (note the identical initials?) just so that he could avoid personal responsibility for anything that happenned to this place...

...but if an owner doesn't want to play along, the municipality does have a few options: They could claim the land by eminent domain, the could condemn the place as a safety hazard and require that it be brought up to standards while meeting the historical requirement - or they could offer to take the historical structure off the land and have it placed elsewhere such as in a city park where it could be opened for viewing by all.

Brooke Astor = Old, and historical

My aunt Gertie = Old, and not historical

Let's learn the difference OK? Just because something is old doesn't mean it needs to be "saved" in perpetuity. Did you look at that building? Other than it's age, exactly what part of the architecture was significant?

qhartman- Judging a building on its individual merits can unnecessarily narrow the definition of what "historic" is, as it discounts context. And context is massively crucial in judging a building's relative value. On its own this building is a shack, but considered within the framework of its age, location and the scarcity of buildings of that era in SF, it takes on considerably more significance. If this building were in the middle of a cornfield somewhere, it wouldn't be worth discussing.

Wow. I never realized people were so callous towards architectural history. You can't recreate this stuff, kids. Once it's gone, no one will ever see it again.

And for those of you that dislike government involvement in historic preservation and think that people should be able to do what they want with their property...just be glad you don't live in Israel, where a farmer trying to expand his fields recently found an ancient Byzantine seminary. People literally have to get permission from the Archeological Society before they dig in their basements in some parts of the country. Seriously.

I've seen it from both sides. There are buildings in the NY metropolitan area that are old enough and indicative enough of a time or style, that though they weren't slept in by George Washington were worth saving. But many times are victims of "de,demolition by neglect" so the property owner can put up a condo complex or in the burbs a Mc Mansion. On the other hand I work in commercial real estate management and we have a building that is not that old, not good looking and nobody slept in (except the guy who broke in and set a fire a few years ago), but there are some people who think it should be historic.