On Hold: Historic Value Halts Demolition (Biloxi Sun-Herald/Katrina)

[intheflow]

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/13836388.htm

ON HOLD
Historic value review halts demolition
By RYAN LaFONTAINE

BAY ST. LOUIS - Carlotta Arnsdorff has picked out a suitable floor plan and hired an architect to start building her new home, as soon as the meager - but potentially historic - remains of the old one are hauled off.

The possibility of erasing history is not taken lightly.

The chance that the house could have historical value has prompted FEMA and the state Department of Archives and History to temporarily block its demolition, and the destruction of any other residence built in Mississippi before 1960. That total is at 348 in the three coastal counties.

<snip>

What's more, Arnsdorff had to give consent to demolish a neighbor's house that floated onto her property, but that house, too, is under historic review.

What, exactly, makes a house so valuable merely because it was built before 1960? They're demolishing blocks of them in my Denver neighborhood to build McMansions. Check out the photo of this woman's house at the link. People in Mississippi need to be able to move on with their lives and rebuild. :cry:

[madaboutharry]

1. This is just crazy.

The incompetance is overwhelming. This woman's house looks like it once looked like millions of other houses all over the country. I don't understand how they are defining "historical." It isn't as if it was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.

[rodeodance]

2. I think this is a good idea--but hope it is tempered with common sense.

[enlightenment]

3. It isn't necessarily a question of making the woman keep

the home -- but giving historians a chance to review it, not just as a single structure but in terms of the neighborhood (there are different categories for nomination to the register).

In terms of potential (and I do mean potential, not absolute) value, the National Register of Historic Places sets a minimum age of 45 years -- thus, the 1960 date.

Chances of them making this woman "keep" the house are slim to none -- most single family residences have been so heavily modified over the years that they have lost whatever "historic" value they might have had; and in this case, the damage sustained only reduces the likelihood of the home becoming a potential register nominee.

I know it seems silly, under the circumstances -- but the laws that require this review are designed to protect our historic and architectural heritage. If you live in an area where there are many old, historic homes and structures -- ask yourself how much you would really like it if they were all demolished tomorrow to build more stucco monuments to no taste.

In our society, with its never ending quest for the almighty buck and an unfortunate collective belief that "newer is better," the historic register is often the only thing that protects our past.

I don't mean to be preachy -- but it's not a completely out of line thing for them to do.

[intheflow]

5. Where I live in Denver is a historic neighborhood.

There are some structures dating back to the mid-19th through the turn of the 20th Century. But most of my neighborhood is filled with the cutest brick bungalow houses, many built in the 1940's and '50's. They are architecturally unlike anything I saw growing up in the New England 'burbs (built primarily in the '40's and '50's). What's more, they are structurally sound. Yet block after block these are being destroyed by developers who view them (apparently with the city's blessing) as too old-fashioned to be worth saving, and they're certainly not reviewing their historical value. McMansions are replacing them. And no, I don't like it at all.

So even in the context of historic neighborhoods, what's happening in Bay St. Louis doesn't make sense. I could see it if this was one of the older homes on the Gulf Coast, of which there are many that date (dated) back to before the Civil War. No one is suggesting they demolish the Jefferson Davis House National Historic Site, as much as I abhor Davis' racist, slave-holding ideology. But this woman owned a typical house in a typical neighborhood, both of which have been destroyed by a natural disaster. I just don't see any logic in this "historic review" at all.

[enlightenment]

6. I lived in Denver for 20 years!

I'm familiar with the neighborhoods -- you're fortunate to live there (I'm jealous!)

I will debate whether or not they have been reviewed -- I suspect they have been (would you really notice someone wandering down the street snapping pictures, maybe talking into a recorder -- or even writing on a clipboard?)

Deciding what qualifies for registry nomination is complicated, confusing, and subjective (though you wish that last wasn't true). Not too long ago I surveyed 264 structures in Las Vegas (the city occasionally fails to demolish buildings -- but not often. sigh.) Anyway, out of all of those, in the end, there were 11 potential nominations -- and one is already on the state registry. One of those is a neighborhood of homes built in 1951. I doubt that they will actually be nominated, when they are old enough.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying; just pointing out that there is a process.

If you're interested, pop over here:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/NR/listing.htm
and scroll down to "What are the criteria for listing?"
That's pretty much what you start working with.
You may notice that it indicates that a property has to be at least 50 years old (or exceptionally important) for listing. The key word there is "listing." State SHPO's (state historic preservation office; part of the state government) rules for reviewing a property may differ - but even if the structures need to be reviewed, they can't be listed on the National Register unless they meet the criteria.

I'm not familiar with MS law, but I suspect that this is more along the lines of other development projects -- you have to make sure nothing important (nice subjective word, hmm?) is there. Sometimes it's an archaeological survey, and sometimes an historical one. Nine times out of ten, it amounts to nothing and the development continues apace.

[madfloridian]

4. I live in a historic neighborhood.

There are a whole cluster of them where I live. I love this area. It has a feel of the past. Most of the houses were built in the 30s or 30s and have a quality about them.

There should be regulations on randomly destroying these homes. I fear the Bush administration is making headway in doing so though. They may already have gotten some of the teeth out of the historic areas by allowing exemptions for roads and such.

There is a website about this, the National Historic Registry or something like that. They should take all care lest we destroy our history.