Demo Or Restore (Case Study Of Sorts)

This is from the Washington Post.

It is 475 New York Ave., N.W., an area where older buildings have been torn down and replaced by big, new gleaming buildings.

In this case, the developers opted to restore rather than put up on a new building. BTW, the photo in the article doesn't have a good perspective of the block. Need to go to Google maps. It is two older houses next to a block of new buildings. The restored house is adjacent to the apartment building with gray windows and dark tan brick.

The block is almost entirely new but has a few older houses. The next block to the left is full of older structures.

I believe this block was full of older houses and shells and apparently developers persuaded the owners that a new apartment building was better than restoring the shell. [[This is part of the so-called NoMa area of D.C.). I believe the building to the right is a Homewood Suites and is pretty new.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b6e5990b4adf

If one goes to Google maps one will see [[esp. if one gets a panoramic street view).

Happily, for me, I won't get nicked saying it would have been demolished for a sports facility or parking. :o

Your thoughts?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/47...!4d-77.0186055

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

In this case, the developers opted to restore rather than put up on a new building. BTW, the photo in the article doesn't have a good perspective of the block. Need to go to Google maps. It is two older houses next to a block of new buildings. The restored house is adjacent to the apartment building with gray windows and dark tan brick.

---

I understood the article to say that another developer saved the historic structure by moving it.

That aside, I feel that there aren't a lot of analogies to this particular situation in Detroit. Historic structures in Detroit are most commonly demolished for unproductive uses like parking lots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I understood the article to say that another developer saved the historic structure by moving it.

That aside, I feel that there aren't a lot of analogies to this particular situation in Detroit. Historic structures in Detroit are most commonly demolished for unproductive uses like parking lots.

---

You're right it was moved from 465 to 475 New York Ave., N.W.

Although that kind of begs the question: If one has a block of new apartment buildings [[or Homewood Suites, as the adjacent building) what should be done with older building IN THE SAME BLOCK?

I agree that in terms of PRACTICAL relevance it has little to Detroit because in Detroit new apartment buildings are not springing up like weeds. Although I can show you historical examples from around WSU.*

I can show you another example of saving a church on a block full of new construction, although one facade was saved and another house. The facade is now part of a big apartment building.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/40...!4d-77.0164028

* I believe there were two apartment buildings on W. Warren in the block where the WSU welcome center and Barnes and Nobles bookstores are today. They could have been say 70 - 80 W. Warren. I have no idea when they were demolished. I remember them from my WSU days.

I don't see what your point is. You are a huge Ilitch supporter and this is the exact opposite of what they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southen

I don't see what your point is. You are a huge Ilitch supporter and this is the exact opposite of what they do.

---

I'm asking a simple question. What happens in big cities, maybe not too much in Detroit, but others where existing housing tries to 'co-exist' [[or exist, period) with plans for new big apartment buildings, hotels, etc.

I've seen this area years ago, before LCA even broke ground.

Next to that church is a house and next to it is new construction built around an old laundry building. This was done, I'll guess say 10 years ago. Long before I heard the term "Little Caesars Arena."

I believe this situation played out in Atlantic City almost 40 years ago when Trump, of all people, wanted to build his casino and 'a little old lady' refused to sell [[the outcome: he built his hotel-casino and I believe blocked her in). I remember that dispute from my younger day...

As they say, "there is nothing new in the world." The situation with the house on Clifford near Temple is analogous to things here. Someone didn't want to sell [[or they can't agree on a price) and builders built around it.

Well first off, those developers deserve an award. $400,000 is laughably cheap per condo unit for any area of DC and I’m surprised they’d got a return for what they went through.

But please understand this is very VERY rare. Most developers are out there to make money. If the location is right, zoning allows, the lender is cool and the numbers make sense they’ll renovate.

But in many large cities, relaxed landmark laws have led to a rampage of demolition of older buildings this boom cycle. And I’m not talking abandoned historic structures. 100 year old homes that were renovated within the last decade. Think the ransom gills house in brush park that got restored on that tv show. And then imagine a developer knocking it down in a few years despite possible landmark status and a new bland 5 story building replacing it. Crazy and outrageous to tear down a renovated and occupied building? Yep...that’s pretty much every week in my neighborhood of Chicago.

If you’re lucky, they’ll tear down the entire house but at least save the ornamentation and a piece of the facade. Such was the case when this home in this listing was torn down. And you can see it was in pretty great shape

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3...7/3711779_zpid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolverine

Well first off, those developers deserve an award. $400,000 is laughably cheap per condo unit for any area of DC and I’m surprised they’d got a return for what they went through.

But please understand this is very VERY rare. Most developers are out there to make money. If the location is right, zoning allows, the lender is cool and the numbers make sense they’ll renovate.

But in many large cities, relaxed landmark laws have led to a rampage of demolition of older buildings this boom cycle. And I’m not talking abandoned historic structures. 100 year old homes that were renovated within the last decade. Think the ransom gills house in brush park that got restored on that tv show. And then imagine a developer knocking it down in a few years despite possible landmark status and a new bland 5 story building replacing it. Crazy and outrageous to tear down a renovated and occupied building? Yep...that’s pretty much every week in my neighborhood of Chicago.

If you’re lucky, they’ll tear down the entire house but at least save the ornamentation and a piece of the facade. Such was the case when this home in this listing was torn down. And you can see it was in pretty great shape

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3...7/3711779_zpid

---

Good post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolverine

Well first off, those developers deserve an award. $400,000 is laughably cheap per condo unit for any area of DC and I’m surprised they’d got a return for what they went through.

But please understand this is very VERY rare. Most developers are out there to make money. If the location is right, zoning allows, the lender is cool and the numbers make sense they’ll renovate.

But in many large cities, relaxed landmark laws have led to a rampage of demolition of older buildings this boom cycle. And I’m not talking abandoned historic structures. 100 year old homes that were renovated within the last decade. Think the ransom gills house in brush park that got restored on that tv show. And then imagine a developer knocking it down in a few years despite possible landmark status and a new bland 5 story building replacing it. Crazy and outrageous to tear down a renovated and occupied building? Yep...that’s pretty much every week in my neighborhood of Chicago.

If you’re lucky, they’ll tear down the entire house but at least save the ornamentation and a piece of the facade. Such was the case when this home in this listing was torn down. And you can see it was in pretty great shape

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3...7/3711779_zpid

---

They are doing the same thing by me,tearing down perfectly good 100 year old 3 bedroom bungalows to replace them with 3 bedroom cookie cutter houses.

150k for the house to tear down and replace with a 350k new house with the same sqft,because the buyers want new.

The irony is the buyers are active in the save the planet and recycling campaigns until it comes to their own house.

But this city and many others at least try and move vintage homes to use as infill in neighborhoods that have vacant lots and stabilize those neighborhoods verses flat out demolition.

The house you posted has more character in one shingle then half of the crap they build today that will have 1/2 the lifespan.