Author Topic: Demolition by Reckless Policy  (Read 2523 times)

Metro Jacksonville

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2644
    • MetroJacksonville.com
Demolition by Reckless Policy
« on: March 15, 2013, 03:18:55 AM »
Demolition by Reckless Policy



It took years to do it, but Springfield finally stopped the wholesale demolition of historic properties.  It has been 1 year, 4 months and 25 days without losing a house to a bulldozer.

And so the 100 or so condemned structures in the neighborhood stood a chance of surviving -- even given the economic housing crisis -- at least until last night.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-mar-demolition-by-reckless-policy

Noone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4061
Re: Demolition by Reckless Policy
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2013, 03:35:48 AM »
Well presented. This was a subcommittee. Is there another meeting that SOS can present? I was under the impression that SPAR, SOS, and Springfield as a whole were now on the same page.

vicupstate

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3444
Re: Demolition by Reckless Policy
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2013, 05:37:57 AM »
What is wrong with using asphalt singles?
"The problem with quotes on the internet is you can never be certain they're authentic." - Abraham Lincoln

sheclown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5551
Re: Demolition by Reckless Policy
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2013, 05:49:40 AM »
 Standing seam metal panels are just that...panels which span from the ridge of the roof to the eaves. 



standing seam

Metal shingles are often in 2 x 2 foot squares and are attached individually.



 metal shingles

sheclown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5551
Re: Demolition by Reckless Policy
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2013, 05:58:49 AM »
What is wrong with using asphalt singles?

There is nothing wrong with using asphalt shingles. 

However, historic guidelines require replacing "like" with "like" -- that being said, the state historic officer told historic planning, years ago, that grey asphalt shingles are also appropriate.

The problem we have in Springfield with using standard asphalt shingles is that the roof's structure is "skipped decked".  This means that instead of a solid plywood or other decking material, one bys (often 1 X 4) were used with a gap in between.  If you go into the attic of an old house, you will see the roofing material between the decking boards.

In order to adjust the roofing system to accommodate the asphalt shingles, you must redeck the roof with plywood which is a significant expense in both time and material.   Additionally, you must be concerned about the increased weight of the roof structure resting on a system not originally designed to carry that load.

Part of the reason that skip decking works with a metal roof is that the material is very light weight.  No adjustments are needed when the roof is replaced with a similarly light-weight product.

However, with the increased weight of the decking and the asphalt shingles,  the roof structure may not be adequate.  You could be compromising the structural integrity of your house by increasing the load from the shingles and the layer of plywood required to install them.

So, oftentimes, cheaper asphalt shingles end up costing more than metal panels.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 06:15:26 AM by sheclown »

Redbaron616

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
Re: Demolition by Reckless Policy
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2013, 07:11:25 AM »
The problem with designating houses as being historic is that it is the government taking private property without compensation. Suddenly everything you do to the house you paid for and pay property taxes on can't have anything done without going and saying, "Mother, may I?" These were private property and always have been. It is wrong for the government to tell owners exactly how and with what materials they may repair their houses. The public does not own the houses and have no right to dictate how they look.

sheclown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5551
Re: Demolition by Reckless Policy
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2013, 08:17:01 AM »
To weigh in on the pending roofing administrative change decision, you can contact Lisa Sheppard, historic planner.

sheppard@coj.net

Your email will be presented to the commissioners:

        Allmand, John             
     Case, David            
     Hackley, Cora Jones             
     Mansfield, Jennifer Anne            
     Moore, J. Richard            
     Pajcic, Seth Alexander             
     Schifanella, Angela             

aubureck

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Demolition by Reckless Policy
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2013, 08:17:51 AM »
Redbaron, the properties in Springfield (and Riverside/Avondale) voted to become locally designated historic districts MANY years ago.  This was done after public meetings, workshops, neighborhood surveys.  The restrictions that are in place in these neighborhoods were not imposed by the City without the approval of the property owners within these boundaries at this time.  They KNEW that there would be restrictions at that time.  Property owners buying into the neighborhoods in subsequent years know (or should know) that they are buying a historic house that has restrictions...
The Urban Planner

strider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1933
Re: Demolition by Reckless Policy
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2013, 08:21:24 AM »
Buying in a historic district is sort of like buying into that community with a HOA.  You know it when you do it.  Frankly, a Historic District is a better deal.  You are dealing with written regulations that really are done at a state if not a federal level rather than some neighbor that may or may not like the color of your hair. It means the rules are a lot more consistent.  You also get "paid" for being in a historic district if you play your cards right.  There are tax abatements and tax credits out there for historic districts that are not available to some suburban development. And Historic Districts historically hold their values better and rebound from real estate slumps faster than regular neighborhoods.

Right now, actually for the last ten years or so, SPAR has acted more like an upper class and very snobby HOA rather than the preservation organization it is supposed to be. As a contractor, I now have to tell potential clients that 15 to 20% of their budget goes to a new roof.  If this change is allowed, as simple as it seems, that figure will go to 35 to 40% of their budget, enough to make it unaffordable for many.  That means the houses will not get the needed roofs and will sit and deteriorate.  By the way, the “budgets” I am referring to are not some arbitrary number but one actually set by the current real estate market, meaning the values of the houses.

You will hear from SPAR that they are simply wishing to get the HPC a more clear say with roofs.  Even the commissioners at the recent sub-committee meeting said that the change would not mean they would not approve a panel roof.  But you needed to be listening to everything that was said and to read between the lines.  It was stressed how important the roofs were, how wonderful the metal shingles were and how important a feature they were. You have to read the language SPAR asked for and realize that potentially 95% of the houses in Springfield could be effected by this change at some point in the future.  It became obvious that the intent was to start telling owners that they had to put on that more expensive roof for the sake of being historically accurate.  And because they decided you should.  That unless you can meet some financial standard they are hoping to set, you need not live in their neighborhood.  A policy that helped this community lose 25% of it's housing stock.

The end result is a future of demolition by reckless policy.
"My father says that almost the whole world is asleep. Everybody you know. Everybody you see. Everybody you talk to. He says that only a few people are awake and they live in a state of constant total amazement." Patrica, Joe VS the Volcano.

Overstreet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
Re: Demolition by Reckless Policy
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2013, 09:16:17 AM »
"Five V tin", although never tin, is very traditional and historic in the south.  Just not so much in the city.

sheclown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5551
Re: Demolition by Reckless Policy
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2013, 09:52:06 AM »
skip decking





You are looking at the underside of the roofing material.  Attic view


Debbie Thompson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Re: Demolition by Reckless Policy
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2013, 07:21:01 PM »
Strider, didn't you say a homeowner could appeal a turn down by HPC to the City Council?  Except that would cost an additional $800 and with no guarantee?  So that means you are waiting maybe 2-3 months, and are out $1100, before you even know if you can afford to re-roof the house or not. 

When we purchased our current home in 2006, the owner had a lot of deferred maintenance due to her modest means.  There was a hole in the roof.  She was trying to mitigate damage by putting a plastic tub in the back bedroom, and nailing a tarp to the ceiling to direct the rainwater into the tub. The week after we closed, I had a roofer on top replacing the roof.  What if I had to wait two months?  What kind of damage could have been caused? 

If this house had a tin shingle roof like the one next door and the one across the street, and if I'd had to allocate $40,000 of my $100,000 rehab budget instead of $10,000, then I would have chosen a different house and this (magnificent if I do say so myself) house would probably have been demolished, because the porch was also collapsing and there was a Special Master hearing set up for it. 

Just saying.  I am all about preservation.  And yes, tin shingles are amazing if you can afford them.  (And don't let anyone tell you it's because you couldn't get shingles before. They were hard to find and very costly.  Well, they are easier to find now, but still 2-4 times more costly in materials and labor.) 

So do we lose a house because someone willing to take it on can't afford them?  Or do we continue to apply some common sense, as we have done in the past?  We have a policy that has been working for some time.  Leave it alone.  Really, people, this is a no brainer.  Let's not make it harder and more expensive to rehab a house in Springfield just as the market is picking up.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 07:28:43 PM by Debbie Thompson »