On Tuesday Night at Stacy Mitchell’s Presentation on the dangers of Big-Box Retail, it was announced that Jim Kidd, who is the current owner of the Anderson Bank Building, had a petition he was circulating to demonstrate support for the lowering of the windows in this building.
The petition supported by a large number of the downtown businesses reads:
“As downtown shoppers, we need more retail stores, not more restaurants and banks. We support the effort to lower the Anderson Bank Building windows to make this retail space more oriented to shoppers. We believe that this change is a step toward improving the vitality of our downtown. The downtown is the economic heart of Davis.”
In the meantime, lawn signs have sprung up all over Davis, particularly in front of the property of key developers and property management companies. At times, to the complaint of some, these signs were placed in the public right of way rather than on public property.
The signs read:
“Better Windows, Better Shopping, Better Downtown… Lower the Anderson Building Windows… Keep our downtown vital… Citizens and merchants who care about Davis.”
As the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) suggests,
“the purpose of the proposed project is to provide opportunity for visibility and display spaces within the building in anticipation of attracting viable retailers.”
Meanwhile, the Davis Historical Resources Management Commission has been strongly in favor of historic preservation of the windows arguing that lowering the windows would severely impact the historic nature of the site.
The city’s 2003 Historical Resources Survey report reads:
“The City’s commercial history is represented by several buildings on G Street, already enumerated above. Of these the Anderson Bank Building, Masonic Lodge, Yolo Bank and the retail shops known as the Brinley Block, on the corner of 2d and G, have all been previously surveyed. The Anderson Bank Building has been designated as a Landmark. The Yolo Bank, the Brinley Block and the Masonic Lodge are recognized as Resources of Merit. All of these four buildings appear to be individually eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. In addition, there are two buildings not previously identified, that are associated with the city’s early commercial development, the Louie Young Restaurant (217 G Street; c.1915) and 238 G Street, originally part of the Davis Lumber Company (c.1935) and one of the city’s two examples of Streamline Moderne architecture.”
“Because the Downtown/Commercial area of the Conservation District has undergone such extensive change in the past fifty years, there is no single block or group of blocks that retain a cohesive and coherent group of buildings that clearly represent a specific period, a concentration of related architectural styles or are related by virtue of a development plan or design. The commercial corridor along G and 2nd Streets includes many fine individual examples of commercial buildings and presents a range of commercial styles common in small pre-World War II rural town business districts. With further analysis and more intensive research on the individual buildings it is possible that there might be a locally eligible or California Register eligible commercial district. The commercial area, as indicated in the discussion above, is certainly an area for special planning consideration. Further loss of historic commercial buildings or inappropriate remodels would render a district ineligible.”
According to the EIR, if the windows are altered, the site would no longer be eligible for the National Register of Landmarks–the alteration would be that substantial.
The basic summary of the finding is that under option A
According to the EIR:
“With application of the recommended mitigation measures, the Anderson Bank Building would appear to maintain its eligibility as a City Landmark, and retain its inclusion/eligibility for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources. Implementation of Design Option A with or without Mitigation would likely preclude the building from future listing on or a future determination of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.”
However Option B does not even have that possiblity.
“Even with application of the recommended mitigation measures, the Anderson Bank Building would no longer appear eligible as a City Landmark, or for inclusion/ eligibility on the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places.”
The mitigations necessitated in Option A to preserve the Anderson Bank Building as an historic site are extensive and quite costly.
“Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation shall be undertaken by a qualified professional at the expense of the project applicant as recommended in the Urbana Preservation & Planning report. The purpose of the HABS documentation is to create a permanent record of the Anderson Bank Building.”
The requires a development of site-specific history and contextual information regard the particular resource, a comprehensive description of the resource, preparation of measured drawings for the resource, and photographic documentation of the resource in still and video format.
Second,
“Preparation of a Historic Structures Report (HSR) for the Anderson Bank Building that would serve as a preservation planning document for the building, documenting both the building’s history, existing material conditions, and providing treatment recommendations for future projects.”
Third,
“Restore or rehabilitate the Anderson Bank Building to the extent feasible relative to retaining the high integrity of the building.”
This includes a minimum of the following: remove all existing awnings on the southern and eastern elevations of the building “in order to expose the historic and character-defining arched windows original to the building.” Repair and restore building’s cornice along the street-facing elevations. Removal and replacement of existing second floor windows to match the original second floor windows of the building. Restore and replace all existing exterior lighting fixtures to match in-kind the original lighting fixtures. And finally repair and restore “the Grate for the Bank Bell.”
Finally,
“The property owner shall retain all removed brick to allow the project in a safe environment for future use to restore the building to its original integrity, should there be no use or reason to continue with the lower windows.”
As one can see, the measures undertaken to preserve the project under option A are extensive.
As we reported on Monday of this week, on March 17, 2007, the Commission voted against both options and took an ultimate recommendation of no action. That article also contains some key background on this issue including the fact that Mr. Kidd has brought this proposal up on previous occasions. It also suggests based on some research by Professor John Lofland, that there is little evidence to suggest that windows have an impact on the viability and profitability of businesses.
The Final EIR hearings are slated to begin next week. The City Council will hear the EIR and will certify it. A heated battle remains whereby those who support historic preservation of Davis’ rich history must defend it against a well-organized lobby including the downtown businesses that see historic preservation of a key landmark as standing in the way of economic gain.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
…hard to understand this campaign of signs except as a strategy to create the illusion of grassroots support that will, no doubt, be used as political cover when the council majority attempts to reject the recommendations of the Historical Resource Commission.
…hard to understand this campaign of signs except as a strategy to create the illusion of grassroots support that will, no doubt, be used as political cover when the council majority attempts to reject the recommendations of the Historical Resource Commission.
…hard to understand this campaign of signs except as a strategy to create the illusion of grassroots support that will, no doubt, be used as political cover when the council majority attempts to reject the recommendations of the Historical Resource Commission.
…hard to understand this campaign of signs except as a strategy to create the illusion of grassroots support that will, no doubt, be used as political cover when the council majority attempts to reject the recommendations of the Historical Resource Commission.
Once the council majority approves the deterioration of our historical buildings we can be sure that big box type stores will attempt to make their way into our city and perhaps even downtown.
After all, who ever thought that Borders Books, a large retailer, would make it so close to downtown. Now look at how many independent book stores have had to close shop as a result.
Once the council majority approves the deterioration of our historical buildings we can be sure that big box type stores will attempt to make their way into our city and perhaps even downtown.
After all, who ever thought that Borders Books, a large retailer, would make it so close to downtown. Now look at how many independent book stores have had to close shop as a result.
Once the council majority approves the deterioration of our historical buildings we can be sure that big box type stores will attempt to make their way into our city and perhaps even downtown.
After all, who ever thought that Borders Books, a large retailer, would make it so close to downtown. Now look at how many independent book stores have had to close shop as a result.
Once the council majority approves the deterioration of our historical buildings we can be sure that big box type stores will attempt to make their way into our city and perhaps even downtown.
After all, who ever thought that Borders Books, a large retailer, would make it so close to downtown. Now look at how many independent book stores have had to close shop as a result.
Call my cynical, but I find the notion of *any* historical building in Davis risible — and the Anderson Bank building is an unfortunate eyesore.
I wish Kidd the best of luck with his application.
Call my cynical, but I find the notion of *any* historical building in Davis risible — and the Anderson Bank building is an unfortunate eyesore.
I wish Kidd the best of luck with his application.
Call my cynical, but I find the notion of *any* historical building in Davis risible — and the Anderson Bank building is an unfortunate eyesore.
I wish Kidd the best of luck with his application.
Call my cynical, but I find the notion of *any* historical building in Davis risible — and the Anderson Bank building is an unfortunate eyesore.
I wish Kidd the best of luck with his application.
Dan says, “…the Anderson Bank building is an unfortunate eyesore.”
Well, unfortunately, soreness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Originally the Bank of Davis, this particular brick structure was designed by Louis Henry Sullivan (September 3, 1856–April 14, 1924), an American architect called the “father of modernism”. Who also happened to be Frank Lloyd Wright’s mentor.
With a pedigree like that, and in comparison with the plywood-and-particleboard piles rising like cartoon mushrooms around town,
this particular “eyesore” deserves a second look and ought to be left in its originally designed state.
For at least a little craftsmanship and intelligence went into its construction, not sheer economic prioritization.
Dan says, “…the Anderson Bank building is an unfortunate eyesore.”
Well, unfortunately, soreness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Originally the Bank of Davis, this particular brick structure was designed by Louis Henry Sullivan (September 3, 1856–April 14, 1924), an American architect called the “father of modernism”. Who also happened to be Frank Lloyd Wright’s mentor.
With a pedigree like that, and in comparison with the plywood-and-particleboard piles rising like cartoon mushrooms around town,
this particular “eyesore” deserves a second look and ought to be left in its originally designed state.
For at least a little craftsmanship and intelligence went into its construction, not sheer economic prioritization.
Dan says, “…the Anderson Bank building is an unfortunate eyesore.”
Well, unfortunately, soreness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Originally the Bank of Davis, this particular brick structure was designed by Louis Henry Sullivan (September 3, 1856–April 14, 1924), an American architect called the “father of modernism”. Who also happened to be Frank Lloyd Wright’s mentor.
With a pedigree like that, and in comparison with the plywood-and-particleboard piles rising like cartoon mushrooms around town,
this particular “eyesore” deserves a second look and ought to be left in its originally designed state.
For at least a little craftsmanship and intelligence went into its construction, not sheer economic prioritization.
Dan says, “…the Anderson Bank building is an unfortunate eyesore.”
Well, unfortunately, soreness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Originally the Bank of Davis, this particular brick structure was designed by Louis Henry Sullivan (September 3, 1856–April 14, 1924), an American architect called the “father of modernism”. Who also happened to be Frank Lloyd Wright’s mentor.
With a pedigree like that, and in comparison with the plywood-and-particleboard piles rising like cartoon mushrooms around town,
this particular “eyesore” deserves a second look and ought to be left in its originally designed state.
For at least a little craftsmanship and intelligence went into its construction, not sheer economic prioritization.
“It also suggests based on some research by Professor John Lofland, that there is little evidence to suggest that windows have an impact on the viability and profitability of businesses.”
Window displays are part of the marketing strategy of any business in a pedestrian-oriented retail setting. There is plenty of evidence that marketing has an impact on viability and profitability of businesses. And the history of retail in that building gives some evidence of that.
“It also suggests based on some research by Professor John Lofland, that there is little evidence to suggest that windows have an impact on the viability and profitability of businesses.”
Window displays are part of the marketing strategy of any business in a pedestrian-oriented retail setting. There is plenty of evidence that marketing has an impact on viability and profitability of businesses. And the history of retail in that building gives some evidence of that.
“It also suggests based on some research by Professor John Lofland, that there is little evidence to suggest that windows have an impact on the viability and profitability of businesses.”
Window displays are part of the marketing strategy of any business in a pedestrian-oriented retail setting. There is plenty of evidence that marketing has an impact on viability and profitability of businesses. And the history of retail in that building gives some evidence of that.
“It also suggests based on some research by Professor John Lofland, that there is little evidence to suggest that windows have an impact on the viability and profitability of businesses.”
Window displays are part of the marketing strategy of any business in a pedestrian-oriented retail setting. There is plenty of evidence that marketing has an impact on viability and profitability of businesses. And the history of retail in that building gives some evidence of that.
Anyone who wants to read the final EIR can go to this link:
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/cdd/projects/andersonbank/
and download the pdf documents.
Anyone who wants to read the final EIR can go to this link:
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/cdd/projects/andersonbank/
and download the pdf documents.
Anyone who wants to read the final EIR can go to this link:
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/cdd/projects/andersonbank/
and download the pdf documents.
Anyone who wants to read the final EIR can go to this link:
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/cdd/projects/andersonbank/
and download the pdf documents.
I don’t recall seeing a Target with window displays….or windows for that matter.
I don’t recall seeing a Target with window displays….or windows for that matter.
I don’t recall seeing a Target with window displays….or windows for that matter.
I don’t recall seeing a Target with window displays….or windows for that matter.
A fundamental design flaw of the building is that it looks like a fortress – perhaps a good design for a bank, but not for other uses. The “father of modernism” designed all of his banks to look like fortresses. Kind of ugly.
A test of historical significance -would people go out of their way to view and admire the building? The answer is probably no, so some sort of compromise is in order. If the desire is to create a viable downtown then it makes no sense to shut the door on downtown property owners.
A fundamental design flaw of the building is that it looks like a fortress – perhaps a good design for a bank, but not for other uses. The “father of modernism” designed all of his banks to look like fortresses. Kind of ugly.
A test of historical significance -would people go out of their way to view and admire the building? The answer is probably no, so some sort of compromise is in order. If the desire is to create a viable downtown then it makes no sense to shut the door on downtown property owners.
A fundamental design flaw of the building is that it looks like a fortress – perhaps a good design for a bank, but not for other uses. The “father of modernism” designed all of his banks to look like fortresses. Kind of ugly.
A test of historical significance -would people go out of their way to view and admire the building? The answer is probably no, so some sort of compromise is in order. If the desire is to create a viable downtown then it makes no sense to shut the door on downtown property owners.
A fundamental design flaw of the building is that it looks like a fortress – perhaps a good design for a bank, but not for other uses. The “father of modernism” designed all of his banks to look like fortresses. Kind of ugly.
A test of historical significance -would people go out of their way to view and admire the building? The answer is probably no, so some sort of compromise is in order. If the desire is to create a viable downtown then it makes no sense to shut the door on downtown property owners.
The Anderson Bank isn’t ugly — it’s just been treated in an ugly fashion by the current owner. Remove the awnings, let in the light and air, do the long delayed repairs to the bricks, paint the darn thing with quality paint and a good color scheme, etc. etc. Reuse isn’t all that hard. For example, it would be a great place for a restaurant, a hair salon or spa. If we want more retail space, why not move Togos into the bank building, and free up the retail space that Togos doesn’t need.
The Anderson Bank isn’t ugly — it’s just been treated in an ugly fashion by the current owner. Remove the awnings, let in the light and air, do the long delayed repairs to the bricks, paint the darn thing with quality paint and a good color scheme, etc. etc. Reuse isn’t all that hard. For example, it would be a great place for a restaurant, a hair salon or spa. If we want more retail space, why not move Togos into the bank building, and free up the retail space that Togos doesn’t need.
The Anderson Bank isn’t ugly — it’s just been treated in an ugly fashion by the current owner. Remove the awnings, let in the light and air, do the long delayed repairs to the bricks, paint the darn thing with quality paint and a good color scheme, etc. etc. Reuse isn’t all that hard. For example, it would be a great place for a restaurant, a hair salon or spa. If we want more retail space, why not move Togos into the bank building, and free up the retail space that Togos doesn’t need.
The Anderson Bank isn’t ugly — it’s just been treated in an ugly fashion by the current owner. Remove the awnings, let in the light and air, do the long delayed repairs to the bricks, paint the darn thing with quality paint and a good color scheme, etc. etc. Reuse isn’t all that hard. For example, it would be a great place for a restaurant, a hair salon or spa. If we want more retail space, why not move Togos into the bank building, and free up the retail space that Togos doesn’t need.
Actually, Target has been known to build stores with windows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Corporation#Urban_stores.
But this is not a ‘big box’ issue: big box usually refers to stores of 60,000 sq. ft. or more (the Davis Target will be 140,000 sq. ft.).
If you are referring to the likelihood of chain or franchise stores occupying the building, there is nothing at all to prevent the owner from leasing to a chain or franchise now or if he remodels.
Option A would remain eligible for historic designation by state and local standards. Either remodel would meet the Core Area guidelines.
Actually, Target has been known to build stores with windows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Corporation#Urban_stores.
But this is not a ‘big box’ issue: big box usually refers to stores of 60,000 sq. ft. or more (the Davis Target will be 140,000 sq. ft.).
If you are referring to the likelihood of chain or franchise stores occupying the building, there is nothing at all to prevent the owner from leasing to a chain or franchise now or if he remodels.
Option A would remain eligible for historic designation by state and local standards. Either remodel would meet the Core Area guidelines.
Actually, Target has been known to build stores with windows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Corporation#Urban_stores.
But this is not a ‘big box’ issue: big box usually refers to stores of 60,000 sq. ft. or more (the Davis Target will be 140,000 sq. ft.).
If you are referring to the likelihood of chain or franchise stores occupying the building, there is nothing at all to prevent the owner from leasing to a chain or franchise now or if he remodels.
Option A would remain eligible for historic designation by state and local standards. Either remodel would meet the Core Area guidelines.
Actually, Target has been known to build stores with windows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Corporation#Urban_stores.
But this is not a ‘big box’ issue: big box usually refers to stores of 60,000 sq. ft. or more (the Davis Target will be 140,000 sq. ft.).
If you are referring to the likelihood of chain or franchise stores occupying the building, there is nothing at all to prevent the owner from leasing to a chain or franchise now or if he remodels.
Option A would remain eligible for historic designation by state and local standards. Either remodel would meet the Core Area guidelines.
You people are so concerned about big box stores. How many of you actually drive American made cars???
Every time you buy a foreign product you are selling a piece of your country. Think globally and locally will work out.
You people are so concerned about big box stores. How many of you actually drive American made cars???
Every time you buy a foreign product you are selling a piece of your country. Think globally and locally will work out.
You people are so concerned about big box stores. How many of you actually drive American made cars???
Every time you buy a foreign product you are selling a piece of your country. Think globally and locally will work out.
You people are so concerned about big box stores. How many of you actually drive American made cars???
Every time you buy a foreign product you are selling a piece of your country. Think globally and locally will work out.
What difference does it make?
What difference does it make?
What difference does it make?
What difference does it make?
Somebody should buy the building from the current owner and fix up the place. I am sure the new owner will lose money on the deal, but what the heck everyone else will benefit.
Somebody should buy the building from the current owner and fix up the place. I am sure the new owner will lose money on the deal, but what the heck everyone else will benefit.
Somebody should buy the building from the current owner and fix up the place. I am sure the new owner will lose money on the deal, but what the heck everyone else will benefit.
Somebody should buy the building from the current owner and fix up the place. I am sure the new owner will lose money on the deal, but what the heck everyone else will benefit.
“Meanwhile, the Davis Historical Resources Management Commission has been strongly in favor of historic preservation of the windows arguing that lowering the windows would severely impact the historic nature of the site.”
This is close, but it’s not quite right. I am on the HRMC. In fact, I am the vice-chair of the commission.
First, it is not ‘lowering’ the windows,’ so much as it is destroying the historical fabric (the bricks) and the historical fenestration.
It is important to understand that a building’s fenestration is its upmost historical feature. Tearing out 2 foot by 5 foot holes in order to allow some more visibility will in my view (and in the view of most of the HRMC) destroy the historic merit of this building, which, as has been noted, is one of only a handful of Landmark buildings in Davis, and the only large Landmark commercial building in our core area.
Greenwald writes: “According to the EIR, if the windows are altered, the site would no longer be eligible for the National Register of Landmarks–the alteration would be that substantial.”
This is a bit misleading.
If Option B were approved that would be true. Option B is the one in which the sills would be removed and the windows would be extended downward to about 24 inches off the sidewalk. However, Option B is really not being considered.
Option A — which would create a new window, approximately 10 sq feet below the existing sills of the 4 arched windows — is really the only option on the table at this point.
I personally believe that Option A violates the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, and as such would remove the ABB from being eligible for the National Register. Our commission voted 5-2 along those lines. (I should note that our most recent person to leave the commission, Richard Berteaux, would have added a 3rd vote to the other side of this debate.) Also, the city’s consultant, Urbana Preservation & Planning concluded that Option A (when done in conjunction with about 20 mitigation measures) would not violate the SIS.
So for practical purposes, the option that is on the table may or may not violate the SIS.
The basic summary of the finding is that under option A
You quote the EIR: “Even with application of the recommended mitigation measures, the Anderson Bank Building would no longer appear eligible as a City Landmark, or for inclusion/ eligibility on the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places.”
This was the conclusion of Urbana and our commission. We voted 7-0 against Option B.
“Meanwhile, the Davis Historical Resources Management Commission has been strongly in favor of historic preservation of the windows arguing that lowering the windows would severely impact the historic nature of the site.”
This is close, but it’s not quite right. I am on the HRMC. In fact, I am the vice-chair of the commission.
First, it is not ‘lowering’ the windows,’ so much as it is destroying the historical fabric (the bricks) and the historical fenestration.
It is important to understand that a building’s fenestration is its upmost historical feature. Tearing out 2 foot by 5 foot holes in order to allow some more visibility will in my view (and in the view of most of the HRMC) destroy the historic merit of this building, which, as has been noted, is one of only a handful of Landmark buildings in Davis, and the only large Landmark commercial building in our core area.
Greenwald writes: “According to the EIR, if the windows are altered, the site would no longer be eligible for the National Register of Landmarks–the alteration would be that substantial.”
This is a bit misleading.
If Option B were approved that would be true. Option B is the one in which the sills would be removed and the windows would be extended downward to about 24 inches off the sidewalk. However, Option B is really not being considered.
Option A — which would create a new window, approximately 10 sq feet below the existing sills of the 4 arched windows — is really the only option on the table at this point.
I personally believe that Option A violates the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, and as such would remove the ABB from being eligible for the National Register. Our commission voted 5-2 along those lines. (I should note that our most recent person to leave the commission, Richard Berteaux, would have added a 3rd vote to the other side of this debate.) Also, the city’s consultant, Urbana Preservation & Planning concluded that Option A (when done in conjunction with about 20 mitigation measures) would not violate the SIS.
So for practical purposes, the option that is on the table may or may not violate the SIS.
The basic summary of the finding is that under option A
You quote the EIR: “Even with application of the recommended mitigation measures, the Anderson Bank Building would no longer appear eligible as a City Landmark, or for inclusion/ eligibility on the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places.”
This was the conclusion of Urbana and our commission. We voted 7-0 against Option B.
“Meanwhile, the Davis Historical Resources Management Commission has been strongly in favor of historic preservation of the windows arguing that lowering the windows would severely impact the historic nature of the site.”
This is close, but it’s not quite right. I am on the HRMC. In fact, I am the vice-chair of the commission.
First, it is not ‘lowering’ the windows,’ so much as it is destroying the historical fabric (the bricks) and the historical fenestration.
It is important to understand that a building’s fenestration is its upmost historical feature. Tearing out 2 foot by 5 foot holes in order to allow some more visibility will in my view (and in the view of most of the HRMC) destroy the historic merit of this building, which, as has been noted, is one of only a handful of Landmark buildings in Davis, and the only large Landmark commercial building in our core area.
Greenwald writes: “According to the EIR, if the windows are altered, the site would no longer be eligible for the National Register of Landmarks–the alteration would be that substantial.”
This is a bit misleading.
If Option B were approved that would be true. Option B is the one in which the sills would be removed and the windows would be extended downward to about 24 inches off the sidewalk. However, Option B is really not being considered.
Option A — which would create a new window, approximately 10 sq feet below the existing sills of the 4 arched windows — is really the only option on the table at this point.
I personally believe that Option A violates the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, and as such would remove the ABB from being eligible for the National Register. Our commission voted 5-2 along those lines. (I should note that our most recent person to leave the commission, Richard Berteaux, would have added a 3rd vote to the other side of this debate.) Also, the city’s consultant, Urbana Preservation & Planning concluded that Option A (when done in conjunction with about 20 mitigation measures) would not violate the SIS.
So for practical purposes, the option that is on the table may or may not violate the SIS.
The basic summary of the finding is that under option A
You quote the EIR: “Even with application of the recommended mitigation measures, the Anderson Bank Building would no longer appear eligible as a City Landmark, or for inclusion/ eligibility on the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places.”
This was the conclusion of Urbana and our commission. We voted 7-0 against Option B.
“Meanwhile, the Davis Historical Resources Management Commission has been strongly in favor of historic preservation of the windows arguing that lowering the windows would severely impact the historic nature of the site.”
This is close, but it’s not quite right. I am on the HRMC. In fact, I am the vice-chair of the commission.
First, it is not ‘lowering’ the windows,’ so much as it is destroying the historical fabric (the bricks) and the historical fenestration.
It is important to understand that a building’s fenestration is its upmost historical feature. Tearing out 2 foot by 5 foot holes in order to allow some more visibility will in my view (and in the view of most of the HRMC) destroy the historic merit of this building, which, as has been noted, is one of only a handful of Landmark buildings in Davis, and the only large Landmark commercial building in our core area.
Greenwald writes: “According to the EIR, if the windows are altered, the site would no longer be eligible for the National Register of Landmarks–the alteration would be that substantial.”
This is a bit misleading.
If Option B were approved that would be true. Option B is the one in which the sills would be removed and the windows would be extended downward to about 24 inches off the sidewalk. However, Option B is really not being considered.
Option A — which would create a new window, approximately 10 sq feet below the existing sills of the 4 arched windows — is really the only option on the table at this point.
I personally believe that Option A violates the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, and as such would remove the ABB from being eligible for the National Register. Our commission voted 5-2 along those lines. (I should note that our most recent person to leave the commission, Richard Berteaux, would have added a 3rd vote to the other side of this debate.) Also, the city’s consultant, Urbana Preservation & Planning concluded that Option A (when done in conjunction with about 20 mitigation measures) would not violate the SIS.
So for practical purposes, the option that is on the table may or may not violate the SIS.
The basic summary of the finding is that under option A
You quote the EIR: “Even with application of the recommended mitigation measures, the Anderson Bank Building would no longer appear eligible as a City Landmark, or for inclusion/ eligibility on the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places.”
This was the conclusion of Urbana and our commission. We voted 7-0 against Option B.
Brian Kenyon writes: “Originally the Bank of Davis, this particular brick structure was designed by Louis Henry Sullivan (September 3, 1856–April 14, 1924), an American architect called the “father of modernism”. Who also happened to be Frank Lloyd Wright’s mentor.”
I don’t believe that is true. The ABB is called “Sullivanesque,” but I don’t think Sullivan actually had his hands on this project. We have on our commission a great architectural historian, Valerie Vann. If she is reading this, she might be able to say for certain. But unless my memory is tricking me, I am quite sure that the ABB is similar in style to Louis Sullivan, but not of his doing.
Brian Kenyon writes: “Originally the Bank of Davis, this particular brick structure was designed by Louis Henry Sullivan (September 3, 1856–April 14, 1924), an American architect called the “father of modernism”. Who also happened to be Frank Lloyd Wright’s mentor.”
I don’t believe that is true. The ABB is called “Sullivanesque,” but I don’t think Sullivan actually had his hands on this project. We have on our commission a great architectural historian, Valerie Vann. If she is reading this, she might be able to say for certain. But unless my memory is tricking me, I am quite sure that the ABB is similar in style to Louis Sullivan, but not of his doing.
Brian Kenyon writes: “Originally the Bank of Davis, this particular brick structure was designed by Louis Henry Sullivan (September 3, 1856–April 14, 1924), an American architect called the “father of modernism”. Who also happened to be Frank Lloyd Wright’s mentor.”
I don’t believe that is true. The ABB is called “Sullivanesque,” but I don’t think Sullivan actually had his hands on this project. We have on our commission a great architectural historian, Valerie Vann. If she is reading this, she might be able to say for certain. But unless my memory is tricking me, I am quite sure that the ABB is similar in style to Louis Sullivan, but not of his doing.
Brian Kenyon writes: “Originally the Bank of Davis, this particular brick structure was designed by Louis Henry Sullivan (September 3, 1856–April 14, 1924), an American architect called the “father of modernism”. Who also happened to be Frank Lloyd Wright’s mentor.”
I don’t believe that is true. The ABB is called “Sullivanesque,” but I don’t think Sullivan actually had his hands on this project. We have on our commission a great architectural historian, Valerie Vann. If she is reading this, she might be able to say for certain. But unless my memory is tricking me, I am quite sure that the ABB is similar in style to Louis Sullivan, but not of his doing.
Ellen writes: “The Anderson Bank isn’t ugly — it’s just been treated in an ugly fashion by the current owner. Remove the awnings, let in the light and air, do the long delayed repairs to the bricks, paint the darn thing with quality paint and a good color scheme, etc. etc. Reuse isn’t all that hard.”
I heartily agree with Ellen. If you look over the list of mitigation measures in the EIR — this list was drawn up by Urbana and approved by our commission — you will notice that most of them are necessary, because of the neglect by the owner, Jim Kidd.
Second, Kidd has always viewed this space as a retail spot, nothing else. I believe that if he had wanted to adapt it for other uses, such as a bar, he could have done so without touching the fenestration.
Third, there is no guarantee (or even likelihood) that poking four 10-square foot holes in the walls, two feet off the ground, below the 1 foot thick sills — Option A — will really help its viability as a retail site. Undoubtedly, they will be aesthetically unpleasing.
Ellen writes: “The Anderson Bank isn’t ugly — it’s just been treated in an ugly fashion by the current owner. Remove the awnings, let in the light and air, do the long delayed repairs to the bricks, paint the darn thing with quality paint and a good color scheme, etc. etc. Reuse isn’t all that hard.”
I heartily agree with Ellen. If you look over the list of mitigation measures in the EIR — this list was drawn up by Urbana and approved by our commission — you will notice that most of them are necessary, because of the neglect by the owner, Jim Kidd.
Second, Kidd has always viewed this space as a retail spot, nothing else. I believe that if he had wanted to adapt it for other uses, such as a bar, he could have done so without touching the fenestration.
Third, there is no guarantee (or even likelihood) that poking four 10-square foot holes in the walls, two feet off the ground, below the 1 foot thick sills — Option A — will really help its viability as a retail site. Undoubtedly, they will be aesthetically unpleasing.
Ellen writes: “The Anderson Bank isn’t ugly — it’s just been treated in an ugly fashion by the current owner. Remove the awnings, let in the light and air, do the long delayed repairs to the bricks, paint the darn thing with quality paint and a good color scheme, etc. etc. Reuse isn’t all that hard.”
I heartily agree with Ellen. If you look over the list of mitigation measures in the EIR — this list was drawn up by Urbana and approved by our commission — you will notice that most of them are necessary, because of the neglect by the owner, Jim Kidd.
Second, Kidd has always viewed this space as a retail spot, nothing else. I believe that if he had wanted to adapt it for other uses, such as a bar, he could have done so without touching the fenestration.
Third, there is no guarantee (or even likelihood) that poking four 10-square foot holes in the walls, two feet off the ground, below the 1 foot thick sills — Option A — will really help its viability as a retail site. Undoubtedly, they will be aesthetically unpleasing.
Ellen writes: “The Anderson Bank isn’t ugly — it’s just been treated in an ugly fashion by the current owner. Remove the awnings, let in the light and air, do the long delayed repairs to the bricks, paint the darn thing with quality paint and a good color scheme, etc. etc. Reuse isn’t all that hard.”
I heartily agree with Ellen. If you look over the list of mitigation measures in the EIR — this list was drawn up by Urbana and approved by our commission — you will notice that most of them are necessary, because of the neglect by the owner, Jim Kidd.
Second, Kidd has always viewed this space as a retail spot, nothing else. I believe that if he had wanted to adapt it for other uses, such as a bar, he could have done so without touching the fenestration.
Third, there is no guarantee (or even likelihood) that poking four 10-square foot holes in the walls, two feet off the ground, below the 1 foot thick sills — Option A — will really help its viability as a retail site. Undoubtedly, they will be aesthetically unpleasing.
Don Shor: “Option A would remain eligible for historic designation by state and local standards.”
As I noted above, our commission voted 5-2 against this conclusion. (Note that state designation is essentially the same as federal, in cases like this.)
Don Shor: “Option A would remain eligible for historic designation by state and local standards.”
As I noted above, our commission voted 5-2 against this conclusion. (Note that state designation is essentially the same as federal, in cases like this.)
Don Shor: “Option A would remain eligible for historic designation by state and local standards.”
As I noted above, our commission voted 5-2 against this conclusion. (Note that state designation is essentially the same as federal, in cases like this.)
Don Shor: “Option A would remain eligible for historic designation by state and local standards.”
As I noted above, our commission voted 5-2 against this conclusion. (Note that state designation is essentially the same as federal, in cases like this.)
“According to the EIR:
“With application of the recommended mitigation measures, the Anderson Bank Building would appear to maintain its eligibility as a City Landmark, and retain its inclusion/eligibility for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources.”
What was the basis of this statement in the EIR? Staff analysis? Outside consultants?
When you say you voted 5 – 2 against this, does that mean you disagreed with the conclusion, or does it mean that you rejected Option A?
“According to the EIR:
“With application of the recommended mitigation measures, the Anderson Bank Building would appear to maintain its eligibility as a City Landmark, and retain its inclusion/eligibility for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources.”
What was the basis of this statement in the EIR? Staff analysis? Outside consultants?
When you say you voted 5 – 2 against this, does that mean you disagreed with the conclusion, or does it mean that you rejected Option A?
“According to the EIR:
“With application of the recommended mitigation measures, the Anderson Bank Building would appear to maintain its eligibility as a City Landmark, and retain its inclusion/eligibility for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources.”
What was the basis of this statement in the EIR? Staff analysis? Outside consultants?
When you say you voted 5 – 2 against this, does that mean you disagreed with the conclusion, or does it mean that you rejected Option A?
“According to the EIR:
“With application of the recommended mitigation measures, the Anderson Bank Building would appear to maintain its eligibility as a City Landmark, and retain its inclusion/eligibility for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources.”
What was the basis of this statement in the EIR? Staff analysis? Outside consultants?
When you say you voted 5 – 2 against this, does that mean you disagreed with the conclusion, or does it mean that you rejected Option A?
Never mind; I just saw this in your post above:
“the city’s consultant, Urbana Preservation & Planning concluded that Option A (when done in conjunction with about 20 mitigation measures) would not violate the SIS.”
So I guess my question is, who has the credentials? Who were the 5 members of the commission who voted against the conclusion of the (presumably) expert consultants hired by the city? It’s pretty much your expertise against theirs.
Yes, I know I could probably look it up, but I’m sure you could tell us faster….
Never mind; I just saw this in your post above:
“the city’s consultant, Urbana Preservation & Planning concluded that Option A (when done in conjunction with about 20 mitigation measures) would not violate the SIS.”
So I guess my question is, who has the credentials? Who were the 5 members of the commission who voted against the conclusion of the (presumably) expert consultants hired by the city? It’s pretty much your expertise against theirs.
Yes, I know I could probably look it up, but I’m sure you could tell us faster….
Never mind; I just saw this in your post above:
“the city’s consultant, Urbana Preservation & Planning concluded that Option A (when done in conjunction with about 20 mitigation measures) would not violate the SIS.”
So I guess my question is, who has the credentials? Who were the 5 members of the commission who voted against the conclusion of the (presumably) expert consultants hired by the city? It’s pretty much your expertise against theirs.
Yes, I know I could probably look it up, but I’m sure you could tell us faster….
Never mind; I just saw this in your post above:
“the city’s consultant, Urbana Preservation & Planning concluded that Option A (when done in conjunction with about 20 mitigation measures) would not violate the SIS.”
So I guess my question is, who has the credentials? Who were the 5 members of the commission who voted against the conclusion of the (presumably) expert consultants hired by the city? It’s pretty much your expertise against theirs.
Yes, I know I could probably look it up, but I’m sure you could tell us faster….
Don,
As I read the EIR, and the comments posted here, Mr. Kidd wants Option B, not Option A. (I think no one wants Option A. All you’d get is skinny little windows below the existing. They’d muck up the facade without , being very useful for displays.)
Don,
As I read the EIR, and the comments posted here, Mr. Kidd wants Option B, not Option A. (I think no one wants Option A. All you’d get is skinny little windows below the existing. They’d muck up the facade without , being very useful for displays.)
Don,
As I read the EIR, and the comments posted here, Mr. Kidd wants Option B, not Option A. (I think no one wants Option A. All you’d get is skinny little windows below the existing. They’d muck up the facade without , being very useful for displays.)
Don,
As I read the EIR, and the comments posted here, Mr. Kidd wants Option B, not Option A. (I think no one wants Option A. All you’d get is skinny little windows below the existing. They’d muck up the facade without , being very useful for displays.)
If there was a business that had something that I was interested in buying, the lack of windows at knee level wouldn’t keep me away. The previous furniture had furniture that I didn’t like. The current futon store is OK, if you are shopping for a futon. I bought a very nice futon cover there, but I only have one futon to cover.
If there was a business that had something that I was interested in buying, the lack of windows at knee level wouldn’t keep me away. The previous furniture had furniture that I didn’t like. The current futon store is OK, if you are shopping for a futon. I bought a very nice futon cover there, but I only have one futon to cover.
If there was a business that had something that I was interested in buying, the lack of windows at knee level wouldn’t keep me away. The previous furniture had furniture that I didn’t like. The current futon store is OK, if you are shopping for a futon. I bought a very nice futon cover there, but I only have one futon to cover.
If there was a business that had something that I was interested in buying, the lack of windows at knee level wouldn’t keep me away. The previous furniture had furniture that I didn’t like. The current futon store is OK, if you are shopping for a futon. I bought a very nice futon cover there, but I only have one futon to cover.
So we’ve really come into the era where windows get their own lawn signs? Does anyone else think this is ridiculous? Yeah, it’s a developer trying to influence opinion, but really, do they really think they are going to rally grassroots support about windows? Windows, people!
Next up, lawn signs about porches!
“More porches, more people waving, more to like about Davis!”
And then we will have signs about dental floss.
“More floss, less green stuff in your teeth, a better-looking Davis!”
Yes, I’m going to be lobbying the City council right now on my pro-porch/pro-floss platform. Maybe I’ll run for a seat on the Council!
So we’ve really come into the era where windows get their own lawn signs? Does anyone else think this is ridiculous? Yeah, it’s a developer trying to influence opinion, but really, do they really think they are going to rally grassroots support about windows? Windows, people!
Next up, lawn signs about porches!
“More porches, more people waving, more to like about Davis!”
And then we will have signs about dental floss.
“More floss, less green stuff in your teeth, a better-looking Davis!”
Yes, I’m going to be lobbying the City council right now on my pro-porch/pro-floss platform. Maybe I’ll run for a seat on the Council!
So we’ve really come into the era where windows get their own lawn signs? Does anyone else think this is ridiculous? Yeah, it’s a developer trying to influence opinion, but really, do they really think they are going to rally grassroots support about windows? Windows, people!
Next up, lawn signs about porches!
“More porches, more people waving, more to like about Davis!”
And then we will have signs about dental floss.
“More floss, less green stuff in your teeth, a better-looking Davis!”
Yes, I’m going to be lobbying the City council right now on my pro-porch/pro-floss platform. Maybe I’ll run for a seat on the Council!
So we’ve really come into the era where windows get their own lawn signs? Does anyone else think this is ridiculous? Yeah, it’s a developer trying to influence opinion, but really, do they really think they are going to rally grassroots support about windows? Windows, people!
Next up, lawn signs about porches!
“More porches, more people waving, more to like about Davis!”
And then we will have signs about dental floss.
“More floss, less green stuff in your teeth, a better-looking Davis!”
Yes, I’m going to be lobbying the City council right now on my pro-porch/pro-floss platform. Maybe I’ll run for a seat on the Council!
“So I guess my question is, who has the credentials? Who were the 5 members of the commission who voted against the conclusion of the (presumably) expert consultants hired by the city?”
I made a slight mistake. We have 7 people on our commission, including an alternate member who was then replacing Richard Berteaux, who had left, and I remembered that 2 people had voted in favor of Option A, which would have made the vote 5-2. However, I realize (upon Don’s question) that only 6 voted, because Gale Sosnick (who owns some property on G Street) had to recuse herself from the vote and discussion. Thus, the vote was 4-2, not 5-2.
The vote on Option A by the HRMC was this 4-person majority saying that, even with the mitigations, it failed to meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards (particularly in my view, Standard 1*):
Rand Herbert, Chair
Rich Rifkin, Vice-chair
Keren Costanzo
Valerie Vann
Those on the other side of vote was this minority:
Christine Ottaway
Monica Stengert (alternate)
* Standard 1: “1. A property shall be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.”
It is my expert opinion, as a commissioner (and as someone who has read extensively on this issue for two years), that the fenestration of the bank building is its most important historic feature. Therefore, by creating a new, historically incorrect fenestration, Standard 1 would be violated. Other experts, of course, disagree.
That was my thought exactly–a developer pushing a grassroots campaign for windows cloaked under the guise of downtown vitality.
Personally, I think it is absurd and insulting.
I’ll add more here though. I have no sympathy for him–he knew going into his purchase that he could not change the windows and this was a historical site. I’m sick of speculators buying property that is zoned for one thing in hopes that they can change it and make a huge profit. I’m absolutely tired of that attitude.
“So I guess my question is, who has the credentials? Who were the 5 members of the commission who voted against the conclusion of the (presumably) expert consultants hired by the city?”
I made a slight mistake. We have 7 people on our commission, including an alternate member who was then replacing Richard Berteaux, who had left, and I remembered that 2 people had voted in favor of Option A, which would have made the vote 5-2. However, I realize (upon Don’s question) that only 6 voted, because Gale Sosnick (who owns some property on G Street) had to recuse herself from the vote and discussion. Thus, the vote was 4-2, not 5-2.
The vote on Option A by the HRMC was this 4-person majority saying that, even with the mitigations, it failed to meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards (particularly in my view, Standard 1*):
Rand Herbert, Chair
Rich Rifkin, Vice-chair
Keren Costanzo
Valerie Vann
Those on the other side of vote was this minority:
Christine Ottaway
Monica Stengert (alternate)
* Standard 1: “1. A property shall be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.”
It is my expert opinion, as a commissioner (and as someone who has read extensively on this issue for two years), that the fenestration of the bank building is its most important historic feature. Therefore, by creating a new, historically incorrect fenestration, Standard 1 would be violated. Other experts, of course, disagree.
That was my thought exactly–a developer pushing a grassroots campaign for windows cloaked under the guise of downtown vitality.
Personally, I think it is absurd and insulting.
I’ll add more here though. I have no sympathy for him–he knew going into his purchase that he could not change the windows and this was a historical site. I’m sick of speculators buying property that is zoned for one thing in hopes that they can change it and make a huge profit. I’m absolutely tired of that attitude.
“So I guess my question is, who has the credentials? Who were the 5 members of the commission who voted against the conclusion of the (presumably) expert consultants hired by the city?”
I made a slight mistake. We have 7 people on our commission, including an alternate member who was then replacing Richard Berteaux, who had left, and I remembered that 2 people had voted in favor of Option A, which would have made the vote 5-2. However, I realize (upon Don’s question) that only 6 voted, because Gale Sosnick (who owns some property on G Street) had to recuse herself from the vote and discussion. Thus, the vote was 4-2, not 5-2.
The vote on Option A by the HRMC was this 4-person majority saying that, even with the mitigations, it failed to meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards (particularly in my view, Standard 1*):
Rand Herbert, Chair
Rich Rifkin, Vice-chair
Keren Costanzo
Valerie Vann
Those on the other side of vote was this minority:
Christine Ottaway
Monica Stengert (alternate)
* Standard 1: “1. A property shall be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.”
It is my expert opinion, as a commissioner (and as someone who has read extensively on this issue for two years), that the fenestration of the bank building is its most important historic feature. Therefore, by creating a new, historically incorrect fenestration, Standard 1 would be violated. Other experts, of course, disagree.
That was my thought exactly–a developer pushing a grassroots campaign for windows cloaked under the guise of downtown vitality.
Personally, I think it is absurd and insulting.
I’ll add more here though. I have no sympathy for him–he knew going into his purchase that he could not change the windows and this was a historical site. I’m sick of speculators buying property that is zoned for one thing in hopes that they can change it and make a huge profit. I’m absolutely tired of that attitude.
“So I guess my question is, who has the credentials? Who were the 5 members of the commission who voted against the conclusion of the (presumably) expert consultants hired by the city?”
I made a slight mistake. We have 7 people on our commission, including an alternate member who was then replacing Richard Berteaux, who had left, and I remembered that 2 people had voted in favor of Option A, which would have made the vote 5-2. However, I realize (upon Don’s question) that only 6 voted, because Gale Sosnick (who owns some property on G Street) had to recuse herself from the vote and discussion. Thus, the vote was 4-2, not 5-2.
The vote on Option A by the HRMC was this 4-person majority saying that, even with the mitigations, it failed to meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards (particularly in my view, Standard 1*):
Rand Herbert, Chair
Rich Rifkin, Vice-chair
Keren Costanzo
Valerie Vann
Those on the other side of vote was this minority:
Christine Ottaway
Monica Stengert (alternate)
* Standard 1: “1. A property shall be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.”
It is my expert opinion, as a commissioner (and as someone who has read extensively on this issue for two years), that the fenestration of the bank building is its most important historic feature. Therefore, by creating a new, historically incorrect fenestration, Standard 1 would be violated. Other experts, of course, disagree.
That was my thought exactly–a developer pushing a grassroots campaign for windows cloaked under the guise of downtown vitality.
Personally, I think it is absurd and insulting.
I’ll add more here though. I have no sympathy for him–he knew going into his purchase that he could not change the windows and this was a historical site. I’m sick of speculators buying property that is zoned for one thing in hopes that they can change it and make a huge profit. I’m absolutely tired of that attitude.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation, I should inform you that they serve as a guide for rehabbing old buildings and help commissions like the Davis-HRMC decide what is and is not appropriate.
Also, while I focus on Standard 1, I think there are some questions about the window project that violate 3 other standards (out of the 10), though in the same way that they violate number 1:
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property shall be avoided.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation, I should inform you that they serve as a guide for rehabbing old buildings and help commissions like the Davis-HRMC decide what is and is not appropriate.
Also, while I focus on Standard 1, I think there are some questions about the window project that violate 3 other standards (out of the 10), though in the same way that they violate number 1:
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property shall be avoided.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation, I should inform you that they serve as a guide for rehabbing old buildings and help commissions like the Davis-HRMC decide what is and is not appropriate.
Also, while I focus on Standard 1, I think there are some questions about the window project that violate 3 other standards (out of the 10), though in the same way that they violate number 1:
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property shall be avoided.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation, I should inform you that they serve as a guide for rehabbing old buildings and help commissions like the Davis-HRMC decide what is and is not appropriate.
Also, while I focus on Standard 1, I think there are some questions about the window project that violate 3 other standards (out of the 10), though in the same way that they violate number 1:
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property shall be avoided.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Anonymous 9:54.
While I generally agree with your point, it’s unfair to characterize Kidd as “a speculator.” He has owned the ABB for 22 years; and while he has poorly maintained the exterior in my opinion, he has put a lot of money into the building over the years.
Anonymous 9:54.
While I generally agree with your point, it’s unfair to characterize Kidd as “a speculator.” He has owned the ABB for 22 years; and while he has poorly maintained the exterior in my opinion, he has put a lot of money into the building over the years.
Anonymous 9:54.
While I generally agree with your point, it’s unfair to characterize Kidd as “a speculator.” He has owned the ABB for 22 years; and while he has poorly maintained the exterior in my opinion, he has put a lot of money into the building over the years.
Anonymous 9:54.
While I generally agree with your point, it’s unfair to characterize Kidd as “a speculator.” He has owned the ABB for 22 years; and while he has poorly maintained the exterior in my opinion, he has put a lot of money into the building over the years.
i think it’d make a great bar, especially if they could set up some old timey saloon sort of wooden bar inside. classy, with a venue for live music.
thew windows thing is rediculous. the reason why stuff doesn’t sell there is related to the same reason exactly why the grocery stores in westlake plaza have gone under: because they’ve done a terrible job doing business in those locations. set up a business that sells something people actually want, and people will show up, small windows and all.
davis needs more good bars and pubs, though. this town is woefully underserved in that respect.
i think it’d make a great bar, especially if they could set up some old timey saloon sort of wooden bar inside. classy, with a venue for live music.
thew windows thing is rediculous. the reason why stuff doesn’t sell there is related to the same reason exactly why the grocery stores in westlake plaza have gone under: because they’ve done a terrible job doing business in those locations. set up a business that sells something people actually want, and people will show up, small windows and all.
davis needs more good bars and pubs, though. this town is woefully underserved in that respect.
i think it’d make a great bar, especially if they could set up some old timey saloon sort of wooden bar inside. classy, with a venue for live music.
thew windows thing is rediculous. the reason why stuff doesn’t sell there is related to the same reason exactly why the grocery stores in westlake plaza have gone under: because they’ve done a terrible job doing business in those locations. set up a business that sells something people actually want, and people will show up, small windows and all.
davis needs more good bars and pubs, though. this town is woefully underserved in that respect.
i think it’d make a great bar, especially if they could set up some old timey saloon sort of wooden bar inside. classy, with a venue for live music.
thew windows thing is rediculous. the reason why stuff doesn’t sell there is related to the same reason exactly why the grocery stores in westlake plaza have gone under: because they’ve done a terrible job doing business in those locations. set up a business that sells something people actually want, and people will show up, small windows and all.
davis needs more good bars and pubs, though. this town is woefully underserved in that respect.
A few points:
1. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, an adverse change to a historic resource which may be a significant by the criteria of the Secretary’s Standard’s (the mandated state & local criteria) is de facto a significant impact on the environment, and requires an EIR on such a project. That’s how we got to this point.
The conclusion that triggered the EIR was made by consultants who qualify as experts by the federal-state-local criteria for such experts under another set of the Secretary’s Standards.
2. The Anderson Bank Bldg was not designed by Louis Sullivan. It is Prairie Style and Sullivanesque, an excellent example of the type, and incorporates outstanding local brick craftsmanship. Qualified experts have judged it to be good enough to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (which would also put it on the State Register). Eligibility is sufficient to make it a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA, as does actual local listing (it’s a locally designated Landmark).
The main reason it isn’t actually on the National Register is that the National Register requires owner consent. (I leave it to you to picture that happening, since the owner has tried to get the local listing revoked). Like most sensible and effective local ordinances, Davis’ historic resources ordinance doesn’t require owner consent (although Davis has been known to back off due to owner objection for some residences and less important structures. However, so far the City has designated Landmarks of the importance of the Anderson Bldg. anyway, in the public interest.
Davis has a paucity of National Register listed properties compared to burgs half our size, and the only one(s?) not publicly owned (hence owner consent) is the Tuft’s house, whose gutsy owner made the application (no easy task for a novice) and got it on the National Regisiter and is justifiably proud of it. Ironically, if the Anderson Bldg were on the National Register as a commercial building it would qualify for tax breaks, grants and other restoration help.
4. The Anderson Bldg meets a whole list of criteria for listing, including association with a major historic figure, as a major commercial enterprise in the town, as well as its local significance for architecture,craftsmanship, etc.
4. In addition to the consultants who are qualified experts, for the purposes of CEQA proceedings (e.g. EIRs), the Historic Resources Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Council) when acting as bodies (as the HRMC did at the hearing) are “experts” of equal standing. So the HRMCs decisions on Options A and B, are expert opinions, of equal weight with the consultant’s opinion (which the HRMC disagreed with.) Individual commissioners are not experts just because they’re on a commission, although they may be (HRMC includes qualified professionals in the field, including the current chair). Other members are supposed to be at least knowledgeable laypersons, are all are required to undergo additional training at least once each year.
A few points:
1. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, an adverse change to a historic resource which may be a significant by the criteria of the Secretary’s Standard’s (the mandated state & local criteria) is de facto a significant impact on the environment, and requires an EIR on such a project. That’s how we got to this point.
The conclusion that triggered the EIR was made by consultants who qualify as experts by the federal-state-local criteria for such experts under another set of the Secretary’s Standards.
2. The Anderson Bank Bldg was not designed by Louis Sullivan. It is Prairie Style and Sullivanesque, an excellent example of the type, and incorporates outstanding local brick craftsmanship. Qualified experts have judged it to be good enough to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (which would also put it on the State Register). Eligibility is sufficient to make it a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA, as does actual local listing (it’s a locally designated Landmark).
The main reason it isn’t actually on the National Register is that the National Register requires owner consent. (I leave it to you to picture that happening, since the owner has tried to get the local listing revoked). Like most sensible and effective local ordinances, Davis’ historic resources ordinance doesn’t require owner consent (although Davis has been known to back off due to owner objection for some residences and less important structures. However, so far the City has designated Landmarks of the importance of the Anderson Bldg. anyway, in the public interest.
Davis has a paucity of National Register listed properties compared to burgs half our size, and the only one(s?) not publicly owned (hence owner consent) is the Tuft’s house, whose gutsy owner made the application (no easy task for a novice) and got it on the National Regisiter and is justifiably proud of it. Ironically, if the Anderson Bldg were on the National Register as a commercial building it would qualify for tax breaks, grants and other restoration help.
4. The Anderson Bldg meets a whole list of criteria for listing, including association with a major historic figure, as a major commercial enterprise in the town, as well as its local significance for architecture,craftsmanship, etc.
4. In addition to the consultants who are qualified experts, for the purposes of CEQA proceedings (e.g. EIRs), the Historic Resources Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Council) when acting as bodies (as the HRMC did at the hearing) are “experts” of equal standing. So the HRMCs decisions on Options A and B, are expert opinions, of equal weight with the consultant’s opinion (which the HRMC disagreed with.) Individual commissioners are not experts just because they’re on a commission, although they may be (HRMC includes qualified professionals in the field, including the current chair). Other members are supposed to be at least knowledgeable laypersons, are all are required to undergo additional training at least once each year.
A few points:
1. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, an adverse change to a historic resource which may be a significant by the criteria of the Secretary’s Standard’s (the mandated state & local criteria) is de facto a significant impact on the environment, and requires an EIR on such a project. That’s how we got to this point.
The conclusion that triggered the EIR was made by consultants who qualify as experts by the federal-state-local criteria for such experts under another set of the Secretary’s Standards.
2. The Anderson Bank Bldg was not designed by Louis Sullivan. It is Prairie Style and Sullivanesque, an excellent example of the type, and incorporates outstanding local brick craftsmanship. Qualified experts have judged it to be good enough to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (which would also put it on the State Register). Eligibility is sufficient to make it a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA, as does actual local listing (it’s a locally designated Landmark).
The main reason it isn’t actually on the National Register is that the National Register requires owner consent. (I leave it to you to picture that happening, since the owner has tried to get the local listing revoked). Like most sensible and effective local ordinances, Davis’ historic resources ordinance doesn’t require owner consent (although Davis has been known to back off due to owner objection for some residences and less important structures. However, so far the City has designated Landmarks of the importance of the Anderson Bldg. anyway, in the public interest.
Davis has a paucity of National Register listed properties compared to burgs half our size, and the only one(s?) not publicly owned (hence owner consent) is the Tuft’s house, whose gutsy owner made the application (no easy task for a novice) and got it on the National Regisiter and is justifiably proud of it. Ironically, if the Anderson Bldg were on the National Register as a commercial building it would qualify for tax breaks, grants and other restoration help.
4. The Anderson Bldg meets a whole list of criteria for listing, including association with a major historic figure, as a major commercial enterprise in the town, as well as its local significance for architecture,craftsmanship, etc.
4. In addition to the consultants who are qualified experts, for the purposes of CEQA proceedings (e.g. EIRs), the Historic Resources Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Council) when acting as bodies (as the HRMC did at the hearing) are “experts” of equal standing. So the HRMCs decisions on Options A and B, are expert opinions, of equal weight with the consultant’s opinion (which the HRMC disagreed with.) Individual commissioners are not experts just because they’re on a commission, although they may be (HRMC includes qualified professionals in the field, including the current chair). Other members are supposed to be at least knowledgeable laypersons, are all are required to undergo additional training at least once each year.
A few points:
1. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, an adverse change to a historic resource which may be a significant by the criteria of the Secretary’s Standard’s (the mandated state & local criteria) is de facto a significant impact on the environment, and requires an EIR on such a project. That’s how we got to this point.
The conclusion that triggered the EIR was made by consultants who qualify as experts by the federal-state-local criteria for such experts under another set of the Secretary’s Standards.
2. The Anderson Bank Bldg was not designed by Louis Sullivan. It is Prairie Style and Sullivanesque, an excellent example of the type, and incorporates outstanding local brick craftsmanship. Qualified experts have judged it to be good enough to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (which would also put it on the State Register). Eligibility is sufficient to make it a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA, as does actual local listing (it’s a locally designated Landmark).
The main reason it isn’t actually on the National Register is that the National Register requires owner consent. (I leave it to you to picture that happening, since the owner has tried to get the local listing revoked). Like most sensible and effective local ordinances, Davis’ historic resources ordinance doesn’t require owner consent (although Davis has been known to back off due to owner objection for some residences and less important structures. However, so far the City has designated Landmarks of the importance of the Anderson Bldg. anyway, in the public interest.
Davis has a paucity of National Register listed properties compared to burgs half our size, and the only one(s?) not publicly owned (hence owner consent) is the Tuft’s house, whose gutsy owner made the application (no easy task for a novice) and got it on the National Regisiter and is justifiably proud of it. Ironically, if the Anderson Bldg were on the National Register as a commercial building it would qualify for tax breaks, grants and other restoration help.
4. The Anderson Bldg meets a whole list of criteria for listing, including association with a major historic figure, as a major commercial enterprise in the town, as well as its local significance for architecture,craftsmanship, etc.
4. In addition to the consultants who are qualified experts, for the purposes of CEQA proceedings (e.g. EIRs), the Historic Resources Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Council) when acting as bodies (as the HRMC did at the hearing) are “experts” of equal standing. So the HRMCs decisions on Options A and B, are expert opinions, of equal weight with the consultant’s opinion (which the HRMC disagreed with.) Individual commissioners are not experts just because they’re on a commission, although they may be (HRMC includes qualified professionals in the field, including the current chair). Other members are supposed to be at least knowledgeable laypersons, are all are required to undergo additional training at least once each year.
For a joint statement from local heritage groups see:
http://www.davishistoricalsociety.org/4-davis-historic-preservation-resources/AndBkBldgState.pdf/view
For a joint statement from local heritage groups see:
http://www.davishistoricalsociety.org/4-davis-historic-preservation-resources/AndBkBldgState.pdf/view
For a joint statement from local heritage groups see:
http://www.davishistoricalsociety.org/4-davis-historic-preservation-resources/AndBkBldgState.pdf/view
For a joint statement from local heritage groups see:
http://www.davishistoricalsociety.org/4-davis-historic-preservation-resources/AndBkBldgState.pdf/view
For a joint statement by local heritage groups opposing this project as not in the public interest see:
http://www.davishistoricalsociety.org/4-davis-historic-preservation-resources/AndBkBldgState.pdf/view
For a joint statement by local heritage groups opposing this project as not in the public interest see:
http://www.davishistoricalsociety.org/4-davis-historic-preservation-resources/AndBkBldgState.pdf/view
For a joint statement by local heritage groups opposing this project as not in the public interest see:
http://www.davishistoricalsociety.org/4-davis-historic-preservation-resources/AndBkBldgState.pdf/view
For a joint statement by local heritage groups opposing this project as not in the public interest see:
http://www.davishistoricalsociety.org/4-davis-historic-preservation-resources/AndBkBldgState.pdf/view