So my town won't allow a burnt out building to be rebuilt - because history

[Sho'Nuff]

A little over a year ago a building in my town burned to the ground. It was a bit of a local tragedy, as the owners were long term residents who had invested just about everything they had into the restaurant in the building.

Fast forward to today, and the owners are trying to rebuild the building with the proceeds received from their insurance on the building. Only get this - since the building was in the historic district - the town planning commission won't allow the remains of the old building to be torn down to make way for the new building. Rather, the town is requiring the owner to incorporate the burnt out bricks (of which there are only a few standing) into the new structure? Why? Because history.

As a result, there is a good chance the owner will not rebuild the building, leaving the soot stained hulk of the old building down town.

Anyone else live in a small town that has a historic district protected by a neo-fascist planning commission?

 

[BD231]

I'm goina bed, fuk this world and fuk that building ! Gn

 

[Chaotic42]

Yeah, I've got a friend in Paoli, IN where a truck tried to drive over an old bridge and destroyed it. They wanted to rebuild it to modern spec, but they were forced to rebuild it as it was, quasi-useless.

 

[boomerang]

They will walk away because of a few bricks? There's more to this story. And there is no walking away. You pay to rebuild the place or you pay to clean up the debris.

 

[K1052]

Preservation is a balancing act to be sure. It's not exactly unheard of for people to either use intentional neglect or actual arson in a bid to change the use of historic properties they own.

 

[lxskllr]

To look at it another way... What would stop "crackheads" from burning down historic buildings, then a developer coming in to put something else up?

 

[momeNt]

Sue them on the basis of property values being actually hurt by the building not being rebuilt. Historic commissions secondary mission is to preserve property values as well as just the property itself. They are failing in that.

 

[Iron Woode]

we have the same BS here. Our City can't figure out the difference between an historically significant building and an old crappy building with no redeeming value. This intransigence by the city is causing major development to be delayed or cancelled costing money and jobs. Not to mention several court cases and appeals to the OMB (Ontario Municipal Board).

 

[nakedfrog]

They can't just have the bricks as a floor inlay, or some other symbolic gesture that wouldn't have a large impact on a new building?

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Being part of a "historic" district is worse than a HOA. I run from any HOA and run screaming from any building designated "historic".

 

[RLGL]

Looks like the hysterical society is alive and well.

 

[cbrunny]

To look at it another way... What would stop "crackheads" from burning down historic buildings, then a developer coming in to put something else up?

not sure what crack has to do with this but this is actually a compelling reason why the rules exist. "Accidental" building destruction. Gotta give a reason to not do it at all, even if it is an "Accident"

 

[PJFrylar]

The small town I grew up in has a historical society that can be overbearing as well. Realistically, it only has 2 buildings of any real significant historical value, but they tend to block any sort of renovation around Main Street. The result is some buildings end up sitting empty for awhile - sometimes years. Any business that would like to move in is blocked from making changes that would make using the building feasible. The funny thing is it looks like any other "downtown" area in a small Wisconsin city. There isn't really anything special about it.

 

[herm0016]

Our town thinks a wreck of a hotel from 50 years ago that is falling down is a historic building, including the aprox. dozen 1960s mobile homes on the property, and 2 rusty grain bins that I can buy at tractor supply. They have spend countless hours and 10s of thousands of dollars on the 2 rusty grain bins. they have prevented the owner of the land the trailers and hotel are on from touching any of it, He has wanted to build a nice retail/condo/townhouse thing for years and has just let the rest of it fall and become blighted due to the city blocking all his efforts to build something useful.

 

[mikeymikec]

The same stupid shit goes on in the UK: Buildings that should have been torn down are instead marked as "listed buildings". I used to live in one for a while as a tenant; the only remarkable thing about the house in question was that one could count four completely different types of brick/stone that were used to extend/repair it (and I'm not talking about a subtle difference in the colour of brick, I'm talking about most of the house was built using a completely different type of stone common to about two centuries ago, and another part uses Victorian-style bricks). In short, it looks bloody awful. I doubt that anyone anywhere would argue in favour of its aesthetic. Yet it is listed.

The roof of another building further down the street has completely fallen apart and the building is basically an unused shell. No-one can demolish it and make some decent use of the land because it is listed and the work required is obviously beyond the means of the owner.

On the other hand, I used to work in a very upmarket and extremely expensive part of London. The building was listed, but money talks there: Tonnes of changes have been made to the building, rooms have been gutted and completely re-partitioned regardless of the extremely old (and would have looked good if kept in good condition) coving and ceiling work, aircon units installed with all the work required to put pipes through the walls etc, but the clincher is that if these changes aren't obviously visible from the street, it doesn't matter (unofficially). When the dinguses want to get official about what changes can be made to a property, they start insisting that instead of modern methods to lay bricks and repair walls, traditional methods of that era must be used.

Therefore any properties that were "listed" were immediately off my potential to-buy list.

 

[Nashemon]

The Buffalo Zoo is apparently pretty old. It's also cold as shit in Buffalo, so most of the animals have a "house" they live in for like 4-5 months out of the year. These houses were built in the 1800's and are considered historical, so even though they're inhumanely small in today's animal rights era, they can't be rebuilt to modern building standards because history. So the three elephants they have just have to live in a room the size of a circus train car.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Just a quick update - the building STILL hasn't been rebuilt! Its going on 5 years now, and this place is in the heart of one of the best towns in New Hampshire.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Got to hate the BS laws municipalities come up with sometimes. The thing is the laws have a purpose, but instead of using common sense they apply them no matter what. You would think there would be an exception for when a building burns down or is otherwise destroyed then it is considered no longer historic and then the owners should be able to rebuild it.

Kind of reminds me of the on street parking laws here. You can't park on the street and the reason for it is because it impedes snowplows. Makes sense... except when the snow is melted they'll still ticket you.