Has anyone heard of this before?

 

I was in Raleigh this past weekend, and I was shocked when I came across an area between Oakwood and Downtown where historic houses had been moved from elsewhere (generally within 1 mile) and lined up side by side creating an older looking neighborhood.  Particularily, there was one development that had brand new, all brick townhomes (built in an older style) bracketed with century old victorian homes on the corners.

 

How common is this?

 

 

 

I immediately thought of filling in some gaps on Prospect Ave. in Cleveland

Here's some chatter from Raleigh on it:

 

http://goodnightraleigh.com/2008/08/moving-a-mega-monument/

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/09/moving-entire-homes-nationwide/1

 

 

Recent Demolitions in Cleveland that immediately come to mind are:

 

1) Corlett building

2) Cleveland Clinic Hathaway Brown School

3) Midtown, Midtown, Midtown...

 

 

Avon has done this.  The buildings are along the French Creek, just north of Detroit Rd.

 

  Sharon Village in Cincinnati is an example of entire village composed of buildings moved from other places. Sharon Village is a museum piece; no one lives there.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this, since it's not just the buildings that create a historic area, it's also the history that is associated with that particular location -- say, if it was an immigrant neighborhood, or if it was in close proximity to another neighborhood. Sense of place means a lot. It's kind of like taking words and phrases out of context.

 

Though, if it's really the only way an old building can be saved, then sure I'm all for it :)

When you move a building you lose the possibility of getting it on the National Register of Historic Places.

I don't think it's bad if it's moving a historic housing into a historic neighborhood where it will fit.  It's better than the empty lot filling up with something that clashes.  And, the downtown area (where many of these exist) gets to fill it with higher density development.

 

I was thinking about this the other day actually.  Every city wants their downtown to grow, and when it happens, typically some of the best of the city's older housing stock is lost.  As the city's core becomes larger more of these buildings become displaced until you lose an entire era of architecture.  There's a gap.  I think moving these homes elsewhere preserves part of the city's architectural timeline. 

 

There's alot of fine brownstones here in downtown Chicago, but their number significantly dwindled when Near North boomed, now with highrises standing in their place.  Keep in mind, it's always the BEST historic architecture that gets replaced.  As for the hundreds of thousands of wood framed homes scattered throughout Chicago, they won't be replaced by skyscrapers and will stick around for probably another 100 years.

Although a very small example and not big homes.. Burton, farther east side (Cleveland) has done this with a small century village.

 

  Sharon Village in Cincinnati is an example of entire village composed of buildings moved from other places. Sharon Village is a museum piece; no one lives there.

 

Likewise numerous buildings at Hale Farm and Village, in the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area near Peninsula. The Hale farmhouse and related structures are original to the site, but several houses, barns, shops, and other structures that were endangered in their former locations have been moved to part of the property to recreate a mid-nineteenth century village.

Does anyone know what the rough cost for moving homes is?

Does anyone know what the rough cost for moving homes is?

It can vary a lot. Three endangered homes were moved to land formerly occupied by a parking lot that was unused after the art school moved to the Indiana-Purdue Regional Campus. One is a large brick home that was moved clear across town, right through the CBD, and it was a slow, cautious operation that took two days in transit and another day just to get it positioned and lowered onto the foundation. The contractor said it weighed 203 tons. I doubt if they ever got above one mile per hour, interrupted by waits while utility crews raised power and phone lines and swung stoplight booms out of the way.

 

The other two are substantial wood-framed houses that came from within a few blocks, and once they got them off the foundations, they went down the street so fast it was hard to keep up with them on foot. I used to know how much the moves cost (the neighborhood association helped fund them, with some business co-sponsors), but I've forgotten.

 

There's not just the cost of the move; in most cases I've seen, a basement was dug, and in any case you have to pour a new concrete foundation and provide for water, sewer, gas, and electric connections. Those alone can run into thousands of dollars. Still, if you're working with a well-built old house with good craftsmanship and lots of intact architectural detail inside and out, the total bill probably will be significantly less than trying to build a new home of comparable quality and value.

 

The former parking lot now shared by the three homes once was the site of the Fleming Mansion, a very large Italianate home, three storeys if I remember correctly, built by a newspaper publisher. It and its accompanying brick carriage barn occupied a half-block of street frontage and went all the way back to the alley. It was razed in the sixties, by which time it had been hacked into several marginal-quality apartments, was absentee slumlord-owned, and was run down.

I don't think it's bad if it's moving a historic housing into a historic neighborhood where it will fit. It's better than the empty lot filling up with something that clashes.

 

Totally agree.  I live in a historic district surrounded by non-designated historic housing.  Demos are often done just outside of the historic district, and I always wish that they'd just move those houses to the few empty lots within the historic district.  A simplistic view, to be sure, but I hate to see beautiful old buildings razed because they are "in the way" when there is plenty of room for them nearby.

they've done this sort of thing a few times in Painesville going back over fifty years or so, most recently in 2007, when a home called the Gage House, dating from 1858, was moved a few blocks south (I remember this building as the Nixon Funeral Home in the 60's). You might ask why it was moved: well, of course, Rite Aid (!) "needed" the original location for its new store. Is there a better reason for such a cumbersome and costly endeavor? Although, in fairness, I believe Rite-Aid did foot the entire bill for this operation. Unfortunately the new spot is not exactly the most flattering to the structure.

 

 

 

 

BUMP.

 

I've been thinking a lot about this topic lately as more and more houses and buildings in East Cleveland continue to be demolished.  Not to mention, there are numerous gorgeous brick apartment buildings boarded up and inching closer to making the demolition list.

 

I wish there was a way to save them from demolition and wheel them into University Circle, "Upper Chester," or even around Newton Ave by the Clinic. 

 

I can only imagine the cost of moving and renovation, but we cannot build this type of brick and mortar craftmanship nowadays.  This just seems like a two birds with one stone type of situation... Beef up UC and clear the blight in EC for new construction or urban farming.

A street like Hower Ave north of the railroad track is one example.

we cannot build this type of brick and mortar craftmanship nowadays.

 

Love the idea, agree 100% with everything you said... except this one bit here.  I refuse to believe that mankind has devolved so thoroughly in so short a time.  But until we can start rebuilding this city's apartment stock, maybe we should investigate the feasibility of saving what we have left by moving it to more marketable areas.

we cannot build this type of brick and mortar craftmanship nowadays. 

 

Love the idea, agree 100% with everything you said... except this one bit here.  I refuse to believe that mankind has devolved so thoroughly in so short a time.  But until we can start rebuilding this city's apartment stock, maybe we should investigate the feasibility of saving what we have left by moving it to more marketable areas.

 

Sorry for staying off-topic, but I think we have lost some of that craftsmanship.  It's not impossible to find someone who can properly fix a slate roof, or plaster a room, but it is not easy, either.  Older building techniques are sometimes prohibitively expensive to do anymore, on a regular basis.  So, the craftsmen who knew those trades are getting harder to find.

 

Getting back on topic, somewhat, the Thompson-Sacherman house on Youngstown State's campus has been in the news lately, because the university wants to demolish it.  But, the Sacherman's paid $50k to move it a number of years ago, and gave it to YSU.  http://www.vindy.com/news/2011/jan/04/ysu-allowed-a-gift-to-deteriorate/?newswatch