For all the preservation experts out there:

What does it take to allow a building in a national register historic district to be demolished?

I'm not an expert, but I am under the impression the National Register protects no buildings. Only the local designation does.

I know, sounds backwards - but that's how it is in Clevo-land.

For all the preservation experts out there:

What does it take to allow a building in a national register historic district to be demolished?

 

You always have to be a bit careful in answering this question -- as you never know if the person asking it wants to prevent a demolition or enable a demolition (nothing against you, blinker12).

 

The bottom line is this.  National Register listing does not "prevent" demolition in the traditional sense.  The one large caveat to that statement is that if there federal funds or licensing involved with the project -- which would include Federal highway funding, use of Community Development Block Grant funding, licensing by the FDIC or FCC, and much more -- then a set of review mechanisms kick in.  The primary such mechanism is referred to as "Section 106 review," as it was first laid out in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.  Section 106 review requires that a variety of interests be contacted and included in a review process, which will also look at the possibility of ways to mitigate the impact on historic resources.  In the end, however, even with Section 106 (or its cousin review process with Federal highway monies), the project might well be able to proceed in the end.

 

musky is right -- local designation can prevent demolition - but due process requires that that is subject to some sort of appeal process -- typically a local Board of Zoning Appeals or City Council -- and so it is not 100% iron-clad either.  The only sure-fire, win-every-time way to protect historic property is through the donation of a preservation easement to a qualified organization.

 

If you get wind that a building might be demolished in a National Register District in a project which includes use of federal funds -- even for the replacement structure -- please let us know; we'd be glad to get the proper people involved!

 

Thomas/presOhio

www.preservationohio.org

 

If someone wanted to dismantle a house in a historic district and rebuild it in a better location, is that something that is frowned upon?  Just curious.  I know the costs would be pretty outrageous.  I saw a home in Indian Hill in MLS in the past year and in the remarks it said it was originally built in Connecticut in the 1700's, dismantled piece by piece, then brought here and rebuilt.

I got on MLS and found out the house I was referring to in the above post is still for sale.  It's at 8575 Kugler Mill Rd.  It's been on the market now for 509 days.  It's listed at $2,500,000.  It last sold in 1993 for $907,500.  If you want to see more photos, go to www.comey.com.  The ones I found on there are larger than the ones in MLS.  Not sure if this is the correct section to post these photos, but since I'm posting in reference to the post above, I thought it sounded like the best place to post them.  Here's a quote from MLS:  "This home, originally the Waite Smith House, was built in 1778 in Watertown, Connecticut. It was moved in 1953 by noted former P&G legal counsel, Richard Barrett. The home was dismantled, board by board, and rebuilt at 8575 Kugler Mill Road. The original home had four more rooms on the first floor and four on the second."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If someone wanted to dismantle a house in a historic district and rebuild it in a better location, is that something that is frowned upon?  Just curious.  I know the costs would be pretty outrageous.  I saw a home in Indian Hill in MLS in the past year and in the remarks it said it was originally built in Connecticut in the 1700's, dismantled piece by piece, then brought here and rebuilt.

 

I have no clue.

 

My personal feeling is that NRHD/municipal historic districts are in place to preserve not only the buildings, but the neighborhood, so moving a building out of the district would be frowned upon. However, a building that is individually designated historic or on the National Register could be moved with less regret.

^^ So, does this replace Ohio's current oldest house as the new oldest?

 

... I wouldn't think that this would count?

^Moving historic buildings is a big no no.  A moved building usually cannot be on the Register, unless it was moved over 50 years ago and has gained some significance since it's move.

Here's the "official' wording on moved properties:

 

"Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories:

 

a. A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or

 

b. A building or structure removed from its original location but which is primarily significant for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or

 

c. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or

 

d. A cemetery which derives its primary importance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or

 

e. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or

 

f. A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or

 

g. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance."

^Moving historic buildings is a big no no.  A moved building usually cannot be on the Register, unless it was moved over 50 years ago and has gained some significance since it's move.

 

Indy moved several civil war homes in the 1980s to the eastern section of downtown. Though I think restoring them in their original location would have been better, had they not, these homes would have been razed, though the historic stone and brick basements were lost.

I say, if its the only way to preserve them, do it, BUT, if you can restore the houses without moving them, do that instead.