the great art gestapo

Recently, the local historic district commission has started to place feelers in the community to see how the public would feel if they were to expand their reach to cover art in the community. Predictably, the art community is up-in-arms at the idea of having to channel public art through a governmental commission before it can be displayed. And rightfully so. Doesn't art fall under the realm of "freedom of speech" (which some might argue we have already lost so much of, anyways)?

While I doubt that this little idea will go anywhere, there's always the possibility that they are grooming the community to eventually accept the idea. After all, isn't a historic district doing virtually the same thing? Sure, they protect property values by enforcing a grand scheme across an entire neighborhood, but aren't they essentially stifling the creativity of architecture? It's definitely one of those "slippery slope" arguments, but one that needs to be addressed wherever it rears its ugly head, regardless of the possibility of it being passed into ordinance.

power properties

I was recently reading about a company in Dallas that has purchased over 600 dilapidated properties and renovated them for resale. That's a pretty impressive feat and a respectable move for a real estate organization. While some might scream "gentrification", it is much better than builders that come in and bulldoze historic properties to create strip-malls and faux-historic condos in "New Urbanist" style.

The company is called Power Properties, and you should check them out if you happen to live in the Dallas area, would like to live closer to downtown, but can't fathom the idea of restoring a historic home on your own. Personally, I've been having enough trouble restoring our home from the early 1990s, so I cannot even imagine the tasks involved in restoring something that is forty, sixty, or even a hundred years old! Kudos to Power Properties for preserving these homes and reviving the community.

re-evaluating my stance?

It's a rare occasion when I read a book and it causes me to rethink my stance on certain topics. Lost Rights has me doing just that. Not too long ago, I was vehemently opposed to a new condo hotel project that was being proposed in our town. I was upset that the area to be developed, a private "park" area around a historic hotel would be disrupted. I was pretty vocal about it, too.

I was not alone in my efforts to make my opinion heard, either. In fact, so many members of the public spoke out against the project that the developer was forced to make a number of decisions that considerably lessened the environmental and visual impacts of the project. As a result, they got their approvals and there are now modern-looking condos for sale in the historic district.

I'm still upset about it, but these days I am more upset at our town and their planning commission for not working to protect this piece of property beforehand. It was drawn in on the city's master vision plan as a "greenspace", but the city never made any attempts to purchase it. So the current owner of the land is not at fault for wanting to develop their own piece of land.

It's just once example fog how my attitude is changing with this book. I think it is a good thing, as the government and "the people" really shouldn't have more say than the landowner in how they can develop their own land. Short of public nuisances and issues of safety, the government needs to be more hands-free. The problem is when we start to look at situations like historic districts, where I do believe that historic buildings should be saved for future generations, but I don't think it's fair to tell someone how they should maintain or develop their own property. As the oracle from The Matrix likes to say, it's "definitely a pickle."

trolley of the doomed

Here it is: the trolley of the doomed!



I knew I had seen this thing before. It was part of the "Ghost and Gravestones" tour offered in Savannah. As it turns out, the tour is run by a national tour company called Trusted Tours and Attractions. The tour includes tales of grisly crimes, ghosts and other paranormal phenomena. I've never actually been to Savannah before, but I had heard of these doom trolleys from a friend. It sounds like a lot of fun, and the ghost tour would give me the opportunity to feed my interest in the macabre, while brushing up on local history at the same time. Several historic "haunted" houses are included on the tour, as well as graveyards and the infamous Sorrel Weed House that was featured on Ghosthunters.

If you sign up for the Trusted Tours and Attractions newsletter, you'll be entered into a drawing for four free tickets and may be able to take the tour for free.

Savannah is sometimes referred to as America's "most haunted" city. I've also heard this designation applied to many other cities before though, like New Orleans and even Eureka Springs. Savannah has also been referred to as the "Hostess City of the South" for its notorious Southern charm and hospitality. It is chock full of architectural history, and has one of the largest National Historic Landmark Districts in the country.

Sounds like a fun time to me.

the downside to being "historic"

Aside from the outrageous costs of refurbishing and maintaining a historic home, I have noticed some serious wallet pains from home owners in my quaint little town...mostly having to do with historical requirements. Where poured concrete might suffice in your typical suburban neighborhood in the outlying areas of a large metropolis, we are required to use hand-cut limestone. Pricey, indeed! Colors have to be approved, as well as building materials, and if you have an enemy on the historic commission, you're possibly in for a world of trouble when submitting your approval request.

One of the latest squabbles in town involves a new resolution concerning "demolition by neglect", and is basically fines a homeowner and restricts them from rebuilding on said property should they allow a home to disintegrate. I can understand this approach, as it is all too easy for some to buy a dilapidated old home and allow it to fall apart, knowing full well that the underlying lot is worth so much more if newer structure could be built in its place. However, I can see the other side of the argument. Imagine the costs of repairing a moisture-laden rotting foundation, or one in which termites have made it their home for the last eighty years. This is why the idea of purchasing a home in the historic district is even more financially prohibitive than the already inflated sales price.

Does it make me wish for a more urban and contemporary environment? No, sorry. I don't miss the traffic and the noise or the glass and steel buildings. Although it can be a headache, I'll stick to my charming and dilapidated hometown for now.