In addition to the L Street & San Joaquin Avenue proposal, also on Monday’s agenda of the City of Fresno Historic Preservation Commission was the proposed demolition of three properties on Broadway Avenue near Tuolumne. The three building were not on any historic registry. However, in a historic survey of the area they were found to be contributors to a potential historic district called Broadway Auto Row. The district included a strip of buildings that where once used as Car showrooms parts suppliers and repair shops.
The proposed demolition was brought to the Commission by owners Will Dyke and Reza Assemi. Reza developed a building across the street called Broadway Studios which features a restored facade containing 3 commercial spaces in front and 20+ artist work studios in the back.
The discussion by the Commission did get heated and even jumped to the controversial demolition by Will Dyke of the Nationally Registered Ice House Building. (1, 2, 3, 4) At one point architect and commissioner said “Downtown keeps getting it teeth knocked out.” Also as coauthor of Fresno’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, he disagreed with staff abou the intent of the Ordinance.
The only action the committee could talk was to recomend the the buildings are individually eligable for the Local Registry. That is a higher threshold than a building that is a contributor to a historic district. It was a 4 to 2 vote to not rocomend the buildings for the Local Registry. That vote cleared the path for Will and Reza to pull a demolition pemit for the three buildings.
I had written about the demolition of the two buildings next door to these properties. The building on the end was commonly known as the Nightmare Building. On Fresno Famous the post was title Eulogy of the Nightmare.
If someone thinks that a building needs to be preserved, they/he/she should collect the money and purchase it. And then save it all its broken down brilliance. Instead, however, what often happens is the government intervenes with historic preservation (i thought that pictures were very good at that) and allows owners to leave a dust heap to slowly rot for decades.
I am eager to see what can come of this new project.
The two possible uses of that site that Will Dyke mentioned. The first is a federal contract they are trying to will for a new federal building. Theirs is one of 5 competing sites. If selected that project would be built within a year. If that is to move forward it would be set back from the street and have other security measures set by federal anti terrorism standards. Hardly a good fit for the Cultural Arts District.
The other option which Will admitted would be a few years out is housing. There was an excellent design by architect Paul Halajian that Reza commissioned in 2006. The design preserved the facades as commercial store fronts and had a multi-story housing complex in a U shape in the back. A large courtyard was in the middle.
I would have liked to see that built. But rather we’ll have another vacant lot in downtown for several years.
Valley Arts & Science Academy, the elementary charter school currently in facilities at the Ted C. Wills Community Center, is needing a permanent home in the Cultural Arts District.
Originally VASA was assured a space close to the Metropolitan Museum, but that option was withdrawn.
Creating housing to reinvigorate the downtown area with residents is short-sighted, if there is no attractive school for children to attend within walking distance.
Something to think about.
this is an interesting topic. from the post kiel, i don’t get a clear sense of where you stand. perhaps because you’re writing from a curator/archop perspective, or as a member of the committee that it seems pretty unbiased reporting. however, that’s not the point of me commenting.
it seems that it is the purpose of the committee to work with developers to make sure we preserve in fresno what is worth preserving. every building has a story, but does that make it worth saving/restoring? these developers are not convinced that these properties can be restored/maintained, and so if we as a city are going to deny the changes we had better be able to give a much more detailed explanation of the value of the buildings. i wasn’t at the presentation & discussion, but i can’t say i see it here either.
i remember the eulogy of the nightmare piece and thought it was brilliant. and there were design plans at the time to do something with the properties. however, i’m not sure what’s gone on with the process and the specific properties in the meantime. but, since it’s some of the same characters involved i doubt that they hastily decided to tear it down.
I’m shocked that Arnie implies that photographs are sufficient for preserving history. I can only hope that he is joking. Not only are historic buildings excellent time capsules of immensely more value than photographs, but they are also super cool. Renovation turns these old buildings into unique and modern structures (in terms of amenities) that retain their own flavor and, let’s be honest, tend to be more visually appealing and in line with their surroundings than structures by overzealous architects looking to leave their mark without regard for anything else.
Which leads me to my next point, for Brad. I appreciate the school’s need for a permanent and appropriate home, but I disagree that housing is short-sighted. The truth is, the only group of people (generally speaking) who will be willing to take the “risk” of voluntarily moving downtown in large numbers, now or in the near future, are young (usually creative) professionals. I.e., without kids. (cf. the full-capacity lofts that Kiel mentioned). These are the people who will be foot soldiers in the efforts for revitalization. Middle class families with children are just not inclined to move downtown right now, whether there’s a school or not. It’s still not considered “safe”. For whatever reason—perceived coolness, accessibility, or (dare I say it) historical significance—professional 20-somethings are the ones willing to make that move. Only once these risk takers turn around the image of downtown will it become appealing to other demographics. And, speaking as a young, creative professional, I can say that I am approximately 70% more likely to be drawn to a residence in a renovated old building than a new aluminum and concrete monolith.
isn’t there at least 1 school (lowell) within walking distance already? i mean, what is officially walking distance? i know i walked about a mile and a half to my elementary school.
@Conlan. Not joking. I should not have to spend money to take care of my neighbor’s house or in this case my neighbor’s old car dealership. Least of all if it is currently a useless structure to society. If you would like to purchase the structures in question and save them as is, you can do that.
I love Pop Laval’s work.
On your point of living downtown, I would love to do that once my kids leave in a couple years. I would love to move in to one of the higher floors of one of the towers being considered for housing renovation. Kids don’t want to go, and money is a block, for the moment. New building or old, price is what would allow me to do it or not.
It is no coincidence that communities that preserve and value their heritage are the same ones that have high ratings in quality of life and also things like tourism. And likewise, the communities that don’t value their heritage are usually the ones at the bottom of the rankings for those same things.
Load bearing brick warehouses such as the ones being torn down are the ones that in other communities are saved and converted into vibrant mixed use developments through something that is known as adaptive reuse. Look at the Pearl District in Portland for just one example. Also, there are strong environmental arguments for preservation. The embodied energy used to build just one of those buildings is probably more than that saved by any of the more visible but less efficient “green” strategies citywide. Not to mention the wasted energy of tearing them down and hauling the debris away and letting it sit in a landfill.
Re: Ed’s comment about the role of the commission:
The HPC has many roles, in this case one of them is to review proposed projects for their potential impacts on the environment for historical and cultural resources, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and also the local historic preservation ordinance. A property can be considered a historic resource if it meets some (but not all) of the following:
“has been in existence more than fifty years and it possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:
(i) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
(ii) It is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(iii) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or
(iv) It has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.”
The HPC is charged with making those determinations, at least when it comes to the Local Register of Historic Places. The city council has the final say on listing a property on the local register, though even properties that are not listed can be protected under CEQA’s historic resource provisions if they are deemed ELIGIBLE for listing, under the Secretary of the Interior’s standards. Having a resource listed on the register DOES NOT in and of itself prevent a resource from being demolished, altered or modified. Instead it provides a process of environmental review for the potential negative impacts to that resource. Those impacts can either be avoided entirely or they can be mitigated through a variety of direct and/or indirect means.
In regards to the Broadway properties: When Cliff Tutellian proposed his “Broadway Row” project earlier this decade, under CEQA, one of the things he was required to do was hire a professional historic consultant to conduct a survey of the potential historic resources of the area. The consultant said that while each building when taken individually did not rise to the level of eligibility for the register, that together, (they were all built at the same time, though they have separate addresses) they could rise to level of eligibility as a potential historic district, in this case due to their association with Fresno’s early automotive development. Broadway Ave during the 1920’s also served as Highway 99. Commissioner Chris Johnson argued that this expert opinion should allow the HPC to at least have the jurisdiction to review the project, and explore the possibility of this district. Staff argued the opposite, saying that even if it is a potential district resource, the ordinance does not require that the HPC sign off on a demolition permit, because they properties are not eligible on their own.
City of Fresno Historic Preservation Commission meeting, Monday, June 22, 2009, 5:30 pm – 8:25 pm, City Hall, 2600 Fresno St, Council Chambers on 2nd floor
Commission Members:
Don Simmons, PhD, Chair
Molly LM Smith, Vice Chair*
Kevin Enns-Rempel, MA*
Sally Caglia*
Teresa Espana, M.A.*
Christopher Johnson, AIA*
Patrick Boyd*
Jack Van Patten, Recording Secretary*
Keith Bergthold, Interim Director, Dept of Planning & Development
Darrell Unruh, Secretary*
Karana Hattersley-Drayton, MA Historic Preservation Project Manager*
*Present
Attendance: 27
Disclaimer: Notes (Not minutes), simple sound bites & impressions that may or may not be entirely accurate … thanks, Randy Nelson, member of Fresno Housing Alliance, Faith In Community
I. Election of Commission Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson (to serve July 2009 to June 2010)
A. Chair – Don, elected
B. Vice-Chair – Chris, elected
II. Presentation by Darius Assemi (Granville Homes) for a proposed in-fill mixed use project located at L and San Joaquin Streets (Cultural Arts District). Requested input from Commission and public
A. Mission Statement of Granville homes partly states to build the best homes and provide the best customer service
B. Granville Homes was founded in 1977 and has raised $1.3 M for charities
C. Green, sustainable features of project include
1. Cool roof
2. Low-VOC paint
3. Spider insulation
4. Tankless water heaters
D. Other projects in Cultural Arts District include:
1. Fulton Plaza
2. H St Lofts
3. Vagabond Lofts
E. Granville Homes goal is to have a vibrant downtown with residential
F. Now, 1,800 vehicles per day use the local streets (low use). The streets could serve 5,000 vehicles per day
G. This project, L Street Village is mixed use. Possibly a gym for residents in the third floor corner and coffee shop on the 1st floor corner
H. First considered Italianate design. Early Calif considered with three separate two & three story buildings. Then settled on Arts & Crafts design which was two buildings
I. 16 per acre unit density
J. To rehab the Burks home across L St would cost $800k. Cost of a new 1,800 sq ft home would be $200k
K. L St might be narrowed to increase sidewalk width
L. Possibly will reuse historic pillars from surrounding historic homes at entrances
M. Approval process in past for an infill project was 2 years. Now PIPES (Process Improvement Permitting Enhancement Strategy) should greatly help permit approval process
N. Questions and comments:
1. Listing of various property owners are needed. Thinking outside the box as Assemi has done to reuse pillars, stairways from existing historic properties is very positive. Banks will finance sustainable projects. Chris
2. I have know Assemi for 20 years. He has a great reputation for working with people. This project can start a chain reaction for other builders to revitalize downtown. Cam
3. A charette design project on this type of project might be useful. Jeff
4. Can we move historic properties? Keep historic properties and reuse parts of historic properties. Patrick
5. How do we mothball Burk home? Assemi
6. Since you, Assemi, are on the Preserve Historic Properties Board, why have homes not been preserved? Staff
7. Urban planning on new development in the past, has at times, caused the community to lose homes. Also, one cannot pass off problems to other people. For three decades, no one said those historic buildings could not be restored. A need exists for a Historic District, not individual parcels. Jeanette
8. Covenant needs to be established with historic homes next to new developments to have funds available to preserve historic buildings. Granville Homes have proved they follow thru. Now, historic homes deteriorate. Assemi
9. Need open space downtown. Assemi
10. New building should reflect historic buildings and keep some historic buildings parts. Assemi
11. Only one parking stall per unit. Young families are possible but limited to one parking stall. This project is more urban. Assemi
12. Sally, Patrick and Chris will be on subcommittee on this project and historic properties. Molly
13. Historic homes have deteriorated over the years. We need guarantees on money used to restore historic homes. Molly
III. Review and make findings on demolition permit request for 1427, 1433 and 1445 Broadway
A. Executive summary. The property owners for the three unreinforced masonry buildings have requested a demolition permit. The three properties were included in the “City of Fresno Broadway Row Historical Resource Survey†prepared by Architectural Resources Group in 2004 for the City’s Housing Division. In this report the consultants concluded that the three buildings were not individually eligible for the local, state or national registers but were “potentially eligible as a contributor to a potential automotive warehouse historic district …which has not been fully identified, researched, or evaluated.†The structural integrity of these buildings has been sorely compromised over the past several years and two of the properties, 1427 and 1433 have been cited by the City’s Code Enforcement Division under the dangerous building ordinance. The building at 1445 Broadway is on the same parcel as 1433 Broadway and shares common walls with it.
B. Buildings are over 50 years old. Roof collapse on one slide
C. Questions and comments:
1. Demolition by neglect. Need research on owners. Classic example of letting buildings deteriorate. Chris
2. City pushes demolition and not to save. Need to look at buildings beforehand for potential problems. Chris
3. These particular buildings were not evaluated by a structural engineer? Teresa
4. City has inspected these building for a baseline. Darrell
5. We’re losing more than we gain. We need a Historic District. We don’t research Historic District and have no recourse but demolish which is not the Historic Preservation Commission mission. We are to preserve and save. First, we must do research. Chris
6. It would take quite a bit of time to do research. Staff
7. You feel that is the intent of the ordinance? I beg to differ with staff. Chris
8. Four weeks to federal deadline. Owner
D. Buildings aren’t eligible for historic register. Demolish. 4 to 2
IV. Update on N Echo rehabilitation project and request to nominate 164 N Echo Ave to the Local Register of Historic Resources
A. Building is the oldest building in Fresno. Must be listed on Historic Register. Sold to City for $80k. Since it has federal money, they must be low income. Houses are unique. Habitat For Humanity is building two houses next to these. Staff
B. Nominated to Historic Register
V. Unscheduled items
A. Keeping Time II Historic Preservation Conference, Columbia, CA, June 19, 2009
1. Educational, informative, enjoyable, enjoyed company of three fellow commissioners. Teresa
a. We should be pro-active and commit outreach to public with a sub-committee to educate public about Historic Preservation. (so formed) Teresa
VI. Adjourned
Next meeting: July 27, 2009, 5:30 PM Conference Room A
Thanks, Randy Nelson
as i saw dr. huff’s post on mindhub i noticed something i hadn’t seen here previously, but it’s there, “there is no attractive school.”
what does that mean? it sounds pretty gentrified to me.
Brad, you are correct that as downtown’s population grows, schools will need to be added. It has not yet hit that threshold. So focusing on improving the existing schools like Jefferson, Lowell, and Tehipite should be a focus. There are also schools on the East and West sides of downtown, all of which need work to improve children’s learning environment.
Overall the demographics of people that will live downtown included a lower percentage of children compared to other parts of the city. So it may be awhile untill that threshold is met. But there is something to be said about providing schools for children whose parents work downtown.
The job is done. http://twitpic.com/blm8w Buildings can’t be undemolished. It’s a shame.