Renewal Wins Decatur Design Award with Barry Street Remodel
Decatur Metro | May 7, 2009
Kelly sends in a press release noting that Renewal Design Build’s renovation projects at 224 Barry Street recently won a Decatur design award.
May 7, 2009 – This year, Decatur’s Historic Preservation Commission presented the annual Decatur Design Awards on May 3rd at the Old Decatur Courthouse. These awards recognize projects that preserve, enhance and contribute to the historic character of the City. Recipients were given a certificate signed by Mayor Bill Floyd, as well as an honorary plaque. And, this year, one of the awards for Best Addition went to Renewal Design-Build.
The judging commissioners thought the scale of the winning project – a major two story addition – was very compatible to the adjacent properties, and that incorporating sustainable materials also added a great deal of value. According to Regina Brewer, the awards’ organizer, “They also felt you could discern that the addition was new, and that it did not create a false sense of history.”
Once a small home in disrepair, this completely remodeled home is now a Tudor style cottage with double the square footage. And, the homeowner of the winning project couldn’t be more pleased. “My home is beautiful; it’s my dream come true,” says Dr. Dallin Randolph.
The Renewal team is humbled by such an award. “It is such an honor to be recognized by the City to whom we owe so much of our success,” says Renewal CEO, Peter Michelson. “Our goal is to continually contribute to the beauty and character of Decatur.”
You can check out a few Before & After pics from the project over at Renewal’s website.
Latest from Decaturish
From the press release:
“They also felt you could discern that the addition was new, and that it did not create a false sense of history.”
Maybe I’m just feeling a little cranky today but puh-leze. This is exactly the kind of quote that makes otherwise reasonable people get suspicious towards preservation boards and question the principles that drive their decisions.
The addition is in the Tudor style, which dates to the middle ages and experienced a revival a century or so ago. Perhaps it will experience another widespread revival at some point in the future. Throughout history, styles from other places and other times have influenced our building. It’s just a reflection of ever-evolving tastes and circumstances.
Suggesting there’s anything potentially “false” — or even “true” — about how the style is executed should have no relevance here. That’s just navel gazing. Why can’t we simply judge these awards on the basis of excellence, such as whether or not something is a sympathetic and competent execution of a particular style? Or perhaps a creative or innovative evolution of one?
This same house would likely still win, but at least it would be on something lasting like execution. The “of our time” principle is theory and isn’t even universally agreed upon among preservationists, much less everyone else.
Oh, the sun’s back. Amazing what that can do for one’s mood. Nevermind!
Damn! Now I’ve gotta get cranky again.
To suggest that style has nothing to do with it is to pay too much reverence to the theory rather than the theory in practice. All you need to do is take a trip over to Georgia Tech and you can see this principle in heralded practice — obscene (imo) “modern” box-like bunkers added to Gothic buildings. In an era where our understanding of and respect for history is questionable at best, this is the “go-to” way to express what is “old” and what is “new.” Unsettling juxtaposition in the name of art and honesty. I get it.
I simply disagree. I don’t think it matters. What lasts are excellence and quality. And I’m not even bashing the modern. A couple decades from now (or even now), if someone wants to add to a 20th century modern gem in a reverent way, I think it best to work within the stylistic boundaries there, too.
An analogy, to keep it real: The holy grail in prosthetic limbs right now is reaching the point where they’re essentially undetectable — looking and working like natural human appendages. If preservationist theory were applied there, people would be getting things that look like the Terminator robo-arm after being dunked in the molten steel. You know. So the people you meet each day weren’t bamboozled by a false sense of history.
What’s wrong with looking like part of the original design, if done well? For someone to say “Is this addition new or old?” seems like a compliment to me. That’s all I’m sayin’.
It sounds like the three of us agree for the most part on this. Like any theory, it can be taken too far. You too New Urbanism.
Would be interesting to hear Regina’s thoughts on the subject.
It kinda makes me wonder, when preservationists want that strong juxtoposition in design elements, that there is the hope, one day, that new element could be stripped from the original framework. as opposed to an addition, like the Glenwood example, which only makes more sence as the years progress…whether designing for a halcyon past (which i tend to think many preservationists long for…me included sometimes…) , or just because its astetically pleasing is irrelivant. A design addtion should make sence somehow.
I am a strong preservationist, but I would rather see an addition pay tribute to the intention than fight it. Its really hard to make that work.
although…bringing the rainshine house (or whatever its called) for me anyway is a little different (at the city scale, not so much the individual building scale). while I personally am not crazy about the design there is something about that house that I belive enriches the environment of Decatur than detracts. It is a intersting element that just adds to the mix of the city.
Somehow that juxtoposition works better, to me, at the city scale, than at the indivudual building scale. not 100 percent of the time, but at least 90.
fun topic.
Alright, a step back and then I’ll try to elaborate my previous glib point.
The preservation argument for distinction between design elements comes out of a concern for “context” in preservation. The worst thing that can happen to a historic structure is it can be torn down. But there are less severe things that can also be done that impact a building. This ranges from additions to “elements within sight of the building”. (ie. I once read an article about preservationist concerns of smokestacks being built within view of Fredrick Turner’s home “Olana” in NY state)
In recent years, the field of preservation seems to have moved away from having such a huge concern with unsympathetic design and more towards a concern for “fake history” (think Williamsburg when you read this). This stems from the underlying concern that the layers of history in the built environment should be as easy as possible to read. Individuals establish themselves at different points along this line depending on how much they value “reading history” vs. “recreating history.” (And newbie is right that many preservationists, especially early on are inspired by the longing for a “halcyon past.”) Also, in the real world, there’s always that bit of “which methodology works best in the job I have.”
NU wanted to bring back the the city forms of the past, while preservationists also want to make sure that structures from previous decades and centuries can survive in a form where they can add uniqueness to the urban landscape. Most of the time, everyone agrees. But when more extreme positions are taken, we might not see eye-to-eye.
Unfortunately, I don’t know enough specific examples of NU to cite an extreme example, so I’ll have to create a hypothetical. An “extreme” position of a New Urbanist could be that we need to tear down Tacqueria and Watershed because they are old converted gas stations that are setback from the street and we should replace them with mixed use on the sidewalk. I’d have a problem with that, just like I have a problem with Building A (or whatever it was) in front of 315 W. Ponce.
So, just like any issue, there are fundamentalists. Perhaps they’re a bit more wide spread in preservation than NU.
I don’t know.
In recent years, the field of preservation seems to have moved away from having such a huge concern with unsympathetic design and more towards a concern for “fake history” (think Williamsburg when you read this). This stems from the underlying concern that the layers of history in the built environment should be as easy as possible to read.
That’s is kind of strange to me then because in a Decatur local historic district, a review of the design standards for additions and new construction seems to attempt to re-create the older construction as much as possible so much so that it seems that anything other than a faux craftsman would not be permissible. It is one thing to say that historic buildings should be perserved if possible, but to try to make additions and new construction a clone of the old, as our LHD guidelines in Decatur do, seem to go against that thought of preservation.
I agree with your statement that “newly constructed homes in traditional or historic styles are either well executed or poorly executed.” However, my only point is that in a local historic district, it would be a lot easier to build a poorly executed home in a traditional or historic style, than a very well executed modern or non-historic style. If a property were in an LHD would anyone dare propose the rainshine house or the green house on 3rd Ave in Oakhurst?
That’s just the way the guidelines are set up to prefer the traditional or historic style over others. It is a historic district (my emphasis). Otherwise, if it is just about scale and mass then zoning laws can handle that without a design review board having to approve the type of surface you can use on your driveway.
And DM, despite the guidelines saying that new construction should “be a product of the time in which they were built,” the details of the guidelines still say that the building should look still be in a historic style (pg 23), use historic materials (p. 24), the windows and doors should match historic homes (p. 25). They even require that you have grass in your front yard (pg. 29) drought be damned!
First off, all of these are recommendations and encouragements, not requirements.
Secondly, you again recite only half the story. Here’s the style guidelines: “new buildings should follow historic architectural styles and details; however they should also be a product of their time and distinguishable as contemporary construction.” Again, there’s room for interpretation. Same is true for the other pages you cite.
As for the front yard drought thing…as Scott said earlier “pul-leze.”
I’m sorry DM, and I really don’t want to have an argument with you over this, but the one line that you keep citing in a 40 page document of detailed guidelines about what buildings in a historic district should look like, is a throwaway line statement of intent. It means nothing.
The real meat of the guidelines is in the specific chapters detailing what is required for materials, etc. in these buildings. If the guidelines for the historic district really don’t mean what they say, then what are you saying, it is up to the whim of 5 unelected members of the historic commission to determine what my house should look like? That’s scary and also a very good invitation for litigation.
No worries OAK, I enjoy the discussion.
First off, that second quote I cited is indeed different from the first. It was on the “styles” page you originally cited. That’s why I mentioned it.
And all I’m trying to say is that there is a middle ground here. Originally you were implying that the rules were very strict, so I was giving examples of elements of the design guidelines that provide wiggle room. Now your previous comment jumps to the other extreme…essentially that the HPC makes the decisions randomly, which requires me to go back to the other side and say “of course the recommendations for materials, etc are important…”
Ultimately what I’m attempting to show is that there’s a middle ground here. And that a good architect still has many more options than some many think.
Ultimately, it comes down to the process to come up with the middle ground. And yes, that requires input from the HPC and homeowner/architect. The impetus is not just on the HPC, but on the homeowner…and if they feel like they are being kept too closely bound to the recommendations, they need to point out the reoccurring “mean nothing’ passages that I keep citing.
DM – just like I have a problem with Building A (or whatever it was) in front of 315 W. Ponce. –
You know, I would have totally disagreed with you because there has always been something about that building that bugged the heck out of me facing Ponce…but I was going by it this weekend and realized its not the building that bugs me its the landscape. That is a completely suburban landscape that does NOTHING for that building. It would be nice to see a complete redo of the front yard of 315, something modern and sleek that reflects the building…not just “builder grade” landscape architecture.
Ah high-brow preservationist theory! Is there anything more exciting?
I think you slightly misinterpret the “false sense of history” comment Scott.
Usually when preservationists cite a “false sense of history” they are talking about how an addition relates to an individual project. What really gets under the skin of some preservationists is when an addition tries to look like its part of the original design. An example would be the Glennwood addition, which aside from that column of granite between the original and the addition and the fact that the building is no longer symmetrical from the front elevation, tries really hard to look like its part of the original design.
Preservationists want more distinction in additions, so that anyone can easily determine what is “old” and what is “new.” Style has little to do with it.
Exactly, DM. State preservation guidelines (I am working on preservation tax credit application with the state right now for a brick commercial building built in 1923!) and preservationists in general don’t want you to create fake history with renovations. Preserve what ya got but don’t create a bunch o’crap that wasn’t there in the first place. Basically, they would hate my 1910s house cause what we had was crap and we stuck in a bunch of fake history!
However, back to Scott’s overall point, I do think its possible to take this concept of “fake history” too far. Some preservationists would argue that hearkening back to any style, even in new construction is “fake history.” In this regard I think Scott has a valid point.
Styles are reoccurring throughout history. We might hate the look of Craftsman elements on a McMansion, but 50 years from now I bet that’ll be thought of as Craftsman’s third coming.
Actually, in a way…the idea that styles shouldn’t reemerge echos of modernist theory. Is it possible that hardcore preservationists and modernists have more in common than they ever thought??
Please stop being cranky! I personally agree with you that new work should respect the style and character of the original. Nothing uglier than some modern box dropped on top of a nice little house to create 5 tiny bedrooms and 6 tiny baths (there’s one on Mead Road I’d love to show you). Preservationists and preservation guidelines don’t necessarily agree with us, which is one reason I find the whole historic district controversy amusing (guidelines are not as crazy as people actually think) For example, the Pringle-designed 1921, National Register Bona Allen building on Luckie Street: Ted Turner not bought it and renamed after himself, but stuck this icky box penthouse monstrosity on top of it. When I whined about it to a friend from state preservation, she was like “Oh, no, we’d rather have it be an obvious addition”. I didn’t get that at all. That’s why I say the preservationists would hate my house- we removed a poorly-laid out original double fire place which they would want us to keep, added built-ins, a craftsman-style tile fireplace and all sorts of other period-style goodies. Hard to tell what’s new and what’s old in our house!
Guidelines in any district are a variable and, ideally, represent the will of those being regulated. If Decatur’s various guidelines lean towards maintenance of a particular character, it’s because the neighborhood overwhelmingly wanted it that way.
In a way, this sort of illustrates the point I was making earlier. That is, the preservationist theory spelled out by DM (at its extreme ends) does not necessarily reflect the natural instincts of regular people. Speaking personally, if I add to my house, I have no desire to time-stamp my efforts. I simply want something that seems like it was meant to be there.
Different strokes, I s’pose.
OAK, not sure I see that in the guidelines. Scott, hopefully this clears things up a bit regarding your previous point.
Here’s Old Decatur’s guidelines on additions and new construction…
“New residential construction within Old Decatur should reference historic styles and types, yet still be a product of the time in which they were built. New construction should also match existing buildings in scale and mass in order not to overwhelm smaller historic structures.”
Obviously this statement can be interpreted a hundred different ways (a key element of good guidelines), but I think it clearly shows an effort to find a middle ground and not demand “faux craftsman.” It tries to guard against both what Scott fears (ie. GA Tech) and what Regina fears (“fake history”).
Seems like a pretty good compromise to me. If the result is “faux craftsman”, you might want to direct your concerns to the architect or the HPC.
That’s helpful, DM. In a collaborative and relatively open minded place like Decatur, it’s probably unsurprising that our various guidelines reflect a desire to walk the tightrope between these sometimes competing concerns.
One last point I’d like to make, referring back to OAK’s comments. There’s nothing “faux” about a newly constructed Craftsman. Newly constructed homes in traditional or historic styles are either well executed or poorly executed, but there’s nothing false about them. Style revivals have occurred for as long as people have been building things.
Heck, the house that started all this is a revival of a style from a century ago which, itself, was a revival of a style from the middle ages.
I kinda like the landscaping. But only kinda.
But here’s another idea I had for the front of that building. Incorporate a restaurant into that front space…and use the “porch” or whatever that is for outdoor dining. Perhaps you could even use the 60s pocket park for special events or whatnot.
As noted by some important NU person…after street-level retail, the second best option is a porch. 315 has a porch…it just doesn’t use it properly.