urbanMSP

This actually isn't an entirely unprecedented idea; there's a structure up the block that also seems to swing behind a SFH, though it's hard to tell from the aerials what the structure is (looks like some sort of parking): https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9597468 ... a=!3m1!1e3

It's hard to tell how feasible this would be. The Healy plan looks like it goes all the way to the property line, leaving no room for the parking intended in the Lander proposal. Behind it is a pair of brownstone apartment buildings (which aren't going away any time soon, I'm sure) and their parking lot, so theoretically they could go in with whoever owns those to build structured parking, but that would dramatically increase the cost even if they could get the other party to go for it.

At any rate, I'm not sure a Frankenstein's monster version of the Healy house is worth saving. At this point, it'd be pretty totally removed from its intended circumstances.

This actually isn't an entirely unprecedented idea; there's a structure up the block that also seems to swing behind a SFH, though it's hard to tell from the aerials what the structure is (looks like some sort of parking): https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9597468 ... a=!3m1!1e3

That's the funeral home. I think that part of the building is where they do the prep work. It meets Colfax Ave. just terribly.

Am I the only person at the CPC meeting here to testify?????

?????

Pro or con!

What a twist!

In a shocking twist, our very own Nick Magrino is... PRO!

Well that went well. And yeah, Nick, you knocked it out of the park. Well done.

Well that went well. And yeah, Nick, you knocked it out of the park. Well done.

went well meaning?

Supporters seemed to outnumber opponents. Every supporter specifically spoke in support of the parking variance.

I was really surprised that hardly anyone showed up for con. No one was there to oppose it when they went through the agenda at the beginning, and Tucker looked like he was about to put it on the consent agenda when Bender said to wait for people who show up later. By the time we got to it, it was three pro and three con. After all this!

I have to say, an awful lot of concern trolling from the guy complaining that the units weren't big enough.

Right? That seemed odd--maybe he was really a pro plant? Actually saying "transients" and all. I was going to say that "I live in a one bedroom and I'm wearing a suit!" but opted not to bring it up.

12 feet! Won't anyone think of the children!

Thoughts? http://healyproject.org/wp-content/uplo ... raft21.pdf

Was this thing presented at the meeting?

Yep! Their sketch artist was busily finishing the sketches during the presentation from Lander.

This is a joke, correct?

It's 100% for real.

Allow me to indulge in a short rant.

I support the Colfax apartment project. I believe the Orth house is too far gone to restore the interior and while the exterior *could* be rehabilitated it would involve demolishing the stone porch and rebuilding a wood one, ripping off all the siding, probably fabricating a bunch of trim pieces and other stuff that likely wouldn't get done by an average homeowner. I also support saving our historic housing stock where possible and practical.

I took Julian out for a walk around the neighborhood. Recently some yard signs sold by the Healy Project with "This Place is Irreplaceable" started showing up, presumably to show support for historic preservation. I applaud what the Healy Project does to document some of our historic housing. While I disagree with them on the apartment project I think overall they perform a useful public service.

Back to the walk. One of the lawn signs was in front of a house that has had its siding replaced by suburban-style wide board siding, its window crowns multilated to accommodate said siding, its porch ripped off and replaced with a small modern brick (!) portico and the house body painted a bland suburban grey with little to no highlighting of the trim.

We are completely rehabbing the exterior of our house, replacing all of the siding which was cracked and warped and fixing rotted trim. Our contractor has been great and the carpenter is fantastic. We've been meticulous with detail, to the point where we halted siding installation early on and had it ripped off and redone because the board width was an inch off (general contractor's mistake, not the carpenter's fault). We've had missing and damaged window crowns fabricated from scratch, upgraded to a more traditional paint job that costs more and the painters even called the carpenter back to redo some caulking in places that were problematic and would impact their ability to achieve the desired historical paint design. There are a few pieces we can't replace becase the specific trim piece design isn't made anymore and custom-making it is prohibitively expensive (we may very well do it properly later on). We spent a lot of time and effort researching old houses to get the woodwork and paint scheme right. I now know more about exterior house renovation than I ever expected to. We went with more expensi\ve cedar siding because the carpenter couldn't replicate the foundation drip cap with Hardie board. No, we don't have a Queen Anne, which makes our property much less valuable in the eyes of some in the neighborhood, but we have a nice Transitional house that hasn't been messed with too much and we intend to keep it that way and restore the improperly-changed bits.

Yet somehow because we support the apartment project we're the ones who don't support historic preservation? I daresay we've done a hell of a lot more to "preserve the character of the neighborhood" than someone with a stupid sign in their lawn.

It's almost as if the Healy project/MRRDC is just pure unadulterated NIMBY/BANANA, willing to use anything to justify their world views.

In fairness I doubt anybody who knows what you're working on is still claiming you're not supporting the neighborhood/home's historic character. And my guess is that many people who do support the project don't do anywhere near as much as you do to keep the current housing stock intact.

A statement like that is geared more towards people like me, who a.) support the new project, b.) don't live in the neighborhood, and c.) doesn't even own a home (and therefore can't actively maintain one). My logic mirrors yours though: keep what we can but when a home is too far gone to rehab then let something new take its place.

In fairness I doubt anybody who knows what you're working on is still claiming you're not supporting the neighborhood/home's historic character.

You would be surprised. When the project first came before Z&P I got publicly blasted by other residents for stating that I "wanted to hear more" about the project. I didn't even say I supported it them. I simply wanted more information. A small number of people in the neighborhood are rabid when it comes to development. The vast majority don't care one way or the other.

Part of the reason I wrote that rant is the irony of one of those signs in front of a house whose exterior is in even worse shape than the Orth house. The owner supports preservation but has done zero to follow through on their own house and I don't see any indication that there is work in progress to fix up the house. Glass houses, the beam in one's own eye and so on. It would be hilarious if it weren't so tragically ironic.

I'm a perfectionist, too, which doesn't help. As I've learned more about old houses, improper repairs that I see all over the neighborhood just drive me batty. There are some beautifully restored houses in the neighborhood. There are also houses that have been so obviously mutilated that little is left of the original design. Those don't bother me nearly as much as the cases where someone clearly intended to make the house look nice but cut corners in some way, usually by not taking the time to research what the house should look like. Little things like missing window crowns, undersized porch Newel posts and balustrades that are too tall make the house "look" wrong and I could sense that but didn't really understand why until I did the research. Architecture matters, even on Plain Jane houses like ours.

Things like too-high balustrades are partially caused by ridiculous building codes that do things like uselessly "protect" people from falling off a two-foot-high porch. Lots of work to be done to correct stuff.

David, you've beautifully stated your views on what it takes to fulfill preservationist goals and where the grey areas loom for even those most dedicated to them. Though some in the pro-Healy House group will be too set on their position to acknowledge the grey, perhaps there are some in it who'd respect your beliefs and your work on your home, even if they ultimately disagree on what should happen to the Healy House. And disagreement is less painful when it's mingled with respect. Do you have any way of presenting what you believe to the group, perhaps with the rantish parts edited?

David, you've beautifully stated your views on what it takes to fulfill preservationist goals and where the grey areas loom for even those most dedicated to them. Though some in the pro-Healy House group will be too set on their position to acknowledge the grey, perhaps there are some in it who'd respect your beliefs and your work on your home, even if they ultimately disagree on what should happen to the Healy House. And disagreement is less painful when it's mingled with respect. Do you have any way of presenting what you believe to the group, perhaps with the rantish parts edited?

Thanks Marty. The Healy folks themselves are not really the problem. Anders is a really good guy and he knows old houses. I contacted him about our house project but unfortunately he doesn't do carpentry. We talked a lot about his house research while he was over looking at the place and we both had researched the original builder of our house, which was cool. He gave up a graduate program in something-or-other because he fell in love with old houses. He's doing the work because he loves doing it, not for any sort of personal gain. I have tremendous respect for him.

It's some other neighbors that really give the neighborhood a bad name in terms of development and preservation. Frankly, it's not really worth my time to try to educate them because they've proven themselves not capable of listening to other viewpoints.

min-chi-cbus is absolutely correct that the vast majority of those expressing opposition to the apartment projects in the Wedge would acknowledge the work we're doing on our house and respect it, even praise it. I've talked to some opponents and while we disagree we still respect each other as neighbors who are working to make the neighborhood better. It's just that a very small number of people are very loud and have outsized influence on residents due to their families having lived in the area for a long time. That will change as the demographics of the neighborhood are rapidly shifting toward a younger age scale.

It would seem the very loudest ones are not particularly respectful of the people that don't agree with them, which can easily taint the view of the whole group.

For my part, I've got no quibble with the historic-preservation folks. But when it comes to the most extreme of the NIMBYs, I'm really surprised that no one's ever just *frank* with them: "You live in a city. If you want absolute, guaranteed peace and quiet at all times, please consider Lakeville."