This goes back to some of the discussion we've had on a few of the most recent development and architecture related threads and my opinion of the whole "At least it's better than what used to be there" excuse.
I don't think anyone would argue that RADO is not doing a good thing for the Jacksonville community. Rehabilitating these derelict neighborhood structures, and doing them affordable so they are available for the lower income bracket is fantastic.
But, since RADO was founded by RAP, you would think they would at least be held to the same standard that any other structure in the Riverside / Avondale historic neighborhood would. Or does RAP just not care about the way the houses look, just as long as they've replicated the checklist of the existing bungalows and houses? Columns...check. Porches....check. Exterior mullions...check. Meaning, they no longer care that it has been designed well, so long as the pieces are there.
Is it because these houses are in a more blighted area of the neighborhood. Would it be different if the houses were on the waterfront?
So, with that in mind here is a couple images of the most recent house, 703 Ralph Street:
(http://www.greenongreen.org/uploaded_images/703_Ralph_web_0001-702725.JPG)
Before the renovation. Obviously it needs a little work.
(http://www.greenongreen.org/uploaded_images/DSCF0072-712575.JPG)
After the renovation. Is it better than it was it's existing condition? Absolutely. But, why in the world did those columns get added? The original structure had brackets holding up the small gable, and it worked fine. What do the columns do for it? Helped enclose a 1'x6' porch? We know they're not doing anything structural, and they certainly didn't have to remain on the house for preservation reasons.
The house is close to looking good, but just adding those columns really disrupts the facade.
Or maybe it's just me?? I don't know.
Then there is this one....
(http://www.radocdc.org/images/2630_gilmore/2630_front2.jpg)
I'm not even going to spend much time writing about this one, one glance at that and you should know where I'm going.
I just think Jacksonville, and especially the urban core neighborhoods should expect more from their buildings. At some point, we're going to have to move away from accepting mediocrity, just because it's better than what is there, or better than most, and really push things more towards excellence.
I'm not sure I fully comprehend your gripe. Would I have put columns on the blue house? Probably not. Would I have painted a house fire-engine red? Again, probably not. But is is that big of a deal to really be worth complaining about? I don't think so.
Quote from: TREE4309 on July 16, 2008, 01:15:51 PM
I'm not sure I fully comprehend your gripe. Would I have put columns on the blue house? Probably not. Would I have painted a house fire-engine red? Again, probably not. But is is that big of a deal to really be worth complaining about? I don't think so.
Actually the fire engine red color has absolutely nothing to do with it.
And yeah, I think poor design choices which are rampant throughout our city is worth complaining about. Yes, these are small things I'm pointing out in this post, but if we're having trouble getting it right on small houses, no wonder we're having such problems at the larger level.
Of course this was a rant and I'm sure I wasn't making myself as clear as possible, so for that I'm sorry. :)
there is very little wrong with the red house....it fairly closely represents the architecture of the Springfield neighborhood.
If this "isn't good enough" for you, then perhaps you could front the $ to make them better.
What is it you don't like about the red house, then? The columns and porch railing could use some tweaking to me, but again...not THAT big of a deal. We've got a lot bigger fish to fry around here.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 16, 2008, 01:28:43 PM
there is very little wrong with the red house....it fairly closely represents the architecture of the Springfield neighborhood.
If this "isn't good enough" for you, then perhaps you could front the $ to make them better.
This is why I said maybe it's just me...but I disagree with you. Those columns, specifically that proportion, would never be found on a house with the original columns in Springfield, or in it's neighborhood of Riverside/ Avondale.
Quote from: TREE4309 on July 16, 2008, 01:30:15 PM
What is it you don't like about the red house, then? The columns and porch railing could use some tweaking to me, but again...not THAT big of a deal. We've got a lot bigger fish to fry around here.
Where the governing boards of the neighborhoods are concerned, it is a big deal to me. And again....it just may be me, as I've previously stated. But I think it's worthy of discussion.
Ok, so it's becoming obvious that columns and column proportion are my version of Ock's railcars. ;)
Quote from: JoeMerchant on July 16, 2008, 01:33:02 PM
This is why I said maybe it's just me...but I disagree with you. Those columns, specifically that proportion, would never be found on a house with the original columns in Springfield, or in it's neighborhood of Riverside/ Avondale.
I agree that the column proportions aren't quite right...but keep in mind that these houses are supposed to be affordable...somtimes that means taking the easy route.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 16, 2008, 01:50:03 PM
Quote from: JoeMerchant on July 16, 2008, 01:33:02 PM
This is why I said maybe it's just me...but I disagree with you. Those columns, specifically that proportion, would never be found on a house with the original columns in Springfield, or in it's neighborhood of Riverside/ Avondale.
I agree that the column proportions aren't quite right...but keep in mind that these houses are supposed to be affordable...somtimes that means taking the easy route.
I agree, but in a simple case like this, it doesn't cost anything more to do it right the first time. Now to rip it off and redo, then yes it will cost more. But the rest of that red house actually isn't bad at all. Unfortunately those columns just kill me.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 16, 2008, 01:50:03 PM
I agree that the column proportions aren't quite right...but keep in mind that these houses are supposed to be affordable...somtimes that means taking the easy route.
Just because they are affordable does not mean they can not still be a cool and inspiring project.
check out: http://www.the99khouse.com/introduction.html
The $99k house was a two-stage, international design competition that called for a single family house with up to 1,400 SF, including 3 bedrooms and 1½ - 2 bathrooms, on a 50' x 100' site in Houston’s
historic I repeat
historic Fifth Ward. The winning design should be adaptable to a variety of sites in the area, including 33' x 90' lots and 40' x 100' lots. The construction budget must be under $99,000.
Were the columns on the red house an addition? They look original to me.
Quote from: Jason on July 16, 2008, 02:39:28 PM
Were the columns on the red house an addition? They look original to me.
Columns are brand new.
They're not horrible looking, IMO. Not exactly what I would pick out myself but I can see why it may appeal to some.
Do you know what the original columns originally looked like?
Quote from: Jason on July 16, 2008, 03:37:01 PM
They're not horrible looking, IMO. Not exactly what I would pick out myself but I can see why it may appeal to some.
Do you know what the original columns originally looked like?
That's typically called a craftsman style column, which is a great looking column. Not sure what the original was, but it could have been the same style, the problem is the proportion, specifically the large width of the bottom of the "pyramid" and how narrow it is at the top.
Below, you'll see a correctly proportioned craftsman column:
(http://www.columns.net/images/columns-index.jpg)
Of course those are prefabricated columns, but making them on-site is not too difficult.
I definitely like the proportions of the example better.
So what kind of control does RADO, RAP, or any of the other historic preservation organizations have over cosmetic choices like those your originally posted?
Quote from: Jason on July 16, 2008, 04:01:27 PM
I definitely like the proportions of the example better.
So what kind of control does RADO, RAP, or any of the other historic preservation organizations have over cosmetic choices like those your originally posted?
Rado is a not for profit developer, rap oversees the design of all of the new construction and rehabilitation in riverside and avondale and offers there suggestion to the city's historic preservation board. But RADO was started by RAP.
Ahh, ok.
So what kind of power does RAP have?
RAP offers grant money for "Historic" renovations, right?
So..............It seems like the point here is that if you live in Riverside / Avondale and you are wealthy or live near the shops or the river, RAP cares what your architecture looks like. If you live in work force / or low income housing in the same historic designation but on the fringe and possibly next to a crack house, RAP and the Historic Preservation Board do not really care what the architecture looks like. Please prove me wrong. Good design and historic preservation is not only for the rich. As for "tufsul", fronting more money does not solve the problem. The brackets on the blue bungalow above were removed to add columns. The brackets were existing....or free $$$! Well, at least the owners have a cool 16†deep porch to hang out on. From what I understand, RADO was formed by RAP. I understand that everyone has an opinion and there is always going to be someone who disagrees with certain decisions especially in design issues. My problem is with the entity that was set up to regulate proper historic architecture in Riverside and Avondale "RAP" who in turn sets up an organization to construct and rehab affordable homes "RADO". If you are going to enforce guidelines, please do it across the board, not only when it effects your own property values. I just love the comment "….. it is better than it was before" Is it really?
Wow, this is a funny thread.
RAP does "care" about what we build (by we I mean RADO). They regularly and cordially give us hell for this or that. They don't hold the authority to regulate design, but they help administer the historic guidelines. As I understand these are COJ guidelines somehow related to Department of the Interior rules. Any construction in the district has to get a Certificate of Appropriateness before it can be permitted. They approve everything we do, including columns on porches.
Funny story though: on a Myra Street rehab we were cited for having non-historic columns on the porch...but they were original to the house! We don't know what we're talking about, when we say "historic", half the time. Even the folks in charge.
All in all, the folks at RAP and with Historic Preservation at COJ do keep these neighborhoods looking good and consistent. And I have to say, having toured homes built by several other nonprofit developers in Jacksonville, RADO blows most of them out of the water both in terms of design and construction. I happen to have a little bit of RADO pride. Just wait til you see our all green-built development on Green Street! And no, I'm not interested in re-opening the various worthy fights that development has seen since it's proposal.
We really have done a bang up job on that block so far. The homes in this corner of the neighborhood are small and plain, but very cute. If anyone wants a personal tour, just give a ring.