Renovating a Haver Style home.

[hectoracuna]

Thanks for your 2-cents Haverphile. Actually worth much more. You're making a good case against Historical. Nice pictures too.

Fifylynn, thank you for the counterpoint. And thanks for the document link. I'll be reading closely.

Chinablue1, I have a request to meet Mr. Nance at 10am sunday. Espressos at our place and we walk over to the afflicted area.

Lisa and I are cycling over to LGO afterward. Any MoPhos headed that way Sunday?

--H

[Haverphile]

Neither would such unique, interesting *cough* remodels like this:

All that house needs is a decent paint job, and it would be a welcome addition to any neighborhood...

[modernenthusiast]

Yes- that is an absolutely hideous remodel and I am sad that it has blinded Haverphile.Hopefully not for life. I however, after reading through the historic preservation document posted, have some questions and would like to hear opinions regarding this issue. I really want to know what people think about the dictation inherent in historic designationa nd its enforcement.

I seem to be stuck on the fact that other people have control over what other people do. Unless privacy or safety is an issue, I can only find one reason as to why another person may be granted power to veto another person's decision regarding their own propertyr and that is if it affects their own value. Otherwise, I can't seem to stop mulling over the fact that it is my house - not the city's, not Nighthawk's, not the yuppie couple down the street. I don't understand the thinking behind this issue when the fact of the matter is that a group of people have teamed up with the city to tell citizens what they can and cannot do with their homes. One's domain is their space and that includes the outside. What if they don't like historic design? Well you can say move but so can the guy who painted his house flourescent green and he could say you are discriminating against people who love flourescent colors. The T&C document posted says "These historic preservation guidelines do not dictate design solutions". Then the next line is "Rather they define a range of appropriate responses..." C'mon. Basically we will give you the RANGE in which we control the appearance of your home. Choose one that WE like. How lovely.

As for improving neighborhoods, I have not seen anything that documents the improvement of neighborhoods other than the commercial interests where businesses begin to relocate and build sidewalks or have benches in front of them. And this is a big deal granted- but not everyone wants a Starbucks down the street. Coronado has been a historic district for some time and only recently has the neighborhood become safe. Before that police would say "Well the drug dealers have to have somewhere to live too!". Realtors appear to benefit the most as well as sellers as prices are raised simply from the designation. Financial gain is not a justifiable excuse for the meandering of private citizen's rights (I won't go into the Declaration of Independance although I am tempted).The only thing I see happen in the designation is the control of the private citizens property from their neighboirs who got the city to now enforce what they believe is appropriate. I personally cannot stand MOST remodels, but I do think that it is a right for private citizens and not a public issue. The owner of the home should have the rights to the home. The choice of the individual should be to live in a neighborhood where other people have agreed to this and that's it. If one dissents oh well- how can we justify fining this person. I guess an option would be to not let people who don't like the particular design not live in the neighborhood, but then that would be discrimination.

If one has the luxury that what their house LOOKS like is their biggest concern, then let them choose to be with other people who share their neurosis. Privately owned homes are also not the property of the city- city buildings are. Maybe we should just ask all of the banks who really own the homes what they think.

I probably am WAY to serious on this issue-I would like someone to give me their reasoning as to why it is a good thing.

[PixelPixie]

So what I'm hearing you say is that you don't see preservation of heritage as having intrinsic value -- meaning having a value in itself beyond financial gain?

My opinion is that you simply can't put a price on that.

I read all the leagalese in the Scottsdale documentation and am still confused by what "selling the easement" to the city means. Gosh, it sounds like selling one's soul to the devil when combined with your report.

[PixelPixie]

I completely agree that Mr. Natch's place looks far more modern without the citrus tree and all that encroaching shrubbery to the left of the carport. Liberate the columns! The use of that old photo in the Scottsdale doc didn't convey how much the landscape interfered far more than the screen did, and its too bad it got included for posterity. I guess they didn't have their Modern Goggles on.

Another case in point about shrubbery interfering is the thread I also posted earlier this day about the stripping of landscape elements from hiding our now beautiful Haver bank of windows. I'm sorry, but talk about crimes against architecture! (in our home's defense, it was just a crime of the unchecked passage of time)

I also found it interesting that the city of Scottsdale would not pony up for any landscape improvements EXCEPT for the replacement of citrus trees. I guess that's the safest they could manage, huh?

I find this thread to be completely fasciniating and one of the best that this forum has ever hosted. THIS is the stuff of what we're all wrestling with.

[hectoracuna]

Well, that was certainly a dramatic discourse on why we should not allow "the man" to tell us what color our stucco palaces should be painted. We live under constant regulation. The Man tells us what materials not to use, how high we can build, or how close to the next property we can get. So is Hist-designation just more micro-regulation?

One of the factors I kinda dig about our Haverhood is that most facades are nearly intact. Guess that's not worth giving up my right to do whatever the hell I want with my little plot. Certainly something to think about.

Well, first things first, gotta clean up the irrigation ditch down the street first.

[PixelPixie]

A member just wrote me privately about what I thought about this, and all have to say that I think T&C Rancho Ventura DESERVES one of the first MCM shots at historic designation just becuase it has the least to Control-Z and stands a good chance of remaining intact, however, I'm not sure at the specific historic significance it has beyond being a Later-Haverhood. Simply preserving what you've got has got to be worth something, though.

It is clear there are communities where the experimentors will be welcomed with open arms. And hey, isn't that what Modernism is all about... moving forward, never looking back?!?! Could this potentially be the historical legacy of Marlen Grove in 50 more years -- what is happening NOW, as a result of self-selecting modernists and the ModPhx movement?

I've got my case all lined up about our Early Haverhood. When I drive down my own street, it is literally a trip back in time. The street is remarkably intact, and whatever two or three sins have been done can surely be undone. I don't feel bad about making "the man" get them in line because they are already more or less in line. I wonder , though, at what point it becomes too late.

[Haverphile]

As an afterthought, check out this night pic of Mr. Natural's phat casa. That screen rules - and accents the existing architecture.

[meagen]

This is a fantastic thread. We have only five 50's modern homes in our neighborhood. Recently one of them was purchased and "Santa Fe'd". THEY have completely destroyed the lines of the home, stuccoed the whole thing, built an addition that makes no sense, and put UGLY SW details above every window. It BREAKS my heart everytime I drive by it. Seriously - sick to my stomach.

The other modern in our neighborhood is stunning but they again did some weird SW thing in the front of it. I was hoping the new owners would rip it out but it looks like they may be clueless as to what they have.

It's a really difficult topic - you don't want the above to happen, but you don't want someone else's taste or judgement superceding yours. I don't know what the happy medium is here.... We need a ModPolice Task Force!

[Mr. Natural]

Not to derail the thread, but I like my screen and those SoSco guys can kiss my ass.

[modernlover]

My sentiments, exactly. My hat is off to you, sir.

[meagen]

I like the screen too, especially with the low landscaping, you can appreciate the lines of the house. I think it goes just fine with the existing architecture. But geez, it sounds like if you would have had to ask - it would not have been approved?!

[hectoracuna]

Very nice indeed.

Especially if your neighbors look like this!!

[MissMelissa]

I like your screen too Mr. Natural.. just as much now as when it was our screen
As for the shrubbery.. if you could see what we could see out that side of the house (and no offense to our previous neighbors who are very nice people) then maybe you would have different opinions. Maybe Mr. natural will take a picture of the lovely "addition" they added just outside the south side of their house. Perhaps the stucco arches could be documented as well. Lovely!
Also.. the bushes were kept pretty darn manicured when we lived there and not at all like in that picture above. I was in charge of trimming the bush, if you will, and I used to cut it in a wavy pattern and far enough back to show off the angled carport that Ben built. It also served a purpose in blocking out car headlights as anytime someone would turn the corner at night the room lights up like Christmas.
As for the grapefruit tree.. well.. if you could feel the heat radiating through the block in August in the room that was not shaded by the long lost tree.. then you would understand why we kept it. Not for aesthetic reasons but for money reasons. If any of you grapefruit tree "haters" would have offered us a new tree (full size) from the nursery we would have definitely been takers.
As for keeping things original.. everyone has their opinions. I personally think the preservationist bit is boring and could care less that Ralph Haver sat on the same toilet seat as you or that your door knobs are original... I prefer to modernize and update the look of the house while still respecting its lines and original form. I don't think one could really set rules about what is okay and what isn't. It is just a matter of opinion. I know that neither Ben nor I appreciate the stuccoed, Home Depoted remodels with atrocious additions but I wouldn't want some city official or self righteous historic architect telling me what I can and cannot do with a house I own.
Below are some pics of the Haver we renovated and sold to Mr. Natural. I don't think the house looked better in its original condition sans privacy screen.. but that's just my 2 cents.
~Melissa
Day of our final walk through.. house untouched by us. Pretty!

House before screen went up

P.S. In the article about Mr. Naturals landscaping it says: "For a complete trip back in time, enjoy a visit to the Allison Residence before it became theirs in 2002, and after its first major renovation in 2005."
Correction: We bought the house in Feb/March of 2003. All of the before pics we supplied you with were taken by us upon our last walk through of the house. The next weekend we had the keys. The house underwent its first major renovation that following weekend and continued to undergo renovations up until we were filmed for Generation Renovation back in March of 2005.

[matthew]

I'm riding the lollercoaster here Hector. That is great.