[MassHistPres] Hardiplank

[John Worden]

We have only allowed in situations where the building is on the property 
line & the bldg. inspector requires fire-proof materials.  We specified 
smooth (rathely than phony-looking wood grain) side out.  I think we decided 
that the shingles were too thick to look realistic, but that the clapboards 
would pass.

J. Worden
Arlington HDC


**********

This transmittal is intended only for the use of the named recipient,
and may contain information that is privileged, confidential,
and/or exempt from disclosure.  If the reader of this transmittal is
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in
error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of this message and any attachments.  Thank you.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu>
To: <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 12:00 PM
Subject: MassHistPres Digest, Vol 29, Issue 3


> Send MassHistPres mailing list submissions to
> masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> masshistpres-owner at cs.umb.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of MassHistPres digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Hardiplank In Historic Districts (rhayw12345 at aol.com)
>   2. Re: Hardiplank In Historic Districts (slater at alum.rpi.edu)
>   3. Re: Hardiplank In Historic Districts (John Newell)
>   4. Displaying historic building photos online (Lee Wright)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:17:41 -0400
> From: rhayw12345 at aol.com
> Subject: [MassHistPres] Hardiplank In Historic Districts
> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Message-ID: <8CAB0A6775FA003-F30-97B at FWM-M09.sysops.aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Good Morning Everyone
> The Medford Historical District Commission would like to get everyone's 
> opinion on the following subject.
>
> We have two homeowners (the house has been divided into condos) who had 
> the desire to take their circa 1890's shingle style house and restore the 
> exterior to the best of their ability. One of the homeowners is the 
> architect, who brought in drawings for the building. He originally 
> proposed to remove all the aluminum siding and reuse the wood underneath 
> which he believed was in good enough condition from his investigation 
> work. We approved his work.
> ?
> He has since returned to us with the problem that much of the house's 
> original wood is in poor condition and needs to be replaced due to 
> cracking, cupping, and numerous patching and nail holes from the siding. 
> Because of this the homeowners wish to replace all the siding on the 
> house. The homeowners have priced both?wood (which every home in the 
> district?is already) and the hardiplank material. ?The homeowners are 
> claiming a $13,000 price difference between wood and hardiplank material, 
> however, this would be the first house to have the item allowed as a whole 
> construction building material. The commission worries about the allow for 
> one, allow for all rule where if we allow one homeowner to build in this 
> material, we will be setting a precedent for all the other homes in 
> districts city wide for similar substitute materials.
>
> The other issue the commission has is that our bylaw states that materials 
> clearly need to relate to the existing neighborhood, which has been, to 
> this point, wood.
>
> Our questions for you are, have other commissions approved this in their 
> districts? How generally do preservationist feel about this material. I am 
> a purist and feel that preservation is not about a dollar figure but about 
> preserving those structures, places, etc significant to our nations 
> history. No figure can ever be put to that. Your opinions would be 
> appreciated quickly as possible, as we need to make a decision on the 
> subject soon.
>
> Thank you!
> Ryan D. Hayward
> Medford Historical Commission
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:38:56 -0700
> From: <slater at alum.rpi.edu>
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Hardiplank In Historic Districts
> To: <MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu>
> Message-ID: <270e801c8e29a$af09dfc0$0d6a010a at mail2world.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Here's my perspective from Springfield.
>
> I extend latitude in materials to someone looking to replace
> inappropriate siding with a more appropriate design. The SHC has voted
> to allow shingle-shaped vinyl siding to replace wide clapboard aluminum
> siding on houses that should be shingled, for example, on the theory
> that the homeowner is doing the district a favor by eliminating an
> inappropriate siding design.
>
> We have allowed Hariplank siding on new construction in our districts,
> one that was built in the past 3 years. The siding looks very good,
> without tapping it you cannot tell it isn't clapboard. It is paintable
> and does not have the seams that vinyl siding has. It also does not need
> to have those little "clipped on" corner boards -- it can but up against
> other hardi-board side boards.
>
> I would not approve hardiplank for someone simply looking to replace
> their original siding. However, I don't think it's a precedent if you
> allow someone to go from an inappropriate grandfathered siding to
> Hardiplank. You need to figure out how to grant it -- I think
> "appropriateness" would be better than hardship, you would set the
> guideline that it is appropriate to use Hardiplank when going from
> aluminum siding (but not appropriate to use Hardiplank when going from
> cedar). If you use hardship, and focus only on the cost angle, that
> might be more precedent-setting, where people could claim hardship due
> to the $13k price difference.
>
> I looked at their Hardishingle product when I restored my house,
> removing asbestos siding. However, in the end, I decided against it
> because the product is not tapered, and it would not have looked like
> cedar shingles -- the reveal would have been too wide.
>
> Ralph Slate
> Springfield, MA
>
> <-----Original Message----->Good Morning Everyone
>>The Medford Historical District Commission would like to get everyone's
> opinion
>>on the following subject.
>>
>>We have two homeowners (the house has been divided into condos) who had
> the
>>desire to take their circa 1890's shingle style house and restore the
> exterior
>>to the best of their ability. One of the homeowners is the architect,
> who
>>brought in drawings for the building. He originally proposed to remove
> all the
>>aluminum siding and reuse the wood underneath which he believed was in
> good
>>enough condition from his investigation work. We approved his work.
>>?
>>He has since returned to us with the problem that much of the house's
> original
>>wood is in poor condition and needs to be replaced due to cracking,
> cupping, and
>>numerous patching and nail holes from the siding. Because of this the
> homeowners
>>wish to replace all the siding on the house. The homeowners have priced
>>both?wood (which every home in the district?is already) and the
> hardiplank
>>material. ?The homeowners are claiming a $13,000 price difference
> between wood
>>and hardiplank material, however, this would be the first house to have
> the item
>>allowed as a whole construction building material. The commission
> worries about
>>the allow for one, allow for all rule where if we allow one homeowner
> to build
>>in this material, we will be setting a precedent for all the other
> homes in
>>districts city wide for similar substitute materials.
>>
>>The other issue the commission has is that our bylaw states that
> materials
>>clearly need to relate to the existing neighborhood, which has been, to
> this
>>point, wood.
>>
>>Our questions for you are, have other commissions approved this in
> their
>>districts? How generally do preservationist feel about this material. I
> am a
>>purist and feel that preservation is not about a dollar figure but
> about
>>preserving those structures, places, etc significant to our nations
> history. No
>>figure can ever be put to that. Your opinions would be appreciated
> quickly as
>>possible, as we need to make a decision on the subject soon.
>>
>>Thank you!
>>Ryan D. Hayward
>>Medford Historical Commission
>>******************************
>>For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact
>>Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly. PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE
> WHOLE LIST.
>>MassHistPres mailing list
>>MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
>>http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>>********************************
>>.
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:15:23 -0400
> From: John Newell <johnnewell at mac.com>
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Hardiplank In Historic Districts
> To: rhayw12345 at aol.com, masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Message-ID: <0K3S00IIEQE5M560 at asmtp019.mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
>         Dear Mr. Hayward,
>
>         I will take it that you are talking
> about the branded "HardiePlank?", a named
> registered product, a product of James Hardie
> company <http://www.jameshardie.com/>, a fiber
> cement product.  I think that is not
> insignificant, because there are other producers;
> not all are the same product but will use or
> allow the use by the distribution channels of the
> easy title as if it were a generic name, a misrepresentation as I see it.
>
>         There was a long thread on this list
> within the last year about this same issue.  You
> may review it at the list archives
> <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres>.
>
>         At the time of that discussion, as I
> recall, the issue sort of settled along the
> normal lines with the pros and cons well
> represented; there was not a clear consensus in
> this venue.  The issue that appeared to me to be
> unsettled was the one of durability,
> longevity.  Coincidentally, I noticed that one of
> the php generated site pages for James Hardie
> claimed that they have been making the product
> for a hundred years.  I thus assumed that since
> they were implicitly claiming durability of their
> product, they might be able to provide examples.
>
>         They, neither the hq or local outlets,
> did not respond to my requests for
> examples.  Since they are flogging the product to
> architects and builders, one would think they
> would have handy some examples to bolster their
> claims.  Perhaps I just do not count, being neither architect nor builder.
>
>         At their company page
> <http://www.jameshardieeu.com/pages.php?pages=products&subpage=hplank>
> you may find pdf files about their facade
> products to download.  In short their claim at
> the dead bottom of the page this morning is:
> "HardiePlank? siding has a limited 10 year
> <http://www.jameshardieeu.com/pages.php?pages=products&subpage=hplank&related=warranty>warranty,
> see warranty section."  The details of 'limited'
> are buried in one of the downloads.
>
>
>         In my opinion, a ten year warrantee is
> like no warrantee.  Lowest grade or reclaimed
> used wood claps or shingles on sheds and
> outbuildings are good for that long even when
> unpainted and un-maintained.  Thus I believe that
> this product does not qualify for use in historic
> district renovation projects.  I am faced with
> exactly this situation on my own home (1806, just
> another old house on a dead end street in
> industrial zone, not HD) and do not find
> compelling quality advantages to the cement board
> products that would merit their use.  My builder
> and architect both concur with my view.
>
>         On price alone, the cement board prices
> we came up with were within ten percent of
> wood.  Generally, lower grade clap were lower
> priced than cement, better grades were
> higher.  Now if you say "quartersawed" and
> "heart", you may enjoy a moment of sticker shock
> that will run over the ten percent; but I am
> looking forward to savor that moment for a
> hundred years, into the fourth and fifth
> generation who seek shelter behind those clap.
>
>
>         Regards,        ..........niiiiiiiiiiii
>
>
>
> At 09:17 AM 08/07/10, you wrote:
>>Good Morning Everyone
>>The Medford Historical District Commission would
>>like to get everyone's opinion on the following subject.
>>
>>We have two homeowners (the house has been
>>divided into condos) who had the desire to take
>>their circa 1890's shingle style house and
>>restore the exterior to the best of their
>>ability. One of the homeowners is the architect,
>>who brought in drawings for the building. He
>>originally proposed to remove all the aluminum
>>siding and reuse the wood underneath which he
>>believed was in good enough condition from his
>>investigation work. We approved his work.
>>?
>>He has since returned to us with the problem
>>that much of the house's original wood is in
>>poor condition and needs to be replaced due to
>>cracking, cupping, and numerous patching and
>>nail holes from the siding. Because of this the
>>homeowners wish to replace all the siding on the
>>house. The homeowners have priced both?wood
>>(which every home in the district?is already)
>>and the hardiplank material. ?The homeowners are
>>claiming a $13,000 price difference between wood
>>and hardiplank material, however, this would be
>>the first house to have the item allowed as a
>>whole construction building material. The
>>commission worries about the allow for one,
>>allow for all rule where if we allow one
>>homeowner to build in this material, we will be
>>setting a precedent for all the other homes in
>>districts city wide for similar substitute materials.
>>
>>The other issue the commission has is that our
>>bylaw states that materials clearly need to
>>relate to the existing neighborhood, which has been, to this point, wood.
>>
>>Our questions for you are, have other
>>commissions approved this in their districts?
>>How generally do preservationist feel about this
>>material. I am a purist and feel that
>>preservation is not about a dollar figure but
>>about preserving those structures, places, etc
>>significant to our nations history. No figure
>>can ever be put to that. Your opinions would be
>>appreciated quickly as possible, as we need to
>>make a decision on the subject soon.
>>
>>Thank you!
>>Ryan D. Hayward
>>Medford Historical Commission
>>******************************
>>For administrative questions regarding this
>>list, please contact
>>Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE
>>DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST.
>>MassHistPres mailing list
>>MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
>>http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>>********************************
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:23:02 -0400
> From: "Lee Wright" <lee at leewright.net>
> Subject: [MassHistPres] Displaying historic building photos online
> To: <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> Message-ID: <8800A7E2B1CC4058B9FDECCF53F13ED6 at CSSDemo>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Publicizing projects and opportunities is obviously an important part of
> what many of us do to secure greater community support for historic
> preservation.
>
> We at the Society have recently added a slideshow of 73 old photos of
> buildings that stand or once stood in our downtown:
> http://www.historicmarlborough.org/Historic_Photos.html.
>
> These were part of a "Before and After" series of photos that covered our
> entire downtown and that was displayed at a large community event in
> downtown Marlborough a couple of weeks ago.
>
> The online slideshow, which was easy to put in place using free software 
> and
> services, has many advantages, but it doesn't have as many features as we
> would like.
>
> Interested in learning how your organization is displaying historic 
> building
> photos online.
>
> Here's a quick summary of the pros and cons of our method, along with my
> wish list for an ideal system:
>
> - Pros
> = Free, with photos hosted on Flickr and displayed on our site using
> PictoBrowser. (Links and more details here:
> http://www.historicmarlborough.org/Creating_this_site.html.)
> = Changes to our photostream on Flickr, including adding new photos, show 
> up
> in the slideshow automatically.
> = Titles and detailed notes are displayed.
> = The slideshow loads fast, and has a clean UI that is easy to use.
> = Effectively unlimited in terms of the number of photos that this 
> approach
> can handle.
>
> - Cons
> = Some of the best aspects of Flickr don't make the transition, including
> commenting and geotagging.  (Would like to be able to navigate photos via 
> a
> map, e.g.)
> = Would like to have more control over sorting, including having sets of
> photos displayed (e.g., Main Street, Transportation, the French Hill
> neighborhood).
>
> - Ideal system
> = Free or low cost; easy to put in place
> = Displayed on our site with access to all of the functionality below on 
> our
> site; the photos themselves could be hosted anywhere
> = Ability for anyone anywhere to add photos, comment on photos, and add 
> tags
> and geotags without onerous registration
> = Ability to moderate photos and comments, either before or after posting
> = Ability to block users
> = Ability to navigate photos through a map
> = Ability to navigate photos through a timeline based on date of photo
> = Ability to group photos and sort photos (including by searching titles,
> notes, comments, and tags)
>
> Comment: For those of you familiar with Flickr, my wish list looks 
> something
> like Flickr for our own site (i.e., many of Flickr's tools and functions 
> on
> our own site).  Our current photostream uses the account of our photo
> archivist; moving to our Society's group on Flickr will give us the
> advantage of letting anyone add photos, and as administrators, we can
> moderate additions.  We get most of the other functions on the wish list,
> too, but accessing these features must be done from Flickr.  I'm 
> interested
> in alternatives that would enable users to easily do most or all of these
> things without leaving our site.
>
>
> My question for you: What tools do you use to display photos online?
>
> Thanks for sharing your insights--
>
> Lee
>
> The Marlborough Historical Society Board of Trustees
> The Marlborough Historical Commission
>
> ............................................................................
> ...............
> Lee Wright  |  lee at historicmarlborough.org  |  +1 469 233 7712
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>
>
> End of MassHistPres Digest, Vol 29, Issue 3
> *******************************************
>