[MassHistPres] Rehab to the point of demolition

[William Moonan]

The Bedford HDC has been presented with what appears to be a hobsonian
choice.  A new owner/developer of an 1840 original block house that has
three, smallish 1960s additions wants to demolish the house and replace it
with a relatively attractive new house.  The lot is very small, so the
proposed replacement is in the same scale as adjoining houses (i.e. not a
McMansion).  Just for your consideration is the fact that this house is the
first house in the district as you approach Bedford from Concord, located at
an intersection that splits traffic to head east to Lexington, or north to
Carlisle/Billerica.

 

The HDC has, of course, said "NO" to tearing it down but indicated that some
of the 1960 additions could be removed in favor of more attractive ones.
The owner hired a structural engineer whose report indicates there is
nothing to be saved in the building.  The engineer, however, is clearly one
who did not approach the building as a preservationist.  The report
indicated the rubble foundation is failing and that floor supports are
sagging, etc., etc.  The owner further reports that a house-mover said the
building would not survive being moved (nothing in writing on this subject).
Finally, the owner asserts the wall studs are rotten (no proof of that) and
that there are no clapboards under the vinyl siding (installed before there
was an historic district) that are worth saving because, if they exist, they
are split.  (Again, no proof.)  A site visit did confirm that the house is
in rough shape.

 

The owner and his lawyer's conclusion from their "analysis" is that there is
nothing to save.  That to make the building structurally sound would require
lifting it up to rebuild the foundation (can't be done because a house-mover
said so), that the original cladding is unusable (possible, but no proof),
and, besides, there are no original windows, all having been replaced in the
early 60s before there was an Historic District.  The owner further states,
if they were to spend huge amounts of money to "rehab" the building, there
would be nothing original that would be left.  The Town would have a
reproduction, so why not allow a new structure to be built that would look
like it belonged there?

 

I suspect the owner is correct that there wouldn't be much left that is
original.  We have asked for proof of the items for which none has been
supplied.  I hope that review of this new information would show that the
original siding is still there.  But if the rather unattractive 1960s
additions are removed, there wouldn't be much left of the original siding
beyond the front third of the house.

 

The choice seems to be coming down to a new house or a reproduction with
little or no visible original material.  Your thoughts are gratefully
solicited.

 

Bill Moonan

Chair, Bedford Historic Commission

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20140312/cd085136/attachment.htm>