920 Cherry, ICCF/Blodgett Home and Fairmount Square

[vandertown]

So, what did she mean by "classic gay 90s theme park"?

[Rizzo]

Gay means happy.

[towermart]

The Gay 90's is a common description of the Decade of the 1890's the era of the Gibson Girl. Victorian Era.

I took it to be a play on that referring to the 1990's when Vinyl was the standard.

I may of course be wrong, and it could be some Lifestyle slang that I am unfamiliar with.

So, what did she mean by "classic gay 90s theme park"?

[GRDadof3]

The Gay 90's is a common description of the Decade of the 1890's the era of the Gibson Girl. Victorian Era.

I took it to be a play on that referring to the 1990's when Vinyl was the standard.

I may of course be wrong, and it could be some Lifestyle slang that I am unfamiliar with.

[PBJ]

Many people (on this forum) have vinyl siding, vinyl floors, ,vinyl windows and fiberglass doors, because they CAN'T AFFORD the more expensive stuff. In addition, the maintenance on all that wood, especially cedar, is a nightmare.

[FilmMaker]

In addition, the maintenance on all that wood, especially cedar, is a nightmare.

[twoshort]

Of course it's going to cost more and it's going to take more upkeep. I still think they need to stay away from vinyl. If Lighthouse could have avoided vinyl on Sigsbee I'm sure they would have, but lets remember those are income restricted, affordable housing, rental units. This project is none of that.

[towermart]

I probably should have said, "became the standard". Even at my age my brain is still a bit faster than my fingers.

Having been involved in residential construction in the late 70's and 80's it is my perception that the 90's is when vinyl became the standard in the above median price homes, and housing associations and subdivision covenants and restrictions began allowing it in developments. Again this my perception based on involvement in this and other markets. But YMMV.

In the 90's when vinyl was standard? Dude, look around, there's vinyl everywhere. It's very much standard. The only homes outside the city center without vinyl are the upper end homes of $400K+.

edit

[PRCH]

In the 90's when vinyl was standard? Dude, look around, there's vinyl everywhere. It's very much standard. The only homes outside the city center without vinyl are the upper end homes of $400K+.

As much as I agree that in order to keep with the surrounding neighborhood, they should probably go with hardy plank or cement board siding, wooden front doors and wood-casement windows, but some of the comments from people in the neighborhood and from the HPC were quite comical. What Eastbrook presented met the city's requirements, so what's all the fuss and name-calling all about? Borderline urban snobbery if you ask me. Many people (on this forum) have vinyl siding, vinyl floors, ,vinyl windows and fiberglass doors, because they CAN'T AFFORD the more expensive stuff. In addition, the maintenance on all that wood, especially cedar, is a nightmare (costing even more money).

The siding on the Uptown Village townhomes is vinyl. A certain kind of vinyl, but still vinyl. I don't remember anyone calling them a "gay theme park".

[GRDadof3]

I probably should have said, "became the standard". Even at my age my brain is still a bit faster than my fingers.

Having been involved in residential construction in the late 70's and 80's it is my perception that the 90's is when vinyl became the standard in the above median price homes, and housing associations and subdivision covenants and restrictions began allowing it in developments. Again this my perception based on involvement in this and other markets. But YMMV.

[AlexPKeaton]

Brick can be cost-effective if you reduce the size of the house. One of the main reasons I chose my house was that it was brick for low-maintenance. I really didn't want any cheesy vinyl siding and I didn't want to deal with the upkeep of actual wood.

[PRCH]

PRCH, I'm sure they did it because they have been doing it for many years, and it's what buyers expect to see at the $200,000 price range.

Maybe the Press is sensationalizing the reaction:

Now I haven't seen the plans submitted, but I did see the previous plans submitted, so maybe they are horrifying.

[GRDadof3]

They are horrifing in context.

As to price, I seem to recall numerous downtown condo projects in that range. Mostly in brick buildings.

As to the Press, their editorial bias against Historic Preservation is legendary. (sells papers!).

That bias certainly extends to edited articles. Mr Harger's piece was actually fair, considering.

[Lplan]

The Uptown Village townhomes are not in an Historic District.

...

[gvsusean]

Here is the old submission:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...st&p=580448

[twoshort]

Aren't they in Wealthy Street district?

"Historic Districts and Landmark Maps

Page 6 ...

[Veloise]

So, what did she mean by "classic gay 90s theme park"?

[ModSquad]

For what it is worth, the construction price for the townhomes we built along Sigsbee is $660,000 for 6 town homes. Please remember, however, that this is construction price alone! It does not include the cost for the land, the cost for the site preparation, they have no basements. This does not include the landscaping, nor the legal costs (if they were to be condoed). It does not include the interest on the construction financing, and it does not include a realtor fee if we were to try to sell them. I am sure you get the point.

All told the town homes Lighthouse built most likely cost us about $165-$185,000 each. If we were a business, like Eastbrook, and of course need to turn a profit, we would have to add marketing costs, real estate fees, and holding costs once the units were done. I would imagine we would need to sell them for about $225 to $250,000 in order to make them work. Oh yeah that would be $225-250,000 for exactl;y what you see on Sigsbee Street, vinyl siding and all.

To play devil's advocate, it is easy for armchair developers to say what the builder should or should not do when you do not have to pay the bills. At the same time, if the City wants to see something developed on this land they have to be able to think outside the box as well. It is a give and take. I do not see much giving here.

[Mark Miller]

When the discussion centers around the "gay 90s themepark" or new construction pretending to be something that it is not, it really simply means "fake old". There is a movement that seems to think that if you simply replicate the victorian era by using today's materials and today's skill level of construction, then you have achieved a contextual sensitive infill project.

This is exactly the thing that I referred to as "beotchized traditionalism" in the Wealthy Street thread.

The negative reaction to this by so many is the result of a general feeling that it looks "suburban". Why does it look suburban? Look at the houses being constructed in the suburbs, they are replicas of the past - and not very good ones at that. Almost as if someone was looking at a blurry photograph when they tried to copy the past.

This has nothing to do with cost. These buildings can be built cost effectively if they cease trying to be something that they are not.

They are not big houses. They are (for the most part) rowhouses. Simplifying the form and letting them be what they are, will lead to better results!!

These are not buildings built in 1888. They are buildings built in 2007. They should embrace modern materials properly and not make them be something that they are not. Truth in materials.

These do not need to be avant-gard architecture. They do not even have to be like the townhouses on Diamond. But they need to properly address the issues of materiality and context.

[PR-15]

To play devil's advocate, it is easy for armchair developers to say what the builder should or should not do when you do not have to pay the bills. At the same time, if the City wants to see something developed on this land they have to be able to think outside the box as well. It is a give and take. I do not see much giving here.

[GRDadof3]

For argument's sake, let's say they look like the original submission:

What specifically is wrong with these? I can tell you what I (not being an architect but having worked in construction) think is right with them:

- They look like many of the narrow footprint homes in the neighborhood look like, with high pitched roofs, front door off-center, living rooms in front, etc.. just attached to reduce cost and get more density

- They have front porches! Something many of the rowhouses I have seen do not have, including Sigsbee and Broadway/1st. What's wrong with a front porch? I know they do cost more, so it's understandable why they aren't on the Sigsbee townhomes. Would I foresake wood siding and instead have a front porch? Yep.

- They even look like they have chimneys, which essentially isn't done any more because natural wood fireplaces are too expensive to operate and maintain. Gas can be zero-clearance vented out the back or side of the house, and you don't have to clean them, or worry about keeping the flew clean and burning down your house.

- No visible garage

Are the new plans a lot different from these?

Dave's right about where I guessed the prices would be. Maybe a tad less around $220's starting price. Add brick, wood siding, Anderson windows, add $15,000+.

[PRCH]

I'd love for more infill projects in the different neighborhoods to help get middle-class families to take another look at living in the city. But pricing is key. I worked in new construction for many years, and I've never met anyone in any price range that wasn't on a budget. I'd also like to see homes with better materials than vinyl siding, but how do you bring the two together and still keep it affordable?

I apologize for saying it was "comical", but this is a very challenging issue in my opinion. In addition, I live in a house with vinyl siding and vinyl windows, so the anti-vinyl sentiment that's it's "horrifying" is a bit offensive. We couldn't afford more expensive materials. Apparently we would not be welcomed to 920 Cherry?

[GRDadof3]

It certainly is challenging. As to people on a budget, Eastbrook said their 'focus group' for 920 Cherry was interested in interior upgrades like Bamboo floors, granite, etc, etc, to the tune of final prices around 300k. So they economize on the exterior and preserve their profit level...

See TownPlanner regarding context and materials. Considering both in appropriate ways could result in a neighborhood-compatible project to which GRDad would be very welcome. A challenge, but doable. (We did describe vinyl as horrific IN THIS CONTEXT).

YES.

[GRCentro]

When the discussion centers around the "gay 90s themepark" or new construction pretending to be something that it is not, it really simply means "fake old". There is a movement that seems to think that if you simply replicate the victorian era by using today's materials and today's skill level of construction, then you have achieved a contextual sensitive infill project.

This is exactly the thing that I referred to as "beotchized traditionalism" in the Wealthy Street thread.

...

These are not buildings built in 1888. They are buildings built in 2007. They should embrace modern materials properly and not make them be something that they are not. Truth in materials.

[bwindi25]

All told the town homes Lighthouse built most likely cost us about $165-$185,000 each. If we were a business, like Eastbrook, and of course need to turn a profit, we would have to add marketing costs, real estate fees, and holding costs once the units were done. I would imagine we would need to sell them for about $225 to $250,000 in order to make them work. Oh yeah that would be $225-250,000 for exactl;y what you see on Sigsbee Street, vinyl siding and all.

To play devil's advocate, it is easy for armchair developers to say what the builder should or should not do when you do not have to pay the bills. At the same time, if the City wants to see something developed on this land they have to be able to think outside the box as well. It is a give and take. I do not see much giving here.