[Lexington] Owner renovates, then files to demolish

[seicer]

(If more historical renovations make news, I'll request for the title to be renamed.)

245 South Limestone:

Historic home's owner has squabble in present

Has photographs of the said addition, some before and after photographs. I walk by this daily and it is wonderful that someone took the time and money to renovate it (at a high cost too!). I am unsure if the plans submitted called for a smaller addition and a flat roof, but it looks as if we have a mess.

Article information:

"Historic home's owner has squabble in present

By Beverly Fortune

Herald-Leader [Lexington]

January 25, 2007"

[rnc]

(If more historical renovations make news, I'll request for the title to be renamed.)

245 South Limestone:

Historic home's owner has squabble in present

Has photographs of the said addition, some before and after photographs. I walk by this daily and it is wonderful that someone took the time and money to renovate it (at a high cost too!). I am unsure if the plans submitted called for a smaller addition and a flat roof, but it looks as if we have a mess.

Article information:

"Historic home's owner has squabble in present

By Beverly Fortune

Herald-Leader [Lexington]

January 25, 2007"

[seicer]

It reminds me of one of the properties directly across from the new Courthouses. It is currently being renovated by a different owner, but previous to that, another being wanted to let it collapse in and have it condemned. I can't remember where I saw it at but I'll try to dig up the article.

[tombarnes]

What is the point of saving an historic building if you are only going to disfigure it with an inappropriate addition? I'm glad the house has been saved, but the addition does not look like an enhancement to the original.

[rnc]

What is the point of saving an historic building if you are only going to disfigure it with an inappropriate addition? I'm glad the house has been saved, but the addition does not look like an enhancement to the original.

[tombarnes]

It looks like something out of a 1960's rancher appended to an older building. I agree that the damage could possibly be mitigated by the appropriate choice of fenestration, but the large window openings suggest that large windows might be used instead. It's hard to tell from the picture, but I fear the worst could happen here. Let's just hope it doesn't.

[seicer]

Preservation board denies OK for Oldham House addition

Comment: I watched this meeting on GTV-3 television this afternoon, Lexington's public access channel. There were numerous reasons that the design had to change, ranging from varying elevations due to an early 1900s addition (kitchen) to ceiling heights. After watching, and reading the article, much was left out that should have been said. I changed my stance to neutral on this because now the addition 'has to come down' essentially, which is absurd since this is a person who actually is reconstructing a structure that was on several endangered lists from several preservation organizations! The original structure dates back to the early 1800s! Give this guy some slack...

Article information: Fortune, Beverly. "Preservation board denies OK for Oldham House addition." Herald-Leader. 02/28/07"

[rnc]

http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/98236.html

Addition approved with a few strings.

[Pete17]

I certainly don't approve of someone who goes off on his own and does what he wants without the necessary approval. However, I have a friend who lives in Lexington and has a preservation background who was more in support than against the property owner. He said the addition is on the back of the house and has limited visibility to most people. He also thought some concessions should have been made for someone spending lots of money to save a significant house in a neighborhood that hasn't seen a lot of reinvestment. I don't know Lexington, but have to agree with him.

[rnc]

I certainly don't approve of someone who goes off on his own and does what he wants without the necessary approval. However, I have a friend who lives in Lexington and has a preservation background who was more in support than against the property owner. He said the addition is on the back of the house and has limited visibility to most people. He also thought some concessions should have been made for someone spending lots of money to save a significant house in a neighborhood that hasn't seen a lot of reinvestment. I don't know Lexington, but have to agree with him.

[gt7834a]

Having dealt with the preservation society on a few occassions, they can be pretty over the top. I live in a historic home in a historic neighborhood and I desperately want to see it preserved, but they lose sight of common sense way too often. There are only a limited amount of people willing to put the time and money into really run down older homes. You can't let them go crazy, but you can't make it impossible for them to get the job done either. Glad they seemed to have come to a sort of compromise.