7 replies to this topic

[johnfwd]

The long-running argument over whether an historic district encourages or disincentivizes economic development has been raised again over the future of the Stop Six area, as highlighted in this Fort Worth Business article.  I've always viewed the Stop Six area as being old and in need of a revival but not distinguished by historic characteristics.

 

http://www.fortworth...0f8188a894.html

[RD Milhollin]

If the information in the article can be taken at face value there is no good reason to have a "historic district" in that neighborhood. There is a lot of vacant residential land and substandard structures evidenced by the demolition permits referenced, and the "historic" structures are not of any one style indicative of a particular period; a "hodgepodge" of styles seems more of the nature of the existing buildings. If restrictions of development result from the historical district then it is holding back the potential of the community and limiting the value of the property there. If more infill residential development was realized there would be an accompanying need for commercial/retail, and design standards encouraging walking, biking, mixed-use traditional could help define the area as unique on the Eastside.

[RD Milhollin]

Council Member Gyna Bivens again raises the issue of the imposed Historic District in the Eastside Stop Six neighborhood holding back development and the S-T Editorial Board agrees it is not needed:

 

http://www.star-tele...le81223892.html

 

A timeline is laid out in the article for the process needed to remove the designation. Much of the area is vacant lots, and the chance of developers wanting to use 1920's to 1970's architecture to adhere to the historical standards is low to nil. Instead of the energy and resources used to develop this unwanted district, a better course of action would have been to draw a plan for sustainable development and put in place an infrastructure development and replacement plan to encourage redevelopment of this area. Better late than never.

[McHand]

Stop Six is a grid neighborhood bordered by spaghetti street neighborhoods.  The integrity of the grid should be maintained.  

[John T Roberts]

The City Council moved forward this week to start the process to remove the historic district in Stop Six.  Below is a link to the article in Fort Worth Business.

 

http://www.fortworth...00db5e4a10.html

[Austin55]

The city is now proposing design standards for Stop Six. The area has been seeing a good chunk of residential growth evidently.

 

Here are the requirments for new single family homes in the area,

 

 

1. Building Materials. At least 70% of all sides of a new residential structure shall be

masonry: stone, brick, terra cotta, patterned pre-cast concrete, cement board siding, cast

stone or prefabricated brick panels.

2. Garages A 2-car garage is required. Garages facing the street shall be located at or

behind the front wall and shall not project in front of the front wall. All required parking

spaces above 2 shall be behind the front wall.

3. Building Design, Architectural Features.

a. Homes shall have an entry feature such as a porch or stoop that faces the street.

b. Open porches can extend up to 10 feet into the minimum front yard to encourage

larger porches. If a porch is provided, it shall be a minimum 6 feet in depth.

c. Homes shall have a minimum of one 8 square foot window on all sides of the house.

The front wall shall have a minimum total window area of 16 square feet.

d. Front doors shall face the public street and shall be visible from the public street.

Front door openings shall not be recessed more than 6 feet from the front wall of

the home.

4. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be kept to allow visibility to and from street-facing

doors and wind

[RD Milhollin]

I wonder how much of the masonry requirement is related to aesthetics and how much by fire prevention considerations? I know a wooden-framed house can burn regardless of what it is clad with, but perhaps masonry is more difficult to start?

 

This question came up several years back when I was living in Haltom City and serving on the P&Z Board. The board and Council had recently passed a blanket ordinance that required any new structures (greenfield, infill or replacement of residential or commercial) in the city to meet minimum masonry requirements, even in areas that consisted of 100% wooden "clapboard" construction. The new houses built in these neighborhoods in compliance with the ordinance stuck out as visual anomalies. In the meanwhile, NEW construction just a few blocks off Magnolia having similar or even identical design as the historic houses in HC were selling for upwards of $250K (if I remember correctly). If a new neighborhood is being built I can understand setting design standards to tie all the structures together in some way (scale, alignment, treatment, materials, etc) but when that imposed standard would not "fit in" with an existing neighborhood already in place (perhaps for 100 years) I would question the need for the imposed standard; better in my opinion to require the builder to honor the existing pattern, assuming one exists.

 

The third criteria, architectural features... there are a lot of residential buildings around, some built recently and many remodels, that contain architectural features but combine them in "unlikely" or "unrelated" or "incongruent" ways that, at least to my eye, are "unattractive", "confusing", or even "inappropriate". I don't consider myself an architectural snob... and I am far from an expert in design. But that said... does anyone else on this forum believe there should be some sort of iteration/clarification of how the required "architectural features" should be used in conjunction with one another to get most "desirable" visual results?

[Doohickie]

The third criteria, architectural features... there are a lot of residential buildings around, some built recently and many remodels, that contain architectural features but combine them in "unlikely" or "unrelated" or "incongruent" ways that, at least to my eye, are "unattractive", "confusing", or even "inappropriate". I don't consider myself an architectural snob... and I am far from an expert in design. But that said... does anyone else on this forum believe there should be some sort of iteration/clarification of how the required "architectural features" should be used in conjunction with one another to get most "desirable" visual results?

 

I know what you mean, but frankly I think it's a case of letting the market forces pick the winners and losers here.  I live in South Hills and I see a lot of homes that (at least from the curb) are perfect amalgams of proportions creating a strong affinity for the design.  Others..... missed it by a mile.  I'm not sure how you legislate that however.