Old House Demolition

Discussion of current events, news, the latest happenings in Omaha

Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss

Post Reply
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Old House Demolition

Post by Brad »

Old House Demolition

http://www.omaha.com/article/20130619/N ... rmer-glory
Erin Grace / World-Herald columnist wrote:The house on Omaha Building Death Row is a 123-year-old Victorian-era home. It has good bones, decent stucco, nearly floor-to-ceiling windows and the kind of front porch that begs for a swing and a wicker rocking chair.

The house is also a boarded-up, gutted nuisance. It has no heat, water or lights, and begs for a wrecking ball and a do-over.
Sad that someone really wants to fix it up, but they can't...
User avatar
RNcyanide
Planning Board
Posts: 2780
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Boston

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by RNcyanide »

Brad wrote:Old House Demolition

http://www.omaha.com/article/20130619/N ... rmer-glory
Erin Grace / World-Herald columnist wrote:The house on Omaha Building Death Row is a 123-year-old Victorian-era home. It has good bones, decent stucco, nearly floor-to-ceiling windows and the kind of front porch that begs for a swing and a wicker rocking chair.

The house is also a boarded-up, gutted nuisance. It has no heat, water or lights, and begs for a wrecking ball and a do-over.
Sad that someone really wants to fix it up, but they can't...
Someone must really want that land...
When fortune smiles on something as violent and ugly as revenge, it seems proof like no other that not only does God exist, you're doing his will.

The Bride
User avatar
jessep28
Planning Board
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by jessep28 »

RNcyanide wrote:
Brad wrote:Old House Demolition

http://www.omaha.com/article/20130619/N ... rmer-glory
Erin Grace / World-Herald columnist wrote:The house on Omaha Building Death Row is a 123-year-old Victorian-era home. It has good bones, decent stucco, nearly floor-to-ceiling windows and the kind of front porch that begs for a swing and a wicker rocking chair.

The house is also a boarded-up, gutted nuisance. It has no heat, water or lights, and begs for a wrecking ball and a do-over.
Sad that someone really wants to fix it up, but they can't...
Someone must really want that land...
Deb Fischer.
Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum
User avatar
nativeomahan
County Board
Posts: 5316
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta

Post by nativeomahan »

:;):
User avatar
RNcyanide
Planning Board
Posts: 2780
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Boston

Post by RNcyanide »

I see what you did there...
When fortune smiles on something as violent and ugly as revenge, it seems proof like no other that not only does God exist, you're doing his will.

The Bride
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10377
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by iamjacobm »

http://www.omaha.com/article/20140227/N ... tiful-home
People in Dundee are used to the sight of dumpsters in driveways outside the Omaha neighborhood's historic homes; it's a sign that major renovations are underway inside.

But neighbors almost never see what they witnessed Tuesday: a big backhoe taking big bites from a house — a sign of demolition.

It's so rare that Peter Manhart at first didn't believe his eyes Tuesday when he first drove by the 1928 English Tudor Revival house at 5602 Farnam St., about a half-block from Warren Buffett's home. Manhart figured it was a renovation project. When it sunk in what was happening, the house was half gone.
I drove by this yesterday and was shocked to see one of the beautiful homes on Farnam being torn down.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by GetUrban »

iamjacobm wrote:http://www.omaha.com/article/20140227/N ... tiful-home
People in Dundee are used to the sight of dumpsters in driveways outside the Omaha neighborhood's historic homes; it's a sign that major renovations are underway inside.

But neighbors almost never see what they witnessed Tuesday: a big backhoe taking big bites from a house — a sign of demolition.

It's so rare that Peter Manhart at first didn't believe his eyes Tuesday when he first drove by the 1928 English Tudor Revival house at 5602 Farnam St., about a half-block from Warren Buffett's home. Manhart figured it was a renovation project. When it sunk in what was happening, the house was half gone.
I drove by this yesterday and was shocked to see one of the beautiful homes on Farnam being torn down.
The new owners certainly have the right to tear it down, but the logic they gave, that it wasn't worth sinking $100k into a renovation is crazy. Even after paying $255k for it, they could probably easily still justify a $200k renovation of that John McDonald-designed house in that location. Really sad to see that one go. Bummer.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by Brad »

Oh wow! That house was AWESOME!!! So Sad!
Bugeater
Library Board
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:50 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by Bugeater »

GetUrban wrote:
iamjacobm wrote:http://www.omaha.com/article/20140227/N ... tiful-home
People in Dundee are used to the sight of dumpsters in driveways outside the Omaha neighborhood's historic homes; it's a sign that major renovations are underway inside.

But neighbors almost never see what they witnessed Tuesday: a big backhoe taking big bites from a house — a sign of demolition.

It's so rare that Peter Manhart at first didn't believe his eyes Tuesday when he first drove by the 1928 English Tudor Revival house at 5602 Farnam St., about a half-block from Warren Buffett's home. Manhart figured it was a renovation project. When it sunk in what was happening, the house was half gone.
I drove by this yesterday and was shocked to see one of the beautiful homes on Farnam being torn down.
The new owners certainly have the right to tear it down, but the logic they gave, that it wasn't worth sinking $100k into a renovation is crazy. Even after paying $255k for it, they could probably easily still justify a $200k renovation of that John McDonald-designed house in that location. Really sad to see that one go. Bummer.
Their "logic" is a flat out lie. C'mon now...if you're buying the house next door to you in that neighborhood, and the one you're living in is worth a half of a million dollars, you're not moving into the fixer upper...and you're not buying it for a rental. I have no doubt they had every intention of buying it and tearing it down. The fact that they won't say what their plans are for the lot is very telling as well. My money is on an oversize garage.
Life is the sh*t that happens while we wait for moments that never come.
User avatar
nativeomahan
County Board
Posts: 5316
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by nativeomahan »

Yep. I smell a rat.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by GetUrban »

Garage, pool, or extensive landscaped yard are good bets. If they try to legally combine the demo'd house lot with theirs, they'd have to go before the planning board, so the neighbors would have a chance to object. From all of the comments after the OWH article, it looks like the neighbors aren't too happy. Damage is done though.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
Bugeater
Library Board
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:50 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by Bugeater »

Heh, pool. She did say the neighbors were going to love their plans. "Hey, sorry about tearing down that beautiful historic home, but come on over and enjoy the pool anytime you want!"

I would get a chuckle if the neighbors were able to screw up their plans for them. But only a chuckle, because as mentioned, the damage is done and nothing they do will have the same significance as what they tore down.
Life is the sh*t that happens while we wait for moments that never come.
Professor Woland
Library Board
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by Professor Woland »

I'm just glad that unlike in the Gold Coast neighborhood these neighbors seem like good enough people to understand that the property owners have the right to do as they please with their proprerty (short of obvious things like erecting a paper mill or hog rendering plant). While it's a shame that an attractive building had to be torn down (unlike a certain architectural abomination that has everyone up in arms, but I digress) I would rather every historic building in the world be torn down and replaced with surface parking than submit to the idea that the neighbors should have any say in what a property owner does, unless those plans include things that could damage the property, create undue noise, odor or light. I live near the site and remember the house, it's a shame the owners tore it down but that's their affair. I might wish they acted differently, but I have no right to interfere and neither do any other neighbors or group of neighbors.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by S33 »

Professor Woland wrote:I'm just glad that unlike in the Gold Coast neighborhood these neighbors seem like good enough people to understand that the property owners have the right to do as they please with their proprerty (short of obvious things like erecting a paper mill or hog rendering plant).  While it's a shame that an attractive building had to be torn down (unlike a certain architectural abomination that has everyone up in arms, but I digress) I would rather every historic building in the world be torn down and replaced with surface parking than submit to the idea that the neighbors should have any say in what a property owner does, unless those plans include things that could damage the property, create undue noise, odor or light.  I live near the site and remember the house, it's a shame the owners tore it down but that's their affair.  I might wish they acted differently, but I have no right to interfere and neither do any other neighbors or group of neighbors.
That was perfect. I think he blacked out while saying it, too.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by GetUrban »

Professor Woland wrote: I would rather every historic building in the world be torn down and replaced with surface parking than submit to the idea that the neighbors should have any say in what a property owner does, unless those plans include things that could damage the property, create undue noise, odor or light.
People have enough common sense that hopefully that will never happen. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with neighborhoods or cities voting to set standards to protect the look & fell of their neighborhoods to help maintain their property values. It happens all the time with covenants in SID's, Historic District Designations, and Neighborhood Conservation/Enhancement Districts (NCE). This neighborhood has a National Historic District designation, but that does not carry enough clout to stop things from being torn down. Downtown Dundee has a NCE, but it's doubtful that would keep a building from being torn down. NCE's appear to mostly protect buildings from non-conforming alterations and set the standards for new development rather than forbidding complete demolition. There needs to be a balance between personal rights and what's good for the community as a whole. Zoning, covenants, etc. attempt to address that, for better or worse, depending on your point of view.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
bigredmed
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by bigredmed »

So what happens to a building in one of these areas so ensconced with laws/rules/ordinances regarding what can be done to when that building has accumulated a couple of hundred K in REPAIR costs (to say nothing about modernizing or updating projects)? Can there be a point where the house simply is worth less than an empty lot? Do we know what the status of that house was?
Bugeater
Library Board
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:50 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by Bugeater »

Professor Woland wrote:I'm just glad that unlike in the Gold Coast neighborhood these neighbors seem like good enough people to understand that the property owners have the right to do as they please with their proprerty (short of obvious things like erecting a paper mill or hog rendering plant).  While it's a shame that an attractive building had to be torn down (unlike a certain architectural abomination that has everyone up in arms, but I digress) I would rather every historic building in the world be torn down and replaced with surface parking than submit to the idea that the neighbors should have any say in what a property owner does, unless those plans include things that could damage the property, create undue noise, odor or light.  I live near the site and remember the house, it's a shame the owners tore it down but that's their affair.  I might wish they acted differently, but I have no right to interfere and neither do any other neighbors or group of neighbors.
Fair enough, hopefully they'll put up a nice quonset hut garage for you to enjoy.
Life is the sh*t that happens while we wait for moments that never come.
Professor Woland
Library Board
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by Professor Woland »

Bugeater wrote:
Professor Woland wrote:I'm just glad that unlike in the Gold Coast neighborhood these neighbors seem like good enough people to understand that the property owners have the right to do as they please with their proprerty (short of obvious things like erecting a paper mill or hog rendering plant).  While it's a shame that an attractive building had to be torn down (unlike a certain architectural abomination that has everyone up in arms, but I digress) I would rather every historic building in the world be torn down and replaced with surface parking than submit to the idea that the neighbors should have any say in what a property owner does, unless those plans include things that could damage the property, create undue noise, odor or light.  I live near the site and remember the house, it's a shame the owners tore it down but that's their affair.  I might wish they acted differently, but I have no right to interfere and neither do any other neighbors or group of neighbors.
Fair enough, hopefully they'll put up a nice quonset hut garage for you to enjoy.
Hey, if that's what they want to do, more power to them. If I can put up with weirdos having those "Religious Libery: Our Most Precious Freedom" signs, I can put up with an ugly garage. It's highly unlikely they would put up quonset hut garage, as the land is too valuable. If the worst thing that happens in my life is that someone puts up an ugly garage and screws with the neighborhood ambiance, I'll count myself lucky.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by GetUrban »

bigredmed wrote:So what happens to a building in one of these areas so ensconced with laws/rules/ordinances regarding what can be done to when that building has accumulated a couple of hundred K in REPAIR costs (to say nothing about modernizing or updating projects)?   Can there be a point where the house simply is worth less than an empty lot?  Do we know what the status of that house was?
I don't know if there is anything in the ordinances in Dundee that would penalize you for failing to maintain a house. There may be rules about using non-original-appearing replacement materials. A house could definitely reach the point where repairs would be more costly than it's worth. This particular house didn't appear to have reached that point, even if some of the foundations or footings needed repair. If it had extensive termite damage, that would be another story. Sounds like it hadn't been remodeled since the 50's, which is possibly a good thing...maybe it missed out on the plywood paneling, shag carpet, orange plastic laminate craze of the 70's. But they did equally horrendous re-decorations in the 50's too.

The assessor's site put the value of the lot at $23,500, but I'll bet you could sell an empty lot in that location for at least 60k, even though traffic on Farnam is heavy and it switches from east-bound to two-way to westbound each weekday. That would be a pain.

There have been quite a few tear-downs in older parts of west Omaha too...for example, the neighborhood just east of regency has had several big ranch houses replaced with McMansions, and of course the Witherspoon & Theisen Mansions were torn down to be replaced. Guess they were still too new to be thought of as historically significant.

Dundee went through a period in the 60's and 70's when several houses were starting to be converted into apartments. That can be almost as bad as outright demolition in some cases. Zoning helps keep that from happening too much. Lincoln had the same problem in neighborhoods close to UNL. Sometimes nice houses were torn down and replaced by 6-12 unit slip-in apartment buildings, right between other single family houses.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
TitosBuritoBarn
Planning Board
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by TitosBuritoBarn »

Professor Woland wrote:
Bugeater wrote:
Professor Woland wrote:I'm just glad that unlike in the Gold Coast neighborhood these neighbors seem like good enough people to understand that the property owners have the right to do as they please with their proprerty (short of obvious things like erecting a paper mill or hog rendering plant).  While it's a shame that an attractive building had to be torn down (unlike a certain architectural abomination that has everyone up in arms, but I digress) I would rather every historic building in the world be torn down and replaced with surface parking than submit to the idea that the neighbors should have any say in what a property owner does, unless those plans include things that could damage the property, create undue noise, odor or light.  I live near the site and remember the house, it's a shame the owners tore it down but that's their affair.  I might wish they acted differently, but I have no right to interfere and neither do any other neighbors or group of neighbors.
Fair enough, hopefully they'll put up a nice quonset hut garage for you to enjoy.
Hey, if that's what they want to do, more power to them.  If I can put up with weirdos having those "Religious Libery: Our Most Precious Freedom" signs, I can put up with an ugly garage.  It's highly unlikely they would put up quonset hut garage, as the land is too valuable.  If the worst thing that happens in my life is that someone puts up an ugly garage and screws with the neighborhood ambiance, I'll count myself lucky.
The neighbors would have the ability to sue (and would likely win) if a quonset garage replaced this house. Tort law. They could make the case that this garage is uncharacteristic of the neighborhood and significantly devalues their property. If the court finds this to be true, the devalue of property would be considered a "taking" and necessitates just compensation in either the lost value or the removal of the garage.
"Video game violence is not a new problem. Who could forget in the wake of SimCity how children everywhere took up urban planning." - Stephen Colbert
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by GetUrban »

It will be interesting to see if the owners seek to legally join the demo'd house property with theirs. It might be worth more to them for future sale if they leave it separate, assuming they don't put up some sort of structure such as a garage. Of course, it would increase the value of their house property if it was on a bigger lot.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
bigredmed
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by bigredmed »

GetUrban wrote:
bigredmed wrote:So what happens to a building in one of these areas so ensconced with laws/rules/ordinances regarding what can be done to when that building has accumulated a couple of hundred K in REPAIR costs (to say nothing about modernizing or updating projects)?   Can there be a point where the house simply is worth less than an empty lot?  Do we know what the status of that house was?
I don't know if there is anything in the ordinances in Dundee that would penalize you for failing to maintain a house. There may be rules about using non-original-appearing replacement materials. A house could definitely reach the point where repairs would be more costly than it's worth. This particular house didn't appear to have reached that point, even if some of the foundations or footings needed repair. If it had extensive termite damage, that would be another story. Sounds like it hadn't been remodeled since the 50's, which is possibly a good thing...maybe it missed out on the plywood paneling, shag carpet, orange plastic laminate craze of the 70's. But they did equally horrendous re-decorations in the 50's too.

The assessor's site put the value of the lot at $23,500, but I'll bet you could sell an empty lot in that location for at least 60k, even though traffic on Farnam is heavy and it switches from east-bound to two-way to westbound each weekday. That would be a pain.
So, lets say that the foundation needed a lot of work, knowing what it cost us to have one corner jacked and drain tile put in around the house, if you had 3 corners that needed mud jacks, you would be looking at $40K for a one story building. Let's say that the electrical is old, but not dangerous, so you can let that slide, but the HVAC is not salvagable. Another $20K at least. You get into termites and you could add in piles of cash. Add in the cost to restore the pre-50's era Craftsman style hardwood, and let's say Bird's eye Maple or some similar "too expensive for most people" hard wood floors, and that house could be a real maintenance pig. So the owners decide to tear it down to build a garden next to their house. Can the neighbors stop them?
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by GetUrban »

bigredmed wrote:
So, lets say that the foundation needed a lot of work, knowing what it cost us to have one corner jacked and drain tile put in around the house, if you had 3 corners that needed mud jacks, you would be looking at $40K for a one story building.  Let's say that the electrical is old, but not dangerous, so you can let that slide, but the HVAC is not salvagable.  Another $20K at least.  You get into termites and you could add in piles of cash.  Add in the cost to restore the pre-50's era Craftsman style hardwood, and let's say Bird's eye Maple or some similar "too expensive for most people" hard wood floors, and that house could be a real maintenance pig.   So the owners decide to tear it down to build a garden next to their house.  Can the neighbors stop them?
I don't think there is any existing preservation or zoning law that would disallow what you describe. If there is no law, the neighbors rightly shouldn't be able to stop it. If citizens want to pass such laws, to keep it from happening again, they're free to use the processes in place to do so. The courts can then decide if the laws are constitutional if it gets that far. Some neighbors in this case are upset that the owners weren't giving the real reason they tore it down, since there are a lot of people who would probably not hesitate to throw $200k toward a full renovation and flip it for $500-600k or live there themselves. The owners already had a nicer house, so no reason to remodel it for themselves. People have different perceptions of what effort they are willing to take to save something.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by Brad »

Another one bites the dust... I was surprised when I went down Happy Hollow this weekend to see yet another old house torn down.

Rather than doing $250K in repairs, owner who lives in lot behind 94-year-old house in Dundee razes it

http://www.omaha.com/article/20140416/N ... e-razes-it" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Jay Withrow / World-Herald staff writer wrote:And so, on Saturday, the walls and roof came tumbling down on a 1½-story, 2,200-square-foot, 94-year-old stucco home just north of Dodge Street at 113 N. Happy Hollow Blvd.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by S33 »

250K in repairs. As good a reason as any to tear down. If the home was in that bad of shape, it would never have passed inspection for mortgage, anyhow.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by GetUrban »

Seems like there is a virus infecting the neighborhood now. Hard to believe he'd pay $321k in 2005, and then tear it down now. It's his right though. Even putting $250k back in to renovate, he'd probably still be able to sell it for over $600k in that neighborhood. Sounds like he just wanted a bigger yard, and to use the old garage from the demo'd house. At least he saved a 7' pine tree, lol.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
Uffda
County Board
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Land o Lakes, FL

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by Uffda »

S33 wrote:250K in repairs. As good a reason as any to tear down. If the home was in that bad of shape, it would never have passed inspection for mortgage, anyhow.
Thats where I have a question -- was the house used to get the mortgage or did he pay cash or second mortgage his other house.

I know up in the Twin Cities, they have had for years where someone will come in and tear down an older house to build a mcmansion because they want to be living in a certain part of town.

This is an article from a couple of years ago -- http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/b ... l?page=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by GetUrban »

For what it's worth....here's a pic from the DC Assessor's site...

Image

Probably not one of the better houses in the neighborhood. Definitely not as nice or significant as the one recently demolished over on Farnam. Great location though. Somebody would have been happy to live there on Happy Hollow, I'm sure.

I would guess he definitely owned it outright before he tore it down. If he wanted to recoup the cost of the renovation and what he paid for it previously, to be feasible for the new buyers, it would need a loan-to-value ratio of 80%, depending on the loan type or how much the new buyers pay as a down payment. So it would probably have to appraise for about $714k unless the new buyers put down more cash to make up the difference, which is doubtful.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
TitosBuritoBarn
Planning Board
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by TitosBuritoBarn »

This isn't that big of a loss from an architectural standpoint, but I think there needs to be a review board put in place before this sort of thing gets out of hand. The fact that a person should be allowed to do what they want with their own house sounds nice in theory, but many people take their own self-interest to an extreme and ignore the long-term interests of the rest of the neighborhood. Also, Omaha has some good bones in its older areas, but has been |expletive| at preserving them.
"Video game violence is not a new problem. Who could forget in the wake of SimCity how children everywhere took up urban planning." - Stephen Colbert
Professor Woland
Library Board
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by Professor Woland »

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:This isn't that big of a loss from an architectural standpoint, but I think there needs to be a review board put in place before this sort of thing gets out of hand. The fact that a person should be allowed to do what they want with their own house sounds nice in theory, but many people take their own self-interest to an extreme and ignore the long-term interests of the rest of the neighborhood. Also, Omaha has some good bones in its older areas, but has been |expletive| at preserving them.
These two houses are outliers, I don't think it represents any sort of trend. I won't bother stating my position regarding property rights and people being subject to the aesthetic preferences of others, I've made it abundantly clear. But, even if you don't share my esteem of property rights, it is very dangerous to do something like establishing a historical district. You end up having to go before a board to change the color of your house or add a deck or an addition. This can turn into a nightmare (see the recent kerfuffle in the Gold Coast neighborhood.) Even if you think I'm a lunatic for my beliefs about property, starting down the roads of restrictions, especially when placed on people who never agreed to them, is almost certainly a bad idea.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by S33 »

Professor Woland wrote:
TitosBuritoBarn wrote:This isn't that big of a loss from an architectural standpoint, but I think there needs to be a review board put in place before this sort of thing gets out of hand. The fact that a person should be allowed to do what they want with their own house sounds nice in theory, but many people take their own self-interest to an extreme and ignore the long-term interests of the rest of the neighborhood. Also, Omaha has some good bones in its older areas, but has been |expletive| at preserving them.
These two houses are outliers, I don't think it represents any sort of trend.  I won't bother stating my position regarding property rights and people being subject to the aesthetic preferences of others, I've made it abundantly clear.  But, even if you don't share my esteem of property rights, it is very dangerous to do something like establishing a historical district.  You end up having to go before a board to change the color of your house or add a deck or an addition.  This can turn into a nightmare (see the recent kerfuffle in the Gold Coast neighborhood.)  Even if you think I'm a lunatic for my beliefs about property, starting down the roads of restrictions, especially when placed on people who never agreed to them, is almost certainly a bad idea.
Oh, but "property rights"... there's not such thing in a social democracy. As Daniel Klein once said of liberal views of property rights "we have all consented to an implicit contract with the overlord [i.e. – the government]. under which the state has the right to reorder property rights as it sees fit." :D

Again, I agree with you.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill
lisanstan
Library Board
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:20 pm

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by lisanstan »

I lived in West Nashville in the early 90's and the tear downs to build tacky McMansions was epidemic then. This is not a good thing. They packed 4 or more large houses on each lot. completely changed the character of some of those neighborhoods.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Old House Demolition

Post by GetUrban »

In these recent two examples in Dundee, the owners are actually decreasing the density of the neighborhood so far. It remains to be seen if they build anything to replace what was torn down or just plant landscaping. There have been quite a few tear downs in the neighborhood just east of Regency, east of 96th St between West Dodge and Pacific. Ranch houses have been replaced with McMansions on fairly large lots. I know of one example on 96th St. just north of Pacific where they bought a sizable early 1900's 2-story house on 5 acres and replaced it with a huge new French country style house. It was an architect-designed house, so it turned out to be an improvement over what was there before, even though the old house was perfectly good as it was.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
Post Reply