1. Decisions for a Local Historic District
Browne’s Addition
Decisions for a Local Historic District

2. The Challenge of Browne’s Addition as A historic district
Mental image of a “large house/mansion” area
Many don’t perceive the small houses and apartment buildings that are the basis of the neighborhoods affordability and eclectic residents
Development pressures due to Central City Line
Practical Politics and Neighborhood request for a historic district
Defendable practices for the first Local Historic District
Diverse mix of buildings in the district and its long, complicated history of development and redevelopment

3. National Register district Legacy
Nomination dates to 1976
Working end of Period of Significance 1930
Strong emphasis on single-family dwellings, architecture
Maple

4. Why another look?
Using the NRHP end of period of significance means a low percentage of contributing buildings and is not strongly related to history of the neighborhood
Browne’s Addition was historically mostly apartment living from ca through any end of any proposed Period of Significance and for most of that time there were both SFDs and apartment buildings.
Local historic district designation needs clearly articulated goals, categories, standards
Borth historic context identifies three periods quite different from those in the NRHP nomination

5. 1881-1910: Living Well in Browne’s
Earliest house still existing: 1884 at 1905 W Pacific Avenue
First apartment building still existing: 1900 at W Riverside Avenue
63% of all buildings constructed (192 of 303)
86% of all single-family residences constructed (174 of 203)
17% of all multi-family residences constructed (14 of 84)
First conversion of SFD to MFD occurred during this period
at 2208 W Pacific Ave
Majority of all buildings constructed
Majority of single family house construction

6. 1910-1950 Living Together, Living Modestly in Browne’s Addition
85% (257 of 303) of all buildings constructed by 1950
21% (65 of 303) new buildings constructed
14% (28 of 203) single family houses built
37% (31 of 84) apartment buildings erected
78% (99 out of 127) single family houses converted to multi family buildings
Highest percentage of apartment building construction
Last period of single family house construction
Majority of conversions occurred

7. 1951-1970 Living Densely in Browne’s
95% (289 of 303) of all buildings constructed by % (32 of 303) new buildings constructed No single family houses constructed 36% (30 of 84) apartment buildings constructed 20% (26 of 127) single family houses converted to multi family buildings

8. Practical Politics in Browne’s
Usually, contributing buildings are considered to be protected from demolition.
Choosing a period of significance that extends to 1950 brings in many of the smaller houses as contributing buildings, as well as some apartment buildings that are part of the pattern of development, but not generally considered to be architecturally significant.
Because of the strengthened role in demolition review – this matters in Browne’s.
Sure, any building could be approved for demolition, but the point of the district would be diluted with many approvals for demolition.

9. Working with the new Ordinance
Borth intending for all recommendations regarding the district, demolition review standards for Browne’s, design standards, and New Construction standards to work together for a common, coordinated vision for the neighborhood as a Local Historic District.

10. Determining a Period of Significance

11. Use of Pos ending 1910 (end of first Era)
Status Percentage Contributing 55% (168) Non-Contributing by date of Construction 37% (113) Non-Contributing due to Loss of Integrity 8% (22)

12. What this would Mean
Protect large dwellings and apartments from pre 1910 era only
This means smaller ratio than usual of contributing buildings (55%) and a “hands- off” approach to contributing buildings and allows market forces to redevelop sites of small dwellings, many apartments.
Result would be a neighborhood with contrast of pre 1910 and 21st Century buildings.
Interesting and forward looking?
Or missing the point of a historic district?

13. Use of PoS ENDING 1970 (End of Third Era)
Status Percentage
Contributing % (260)
Non-Contributing by date of Construction 6% (17)
Non-Contributing due to Loss of Integrity 9% (26)
Historical Reasons
Apartment building construction important and steady through 1970, a few after
After 1970, larger apartment complex development at edges of city

14. What this would mean Protect almost all 19th and 20th C development
85% of buildings would be contributing.
This situation could – with strong standards against demolition – negate the RHD high-density zoning possibilities to few properties.
If Board remains committed to no demolition of contributing buildings, there would be limited change.
Or Board would be engaged in a series of applications that could result in demolitions based on
Lack of architectural significance (preference) and/or other factors.
Board could also face more use of economic hardship appeals
Predicted: contentious practical politics for foreseeable future

15. Use of PoS Ending 1950 (End of Second Era)
Status Percentage
Contributing % (227)
Non-Contributing by date of Construction 16% (46)
Non-Contributing due to Loss of Integrity 9% (26)
Historic Reasons:
Last SFD built 1950
Neighborhood almost built out by 1950
Both SFD and apartment buildings throughout period

16. What this would mean
Protect mix of large and small dwellings, old and newer apartments built before 1950 (75%) to convey a time and place for BA as HDs are meant to do
This is a typical local historic district approach and defendable; and it protects nearly all SFD from demolition
Would allow redevelopment to happen easily on post 1950 sites: apartments
Market will determine what happens to post-1950 buildings in the district and Board reviews new construction on those sites
Would still be proposals to demolish contributing buildings
Probably most in line with what neighborhood wants and it is practical to propose

17. %, # contributing properties
End of PoS
%, # contributing properties
1910
55%
1930
64%
1950
75%
1958
79%
1970
85%

18. Borth PRESERVATION RecommendationS
Period of Significance: ending 1950 based on history of neighborhood and practical politics
Boundary – irregular to exclude out-of-period properties at the edges of the district
Assessment of Historic Integrity: include SFD if fair or above integrity to make them eligible for rehabilitation and Special Valuation program

19. Determining a Boundary

20. Boundary rationales
All post-1950 buildings at edges of the boundary excluded per pattern established by leaving out The Ridge Riverside: a choice: could remove all of the north side of the street from the boundary as it is so half-and-half with non-contributing buildings

21. Proposed Map for the Local Historic District
1910 Boundary
1950 Boundary

22. Removal of north side of riverside avenue (287 properties)
1910 Boundary
Contributing: 55% (159)
Non-Contributing by date: 38% (108)
Non-Contributing due to Integrity: 7% (21)
1950 Boundary
Contributing: 74% (213)
Non-Contributing by date: 16% (45)
Non-Contributing due to Integrity: 9% (26)

23. Buildings that would be contributing with 1950 PoS

24. Contributing Buildings

25. Demolition & Other Review in Browne’s
All buildings erected during Period of Significance generally included as contributing – unless they have no historic integrity.
Development pressures in Browne’s suggest that the Board will need to consider:
Additions to smaller contributing houses – perhaps second stories
Remodeling of some apartment buildings to make them more competitive
Demolition of all types of buildings for new construction

26. Integrity of Resources in Browne’s Addition Historic District
Integrity Evaluation
FEATURE 1
FEATURE 2
FEATURE 3
INTEGRITY
Intact
Excellent
Slight
Good
Moderate
Extensive
Fair
Poor
Integrity of Resources in Browne’s Addition Historic District
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor 73
150 47 26

27. Fair Integrity Contributing

28. Poor Integrity Noncontributing

29. Fluidity of Categories
How easy do we want to make it for the owner of a property with poor integrity to move the property into “contributing” status and make it eligible for HP incentives?
A process to be considered in the district documents.

30. Working with projected changes

31. Current Zoning

32. Current Zoning Situation
Residential High Density (RHD) The RHD is a high-density residential zone that allows the highest density of dwelling units in the residential zones. The allowed housing developments are characterized by high amount of building coverage. The major types of new housing development will be attached and detached single-family residential, duplexes, medium and high-rise apartments, condominiums (often with allowed accessory uses). The minimum density is fifteen units per acre; the maximum is limited by other code provisions (i.e., setbacks, height, parking, etc.). RHD 35: Maximum roof height set at 35’ so three-story apartment buildings approach maximum height as of right

33. Redevelopment Framework
Pressures and opportunities of RHD zone limited to 35 feet maximum height
Even if more height limited – combining small lots and building more densely could be easily proposed