When was our Community Built?

In writing about 2413 Buena Vista last week and the looking at the year 1942 as a demarcation for the "Historic List," I wanted to get a better feel for what that housing stock looked liked and the mix in Alameda. The only source that I had available over the weekend was the 2000 Census, so the numbers have changed with the addition on new home construction but it will get us pretty close to at least what the stock looked like nine years ago.

The Census does a pretty good job of breaking down the numbers and they separate out owner-occupied verses rental. For a baseline here are the total numbers:

Owner-Occupied: 14,491

Rental: 15,735

Not a real surprising since the first wave of housing came between 1854 and  1939. Over a third of the homes in Alameda were built during this period with 38.5% of the owner occupied and 29.3% of the rental units constructed in this 85-years. The total housing stock was built before World War II was 33.17%. 

If you push the date out to 1969 this construction  accounts for well over two-thirds of the units (68%). So for the next 30 years Alameda saw 9,576 units added to the inventory. A large portion of this development came as Harbor Bay began construction in 1978 and added 2,973 homes over the next 20-plus years.

So I guess my question to ponder is: How good a tool is the HAB list with the inventory we have?

I was really able to think about question as I walked from my home near Broadway to my favorite coffee shop near Webster. As I walked along Central I noted two things: First is you really do not know a neighborhood til you walk it;  And second what is the list suppose to do?

Central Avenue is the real reason why Measure A and The HAB List were created. Older homes, Big Box Apartments, small bungalows, bastardized Victorians into two, three, four or more units. The big lots with older homes that hide apartment buildings stacked behind the grand home. I can really see why dramatic steps were taken by the citizens.

As I walked the 17 blocks from Park to Webster, I realized that it is not the city measures that were implemented but the mix of housing stock that allows for such a diverse and unique community. And in someways it was the craziness of 50s,60s, and 70s created this community that is diverse and unique. I still believe that the HAB list  was done backwards, that a (singular) home should be place on list by the individual merit and not one big swoop, but I will continue to ponder this question.

The Census data is below, and even further down in the post is the weekly inventory report.

TENURE BY YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT
Owner-occupied housing units	14,491	100
Built 1999 to March 2000	52	0.4%
Built 1995 to 1998	538	3.7%
Built 1990 to 1994	422	2.9%
Built 1980 to 1989	2,509	17.3%
Built 1970 to 1979	1,760	12.1%
Built 1960 to 1969	1,817	12.5%
Built 1950 to 1959	943	6.5%
Built 1940 to 1949	876	6.0%
Built 1939 or earlier	5,574	38.5%
Median	1958	(X)
Renter-occupied housing units	15,735	100
Built 1999 to March 2000	22	0.1
Built 1995 to 1998	133	0.8
Built 1990 to 1994	504	3.2
Built 1980 to 1989	1,100	7
Built 1970 to 1979	2,536	16.1
Built 1960 to 1969	3,245	20.6
Built 1950 to 1959	2,117	13.5
Built 1940 to 1949	1,460	9.3
Built 1939 or earlier	4,618	29.3
Median	1958	(X)

Monday Inventory Below:

Alameda Inventory, Pulled February 22 at 9:30 AM

 

22-Feb-09
Total		165
94501		130
94502		34
SFR		91
Condo		45
Multi-Family		28
Short Sale		27
Foreclosure		11
Price Reductions		61
High		$       2,095,000
Low		$          214,900

The Crossroads of Progress and Preservation

Last Night the City Council was at the corner of Progress and Preservation as it was to consider an appeal from the Owners 2413 Buena Vista who is seeking to demo this building as part of a larger commercial project for the area. The item was pulled from the agenda at the request of the appellant.

But here is the background on the project. The Historic Advisory Board denied two items regarding this property – the removal of the home from the Alameda Historic Building List and the denial of a Certificate of Approval to Allow Demolition of the Structure – that is smack between a former car dealership and a parking lot.

I thought the most interesting part of the report was the staff evaluation.

Staff evaluated the structure and found that there has been a lack of maintenance over the years, and exterior elements and details have deteriorated because of this. In addition, some of the exterior details have been replaced or modified in a way that does not match the original. In a search through records available in the Planning and Building Department, no documentation was found that the site was identified with a historic event or person. Although an attempt can be made at rehabilitating this structure, the evaluation provided by the applicant’s engineer indicates that less than half of the original structure would remain; thus such an undertaking would result in the “defacto demolition” of the building. The result would be a replica of the original, but not the original structure itself, and would no longer be a historical resource. Therefore, staff recommended that the Historic Advisory Board remove 2413 Buena Vista Avenue from the Alameda Historic Building list.

This is where I ruffle some people’s feathers. Just because a building is old does not mean it is historic. I know that a lot of people work very hard to preserve the quality of our Island community, but here Alameda we seem to do this dance were the HAB denies a project and the Council approves (even though this one project was continued). The reason for this continuous bureaucratic cha-cha-cha is we have a very broad interpretation of historic.

The City Charter designates that “Any building that was constructed prior to 1942 shall not be demolished or removed without the approval of a certificate of approval issued by the Historical Advisory Board.” The Historical Building Code applies to all properties on the List and is based on the judgment of the evaluators.

Are you kidding me, 1942! So anything before World War II we need to add additional steps in the development process because someone thinks that a building is historic. First of all 1942 was not that long ago and second a building may never have had or no longer has any significance because of a “lack of maintenance.”

A property may be removed from the List by Board action if, in the considered opinion of the majority of the Board, a structure has been altered to such an extend as to have removed all historic value or context. This is backwards. The HAB should be adding buildings to the list based on its merit not just because a structure was built in a given time period.

The building in question was constructed in 1890 and you can see by the photos that this home is falling apart and has visible dry rot. We should be excited as a community that someone is looking to improve the area.

I hope that I am not coming across against preservation, because I am not. I worked very hard to restore my 1915 California Bungalow home, that had been bastardized in the 1950s to look like a ranch home, to a regain its charm and make it match the neighborhood and honor the tradition within it was built. What I am against is when we have rules that add unnecessary steps to a process and we seem to do this over and over again.

Sometimes when we come to the crossroads of Progress and Preservation we tend to forget the state of the building and will there be any one willing to spend the money to restore the project. These types of rules, in my opinion, do not preseve because we can not force owners to maintain the quality of the property. This home is in a commercial area, and to remove it would not be a loss to the integrity of Alameda, change the feel of the street nor is a true loss to the community.