Here's a quick one for the zoning wonks and downtown preservationists.
Earlier this evening, I was speaking with a businessman who is about to establish operations in a downtown building. He showed me a mock-up of the building's facade (it is a relatively modern structure) that had been "photo-shopped" into being painted black. He noted that while the other embellishments and decor were likely a go, the color black would have to be changed because it is not allowed.
It's refreshing to hear someone acknowledge a rule and not rush out to hire Crafty John Kraft in a bid to overturn it, but at the same time, I'm wondering if there is such a rule.
Is black really verboten?
If so, what do we do if Al Davis moves the Raiders to New Albany and occupies the Elsby Building?
§ 151.13 PAINT COLORS.
ReplyDelete(A) The Historic Preservation Commission shall require a certificate of appropriateness for changes in exterior colors of buildings, sites, structures and objects in the historic districts.
(B) Owners of structures in certain historic districts of New Albany shall seek the guidance and assistance of the Historic Preservation Commission prior to painting or coating buildings in certain historic districts of the city. However, the Preservation Commission shall not prohibit the use of any color or coating with the exception of the use of black on the body of any building in the historic districts.
(Ord. G-99-334, passed 6-28-1999)
It's my understanding that the Smith Furniture Building was the inspiration for this section of the ordinance.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny.
ReplyDeleteWhen I heard it said, I immediately turned to D and said: If it's true, I bet it's because of Smith Furniture.
Is Smith still open in Clarksville?
We were over that way yesterday and they're still having a "Lost our Lease" sale...
ReplyDeleteAfter a cursory look, this does appear to be one of the few areas where the local ordinance does not copy the state enabling statute verbatim. The relevant IC section reads:
ReplyDeleteIC 36-7-11-20
Changes in paint colors; exclusion from activities requiring certificate of appropriateness
Sec. 20. In an ordinance approving the establishment of a historic district, a unit may exclude changes in paint colors from the activities requiring the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness under section 10 of this chapter before a permit may be issued or work begun.
As added by P.L.146-1992, SEC.6.
That, plus the somewhat awkward wording in this section of the ordinance (versus a relatively tightly written enabling statute) seems to confirm the belief that New Albany singled out black for a reason.
Well, at least Todd Coleman painted over the black. Maybe in ten years, he'll contribute again.
ReplyDeleteI still thank Eli every time I drive by.
ReplyDeleteWould it have happened without a UEA facade match grant?
On a side note, Louisville has a revolving facade loan fund. There's going to be an announcement in a few weeks about a rehab of a large downtown Louisville building. That project will benefit from a $200,000 facade loan.
The HPC can still approve a black-painted building. This just means they can't deny a COA for paint color except black.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, they could even deny that black-painted building is appropriate and still approve the COA.
Actually, Smith's had nothing to do with the black issue. Back when the ordinance was drafted, the MSPA and Scott Wood hammered out most of the details. Mansion Row was at that time the only designated historic district.
ReplyDeletePaint color was a hot topic, because what may be beautiful to one person may be the complete opposite to another. So it was finally decided that the only color that would be unacceptable to almost everyone would be painting the body of a house black.
There actually was a house over in Crescent Hill, a beautiful Queen Anne, that had been painted black with fire-engine red trim.
On another note, while the HPC cannot deny non-black paint colors, they can sometimes deny non-black paint. That is, new paint (of any color) on historic masonry that has never before been painted can and often should be denied a COA.
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of reasons for this. One reason, depending on the type of brick and paint, is that some masonry needs to "breath" to maintain its structural integrity, which a fresh coat of latex can prevent. Another reason might be that the architect used a particular type of ornamental brick which was integral to the appearance of the building; think of the stunning glazed brick on the Elsby Building's South and East facades and how inappropriate it would be to hide.
It can get technical. Thankfully the HPC has a trained staff member who can advise on such matters.
"Well, at least Todd Coleman painted over the black. Maybe in ten years, he'll contribute again."
ReplyDeleteTodd takes very seriously his place in downtown and he's working hard to upgrade his buildings. He full-well knows he has a role to play down town. He has additional plans for the Smith building that include new awnings (matching the trim color). Because of the economy that won't happen until next spring.
And, yes, the UEA will help him as it did with the Smith building.
"Todd takes very seriously his place in downtown and he's working hard to upgrade his buildings."
ReplyDeleteWhen does he plan to start? As one of the biggest property owners downtown, Mr. Coleman's lack of investment in his properties is a disporportionate drag on the other revitalizers who are investing.
When I drive thru downtown, Mr Colemans buildings are some of the most unattractive.
And, yes, the UEA will help him as it did with the Smith building.
ReplyDeleteI hope so. But for now, I understand that the UEA is out of the façade grant business while they await additional funding.
I can think of a couple of buildings just down Pearl Street and around the corner that look a lot worse than anything Todd has.
ReplyDeleteWhy not be positive and be thankful something was done. There are a lot of people who have come late to this party. A spirit of cooperation and encouragement would go further than the negativity that this community espouses on a regular basis.
The facade grants have made a striking difference in the physical appearance of the zone. The UEA will continue this program, as it has in the past.
To ensure the continuation of the program why not make a corporate donation to it?
Perhaps there's another downtown agency that can provide some facade grant money...
ReplyDeletePerhaps Mr. Coleman, who claims to be a multi-millionaire investor, could scrap some coin out of his own pants for his commerical enterprises facade improvements? anyone thought of that?
ReplyDeleteThe UEA façade grant program is without doubt a good thing for Zone stakeholders.
ReplyDeleteIt’s good, but as I’ve noted before, I believe it should be structured differently to target the “worst of the worst” properties.
Any UEZ property owner contemplating a six-figure or seven-figure restoration is unlikely to be swayed by a $2500 check. Big projects require big incentives.
As I’ve suggested to several UEA board members and to Mr. Ladd, the UEA should consider distributing maybe half as many $2500 grants and one or two annual $20,000 or $30,000 grants or below market rate loans.
Twenty-five hundred dollars is too little to justify the hassle of going through a “certified rehabilitation” and taking advantage of the federal 10% or 20% Historic Tax Credit.
A larger grant (or loan), when made with the condition that certified rehabilitation be accomplished, leverages the power of the federal tax credits.
For example, a $100,000 “certified rehabilitation” would only cost the property owner $50,000 if $30,000 came from the UEA. The remaining $20,000 would come in the form of credits.
If private market actors are going to restore (1) a Shrader Stables, (2) a Tabernacle, or (3) Bill Allens properties, we can either wait and wait for property values to hopefully appreciate, or we can help push things along with more targeted incentives.
When it comes to improving the appearance of the Zone, I argue that improving one or two of these “worst” properties will accomplish more than the incremental improvements currently seen on our more attractive properties.
Transaction costs may make $2500 loans impractical. With larger dollar amounts, loans make more sense. Façade loan can allow the UEA to better replenish its coffers and spur more redevelopment say 10 years from now.
I gladly volunteer my time and expertise as a real estate attorney and historic preservation commission member to structure a loan program, draft loan documents and/or help select properties where the most dramatic improvement can be achieved with the dollars available.
It may have been improper for me to use the "in ten years" phrase. Sorry 'bout that. Conversely, it is frustrating to see neglect. Hopefully the dialogue can continue.
ReplyDeleteYou're right Roger, it's not correct, because AP Style calls for the numeral 10, not ten. Glad you noticed your error and manned up to it. Shea would be proud.
ReplyDeleteMy only response before I head for a 4-day conference would be that the current grant program works - eight years and nearly a quarter of a million dollar investment proves that.
ReplyDeleteI suggest that if the other preservation and community development groups don't like the way our program is structured, create their own - put up their own funds, write Horseshoe Foundation for a match and build their own program.
I will offer myself as an advisor to help them set it up. My 30 years background should count for something
My 30 years background should count for something.
ReplyDeleteNot to Dan Coffey. Then again, nothing much that has happened after 1897 counts for him.
Your a funny, funny man Albanian!
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteI’m not saying the existing façade program has accomplished nothing. As noted above, I believe it has been a positive for the zone. I too believe, as you say, “it works,” at least to an extent.
I don’t believe it works as well as it could. The existing program does nothing to leverage other revitalization tools. While the existing program has worked for properties like Smith’s Furniture, it has not worked for the Tabernacle. Nor has it worked for Shrader Stables. Or Jim’s Gun Room. Or Bill Allen’s quarter-block. Why is that?
Whether or not the UEA continues or modifies a particular program, or assist a particular zone property owner, is up to the UEA board of directors. Unlike private organizations such as DNA or Horseshoe, UEA is a quasi-public institution. The intent of the UEA is to help those who own businesses and property in the zone. Since it’s quasi-public and since I own property in the zone, I don’t believe it’s inappropriate for me to question the UEA’s programs or lobby UEA board members for particular policy changes.
Personally, I welcome constructive criticism. I believe most UEA board members do too. As Roger said, hopefully the dialogue can continue.
While we’re on the subject of constructive criticism, I’m curious what constructive criticism you might have about Develop New Albany, Mike?
I understand that for several years you have been critical of the organization’s management. That is the rumor, at least. If the rumor is false, if you believe DNA is managed well enough, please let us know. I’ll sincerely thank you for the vote of confidence. If you believe changes would benefit the organization, if you believe changes would help advance DNA’s mission, I want to hear the suggestions and insights your 30 years of experience bring.
Respectfully,
Dan Chandler
"Perhaps Mr. Coleman, who claims to be a multi-millionaire investor, could scrap some coin out of his own pants for his commerical enterprises facade improvements? anyone thought of that?"
ReplyDeleteAh, Gina, you never fail to miss an opportunity to tell someone else how to spend their money in the downtown historic district.
Question Dan: Since DNA gets tax exemption, gets money from public and private donations and is involved in public projects such as the downtown masterplan, is it not also quasi-public?
ReplyDeleteTax exempt status or the receipt of donations, like tax-exempt status or receipt of donations by a church, does not make an organization “public.”
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think the question of how “public” DNA is a mute question. Develop New Albany is willing to discuss our policies and eager for community input. We believe that a healthy debate is the best way to achieve the best possible outcomes for the community as a whole.
The catch would be if you're using your donations to influence development and policies for the city, then I believe your work would be quite public.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, I’m not sure which definition you’re using for “public.” Our board members are not appointed by elected officials. There are organizations to which FOIA applies; DNA is not one of them. There are organizations which must register as political lobbying organizations; DNA is not one of them. DNA’s board has been careful to stay away from “lobbying.” Paying for part of a land use study does not meet the “lobbying” definition under the relevant statutes. I’ll repeat that all of this is academic as DNA is more than willing to discuss any of its operations.
ReplyDeleteI think the reporter's been spending too much time swallowing the bilge water dispensed by the Copperhead.
ReplyDeleteThat's a joke. I think.
"There are organizations to which FOIA applies"...we're not one of them.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about that one, I can get your 990 whenever I'd like, as can anybody. You have public officials on your board, your members have spoken in favor of various projects at public meetings. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, what I am saying is that if you're going to question the UEZ, you should also consider what makes up your own organization.
As for Roger, his involvement is somewhat predictable. Supporting for the right reasons is confused quite easily with financial reasons in this country of ours. I think he may be the truest capitalist in New Albany.
When a mayor joins a church, the church doesn't become public.
ReplyDeleteSupporting for the right reasons is confused quite easily with financial reasons in this country of ours. I think he may be the truest capitalist in New Albany.
ReplyDeleteI think he's hitting on me, not at me.
if you're going to question the UEZ, you should also consider what makes up your own organization.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, I will repeat: DNA welcomes questions. We welcome discussion. We believe there is always room for improvement in any organization, including our own.
Perhaps Daniel S. would like to attend today's DNA board meeting at 3:30 p.m., White House Center. In addition to observing DNA, he could also see a completely remodeled downtown building that has nothing to do with food, booze or aquariums.
ReplyDeleteI've toured the White House Centre, very nice. Don't mistake what I'm saying Dan, I think DNA serves a great purpose. I've enjoyed working with Mike Kopp, as I have Mike Ladd. I just think the questions you were raising earlier to Ladd were a way of trying to discredit UEZ based on arguments that happened long before I arrived, or at the least poking at what UEZ tries to accomplish. I don't think that's fair. Hypothetically, DNA could be doing little of nothing but will always have the "we're a private, nonprofit organization" card. Conversely, UEZ can be doing about all it can and will be judged by a whole different set of rules because it is quasi public. But realistically, both are servicing the community in their own way.
ReplyDeleteBack to the Centre, it's an excellent job. But sadly when I interviewed some of the tenants, several had moved there because they had to downsize their business. So while it looks good for downtown, for New Albany as a whole, what it means might not be that great in terms of where our employment numbers are heading. Does it profit New Albany if downtown prospers while other areas of the city flounder? From a tax perspective, it couldn't. And yes Roger, I was hitting on you. That A's hat does it for me :)
I just think the questions you were raising earlier to Ladd were a way of trying to discredit UEZ based on arguments that happened long before I arrived, or at the least poking at what UEZ tries to accomplish.
ReplyDeleteThe UEA, as Mr. Ladd said, intends to continue the façade grant program into the future. My questions were asked solely in the interest of seeing that this program, in the future, achieves the maximum desired effect.
for Roger, his involvement is somewhat predictable. Supporting for the right reasons is confused quite easily with financial reasons in this country of ours. I think he may be the truest capitalist in New Albany.
ReplyDeleteIn Theory, anyone with a downtown business has the potential for indirect financial gain from a more vibrant downtown. Since there is a potential for this indirect gain, should Roger always sit on the sidelines? If any downtown stakeholder with a purely altruistic intent ever wanted to help other downtown businesses or property owners, or assist with additional cultural amenities or beautification downtown, how Daniel do you recommend they proceed?
Yes, they should be in favor of these kinds of groups. But to get all out of shape because other people without downtown ties don't support it is silly. When someone with something to gain says you should be in favor of this, it just doesn't really have that legitimate of an effect. It's predictable.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'm in favor. I live approximately 4 miles from downtown and do not own, nor invest, in any business downtown.
ReplyDeleteSatisfied?
Of course, if downtown New Albany prospers, then perhaps New Albany will prosper, then there's a good chance that my house might increase in value... So I guess my opinion doesn't count either. Or anyone's with any kind of investment in New Albany.
Gets kind of silly, doesn't it?
"Okay, I'm in favor"
ReplyDeleteOf what?
My point is it's easy to be gushy about something when you directly stand to benefit from it. There's nothing silly about that. I would say 95 percent of people in New Albany want more options downtown, want to see people succeed. But when you start talking about using tax money to that end, it's a new ballgame. Like it or not, there's a legitimate argument to be vetted over that topic. If you're going to hurl insults at people for not immediately siding with you, you're just as bad as the ones you ridicule.
Who is hurling insults? Who said that debate over tax expenditures was not legitimate?
ReplyDeleteI'm getting old and forgetful.