Historic house presented dilemma to city officialsBy David Slade (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Mic Smith A bicyclist rolls past 61 Bogard St. in Charleston on Monday. The vacant house at Bogard Street and Peecksen's Court is boarded up and marred by graffiti. It's an eyesore in the midst of 11 new homes that were built as part of Charleston's Homeownership Initiative, but it's also a home that must be preserved because of its age and historic nature. The city acquired the vacant house in 2001 and later turned it over to the nonprofit Humanities Foundation with plans to have it renovated for affordable housing when the 11 new homes were built. The Humanities Foundation concluded in 2006 that the cost of rehabilitating the house would make it impossible to sell at an affordable price. Debby Waid, foundation vice president, said the bids received for the work amounted to more than $300,000. City officials put the cost of renovating the property at $417,000. The foundation transferred the property back to the city in January. Now, the city has agreed to sell the property for $125,000 to Ian Tomlinson, a neighborhood resident who is in the business of renovating homes, mostly for rental properties. "To me, it doesn't seem like it's in that bad a shape," he said. "I renovate lots of buildings, mostly on Bogard Street and side streets off Bogard. I've seen far worse." The fact that the boarded-up house has been sitting on that corner for seven years since the city first acquired it has irked Councilman James Lewis, who said the city sometimes goes too far in attempting to preserve historic buildings. "I've been on their case to either renovate it or tear it down," he said. "My thing is, we've got some of the finest architects in the country here in Charleston, and with some of these, if it's too expensive to renovate, then we should tear down and build something else in its footprint." The vacant house was part of the Peecksen's Court affordable housing initiative, and Lewis said he's pleased with the new homes built by the Humanities Foundation. Geona Johnson, director of Charleston's Department of Housing and Community Development, said the city spent about $225,000 acquiring all of the property, including the vacant house, and another $500,000 subsidizing the purchase price of the new homes. The houses cost about $225,000 each to build, and so far nine have been sold to middle-income, first-time home buyers for an average price of $160,000. She said the city's experience with 61 Bogard St. has led to some changes in the way the city deals with historic properties that are being considered for renovation as affordable housing. "We're looking to determine the feasibility right up front," Johnson said. She said the city recently transferred a property at 26 Blake St. to the Charleston Bank Consortium for an affordable housing development, and the city and the nonprofit already are evaluating a historic but vacant house on the site to see if renovation would make economic sense. Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or dslade@post andcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 8 comment(s)
Posted by Reader on July 22, 2008 at 5:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The City is a terrible steward for its historic properties and should get out of the business of buying them. The City will lavish money on tourist oriented properties (which is a sound economic decision and I am not faulting that), but it refuses to take even minimal steps to even protect vacant buildings it holds for years at a time. The house mentioned on Blake St. at the end of the article is a perfect example of the City's own demolition by neglect.
The only thing worse than the City's lack of concern for the buildings it buys is Councilman Lewis's complete lack of apprecition for historic fabric. The very idea of demolishing historic buildings instead of selling them on the free market to someone interested in doing the work is insane.
Posted by Neponset on July 22, 2008 at 6:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Reader
Agree with your first para. I have seen some of their buildings with roof problems that allowed rain water to enter the buildings for years. A few cheap patches should have been installed.
Second para. Lots of these old building are in real bad shape, including some that are out of plumb (leaning). I question whether the structual integrity is there. They may not be worth saving.
Posted by JohnS on July 22, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Most houses over 150 years are out of plumb. Unless you tear it down it's going to be that way. Jack the foundation as level as you can get it. Fix the main structure parts damaged from termites and water and then work on the rest one day at a time. This house can be fixed. The problem I have found today is most guys don't know how to work on these old properties.
Posted by Neponset on July 22, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnS
Sounds like you have some experience in this area and yes it looks like the skill and experience level of current construction workers is not what it once was.
So you don't try to square up the building and rework the cross bracing - not being crritical - just asking.
Posted by pompusmaximus on July 22, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
From the outside, the house doesn't look all that bad. There are far worse example around that area. For instance, the beautifully restored mixed use building on bogard and st. phillip st. It used to be nothing more than a gutted, tilted frame that i thought for sure was going to have to be torn down.
Posted by Reader on July 22, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I totally agree with the post above. Unless the interior if FAR, FAR worse than the exterior, there is no way in this world that it could possibly cost over $400,000 to restore the building. Good grief. The whole building is probably fewer than 2000 square feet. It could not possibly cost $250 per square foot to restore the building, even to the highest standards of preservation. Apart from the plywood nailed over some of the openings, the building actually looks really good on the outside.
Posted by rollo on July 22, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There's something seriously wrong with this story, several somethings, actually.
Posted by majorjohnson on July 23, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who gives a thimble of warm spit? Tear the thing down and build an new single house on the site. I noticed they didn't say how old it was...probably almost as old as I am. One reason no one can afford a home downtown is because the city thinks anything older than than a housefly is historic and has to be repaired even if it doubles the cost of the home.
And look what they achieved with the homes they did sell. 225,000 TAX DOLLARS acquiring all of the property, 500,000 TAX DOLLARS subsidizing the purchase price of the new homes. The houses cost about $225,000 each to build, and they sold them for $160,000 each. That means for the 10 houses it cost $2.25 MILLION to build, another 725,000 tax dollars bringing the total to over $3,000,000, and they made back a whopping $1,600,000. That's a total loss of over $1,400,000. Is that good business or what?
And you wonder why government costs so much.