Greensboro's Treasured Places

Historic Jamestown Struggles With a Fast Food Future

In one of the oldest communities in the Carolina piedmont brews a preservation struggle that pits an historic log house against a modern drive-thru restaurant. Which side wins will shape the future of this town as a community that either respects its past, or discards it.

Among the communities in Guilford County, Jamestown is recognized as having a pedigree like no other, having been settled in the 1750s. Before its larger neighbors High Point and Greensboro were even established, old Jamestown was a thriving settlement with deep roots in education, industry, and community thanks in part to its Quaker heritage.

Jamestown’s history runs more than skin deep. The community has worked hard over the past half century to brand itself as a center of Guilford County history thanks to early preservationists such as Bill and Mary Elizabeth Ragsdale. The couple were civic leaders who not only advocated for preservation, but personally acquired many of Jamestown’s most important properties in the 1950s and 1960s when they were threatened with destruction. Their efforts led to the preservation of the landmark Magnolia Farm, Mendenhall Plantation (now an historic house museum), and the Isaac Potter Log House [early image, upper right].

Isaac Potter purchased the property on which he built his log house in 1815, and it is thought the earliest portion of the Potter House dates from that time. Potter’s two sons were early industrialists in Guilford County, having owned the original wooden building where Oakdale Cotton Mill got its start. In fact, when the North Carolina Railroad passed close to old village of Jamestown in 1856, much of the Potter property was redeveloped as "New Jamestown" in order to have a closer proximity to the state’s premiere transportation artery.

As High Point and Greensboro grew into major industrial centers of North Carolina, Jamestown remained a village well into the 20th century. Its location between the two cities and its historic setting played well in the mid-twentieth century when the town grew popular with new residents seeking a charming alternative to traditional suburban sprawl and generic commercial development found elsewhere in the region. In fact, the Potter House was Guilford County’s Bicentennial Headquarters during America’s 200th birthday in 1976 [image, middle right]. It remained a residential rental property into the twenty-first century.

The fortune of the Potter House turned on January 5, 2003 when a fire swept through the house. Though still owned by Mary Elizabeth Ragsdale at the time, repairs were delayed by her passing just a few months later. The house sat empty and open to the elements year after year, as town residents watched the roof slowly slump. Family members assured neighbors the historic landmark would be preserved as soon as the family estate was settled. Fortunately, fire damage left the oldest log portion of the house largely intact [interior image, right], having burned the roof over late nineteenth-century additions. Much of the early landscaping and mature trees remain intact.

Earlier this year, Ragsdale family members had a change of heart when they announced plans to destroy the Potter House for replacement with a Bojangles restaurant. Neighbors reacted first with shock, then with questions about the planned restaurant in the center of historic Jamestown across from Jamestown Elementary School and the town’s century-old public library. Could it be possible that a landmark property in Guilford County’s most historic community could be replaced with a generic fast-food restaurant?

The project requires rezoning before it can be approved, and Jamestown residents will have the chance to weigh-in on the rezoning at a planning board meeting held on Monday, March 8 at 6:30 p.m. at the Jamestown Town Hall. Staff has suggested the new Bojangles pay homage to Jamestown's early Quaker architecture with brick veneer and that parts of the Potter House be incorporated into the Bojangles sign. That is little consolation to preservationists, who recognize the house as one of Guilford County’s oldest buildings (the house stands tall in relation to many of Greensboro’s oldest buildings). As residents and historians hope for a change of heart in the Ragsdale family, the future of the Potter House remains in question.

First two images courtesy of North Carolina Department of Archives and History, last two images courtesy of Tom Netsel. Thanks to Mary Browning for research.

Update: The rezoning was approved 3-2. Opposition was fueled by concerns over traffic, history, and urban design. The case will next be presented to Jamestown Town Council for approval.

Fisher Park's New Empty Lot

The bulldozer emblazoned with the demolition contractor D. H. Griffin and parked behind the house at 210 West Smith Street (image, below) says it all. Another one bites the dust in the Fisher Park neighborhood…all for an parking empty lot.

For those who value the built environment, the historic neighborhood, and Greensboro history, this scene is a painful routine that has continued for decades. An historic house – in this case a residence that was constructed approximately 110 years ago – is being sent to an area landfill … to be replaced by a surface parking an empty lot.

It seems there should be a solution to this practice by now. It’s 2009. Citizens across the city understand that tearing down such old houses has been cliché since Joni Mitchell popularized the song “Big Yellow Taxi” in 1970. Hasn’t Greensboro found a better solution over the past 40 years?

Fisher Park was established at the turn-of-the-twentieth-century, and features some of Greensboro’s most historic homes. For protection from parking lots (and other intrusions), it was recognized by City Council as an historic district in 1982, but the district’s lines were drawn in a way to protect the core of the community, not its fringes. This home stands, literally, on the edge. No permission nor approval is needed to remove it from the cityscape.

Holy Trinity Episcopal Church has been a neighbor in Fisher Park for over 80 years. The landmark sanctuary was designed by Hobart Upjohn, a prominent New York City architect. As members of the congregation have relocated far from downtown Greensboro, demand for land has increased dramatically. Historic houses along Simpson, Fisher, and Smith streets have fallen to bulldozers clearing space for Holy Trinity expansions over the past few years. The congregation has completed splendid restorations along Fisher Avenue within the district, but the fate of this house has not been so lucky. It might be a pile of rubble by next week.

Help could be on the way, if dialog is still possible. Preservation Greensboro is planning a strategic partnership with a national organization from Philadelphia known as Partners for Sacred Places. The group is well-known for bringing preservation and religious organizations to the same page through discussion, planning, and programming…to avoid the head-on conflicts that seem to occur annually in heritage neighborhoods such as Fisher Park. Greensboro needs a new model for dealing with the needs of congregations within historic districts. Sacred Places might be able to provide valuable insights from a national theater to our city.

In the meantime, enjoy this morsel of history while you still can. As Mitchell sang “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got till its gone.”

Additional information shared by a long-time resident:

The duplex at 206-208 Smith and 210 W. Smith Street were owned by a man named Turk. He bought the Queen Anne from Cora Love, age 102. Turk reportedly moved to Rome, Italy and may now be deceased. His name "Turk 1988" is carved in stone at the Queen Anne beside the back door. Turk worked hard to preserve these buildings and his name is also carved in stone on the inside base of the columns of the duplex at 206-208 W Smith Street.

UPDATE 4/21/09: The house was destroyed, as predicted, over Easter weekend. I appreciate the dialog I had with a citizen who is invested in this project, who has explained to me that Holy Trinity "is not putting a parking lot on the site. A community garden is going in the place. Depending upon which plan is ultimately adopted there will likely be a building on the spot. Our development plans generally have parking at the core of the block." As a result, I have ammended my entry (a first) to reflect the fact that the usage of the lot would not be for parking. In the meantime, it will remain empty.

Community Input Seeks Good Design

When Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin visited Greensboro in 2007, he ended his discussion before an audience of over 100 Greensboro citizens with the following directive:

"There’s an old saying: You get what you deserve. Well, we get the built environment we deserve, especially in a small city. Chicago, a big city, can take the occasional bad building; it fades into the woodwork. But here, every building counts; it has a disproportionate impact on the urban fabric. There is not a lot of room for error. So my advice to you is this: Seize every chance you get. Be bold. And absolutely, positively, do not accept mediocrity."

In step with this challenege, Greensboro City Council initiated the development of a design manual in order to steer and facilitate new development in our center city. A volunteer committee was composed of representative property owners, developers, community groups, and activists. Over a two-year period, the group explored opportunities for creating a manual by gauging the needs of Greensboro and reviewing like-minded models from cities such as Durham, Charlotte, and Milwaukee.

With the help of city staffmember Mary Sertell, volunteer committee members have reviewed multiple facets of downtown Greensboro’s character, including architectural features, varieties of street trees, sidewalk scale, and parking lots. The group reviewed how Greensboro’s downtown neighborhoods worked, and what aspects of design did not work. Themes in downtown development were recognized, including areas rich with historic character, as well areas with skyscrapers, or residential uses.

All of this was distilled into a single document that will act as a template for future development in the center city. The Downtown Design & Compatibility Manual is intended to be a proactive tool for residents, developers, designers and other entities implementing renovation and new construction projects in downtown Greensboro. The standards and guidelines contained in the manual are useful directives for good design in our community. They recognize that downtown Greensboro features a variety of architectural styles, scales, landscapes, and uses. This is not a scrubbed or sanitized plan for our city, but one that celebrates variety and our unique sense of place.

For those interested in reviewing this document, the manual can be found online at http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/downtowndesign. For those who would like to comment on the plan, a public meeting will be held in the J Douglas Galyon Depot’s Community Room (230 E Washington St) on April 28, 2009 at 6pm.

Blair Kamin’s point was illustrative.

“If your city’s buildings are third-rate, then the image of your city will be third-rate. And if the image of your city is third rate, then how on Earth are you going to attract the most desirable people—“the creative class,” as Richard Florida calls them?

You won’t. You’ll be a provincial backwater. You won’t be fully equipped to move into the 21st Century. It’ll be as though as you were living without cell phones and Blackberries and computers. They’re all essential right? Well, good design is too."

Greensboro is taking a solid step in facilitating good design.

What is Greensboro’s DNA?

Envision the adobe walls of Santa Fe, or the red brick and copper-clad townhouses of Boston, or the streamlined pastel hotels of Miami Beach. Each place features signature qualities that distinguish one city from the next. Just as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) serves as a unique building-block for living organisms, cities have recognizable components in the form of materials and spatial arrangements that make them unique.

But what is in Greensboro’s DNA?

Last week, this question was pondered by participants of a public charette related to the redevelopment of the Dunleith property in the Aycock neighborhood. Dunleith was the grand antebellum home of Judge Robert P. Dick that was destroyed in the winter of 1969 leaving a large undeveloped tract of land in historic Greensboro. The purpose of the charette was to explore what could be built back on the site to mend the city and surrounding neighborhoods.

Citizens from across the city were invited to participate in the study, which was orchestrated by planners with Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ). DPZ, an urban planning firm recognized for designing over 300 new and existing communities in the United States, is led by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. The firm advocates and promotes traditional design principles that contribute to the sense of place, or DNA, of a community.

Here in Greensboro, the team explored neighborhoods surrounding Dunleith as well as buildings traditional to Greensboro in order to document features that are special to the Gate City. Led by principle Tom Low, designers Guy Pearlman, Monica Carney, Andrew Moneyheffer, and Chris Ritter worked with residents to create a list of Greensboro-specific traits.

Some examples of what the team came up with include:

• The use of outdoor rooms (front porches)
• A sense of history and context
• Retention of trees
• Use of native fieldstone, granite, and brick
• Organic parks that follow streams
• Eclectic design
• Interest in Green Building techniques

These character-defining features of the Gate City can be leveraged for the Dunleith redevelopment project. However, other projects throughout the city could utilize these themes as a means to combat the soul-less sprawl that can be witnessed across our region. With the exception of Green Building techniques, most of these features have been part of our community for over 100 years. An exploration of Fisher Park, the UNCG campus, or the Southside neighborhood will reveal many of these common features at work.

This exercise is not about recreating the past in Greensboro. Rather, it is a way to keep Greensboro’s DNA intact for interpretation in new forms and features. The character of the Gate City, identified and recorded for redevelopment in the Aycock neighborhood, can be extended and continued throughout the city.

Greensboro may not be Santa Fe, Boston, or Miami Beach, but we are a city of natural stone, wide shady porches, ancient oaks, and meandering parks. Ours is tangible and cultivated character with our own style and sense of place. It is worth recognizing, and preserving and enhancing.

Can Downtown Greensboro Be Made Better?

Last week, I was asked the question "What buildings in GSO really damage the urban environment to the point that they should be replaced?"

The question was sparked by an article in the New York Times by architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff who proposed knocking down structures that not only fail to bring citizens joy, they actually work to bring the city around them down.

"Even the most majestic cities are pockmarked with horrors" Ouroussoff wrote, "The knowledge that every shade of architectural experience, from sublime to excruciating, can exist in such compressed space is part of a city’s seductive pull. Yet there are a handful of buildings in New York that fail to contribute even on these grounds. For them the best solution might be the wrecking ball."

Greensboro certainly has a few buildings that cause pause for thought. As pointed out last year by Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin, the Gate City is small enough that it really can’t afford too many poorly designed projects. Only ten blocks wide and ten blocks deep, our downtown has precious little land to waste. Any high profile project makes a big impact, as seen with recent projects such as the Southside Redevelopment or the NewBridge Bank Park.

As a result, those projects that do have a negative impact on the aesthetic wellbeing of the city really can kill a streetscape. Pedestrians avoid the sidewalk around the site, special street events shun the locale, and surrounding properties remain vacant parking lots. In Greensboro’s case, the negative impact is amplified.

Here are my top three choices:

The 300 block of North Elm Street presents a blank façade to one of Greensboro’s main street. Developed around 1984, the block is home to the Greensboro Marriott Downtown. Its frugal architecture blends solid masonry volumes of Brutalist architecture with Late Modern-style horizontal window bands. Instead of enliving the street with visitors and taxicabs, the circulation patterns of the complex are inwardly focused away from the public street, resulting in a deadened street scene of blank walls screened by shrubbery. To make matters worse, prime real estate occupying two important intersections are relegated to use for the hotel’s multi-level parking deck. This project is in some ways functions as an island apart from downtown, and less an integrated part of downtown.

The 100 block of North Church Street features a massive structure containing a corporate print shop. The facility occupies a full city block, stretching between downtown Greensboro’s two primary east-west thoroughfares: Market Street and Friendly Avenue.

The structure is designed in the Brutalist style, evidenced by copious masonry, a scarcity of windows, and massing that accentuates boxy volumes. The building is successful in that it holds the sidewalk and fills the block horizontally. The building falls short in terms of its one-story height, its austere architectural detail and the lack of engagement with the street. This block face becomes the No Man’s Land between the Depot and eclectic streets to the south and the Cultural District’s landmarks to the north. It’s the hallway between two rooms when it should be a room of its own.

The 100 block of South Davie Street was once a hub of activity in downtown Greensboro. The King Cotton Hotel stood 10-stories high at the corner of East Market Street and the City Market complex stood at the intersection of South Davie and Sycamore streets. Commercial buildings stretches in all directions around these landmarks as Davie Street took the appearance of today’s Elm Street in terms of urban density and street activity.

The block was destroyed as part of the urban renewal process of the late 1960s. The federally subsidized program involved the acquisition of private property and the subsequent demolition of structures within the target area, followed by redevelopment of the property for other uses. In this situation, the massive tract was redeveloped for the city’s newspaper publishing facility. A low rise structure was seated amidst a suburban park-like setting, with rolling hills, fences and trees replacing the once active streetscape of small businesses. Within a few years, the animated block face of shops was reduced to a well –landscaped sidewalk.

All three of these downtown properties offer a great deal of potential for downtown Greensboro. Their adaptive reuse or redevelopment could further invigorate downtown’s pedestrian traffic and land value, and serve to unite already vibrant parts of our center city together.

The Gate City is, for the first time in half a century, relearning good urban design. The revitalized shop fronts and busy sidewalks along South Elm Street represent one of the most vibrant urban environments in North Carolina. Our task is not to reinvent the wheel, but to reconstruct our downtown using our historic template. We have the model. All we need to do is replicate our success.

Sign from Above

All too often, visitors and citizens wonder where exactly Greensboro’s historic neighborhoods are located. There are, after all, no lines on the ground to delineate the boundaries of the community.

However, now the curious need only look to look up.

Last autumn, the Fisher Park neighborhood requested a pilot partnership with the City of Greensboro to place sign toppers atop their street signs in order to identifying their neighborhood. The proposal was accepted by the city staff on the condition that the neighborhood cover the costs of sign fabrication and installation.

The Fisher Park Neighborhood Association organized a fund drive to pay for the $75 per-sign cost. Twenty sign toppers were purchased and installed across the neighborhood in the late spring. The toppers have been placed at key intersections, boundaries, and favorite street corners and identify the borders of the Fisher Park neighborhood, not the Fisher Park Historic District.

Though sign toppers are new to Greensboro, they are common in other major American cities as diverse as New York City,Portland,and Dallas. Their advocates say they build community identity and pride, cultivate an awareness of the importance of history and preservation, and are a gentle reminder of the diversity of neighborhoods in each city.

The pilot program is currently being evaluated by various city departments in order to determine future policy, sign applications, and placement and financing procedures. A few additional neighborhoods have already shown an interest in the toppers.

Perhaps additional sign toppers will appear throughout Greensboro’s other two historic districts as a tool to identify these neighborhoods. The city is rich in neighborhoods, and this flagship program is being carefully studied for future applications.

In the meantime, at least in one Gate City neighborhood, history is indeed looking up.

Is Everything Old, New Again? Historic Preservation May Respond to Fresh Challenges

Everything old may very well be new again if this summer’s trends in skyrocketing gas prices forcing us to rethink the design of Greensboro’s neighborhoods. For the first time in a generation, concerns related to convenience and proximity of our home to work and school take on increased significance and urgency and compel residents to re-examine the walkablity of their neighborhoods. Greensboro’s most walkable neighborhoods, often located adjacent to established commercial areas, might be at most risk for redevelopment.

 

In Greensboro, like most American cities, the old pattern of urban design was one based on the walkable city. Dense housing, often multi-leveled, was within a stroll or a streetcar-ride away from offices, schools, churches, and shopping. For families that lived in this pre-World War I city, an evening ice cream cone was just a bike ride away. Many larger cities still maintain this dense, urban model with walk-up apartments, townhouses, and flats that are a block away from a commercial strip, exemplified by Astoria in Queens, New York (image, above).

Over the course of the past 70 years, Greensboro’s neighborhoods and commercial strips have grown up under a new model centered on the use of automobiles. Freed from the constraints of time and distance by a surge in automobile ownership, Greensboro’s city limits spread across the surrounding countryside with single family homes located on shady serpentine streets. Stores and offices were clustered along major thoroughfares that were easily accessible by car. For suburban children of the 1960s, an evening ice cream meant a jump in the car.

If gas prices continue in the direction they have for the past several years, developers may begin to redevelop single family residential areas, replacing homes on grassy lots with denser and walkable neighborhoods. That which was once old, may be new again.

The process is already underway in Greensboro’s neighborhoods nearest the universities. Neighborhoods such as Old L. Richardson in East Greensboro (image, right) and College Park in West Greensboro are witnessing redevelopment reflecting increasing demand for student housing. Other neighborhoods such as Glenwood and Nocho Park are poised for redevelopment as developers seek new ground on which to build.

Though these instances remain focused on walkablity to nearby educational institutions, energy costs may encourage redevelopment of other neighborhoods that find themselves conveniently located near downtown or other popular commercial areas. Greensboro’s least auto-dependent neighborhoods are those built before the popularity of cars, including College Hill, Fisher Park, Westerwood, and Southside. Development pressures might focus on redeveloping these neighborhoods.

Dense development need not be a burden to historic neighborhoods. Many historic districts already contain a mix of single and multi-family housing. The Irving Park Manor Apartments (image, right), located along the now abandoned North Elm Street trolley line, is a prime example that is embedded within the traditional Irving Park neighborhood. Though it’s a model for dense housing, the complex sits comfortably within the architectural standards and landscaping established for the neighborhood in the 1910s and 1920s.

The rapidly changing dynamics of our nation’s energy use could result in a fundamental shift in the appearance of city-streets over the next decade if residents seek the convenience of inner-city living. Major cities in Asia, Australia, Europe, and South America testify to independence from automobile use with urban neighborhoods and public transit. As Greensboro might shift to a denser and more sustainable city, it must protect the character and soul of the city we recognize today.

Town and Gown: Re-imagining Greensboro’s Smart New Future

For most of the twentieth-century, Greensboro was one of the region’s economic power-centers, fueled by three highly profitable manufacturing sectors: textiles, tobacco, and machinery. Corporate names such as Cone Mills, Lorillard Tobacco, and Carolina Steel were synonymous with the Gate City, and Greensboro grew as employment in the three sectors swelled. As recently as 1980, few could comprehend of the pending changes in global economics that would reduce the manufacturing footprint in the city to a fragment of its former size.

The collapse of the manufacturing sector is not isolated to Greensboro. Every American city has faced challenges in retaining industrial jobs over the past quarter century as employers relocate facilities to foreign shores where wages and production costs are lower. In response, America’s cities have, in the words of John H. Alschuler, Chairman of HR&A Advisors, “become centers of culture, education, and health care.” Metropolises once known as manufacturing and service centers are reinventing themselves as intellectual centers. The Gate City, home to seven institutions of high learning, is being transformed into an intellectual power house for the twenty-first century.

In recognition of this historic shift, and in anticipation of the looming growth of Greensboro’s educational institutions, Mayor Yvonne J. Johnson recently hosted an U. S. Environmental Protection Agency-sponsored roundtable that brought together the city’s colleges and universities, the City of Greensboro and local community leaders, along with nationally recognized professionals and consultants, including Alschuler.

The forum, held here on the campus of Blandwood Mansion in downtown Greensboro, opened a dialogue regarding Greensboro’s future growth and development. Initiated in the spring of 2007, the City of Greensboro sought assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency to formulate sound growth strategies that benefited institutions and their surrounding established neighborhoods. In response, the EPA brought together a consortium of skilled consultants and advisors who reviewed some “best practices” that identified common goals between institutions that may serve as launching points for collaboration with their surrounding neighborhoods such as College Hill (image, upper right).

The dialog revealed several conceptual themes, including:

• Re-imaging Greensboro as a “college town.” Opportunities exist to enhance Greensboro’s reputation as a college town by tapping into established efforts of area educational institutions. By collaborating on performing arts in the community, continuing education programs, student-centered local businesses, or developing tourism through parent and alumni-oriented events, Greensboro’s quality of life and image can be improved. In enhancing the city’s quality of life, efforts can be focused to mitigate the impacts growth on the environment by making smart choices regarding transportation, growth patterns, energy usage, natural resources and waste.

• Examining the university’s development needs and its impact on neighborhood stability. Several of Greensboro’s colleges and universities have already initiated shared off-campus development projects, including the Gateway University Research Park, but additional resource-saving ventures may be in the future, such as shared intramural sports facilities, performing arts centers, dormitory space, or additional multidisciplinary educational and research centers. These projects have the opportunity to positively impact their surrounding neighborhoods by working with area nonprofits and neighborhood organizations to improve building standards, prevent crime, expand opportunities for student housing, entertainment and work centers.

• Enhance economic development partnerships with institutions. Greensboro’s colleges and universities provide a key role in invigorating Greensboro’s economy through the development of jobs cultivated through university-based technology research. In identifying opportunities for “spin-off” efforts, development coordination and branding the community by building awareness of current projects and initiatives, Greensboro can build momentum in reconstructing its economy through its institutions.

Examples abound of innovative projects that brought together town and gown. Tony T. Brown, President and CEO of the Uptown Consortium, Cincinnati, OH shared a laundry list of collaborative efforts initiated through Cincinnati’s Uptown Consortium, a non-profit organization made up of the Uptown's five largest employers: Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden, The Health Alliance of Greater Cincinnati, TriHealth, Inc. and the University of Cincinnati. In recent years, over $400 million has been invested in the neighborhood through redevelopment, new construction (image, middle right) and neighborhood preservation initiatives (image, lower right). Such projects would be a boon for Greensboro’s institutions, and could strengthen established neighborhoods for preservation and investment.

In its 200th year, Greensboro is poised to enter a new economy that is radically different from the manufacturing reputation it earned in the twentieth century. The Gate City’s intellectual roots run deep, inspired by early African American, Quaker, Methodist, and Scotch-Irish settlers that valued then-radical ideals of equality and education for all citizens. It’s a strong base on which to build a future, and the city is well poised to strengthen its position in the region. With careful planning and coordination, the city has the opportunity to enter this new era …smartly.

CityBuilding 101: How to make a Storefront

In Greensboro’s flight to the suburbs over the past 50 years, it sometimes seems as though the Gate City has lost its ability to build a great storefront. Great street-side storefronts share common features that some recently renovated storefronts throughout downtown Greensboro are lacking. No, it’s not rocket science, but we might be a little rusty in executing some of the finer details.

Greensboro has some great examples of classic storefronts right here in our own backyard. The late and great architect Charles C. Hartmann designed several storefronts that remain today. Examples include the front of the Jefferson Standard Building (1923), as well as the Guilford Building (1927).

Other storefronts in downtown were likely designed by carpenters 100 years ago, and incorporate time-tested traditions. One of my favorite storefronts can be found on Lewis Street, designed by an unknown builder (upper right). This storefront engages the passerby and encourages – not discourages – window shopping. Stores need customers, and the storefront facilitates that end. Here, a maximum of glass – the full-width and full-height that technology at the time allowed – is incorporated into the storefront. Windows near the main entry are placed at an angle to the sidewalk, to better engage the attention of sidewalk shoppers.

Proper storefronts incorporate quality materials. As architecture critic Blair Kamin said “… if your building is third rate, then your company’s image will be third-rate.” Vinyl siding, hardiplank, or plexiglass are poor substitutes granite, marble, or plate glass. Granite was a favorite because it was not porous and stood up well against salts used to discourage ice formation in the winter.

Great storefronts also have awnings that shelter window shoppers from sun, rain, and snow…and provide a great place for a sign. Park Slope Books in Brooklyn (lower right) has an awning that is rolled over the sidewalk each afternoon. Great storefronts also have simple, but effective displays that are well lighted, colorful, and engaging.

Greensboro may have lost some of its storefront mojo, but I hope it’s a short term loss. Getting a storefront right is not a guarantee in any city, but recent strolls through our downtown illustrates we can do better. Storefront details are a small part of the big picture, but they can make, or break, our city’s streetscapes.

Irving Park Looks to its Future

Is Irving Park to remain a neighborhood of lawns shaded by mature trees and classical homes with unusual architectural detail, or will it simply evolve into a collection of newly built McMansions attached to prestigious street addresses?

This is the question that will be discussed by Irving Park residents on Thursday evening, November 1st at 7:00 pm, First Presbyterian Church on North Elm Street.

One tool that is available for Irving Park residents to guide change in their neighborhood is the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay district, or NCO.
Use of the NCO was recently approved by City Council, and its use is being explored by a number of neighborhoods across Greensboro.

In Irving Park, a major concern seems to revolve around the practice of “teardowns” or the purchase of smaller homes and large lots that are scraped clear of structures and vegetation, to be replaced by new construction that often maximizes the lot (right). This often results in large residences, or multiple residences, that sit very close to neighboring property lines and appear out of scale compared to established houses.

According to the National Trust for Historic Places, teardowns can have a strongly negative impact on neighborhood property values. Throughout the nation, teardowns often destroy older homes that are part of a community’s character; the very character that drew residents to the neighborhood in the first place.

But teardowns can go further than destroying visual charm and character, as seen in this 1920s postcard of the neighborhood (lower right). Long-time Irving Park residents know that its diverse scale of house-size encourages a range of residents enjoying different chapters of their lives. Newlyweds need starter homes, then move to a larger house to raise a family, and return to a smaller home after retirement. Irving Park historically contained this full range of housing scales, but recent destruction of smaller homes is reducing that choice. Many new houses tip the scales at the larger side of the spectrum.

Teardowns can also result in negative economic impacts. Some real estate agents observe that properties purchased as teardown candidates are valued only for their land. Under normal circumstances, the value of the land is in addition to the value of a house and other improvements. Once the value of an old house is perceived to be less than that of the land it is built on, the house’s days are probably numbered.

For the Irving Park neighborhood, this information session will provide an opportunity for city staff to answer general questions planning tools such as NCO’s, including the process for creating an NCO district, possible areas of coverage, and the neighborhood’s ability to define and customize the guidelines for change. NCO’s are clearly not historic districts that focus on historic details; rather, the overlay district could help guide new construction projects throughout Irving Park such as additions, infill on unbuilt land, as well as teardowns. The future appearance of Irving Park is in the hands of its residents.

For more information on NCO’s, you may visit the city’s website.