Greensboro's Treasured Places

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 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.

Will High Point do what Greensboro can’t?

The last time Greensboro City Council created a new historic district, Ronald Reagan was president, Amadeus won the Academy Awards, and Michael Jackson was a pop sensation. The year was 1984 and the district was Aycock. Two historic districts had been created prior to the Aycock; College Hill in 1980 and Fisher Park in 1982. Since then, initiatives to establish historic districts in the Gate City have been nipped in the bud.

In contrast, as Greensboro’s historic district engines were cooling; High Point’s were just getting warmed up. The Furniture City’s first historic district was created on Johnson Street in 1986, followed by the Sherrod Park Historic District in 1991. Later today, the High Point City Council may establish the city’s third historic district around the West High Street neighborhood. The Nettie Brown House, above-right, is located within the possible new district.

Why did Greensboro cool off? Twenty-three years is a long time to go without growth, especially when other cities in the state have seen expansion of their districts.

Did it run out of historic neighborhoods? No, many inner city neighborhoods maintain resource that would likely qualify them as historic…including Westerwood, Irving Park, and Glenwood.

Did historic districts see negative ramifications from designation that hurt land values? No, in fact a study completed by the News and Record in 2004 saw the opposite. Home values increased twice as fast as the rest of the city since 1996.

Did homeowners find the Design Guidelines too restrictive compared to newer neighborhoods in Greensboro? Not likely, since nearly all new subdivisions today are created with tight covenants that restrict paint color, architecture, and even placement of equipment such as trampolines and swimming pools. Although there are neighborhoods with lesser (or no) restrictions, many home buyers prefer to invest in neighborhoods that have some level of assurance that neighbors will adhere to some appearance standards.

So what’s the problem with Greensboro? Some point to political leadership… witnessing a level of disinterest in elected officials in committing to historic designation that does not enjoy a full 100% approval rating from neighbors. Others point to bad press coverage, and a constant drumbeat of articles that highlight conflict in the districts rather than successes. Finally, others point to a lack of leadership in neighborhoods to spearhead historic district designation…a process that in some situations can lead to division and even animosity among neighbors. Westerwood went through this process in 2003, when the owner of this house on North Mendenhall Street (above-right) applied a wonderfully vivid palette to his home in protest of the district.

In the meantime, prospects for High Point’s newest district are 50-50. Proponents point to the city’s recent “Core City” plan, which encourages the conservation of historic resources such as those to be protected within the historic districts. Opponents point to landowners whose property might be forced into the district without their consent. Hopefully, High Point’s City Council will see the benefits of creating the city’s third historic district and continue momentum where Greensboro has left off.

UPDATE: The High Point City Council, I am told, approved the West High Street Historic District unanimously.

Planning for balance in Greensboro

Developers say they are weary of continued neighborhood opposition of infill projects.

Neighborhoods say they need direction and assurance that infill projects will be compatible.

City staff recognizes that both developers and homeowners want to protect their investments.

But where to start?

When the City of Greensboro and constituents* applied for a Smart Growth Implementation Assistance grant from the Environmental Protection Agency Smart Growth initiative last year, they hoped to focus on this issue by creating a design prototype for infill in established neighborhoods that could help mediate future conflicts between concerned parties. The EPA saw merit in that issue, but encouraged those involved to step back think broadly. By thinking more comprehensively, perhaps the EPA could engage stakeholders in a dialog to address all concerns, and assist in facilitating discussions between neighborhoods, developers, and the engine that drives much of central Greensboro’s growth: colleges and universities.

You can’t throw a rock in central Greensboro without hitting a higher institution. They are woven into our fabric like Bedazzler beads in denim. In addition, all of our colleges and institutions are experiencing growth today, and all city leaders acknowledge that Greensboro’s economic growth depends on their future growth. So it makes sense we begin this discussion now and make appropriate plans.

This point is vividly illustrated recently by letters that were mailed to residents of the College Park neighborhood, just west of UNCG. Though the residents were told they were not within the universities scope of expansion as recently as last year, they received letters of interest from the school this week towards purchase of their properties. Instantaneously, plans for repairs and upgrades of homes dried up as the apparent future of these houses is now in question. To say this is damaging to the health of the neighborhood is an understatement.

Hopefully, the timing is right with the EPA and the Smart Growth grant. Representatives from Washington met with city staff, constituents, and university officials on Wednesday and addressed these concerns to each group. They left their meetings with optimism that a solution could be presented to Greensboro residents based from similar issues and solutions in other cities across the nation. Smart Growth strategy, it seems, really can be smart.

Examples abound. The EPA cites Akron, Bethlehem, and Rochester, as benefiting from the economic opportunities nurtured by higher education as well as the collaboration and cooperation between the communities and their colleges and universities. Mississippi State University is often held as a good example of a growing university that recognized off campus growth and the benefits it can have if done carefully. See image of Cotton District (above right). Perhaps Greensboro can learn from these places.

In the meantime, a logical strategy will be developed in coming weeks towards creating a solution by spring. Representatives from TREBIC, the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress, area universities and colleges, and Preservation Greensboro, among others, have brainstormed about the possibilities. This is the kind of collaborative effort that could result in a win for neighborhoods who want planned growth, a win for developers who seek opportunities, and a win for Greensboro's universities who need to recruit students to a cool and dynamic city.

*constituents include the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress, Preservation Greensboro, TREBIC, and others.

Stopping Losses

The September/October issue of the National Trust’s Forum News provides a solution to a problem we experience here in Greensboro in a weekly basis.

The Forum News states “It has long been a cause of frustration for preservation advocates, and misunderstanding by the public, that there are no formal preservation protections for properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places.”

Residents of Greensboro wonder aloud how can a building of national significance be destroyed, when a building of local significance (designed through a local landmark or district program) be denied demolition? Doesn’t that seem backwards?

Well, sure it does!
At this time, any building listed in Greensboro on the National Register of Historic Places can be destroyed with no advanced permission (aside from a standard demolition permit). Examples of lost National Register properties abound, including The Mantleworks on South Elm Street (right), and a charming bungalow on Arlington Street. Both buildings were listed on the National Register, and both were destroyed without delay.

How can this be so? It seems that it is easier to pass stringent local laws regulating destruction of historic places than stringent national laws and regulations. What is acceptable in North Carolina may be unacceptable in Texas. Our state, it seems, can count itself as one of the more progressive states of the union in terms of passing legislation to delay or deny destruction of historic landmarks.
Destruction of buildings that are locally designated landmarks, or located within locally designated historic districts, can be
delayed for 365 days in order to provide a “cooling off period” to determine alternatives to destruction. This tool has been used in Greensboro as recently as 2006, when the Margaret Gay House was relocated from North Elm Street to West Bessemer Avenue (right).

Alternatives to the destruction of historic resources are out there, however, it is the will of the community that turns these alternatives to reality.

A Hartford (CT) preservation ordinance, which took effect in December 2006, solves the problem efficiently. It requires that properties within the city listed on the National Register of Historic Places, individually or as part of a historic district, undergo the same design review as locally designated properties. The nonprofit Hartford Preservation Alliance has partnered with the city to present workshops introducing the ordinance, and will soon lead a training program for building contractors who work on historic properties.

Closer to home, New Bern and Statesville have made strides in closing the demolition gap.

On August 14th, New Bern’s Board of Aldermen adopted an ordinance to require permits before demolishing structures within their historic district. In order to gain approval, the application must be reviewed to meet standards that include: architectural integrity, style, superior craftsmanship, the building merit as part of a significant group, or the building’s cultural significance.

Last year the North Carolina General Assembly gave New Bern authority to adopt the ordinance. The Historic Preservation Commission and the city planning and zoning board both provided favorable recommendations that the aldermen adopt the requirement for a permit.

A similar ordinance was passed in Statesville, requiring approval by Statesville City Council for the demolition of structures within historic districts. The applicant must first submit an application for review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Based on the application the Commission submits a recommendation to City Council. City Council then renders a decision on the requested demolition.

Examples exist for Greensboro to follow. History and architecture are features that define the city against cross-state rivals as a great place to live, work, and shop. Where there is a will, there is a way.

CityBuilding 101: How to make a sidewalk

An historian could make a strong arguement that Greensboro has sought suburban design standards since it was developed in the early nineteenth century. Images from the late 1800s show the city brimming with gardens (in fact, it was named the "City of Flowers" long before it was the "Gate City"), shaded streets, and large houses set on ample lots of land.

It should be no surprise, then, that the city has been challenged envisioning what an urban streetscape is, and how exactly it can be/should be excecuted. Say "urban" to many Greensburgers, and they imagine wide roads with fast traffic, hot sidewalks, towering skyscrapers...basically downtown Charlotte. It doesn't have to be that way.

To the right (click to make them bigger) are two images of urban sidewalks. The left-hand scene is West Washington Street in Greensboro. This avenue was laid out in the mid nineteenth century and passes in front of Blandwood Mansion. First lined with Victorian residences, the street fell victim to large-scale engineering projects of the mid-twentieth century, including road widening and parking lot expansion. Recently, Preservation Greensboro sold a surface parking lot to a Charlotte development company, which erected a residential building known as 411 West. The new building, pictured to the left in the image, is built to the property line and includes red brick, buff-colored concrete and stucco, and bronze appointments.

The right hand scene is Beech Avenue, located in Pittsburgh's North Side neighborhood. Like Washington Street in Greensboro, the avenue pictured was laid out in the mid-nineteenth century with Victorian residences. Unlike Greensboro, this street took on a denser "urban" appearance from the beginning. Though it is located in Pittsburgh, the scene could be replicated in any of the established urban neighborhoods of the northeast, such as Beacon Hill, Park Slope, Society Hill, or Georgetown.

Although the are similarly composed, the two images could not be more dissimilar. The Greensboro sidewalk looks desolate and unwelcoming; while the Pittsburgh example looks intimate and inviting. The bones of each setting are comparable, the images show that detail and scale makes an authentic urban sidewalk work well. The good news for Greensboro is that these details may not be so far out of our reach!

Starting from the ground up, the Beech Avenue sidewalk is paved with bricks, scaled to the size of a person's foot. Other details include parked cars along the side of the road with insulate the sidewalk from the rush of traffic (who likes an Escalade whizzing past them at 30 mph only two feet away?), street trees, and decorative streetlights. Insert a few flowering window boxes or planters, and you are close to replicating the look and feel of a nineteenth century sidewalk.

The Greensboro sidewalk has a proper width (not too narrow nor too wide), and the adjacent building features a human-scaled belt-course of concrete block (just like the Beech Avenue buildings), all indications that the basic structure is good. The devil, it seems, is in the details!

Salvation may one day come to West Washington Street in the form of much needed streetscape improvements, but in the meantime, Greensboro does have other role models to look to for urban design challenges. Architecture, set-backs, and scale are equally important considerations that contribute to comfortable urban sidewalks, but lets not forget the importance of details in making a good place great!