August 13, 2004

Back to the Table of Contents Page

Back to the Voice Home Page

Classifieds

Publication Date: Friday, August 13, 2004

Historic Preservation Letters

The true cost of historical preservation

Editor:

We have been residents of Mountain View for the last 27 years and have owned our business in Mountain View for almost 20 years. We have been watching and listening to the two-years-long discussion of the Historical Preservation Ordinance and feel it is now time to voice our opinion.

As owners of a design/build remodeling firm, we have been disturbed about the cost figures the owners of certain properties have been quoting as the "estimates" they have received. Our work with excellent architects over many years has only confirmed that architects are in the business of "design" and not "construction " They are usually unaware of the true costs of building.

If these owners' quotes came from an architect, and not a remodeling contractor, whose subcontractors are experienced in remodeling and restoration, it could explain the high figures they are asserting.

In almost all cases, it will cost a lot less to repair (and restore) an old house than demolish it and build anew. In addition, older homes are often built better than the new homes put up with cheaper, less durable materials. Even with the highest government restoration standards, historic restoration and renovation of older homes can be done for less.

Mountain View's preservation standards would not be that high and would only apply to the front façade of landmark structures. Owners of properties covered by the ordinance will be able to completely remodel interiors and build expansions to fit modern-day needs. In no way will the costs or level of restoration come even close to what we saw with the Rengstorff House. Some have incorrectly used the cost of that structure's complete restoration to come up with their own figures.

Susan & Bob Davis
Mountain View Avenue

City needs true historic preservation

Editor:

On Aug. 17, our city council will have a rare opportunity to simulate a tornado touching down in Mountain View.

The "voluntary historic preservation ordinance" that appears to be coming forward will put our most valuable physical assets at serious risk. It will not even result in a complete objective list of local heritage resources, so that we could know what we were losing. Without such a list, some of the "preservation incentives" that the council wants to promote will be legally impossible.

We have had ample opportunity to go in the opposite direction. The commission that the council directed to spend countless hours crafting a viable ordinance made solid recommendations, based on extensive public input, common sense, fiscal sense, professional expertise, and the experience of many other jurisdictions.

These recommendations, not accepted by the council, were tailored to our local needs. For example, applications for major external modifications to heritage homes would go through a simple review process to ensure that alterations to the "public face," the side or sides of the house facing the street, would not result in a non-landmark. Applications for demolition would also require some sort of review before the permit is granted.

I look forward to electing a majority (four seats are up) of the council, in November, who will, if necessary, reverse course and uphold the part of our general plan that sets forth true historic preservation as a city goal.

Julie Lovins
California Street

E-mail a friend a link to this story.