This Sums Up Vienna's Phony Historic Preservation Efforts

Interesting article in yesterday's Washington Post.

Razing of Old Home Opposed in Alexandria
But No Recourse Available, Officials Say
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701402.html?sub=AR

By Kirstin Downey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 8, 2007; B01

The Craftsman-style home on Sunset Drive in Alexandria was built in 1925, one of the old homes that make Rosemont one of the region's most distinctive neighborhoods.

A real estate investor wants to tear it down and replace it with new homes, which neighbors say will accelerate the decline of the historic homes along Sunset. City officials, preservationists and neighbors almost all oppose the demolition, but they say there is nothing they can do to stop it.

Although Rosemont is protected by its federal and state designations as a historic area, they said, the city has never made the neighborhood a local historic district, which would give city officials the legal tools to oppose demolition of old buildings. The local historic district designation, which Alexandria used for Old Town in 1932, has enabled the city to preserve the colonial atmosphere along King and Washington streets.

The developer, Edgardo Maravi, plans to divide the property into two lots and build homes on them. He has built a gated, brick home for himself on Sunset Drive, featuring a tall wall on one side with only two tiny windows.

Clay Greenway, who lives across the street, said the home that Maravi plans to raze would be the latest in a string of homes on Sunset that have been torn down in the past two decades. He worries that the street could lose its charm and historic designation.

Preservationist Ellen Pickering said, "The whole street is very vulnerable to being demolished."

"It's time to stomp our foot and say no more," said Charles Trozzo, chairman of the Alexandria Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission.

At a recent hearing, a parade of Rosemont residents and planning commissioners said they did not want the home torn down and begged city officials to come up with a way they could prevent it. But city attorneys told them that there was nothing they could do.

"The planning commission was very disappointed, and we couldn't help them," said Faroll Hamer, Alexandria's director of planning and zoning. "That's how the rules are written, and we need a way out."

Under Virginia law, property owners have broad rights to build what they want on land they own, which is why officials in Arlington County, Fairfax County and Alexandria have often engaged in legal skirmishes over large projects proposed by developers.

But because Alexandria is a city, it has more control over land use than counties do, particularly in areas that have been designated local historic districts. Much of the city is also under a national historic register designation, but it is the local designation that permits scrutiny and legal restrictions that can be imposed by a board of architectural review.

The board of architectural review recently blocked a proposed partial demolition of a Colonial-era building at 210 King St. in Old Town, a decision the City Council affirmed in August.

The federal and state designations permit residents to obtain tax credits for renovations but do not allow any additional land-use regulation.

At a recent public hearing, Maravi, who bought the Sunset Drive house for $625,000 in December 2005, according to city tax records, repeatedly cited provisions in the city charter that allowed him to demolish the building, offering no other explanation.

"I respectfully believe there is no authority to dictate issues of site architecture," he said at a planning commission meeting in August.

According to a staff report, city planners met with Maravi repeatedly and tried to persuade him to consider the use of tax credits for a historic renovation, but he "expressed a strong desire to pursue the subdivision rather than restore the home."

Everyone else who spoke at the hearing opposed his plan, but Maravi, a natural resource specialist at the World Bank, was unfazed.

Hamer said, "It's not neighborly, and it's not compatible with the character of the neighborhood."

Maravi declined a request for an interview.

Rosemont has no similar local ordinance protecting its historic buildings because residents have disagreed about whether they want one. Marguerite Lang, president of the Rosemont Civic Association, said many residents mistakenly think that the federal historic designations lend the neighborhood's homes a measure of protection from demolition.

And, Lang said, some newcomers are less committed to preserving the city's neighborhoods than previous residents had been. The only tool they have to fend off destruction of old homes is "friendly persuasion," she said, and it doesn't work too well anymore.

When the Rosemont Historic District was created in 1992, many people thought that the federal designation would be adequate and that they wouldn't need to risk micromanagement by historic preservation mavens who would place unreasonable restrictions on private homes.

"There's much more sentiment for it now," Pickering says.

Lang isn't so sure.

"It's not come to the critical point yet" in people's minds, she said.

But that boiling point has been reached on Sunset Drive, residents said. They fear Maravi will build another home like the one he has put up on Sunset Drive, which they say is out of character with the community. Most Rosemont homes feature large windows and entrances that look out onto the street and encourage neighborly interaction.

"He put up a monstrosity there," Greenway said.

Residents said they hope the infill task force, which began meeting in April, will devise solutions to problems created by residential construction in neighborhoods.

PERSONALLY, I PREFER MY HISTORY AUTHENTICATED RATHER THAN MADE UP BY A BUNCH OF PHONY HISTORIANS, NONE OF WHOM HAVE EVER LIVED IN THE ALLEGED HISTORIC DISTRICT OR WHO HAVE LIFTED A FINGER TO PRESERVE ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN AUTHENTICATED.