Thursday, April 21, 2016
Friday, February 26, 2016
Monday, February 25, 2013
This is a continuation of our earlier post "Save the Zenke house" which chronicles the absurd twists and turns we've experienced in saving our home and two other structures from the "invisible gun" threat of eminent domain created by the construction of the new Guilford County Jail.
CORNER DUPLEX: Landfill bound - the negatives win - unless...
NOPE, we're done here; the demolition date is Monday, October 13, 2014 for the duplex.
SALT, the Student Art League store of the Triad couldn't get non-profit status working with the Greensboro Community Foundation fast enough to suit the City deadline, so, no tenant, no hope of financing
The insurance company went elsewhere, and the couple who wanted - at-the-very-last-minute - to take it apart and move it to their farm in Julian, didn't like the price tag.
What a waste of a good building.
Greensboro doing what Greensboro does best.
AUGUST 10, 2014
PLEASE SEE OUR FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN ON INDIEGOGO, SEARCH: "GEORGE WASHINGTON DIDN'T SLEEP HERE. SO?"
The student art league described is still a viable option, but the process for Dr. Jenkens to form a non-profit is longer than the City has given us before it will tear the building down under a "repair or demolish order" which is September 30. We need another source of funds than a bank, which is why we created the campaign on Indiegogo. Any amount will help, it is a "flexible" campaign rather than an "all or nothing" campaign - and please pass this information on to others.
(Nope, let's call this IndieNoGo)
Everytime we've brainstormed what to put on this lot, this time with the duplex rather than it moved to another lot, we have kept in mind what would benefit "this end" of Washington Street and particularly Blandwood Mansion - how can we get more people to live or work in the area, and how can we get those people to be participants in the arts, rather than the municipal machine? How can we create the synergy to help Blandwood connect to the rest of the downtown, rather than be an island that is driven by on the way to somewhere else? All these factors would be helped by the renovation of this building and using it for the artists league store. How can we keep this positive?
February 2014
No response.
BACK STORY:
The 1910 Duplex:
In 2007, after the announcement of the County jail expansion, one of the City planners suggested moving the brick 1910 duplex to College Hill, to a lot owned by Greensboro College. The president, Craven Williams, came and expressed sincere interest in the building and then went on vacation for the summer of 2008. We heard nothing from them for months. They finally resurfaced in January of 2009 and said, "We want to do this."
They wanted it to house coaching staff, so we all started gathering numbers for the move. We got killed in the first round, again thanks to Duke Power and the $152,000 bill to take the direct route down Market Street to the lot behind the old YMCA on Rankin Street. Market Street was a main electrical artery as well as a four lane traffic artery. In addition, Southern Railroad wanted $22,000 plus meals and lodging to move the signal arms on the tracks crossing Market. Cable, DOT and telephone pushed utility costs well over $200,000.
Our house mover, Mike Blake, went back to the drawing board, proposing the rear single story and the front porch be shaved off and the two pieces taken through back streets with less utility cost. In May 2009 the numbers came back from Duke Power Company, and intstead of a $650,000 project we had a $415,000 project, begining to end, which came within $20,000 of what the City could give and what the College could spend towards the renovation. Working through PGDF again, we worked with the College Hill Neighborhood Association and got them over minor objections and misinformation. We got the City funding approved - it was unused bond money allocated to College Hill. At our last meeting we reworked the numbers and were ecstatic - we had it in our grasp.
Two days later, the first of many articles by Lorraine Ahearn came out exploring the financial difficulties of Greensboro College. Within a month Craven Williams had retired and we got official word that the duplex project was dead.
Before we got official word that Greensboro College had backed out, but knowing they probably would, I headed down to the City offices to see if there was any more money to be had for the project. My brother, Chris, half jokingly said, "Why don't you ask them if we're eligible for any of that money?" I thought we had covered that long ago; City funds were available for neighborhood redevelopment only. Nevertheless, I asked, and was surprised when a couple of days later they said, "Yes." The money available was not as plentiful since most of it was tied to bonds for College Hill, but there was enough to get the building moved to our lot and start renovations. As time progressed some of that funding "expired" to the point that there were just enough funds to move the house. So we were basically having to renovate a building that was perfectly good before government expansion. Again. And we were saddled with a second renovation when we were meagerly prepared for the first move and renovation of Mother's house.
While we worked on Mother's house throughout 2010, we also tried to market the duplex for a tenant. The traffic count for a three block radius was between 75,000 and 80,000 per day according to DOT statistics. Three arteries were within that: Freeman Mill/Edgeworth/Spring Garden, Market/Friendly, and Eugene/Washington. In addition we were the main pedestrian artery between the colleges and the cool end of Elm Street. We climbed the contact ladder at Starbucks, only to be told by their real estate agent that downtown Greensboro wasn't Starbucks Worthy.
The duplex is up on steel, having been moved in October of 2009, twelve days before the County broke ground on the new jail. We have all site, architectural, and engineering plans approved b the City for a commercially rated building. Prospective tenants look at it and say, "Great location, great traffic, " (then, with eyes gazing up eight stories high) "When is the County going to bulldoze you?" making it near impossible to develop the property for anyone bu the County in this market. That house could be renovated where it is; everyone involved wanted a more human scaled street scape in front of Blandwood Mansion, but with the current factors again in play at this point, we feel it should be moved out to a neighborhood, a much longer lasting and appropriate solution.
Updates:
March 25, 2011:
The County issues us the "We've changed our mind and want your land back" letter. We offered to get the old houses out and build an administration building (declined) and next we offered to build a parking deck (haven't heard from them) but their whining for parking seems to be subsiding with the realization that their jail isn't quite the tourist draw for downtown Greensboro that it anticipated.
A parking deck was not what we had in mind to build in front of a National Landmark, but leasing parking to a round-the-clock facility created numbers that would support the construction of a deck as well as the costs associated with moving our mother's home yet again. The comical aspect to this was that the Preservation Greensboro actually issued a letter to the County objecting to this deck, whose design would be controlled by our family who has made its living creating handsome designs for all sorts of buildings, interiors and applications. When the jail project was first announced in 2005, and originally planned to face Blandwood Mansion before our land swap with the County, there was not one word of objection by Preservation Greensboro to a County controlled design for an incarceration complex being erected in the same location.
October 2011:
The City, due to pressure from neighbors and at least one downtown booster club, instigates a "Repair or Demolish" order because they consider us "blight" instead of "Murphy's Laws and Then Some." Said booster club has never offered or uttered one word of support for our situation. (See February News & Record article: Downtown Greensboro Inc, Shape Up or Else..."
We go back to the original plan - Get These Houses into More Appreciative Neighborhoods! So we started combing the GIS tax map for lots.
February - October 2012
Found one! Randy and Ann Roberts own the old Ireland House property, the house having burned after its lovely restoration by the Roberts. When all this started rolling in 2007, I asked them if they would be interested in taking it and they responded that they were hoping to build a commercial building on it at some point since it was located on the corner of Friendly Avenue and Spring Street. So nothing more was said.
In combing the GIS we saw that they also had a smaller lot, three lots north of the Ireland House property. Would they be willing to take the house at that location? Carl Myatt, architect and mutual friend made the initial call and I made the pitch - and they said yes!
This would have placed it 2 blocks away from the Queen Anne on Cedar Street. It met with City approval for it fell within their neighborhood redevelopment plans for the area, and the vintage of the duplex was the same as the other houses in the area. The City's main drive in conserving these neighborhoods was to get "heads in beds" in downtown Greensboro and this fit right in.
Problem: House is 42' wide, the lot is 50' wide. Greensboro likes a 10' side setback for residential use, or a 5' setback - or build on the lot line - for commercial use. So Ann Roberts needed to apply for a variance from the Board of Adjustment.
Hearing #1 for the residential use (this was the viable real estate market at the time, you could rent residential far easier than office/commercial ) and 6' each side - and it was denied. Here's why:
Ann Roberts and I showed up at the hearing, I, armed with the history of "why we want to do this" and Ann, armed with architects plans for setbak and parking and all the technical things she needed to pass the variance. A 6' variance. What could go wrong?
Everything.
We say our bit, then the neighbors say their bit and it was plenty. Lacking technical objections they went for drama and personal attack, speculating that because it was an old house, it would automatically attract derelict tenants, in short, accusing Mrs. Roberts of being a slum lord when she actually had never rented any property. In reviewing the transcript they used the term "slum" in relation to the Roberts 11 times. Their neighbors were website developer PhotoBiz and on the other side of her lot, was a firm full of attorneys, Carruthers and Roth.
The duplex had just stepped into a land war.
Apparently, one neighbor and then the other, 3 and 4 years ago respectively, had tried to purchase the lot from the Roberts at near tax value, which they declined. One party got so testy about it, saying "you'll be lucky to get tax value, it won't appraise any higher" taunted the Roberts into getting an appraisal for it. It came in at almost triple the value! The neighbors got quiet after that.
What the City did not advise us to do before the hearing, they advised after the hearing: "Bring an attorney."
Actually, the City was just as appalled as we were at, not just the outcome, but the demeanor of the attorneys and the derailing of the proceedings into a "wild meeting" according to one City staffer.
The variance request however, gave them the small leverage they needed to prevent the Roberts from developing their property with this project in mind. The board expressed that since the surrounding buildings were used for commercial, including the large Queen Anne next door owned by PhotoBiz, that they would prefer to see it used for commercial. They turned down the request for residential.
Mrs. Roberts filed an appeal on the residential decision with the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Simultaneously, she applied for a commercial variance, but went through two continuances waiting for an appointment with, reputedly, one of the best zoning attorneys in town.
She brought the attorney. And the application for commercial was also denied. One City staffer used the word "brutal" to decribe the hearing. Here's why: The meeting started at 5:30, and we walked out, exhausted, at 7:40. Aside from 10 minutes of officiating at the beginning of the meeting, all 2 hours were spent on our case.
We had given the opposition ample time to load for bear. One of their main points was that the Roberts could not prove that they had exhausted every other means for developing the property; the possibility had always existed that they could develop an entirely new building within the setback rules and provide the necessary parking. Most likely it wold have been at a higher cost, but that fact was ignored. The Roberts had also not had an engineer do a site plan for the duplex, which is something that few people would have spent the money on unless they had PASSED the variance FIRST!
Leaving no stone unturned, they went after her personally, speculating that because the mowing of their properties was inconsistent, and that the Ireland house remained behind chain-link fence, this was an indication that they would not follow through with any project they undertook. Never mind that they had brought the Ireland House back from the grave and turned it into a great event space for meetings and wedding receptions. Before it burned, even Carruthers and Roth used it for meetings, one of its ace attorneys blessing the third floor bathroom with a large amount of alcohol-induced vomit that Mrs. Roberts had to clean up - at no extra charge!
Then someone brought up the eaves, which are 2 1/2' deep. That would produce yet another variance request because eaves cannot be closer than 3' from any property line. I pointed out that in order to move the duplex, the roof needed to be entirely removed and that it could be built back any depth required. One board memeber was wringing her hands about this fact, and thought she would hate to see the house look clipped or "pinched" on the lot, so she voted down the request, along with all the other board members, essentially sending the house to the landfill. Again, folks, she'd hate to see the clipped eaves, so let's send it to the landfill instead. Amazing.
It was unanimous, and no matter what attorney we brought, it was, we felt, a done deal.
The are were two more lot owners that we tried to work with one nearby and one further away; both situations had great advantages but also obstacles that in the end, swayed the owners away from the undertaking.
All summer long we leap-frogged variance meeting with Minimum Housing Standards meeting to request continuances again the "Repair or Demolish" order brought about, not by the City, but by neighbors. At present, on October 9th, 2012, the committee will not grant any more extensions and will vote to enforce the "Repair or Demolish" order and we will have 90 days to comply.
February 2013
So far we've had 2 extensions on top of that while we try to formulate a solution with various public and private entities, but to no effect.
At the February meeting, I thanked the committee for all their help in trying to keep this house out of the landfill. Truly, they had given us every break possible within the rules and guidelines of their authority. They asked why there had been no one from Preservation Greensboro consistently at the meetings to support us. I couldn't begin to speak for them.
At the March 12th meeting, the committee upheld the inspector and voted to give us the final 90 days to "repair or demolish" the building. We are looking into having it taken down by hand with the materials sorted and sold off. This is the most reasonable course of action since the building is still on steel. Taking it down by machine puts the steel at risk, something Mike Blake, the mover, doesn't want to see happen. It will likely be more expensive than mechanical destruction.
June 2013 - Through a contact of Ann Roberts, we have been in tough with the non-profit group, Church World Services, which provides legal, medical and employment help to those immigrating to this country. They were looking to expand and increase their parking as well.The conversation with them centered around moving the house to the Ireland House property and using it there, but they ran into the City's excuse of "no funds available." So we offered to let it stay on our site; with a tenant we could then pursue funds, and what money was available would go entirely to renovation, without any moving costs. Talks stalled out when CWS wanted assurances that the County would make no moves for at least 5 years so they wouldn't have to move - assurances we couldn't speak for.
October 2013
We have been notified by the City that demolition will take place in late November or December. We have contacted area non-profits to see if they could use the building. Fisher Parkers put us in touch with Delancy Street, but we were too far away and they would have to double their staff to run a second unit, and the Ireland House property is too close to the ABC store. Habitat only wants new houses near parks for the kiddies - no downtown property and certainly no interest in partnering with Preservation.
Attending the annual Preservation Greensboro Meeting last February, I sat next to a board member who told me the oft-quoted saying in preservation circles "Well, you can't save them all."
True enough, but it hardly makes for a great mission statement.
FOR EVEN MORE BACK STORY, SEE: SAVE THE ZENKE HOUSE - (Please keep in mind that the Zenke home, and the Zenke duplex described above, are two separate projects.)
Thanks for reading!
CORNER DUPLEX: Landfill bound - the negatives win - unless...
NOPE, we're done here; the demolition date is Monday, October 13, 2014 for the duplex.
SALT, the Student Art League store of the Triad couldn't get non-profit status working with the Greensboro Community Foundation fast enough to suit the City deadline, so, no tenant, no hope of financing
The insurance company went elsewhere, and the couple who wanted - at-the-very-last-minute - to take it apart and move it to their farm in Julian, didn't like the price tag.
Greensboro doing what Greensboro does best.
AUGUST 10, 2014
PLEASE SEE OUR FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN ON INDIEGOGO, SEARCH: "GEORGE WASHINGTON DIDN'T SLEEP HERE. SO?"
The student art league described is still a viable option, but the process for Dr. Jenkens to form a non-profit is longer than the City has given us before it will tear the building down under a "repair or demolish order" which is September 30. We need another source of funds than a bank, which is why we created the campaign on Indiegogo. Any amount will help, it is a "flexible" campaign rather than an "all or nothing" campaign - and please pass this information on to others.
(Nope, let's call this IndieNoGo)
Everytime we've brainstormed what to put on this lot, this time with the duplex rather than it moved to another lot, we have kept in mind what would benefit "this end" of Washington Street and particularly Blandwood Mansion - how can we get more people to live or work in the area, and how can we get those people to be participants in the arts, rather than the municipal machine? How can we create the synergy to help Blandwood connect to the rest of the downtown, rather than be an island that is driven by on the way to somewhere else? All these factors would be helped by the renovation of this building and using it for the artists league store. How can we keep this positive?
THE ZENKE DUPLEX - c. 1910
DEVELOPMENTS as of 5/7/14
Back story: November 2013
I volunteered to do a program at our home on Washington Street and prefaced it with a blanket statement about the duplex, simply, that it was due to be demolished between November 15th and December 15th. One of the group came up to me after the lecture, Catherine Drake, said she was an attorney, and that she would love to have an office in our duplex, and might know some other attorneys who would as well. She also said that her husband, Lawrence Jenkens, head of the Art Department at UNCG might be interested as well, as it seemed to fit an idea he had to form a multi-college arts league store to teach entrepreneurship to art students, a current gap in their education. They both came by the next day and looked through the duplex and thought it would be suitable for both uses.
February 2014
Catherine Drake has been reaching out to other attorneys who might want space, and Lawrence has started down the strenuous path of forming a non-profit that would work independently of the area colleges while serving their need to give art students a gallery to set up, run, and display their works. The project also would benefit museum studies programs. In December, Dr. Jenkens wrote to the mayor and two council members and several City staff members to request a meeting in January 2014 to discuss the matter, and to request that demolition be delayed at least until after that meeting.
No response.
Over the holidays, Dr. Jenkens contacted potential supporters, one of which is a consultant who is, pro bono, leading the art students through the steps of creating a business plan. Dr. Jenkens met with City staff in January (no Council members showed) and said it would take until the end of the semester (early May) to come up with the business plan. He hoped also to have more in place to form the non-profit; board members and possibly some operational funding. Once he reaches non-profit status, then the non-profit can issue a Letter of Intent, which we can then take to potential lenders to get the funds necessary to renovate the duplex.
Members of the City Council, could, if so moved, direct the staff to slow down the demolition long enough to allow Dr. Jenkens to solidify his plan and present it to the City Council.
This process includes:
a) having his students create a business plan which should be done by early May
b) recruiting a board of directors
c) exploring and recruiting funding for its operational expenses
d) forming a non-profit, which at that point, could write a "Letter of Intent" to lease the building.
At that point, we could then go to a lending institution and request funds to renovate the building.
Finding a tenant (or a lot to move it to) has been our unending quest in this tanked economy.
Council members need to be persuaded to direct staff to delay demolition until Dr. Jenkens can present his plan, less than 90 days away. (Currently, according to a column by Jeri Rowe on February 26, 2014, the City has "lost patience" with us over this project, and certain members have withdrawn support.)
5/7/14 Dr. Jenkens' students have submitted their business plan for Student Artists League of the Triad (SALT) to various non-profits to seek operating expenses - salaries, rent, utilities for the project. Still no Letter of Intent on the horizon, so we wait.
8/23/14 Met with Dr. Jenkens and Gordon Skoensen of the Greensboro Community Foundation. The business plan that was supposed to be submitted by the students in May hasn't materialized yet, so the process to obtain non-profit status OR at least go under the umbrella of the Greensboro Community Foundation. Disclaimer: As a for-profit property owner, we were NOT approaching the GCF for funds for renovation, but were seeking verbal/networking support for our efforts, and hoping that GCF could take SALT under its umbrella to fast track it into an entity that could legally sign a letter of intent/lease. This was not forthcoming and even if it had made progress, it was not fast enough to meet the City's extension deadline of September 30th.
Another possibility we had been working with was an insurance company that was interested in leasing the whole building. While it appealed to our pragmatic side, those involved didn't seem to play well with the other children. We got as far as sending them a letter of intent to sign, at which point they evaporated. No calls or emails returned. Just as well, but we're losing a building, in part, to them.
At the very, very last minute, a couple approached us, both attorneys, with the idea to haul it to a farm they have in Julian, where it would make a nice home. The numbers for moving and rebuilding were more than they had in mind.
That's it.
What a waste.
8/23/14 Met with Dr. Jenkens and Gordon Skoensen of the Greensboro Community Foundation. The business plan that was supposed to be submitted by the students in May hasn't materialized yet, so the process to obtain non-profit status OR at least go under the umbrella of the Greensboro Community Foundation. Disclaimer: As a for-profit property owner, we were NOT approaching the GCF for funds for renovation, but were seeking verbal/networking support for our efforts, and hoping that GCF could take SALT under its umbrella to fast track it into an entity that could legally sign a letter of intent/lease. This was not forthcoming and even if it had made progress, it was not fast enough to meet the City's extension deadline of September 30th.
Another possibility we had been working with was an insurance company that was interested in leasing the whole building. While it appealed to our pragmatic side, those involved didn't seem to play well with the other children. We got as far as sending them a letter of intent to sign, at which point they evaporated. No calls or emails returned. Just as well, but we're losing a building, in part, to them.
At the very, very last minute, a couple approached us, both attorneys, with the idea to haul it to a farm they have in Julian, where it would make a nice home. The numbers for moving and rebuilding were more than they had in mind.
That's it.
What a waste.
Among those contacted were:
Greensboro College
Elon College
Starbucks ("downtown Greensboro is not Starbucks worthy")
Downtown Greensboro Inc. (the building is listed on their real estate page - and obscure lip service)
Builders of Hope (Raleigh non-profit that moves & renovates houses - "too big")
Church World Services (non-profit for new immigrants, doesn't like proximity to jail)
Habitat for Humanity ("We want to build new houses in nice neighborhoods with trees and playgrounds.")
Salvation Army (directed us to Guild County Coalition to End Homelessnes - you can stop at Guilford County)
DeLancy St (Heard it wanted larger digs, but we aren't in Fisher Park and we aren't large enough)
Tenants of buildings to be demolished for Greensboro Performing Arts Center. (nothing)
- various developers and many others...
- various developers and many others...
And we have looked for feasible lots to move the building to - came close on Spring Garden Street, but were stopped by a 1' variance (read more in "back story"re: Ann Roberts)
In none of these instances did these possible solutions "tank" because we were "uncompromising."
BACK STORY:
The 1910 Duplex:
In 2007, after the announcement of the County jail expansion, one of the City planners suggested moving the brick 1910 duplex to College Hill, to a lot owned by Greensboro College. The president, Craven Williams, came and expressed sincere interest in the building and then went on vacation for the summer of 2008. We heard nothing from them for months. They finally resurfaced in January of 2009 and said, "We want to do this."
They wanted it to house coaching staff, so we all started gathering numbers for the move. We got killed in the first round, again thanks to Duke Power and the $152,000 bill to take the direct route down Market Street to the lot behind the old YMCA on Rankin Street. Market Street was a main electrical artery as well as a four lane traffic artery. In addition, Southern Railroad wanted $22,000 plus meals and lodging to move the signal arms on the tracks crossing Market. Cable, DOT and telephone pushed utility costs well over $200,000.
Our house mover, Mike Blake, went back to the drawing board, proposing the rear single story and the front porch be shaved off and the two pieces taken through back streets with less utility cost. In May 2009 the numbers came back from Duke Power Company, and intstead of a $650,000 project we had a $415,000 project, begining to end, which came within $20,000 of what the City could give and what the College could spend towards the renovation. Working through PGDF again, we worked with the College Hill Neighborhood Association and got them over minor objections and misinformation. We got the City funding approved - it was unused bond money allocated to College Hill. At our last meeting we reworked the numbers and were ecstatic - we had it in our grasp.
Two days later, the first of many articles by Lorraine Ahearn came out exploring the financial difficulties of Greensboro College. Within a month Craven Williams had retired and we got official word that the duplex project was dead.
Before we got official word that Greensboro College had backed out, but knowing they probably would, I headed down to the City offices to see if there was any more money to be had for the project. My brother, Chris, half jokingly said, "Why don't you ask them if we're eligible for any of that money?" I thought we had covered that long ago; City funds were available for neighborhood redevelopment only. Nevertheless, I asked, and was surprised when a couple of days later they said, "Yes." The money available was not as plentiful since most of it was tied to bonds for College Hill, but there was enough to get the building moved to our lot and start renovations. As time progressed some of that funding "expired" to the point that there were just enough funds to move the house. So we were basically having to renovate a building that was perfectly good before government expansion. Again. And we were saddled with a second renovation when we were meagerly prepared for the first move and renovation of Mother's house.
While we worked on Mother's house throughout 2010, we also tried to market the duplex for a tenant. The traffic count for a three block radius was between 75,000 and 80,000 per day according to DOT statistics. Three arteries were within that: Freeman Mill/Edgeworth/Spring Garden, Market/Friendly, and Eugene/Washington. In addition we were the main pedestrian artery between the colleges and the cool end of Elm Street. We climbed the contact ladder at Starbucks, only to be told by their real estate agent that downtown Greensboro wasn't Starbucks Worthy.
The duplex is up on steel, having been moved in October of 2009, twelve days before the County broke ground on the new jail. We have all site, architectural, and engineering plans approved b the City for a commercially rated building. Prospective tenants look at it and say, "Great location, great traffic, " (then, with eyes gazing up eight stories high) "When is the County going to bulldoze you?" making it near impossible to develop the property for anyone bu the County in this market. That house could be renovated where it is; everyone involved wanted a more human scaled street scape in front of Blandwood Mansion, but with the current factors again in play at this point, we feel it should be moved out to a neighborhood, a much longer lasting and appropriate solution.
Updates:
March 25, 2011:
The County issues us the "We've changed our mind and want your land back" letter. We offered to get the old houses out and build an administration building (declined) and next we offered to build a parking deck (haven't heard from them) but their whining for parking seems to be subsiding with the realization that their jail isn't quite the tourist draw for downtown Greensboro that it anticipated.
A parking deck was not what we had in mind to build in front of a National Landmark, but leasing parking to a round-the-clock facility created numbers that would support the construction of a deck as well as the costs associated with moving our mother's home yet again. The comical aspect to this was that the Preservation Greensboro actually issued a letter to the County objecting to this deck, whose design would be controlled by our family who has made its living creating handsome designs for all sorts of buildings, interiors and applications. When the jail project was first announced in 2005, and originally planned to face Blandwood Mansion before our land swap with the County, there was not one word of objection by Preservation Greensboro to a County controlled design for an incarceration complex being erected in the same location.
October 2011:
The City, due to pressure from neighbors and at least one downtown booster club, instigates a "Repair or Demolish" order because they consider us "blight" instead of "Murphy's Laws and Then Some." Said booster club has never offered or uttered one word of support for our situation. (See February News & Record article: Downtown Greensboro Inc, Shape Up or Else..."
We go back to the original plan - Get These Houses into More Appreciative Neighborhoods! So we started combing the GIS tax map for lots.
February - October 2012
Found one! Randy and Ann Roberts own the old Ireland House property, the house having burned after its lovely restoration by the Roberts. When all this started rolling in 2007, I asked them if they would be interested in taking it and they responded that they were hoping to build a commercial building on it at some point since it was located on the corner of Friendly Avenue and Spring Street. So nothing more was said.
In combing the GIS we saw that they also had a smaller lot, three lots north of the Ireland House property. Would they be willing to take the house at that location? Carl Myatt, architect and mutual friend made the initial call and I made the pitch - and they said yes!
This would have placed it 2 blocks away from the Queen Anne on Cedar Street. It met with City approval for it fell within their neighborhood redevelopment plans for the area, and the vintage of the duplex was the same as the other houses in the area. The City's main drive in conserving these neighborhoods was to get "heads in beds" in downtown Greensboro and this fit right in.
Problem: House is 42' wide, the lot is 50' wide. Greensboro likes a 10' side setback for residential use, or a 5' setback - or build on the lot line - for commercial use. So Ann Roberts needed to apply for a variance from the Board of Adjustment.
Hearing #1 for the residential use (this was the viable real estate market at the time, you could rent residential far easier than office/commercial ) and 6' each side - and it was denied. Here's why:
Ann Roberts and I showed up at the hearing, I, armed with the history of "why we want to do this" and Ann, armed with architects plans for setbak and parking and all the technical things she needed to pass the variance. A 6' variance. What could go wrong?
Everything.
We say our bit, then the neighbors say their bit and it was plenty. Lacking technical objections they went for drama and personal attack, speculating that because it was an old house, it would automatically attract derelict tenants, in short, accusing Mrs. Roberts of being a slum lord when she actually had never rented any property. In reviewing the transcript they used the term "slum" in relation to the Roberts 11 times. Their neighbors were website developer PhotoBiz and on the other side of her lot, was a firm full of attorneys, Carruthers and Roth.
The duplex had just stepped into a land war.
Apparently, one neighbor and then the other, 3 and 4 years ago respectively, had tried to purchase the lot from the Roberts at near tax value, which they declined. One party got so testy about it, saying "you'll be lucky to get tax value, it won't appraise any higher" taunted the Roberts into getting an appraisal for it. It came in at almost triple the value! The neighbors got quiet after that.
What the City did not advise us to do before the hearing, they advised after the hearing: "Bring an attorney."
Actually, the City was just as appalled as we were at, not just the outcome, but the demeanor of the attorneys and the derailing of the proceedings into a "wild meeting" according to one City staffer.
The variance request however, gave them the small leverage they needed to prevent the Roberts from developing their property with this project in mind. The board expressed that since the surrounding buildings were used for commercial, including the large Queen Anne next door owned by PhotoBiz, that they would prefer to see it used for commercial. They turned down the request for residential.
Mrs. Roberts filed an appeal on the residential decision with the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Simultaneously, she applied for a commercial variance, but went through two continuances waiting for an appointment with, reputedly, one of the best zoning attorneys in town.
She brought the attorney. And the application for commercial was also denied. One City staffer used the word "brutal" to decribe the hearing. Here's why: The meeting started at 5:30, and we walked out, exhausted, at 7:40. Aside from 10 minutes of officiating at the beginning of the meeting, all 2 hours were spent on our case.
We had given the opposition ample time to load for bear. One of their main points was that the Roberts could not prove that they had exhausted every other means for developing the property; the possibility had always existed that they could develop an entirely new building within the setback rules and provide the necessary parking. Most likely it wold have been at a higher cost, but that fact was ignored. The Roberts had also not had an engineer do a site plan for the duplex, which is something that few people would have spent the money on unless they had PASSED the variance FIRST!
Leaving no stone unturned, they went after her personally, speculating that because the mowing of their properties was inconsistent, and that the Ireland house remained behind chain-link fence, this was an indication that they would not follow through with any project they undertook. Never mind that they had brought the Ireland House back from the grave and turned it into a great event space for meetings and wedding receptions. Before it burned, even Carruthers and Roth used it for meetings, one of its ace attorneys blessing the third floor bathroom with a large amount of alcohol-induced vomit that Mrs. Roberts had to clean up - at no extra charge!
Then someone brought up the eaves, which are 2 1/2' deep. That would produce yet another variance request because eaves cannot be closer than 3' from any property line. I pointed out that in order to move the duplex, the roof needed to be entirely removed and that it could be built back any depth required. One board memeber was wringing her hands about this fact, and thought she would hate to see the house look clipped or "pinched" on the lot, so she voted down the request, along with all the other board members, essentially sending the house to the landfill. Again, folks, she'd hate to see the clipped eaves, so let's send it to the landfill instead. Amazing.
It was unanimous, and no matter what attorney we brought, it was, we felt, a done deal.
The are were two more lot owners that we tried to work with one nearby and one further away; both situations had great advantages but also obstacles that in the end, swayed the owners away from the undertaking.
All summer long we leap-frogged variance meeting with Minimum Housing Standards meeting to request continuances again the "Repair or Demolish" order brought about, not by the City, but by neighbors. At present, on October 9th, 2012, the committee will not grant any more extensions and will vote to enforce the "Repair or Demolish" order and we will have 90 days to comply.
February 2013
So far we've had 2 extensions on top of that while we try to formulate a solution with various public and private entities, but to no effect.
At the February meeting, I thanked the committee for all their help in trying to keep this house out of the landfill. Truly, they had given us every break possible within the rules and guidelines of their authority. They asked why there had been no one from Preservation Greensboro consistently at the meetings to support us. I couldn't begin to speak for them.
June 2013 - Through a contact of Ann Roberts, we have been in tough with the non-profit group, Church World Services, which provides legal, medical and employment help to those immigrating to this country. They were looking to expand and increase their parking as well.The conversation with them centered around moving the house to the Ireland House property and using it there, but they ran into the City's excuse of "no funds available." So we offered to let it stay on our site; with a tenant we could then pursue funds, and what money was available would go entirely to renovation, without any moving costs. Talks stalled out when CWS wanted assurances that the County would make no moves for at least 5 years so they wouldn't have to move - assurances we couldn't speak for.
October 2013
We have been notified by the City that demolition will take place in late November or December. We have contacted area non-profits to see if they could use the building. Fisher Parkers put us in touch with Delancy Street, but we were too far away and they would have to double their staff to run a second unit, and the Ireland House property is too close to the ABC store. Habitat only wants new houses near parks for the kiddies - no downtown property and certainly no interest in partnering with Preservation.
Attending the annual Preservation Greensboro Meeting last February, I sat next to a board member who told me the oft-quoted saying in preservation circles "Well, you can't save them all."
True enough, but it hardly makes for a great mission statement.
FOR EVEN MORE BACK STORY, SEE: SAVE THE ZENKE HOUSE - (Please keep in mind that the Zenke home, and the Zenke duplex described above, are two separate projects.)
Thanks for reading!
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Lost to Progress: The Otto Zenke buildings
 |
| Henry Zenke, seated, & Otto Zenke, photo by Sonny Sherill |
 |
| 215 Eugene Street |
 |
| Living Room |
 |
| Beginning days it employed 15 people, at its zenith it employed 35 |
 |
| Gazebo with terraced garden, Frazier house in background right, IRS building center, and Carolina Theatre, left |
 |
| Taken from drapery workroom; gate in left wall led uptown |
 |
| 215 Eugene looking West towards 220 Eugene across the street |
 |
| 220 Eugene - still standing |
 |
| For garden clubs and house tours, punch was always served here. |
 |
| 216 Eugene - shipping & receiving |
In the mid 1955, the Chamber of Commerce president Orton Boren called for a plan to rebuild downtown, which became the Roger's Plan, "Background for Decision" published in 1963. In 1959 a study was published "Greensboro's Future," that broadly defines Urban Renewal based on Title II Federal funding. A committee was formed which came up with the plan to build the Governmental Complex designed by Edouard Catalano, appointed architect in 1966. From the orange booklet "Governmental Center: "The architects were instructed to design a center with an environment of vitality, civic dignity, and high architectural standards which would offer no obstructions to close cooperation of the city and county, would fulfill present and future space needs and would complement downtown development."
Instead, two buildings were built, one for the County and one for the City.
This proposal brought about the taking of the Otto Zenke property by eminent domain and it was destroyed in 1968 in two days. While Otto was extremely hurt that this was happening to him, his way was to outbuild and outshine his surroundings with a vengence. Our parents begged Otto to move the Eugene cottage but he wanted instead to build a large commercial building that suited his purposes. He would lament publicly about the loss of the trees and cottage - but he was on to bigger things. Our parents fought for it, publicly, as well as his close friends, Joe Morton going to bat for him by saying, "Two things are known about Greensboro; Burlington Industries and Otto Zenke" It didn't matter how much support Otto was given, it was a done deal.In spite of its world famous architect, one City official has described the common feeling for the government buildings in these terms, "Few of us would lift a fire extinguisher to save them."
 |
| c. 1965 |
 |
| 1968 - just before the bulldozers arrived |
A few days later, one frequent visitor to Greensboro was driving down the denuded Eugene Street, saw that Otto's house was gone, stopped her car in the middle of Eugene Street, got out and started screaming, "My God, what have they done? They tore it down! They took that beautiful place and destroyed it!
So Otto built his new ediface, and it was lovely - no trees - but lovely. Modeled on stuccoed English Regency which gave it very clean exterior lines, but not quite modern and inside it was his vision of an establishment of tradition and elegance. He moved the living room panelling, the murals and bookcases and doorway from his office, and other design elements from 215.
He filled it with English antiques and reproductions that were hand selected or the best bench made furniture to be had from such firms as Baker and Henredon. The best fabric houses were represented by Scalamandre, Brunschwig & Fils, and Clarence House. All the best product lines that had been building up nationally after the war, through advertisement and high sales, were solidified in the period that his business was active: 1951-1984.
 |
| Glory days gone. N.W. corner of Washington & Edgeworth, now administration office for sheriff. |
All the departments were now under one roof. Upholsterers and drapery makers, paint shop, bookkeeping, shipping & receiving, were on the ground floor, galleries, his office and secretaries on the second floor, and drafting, hardware and storage on the third. His living quarters were on the garden gallery level which bridged the new building with old 220 Eugene.
And business was good in the 1970's
But relations weren't. Our parents left that business in 1982 to start their own firm of The Zenkes, Inc. which we were proud to join in 1983. Otto died in 1984 and the new executrix for the estate tried running his business for a year, gave up, and cashed in everything possible, including selling his building to the County, where the sheriff's department has administrative offices now. As a public building we doubt any of the interested public cross the threshold. As a private concern, the world was welcome. Strange irony.
Other assets lost....
 |
| Bellemeade, William Henry Porter's (O'Henry) playground, thankfully 2 rooms were saved and put in the Greensboro Historical Museum |
 |
| Dunleith, in the Charles Aycock neighborhood, now a dog park. |
 |
| Spencer Love's Burlington Industries HQ - Style Moderne, replaced by a baseball stadium, |
 |
| O'Henry Hotel - Otto & Dad's first digs |
 |
| King Cotton Hotel - good downtown living space - gone, replaced by a new newspaper facility. The greenest building is the one still standing. Meaning it is not in the landfill, but still being used, even if repurposed. Most older buildings blessed with the traditional building arts are sound in frame, materials, durability and artistic, human details. Mechanicals and insulation are the things that need replacing. The difference is, in an older building that is usually the only thing that needs replacing, In a newer building, the whole building is usually replaced because of poor construction & "cost effectiveness" in the first place. |
Monday, March 19, 2012
Save the Zenke house
Let me get this straight...
The really short version:
Our home is an 1820's and 1830's wooden house, lovingly restored by our parents who were interior designers who were also very much in the forefront of historic preservation; Dad overseeing restoration projects at Blandwood and Carter's Tavern, Mother serving as president of Preservation North Carolina and later being named, along with a few others, Director Emeritus.
2005:The Guilford County jail is expanding onto our block.
We try to avoid eminent domain by planning to move the houses out of downtown and develop an office building.
This plan evolves to swapping properties with the County because our land is closer to the old jail, and their land is in front of a National Landmark.
July 2007 We swap properties with the County.
2008 We watch the banks shut down lending nationwide just as we need to move
Dec 2008-2011 We relocate and renovate our home at our expense to an adjacent lot.
June 2009 We give our Queen Anne to Preservation Greensboro Development Fund which is then moved to Cedar Street with City help from neighborhood bond money. It is beautifully renovated and quickly leased.
October 2009 We get our brick duplex whisked out of the way at the last minute with City funds and place it on our land. Plans are in place for us to proceed with that renovation at our expense as we finish the work on Mother's house.
We've done all this in the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
March 2011 - I've just finished the floors, my brother is installing phones, and Mother is planning her garden.
We get a letter from the County:
They didn't plan for parking.
They want their land back.
 |
| November 2005 |
THE MEDIUM VERSION:
In November of 2005, Guilford County announced that it would be expanding the downtown jail on our block, wrapping around us, building its eight story jail - sold to the public as five story - partly in front of Blandwood Mansion, home of Governor John Motley Morehead, with the Italianate facade designed by Alexander Jackson Davis and built in 1844. We did not oppose the concept of a new jail; the stories of the conditions and overcrowding were aweful, so we were not denying the need for it, simply its placement in a downtown that was struggling to "revitalize" itself.
 |
| September 1964 |
Fearing the invisible gun of eminent domain and the same fate of our uncle, Otto Zenke's, charming cottage, (see: Lost to Progress, the Otto Zenke Buildings) we proceeded to take steps to avoid that. Our attorney recommended we get a site plan developed that would, in theory, give us two years in which to plan and execute a commercial building. If the County did execute eminent domain, then they would have to give us commercial rates for the property, not residential. We had a sight plan developed for the Blandwood Avenue property in place by May of 2006. This encompassed five lots with four houses, one of which was our home.
With Mother's house off Blandwood Avenue, and hopefully the three other houses we owned given away and relocated in other neighborhoods, we would no longer have a strong emotional tie to Blandwood Avenue. The next idea to evolve was to swap our four lots on Blandwood Avenue, which were close to the existing jail, for the County's parking lot on the corner of Washington and Edgeworth Streets that was directly across from Blandwood Mansion. That lot was also adjacent to an empty lot we already owned on Washington Street, which joined Mother's lot on Blandwood at right angles.
 |
| December 2006 |
 |
| Blandwood Mansion, Governor Morehead's home, designed by A.J. Davis |
If we swapped parcels with the County we would own all but a small corner apartment building, and of course the county land that would support the jail,185' of street frontage in front of Blandwood Mansion and the lot would be 27,000 square feet, enough to support a four story 65,000 square foot building, possibly a five story, 80,000 square foot building. We went to the County, presented the swap idea, and they saw the sense of building the new jail closer to the old one and swapping properties.
We spent all of 2006, talking with developers and the banks who were highly supportive of the project at the time. It fit the "highest and best use" concept so dear to bankers, insurers and downtown developers. We had known that part of the Zenke brothers' great success was that they owned a lot of rental property that kept cash flow strong, something we were made keenly aware of after 9/11. All of this seemed to make sense and would provide for us well into the future.
In July of 2007, we entered into the swap agreement with the County, by the end of August 2007 we were watching Countrywide Mortgage implode, which was the first domino of the Recession to come. Increasingly, the banks and developers who had been supportive were getting increasingly hesitant in 2007, with cold feet not far behind. At some point we considered backing out and were told by our attorney that we would be sued by the County for at least architectural fees, which, even at the early planning stages were somewhere between 2 and 4 million dollars. |
| The arborist was giving us the hugs. |
In the winter of 2008 we got the news that it would cost $250,000 for utility work alone to move Mother's house to a better neighborhood - or divide the house in two, move it and stitch it back together. We didn't want to cut the house in two while Mother was still living, if at all, so we considered that we should just move it onto the lot we already owned on Washington Street, which we did in December of 2008. It trimmed down our proposed building but we had designed it so that it could be built in stages anyway. In the end, it didn't matter what we wanted to do, divide or not, long move or short, by spring of 2008, the banks were shutting their doors in the nation's face and ours.
 |
| Blake Moving Company at work |
The County's role in all of this, in spite of the fact that we were trying to pro-actively cooperate with the situation, was totally adversarial and predatory. Early on, we wrote an in depth letter to the Rhinoceros Times, not against the jail, but against the use of downtown property for such a use. This, in a town, that for decades has tried to "get back" and "revitalize" its downtown. It was miraculously published but there was no response. No concurring support anywhere. There was no point in fighting an ugly building that reinforced Greensboro's baseline architectural and developmental behavior, that for decades had destroyed the human elements of living and working downtown, in favor of the glass and concrete slabbed mega projects that gave people nothing interesting to walk by for blocks on end. To clarify further, we only got the land swap out of the deal with the County; we paid for the move and renovation of Mother's house, with no help from the County.
Furthermore, we were three months behind schedule getting Mother's house moved because of the mover's schedule to move 6 houses in Raleigh and sudden rains midway through our project, so we were in breach of contract. The County fined us $5,000.00 per month - $15,000. And they insisted that they be paid, just before Christmas.
In the subsequent months of 2009, when we were trying to get our other two houses moved, they used any request for more time to move the houses as an excuse to extract attorney's fees in one instance, and a utility easement for a storm drain and sewer line, that the architects and engineers for the jail had neglected to anticipate into the design. So we lost 15 feet by 185 feet of property that we could build on. We could park on it, but we couldn't build on it, and there was no extra compensation other than "extra time" to do what the County should have done for us, which was to help us move the houses, since they were the ones expanding in the first place.
One further dig at us occurred when we were trying to get the other two houses moved. Amongst the stack of papers we signed in this transition period, one set was a "Confession of Judgement" which stated that if the houses did not move by the already extended date, that we would be responsible for the demolition expenses of those houses. No need to go to court, that would be it, we would be liable. We performed our duty and both houses moved off the property by the appointed date. No issues remained. We were done, finished, fait accomplis. finito! They broke ground for the jail a couple of weeks later, and approximately two or three months after that, someone in the County, just for chuckles, filed the "Confession of Judgement" on us anyway, which is like a lien, and does wonders for one's credit report. We didn't find out about it for a year or more. The County did eventually remove it.
*******************************************************************************
QUEEN ANNE #1
The City's role, unexpectedly, has been "good cop" compared to the County's "bad cop." We only say this because 40 years ago, in the case of our uncle, they were anxious to bulldoze their way forward hand in hand with the County over our Uncle Otto's 1870's "raised cottage" style house that he had transformed into the garden spot of the city. They have since started hiring people who actually study successful urban planning and the City has accumulated an impressive list of projects which enhance neighborhoods in positive, inviting ways rather than destructive, wasteful ways that disrespect history and the hand of human endeavor in architecture. The City expressed interest in our three other buildings to purchase and move for redevelopment in nearby neighborhoods. One prospect suggested he take the two narrow Queen Anne houses and in return he would give us office space for two years in which to locate our business. The City would pay for the move and he would renovate them. We worked with him for months, close to a year, but in the end, he couldn't sell a previous project to pay for the renovations, so he backed out in late 2007. As the economy began to worsen, the offers of the City to purchase the structures faded as well.
 |
| Queen Anne I - demolished |
Queen Anne #2
 |
| Queen Anne #2 prior to move |
An article ran in the paper of October of 2007 which outlined our hopes to get the houses relocated and it produced about twenty-five calls, only three of which were viable. We worked with those people to get them plugged into contractors and get estimates. One of those people was Mahlon Honeycutt.
In March of 2008, we approached Preservation Greensboro Development Fund, headed by a very astute attorney, Marsh Prause. We told him of our desire to get the houses off the block and asked for his organization's assistance. Nothing much happened at first, but PGDF started working with Honeycutt on the Queen Anne, and later with Greensboro College on the brick duplex.
Honeycutt's project stalled out periodically, but was ultimately successful. In September of 2009, the yellow Queen Anne made its six block trip to Cedar Street. We gave the house to PGDF who in turn played contractor and ran interference with the City and County. Upon completion, Honeycutt bought the house as a beautifully completed project. It appraised for $150,000 in a low to middle income neighborhood in a down market, on a narrow lot and looks like it was born in the neighborhood.
 |
| Queen Anne #2 after move to Cedar Street |
In the end, we even made lemonade out of those lemons. It took us close to two months to get him back to the table, but in the end he got a better deal. PGDF stepped in so that he didn't have to deal with the City or the County, and put together the renovation contracts and ran the project.
*********************************************************************************
See post of February 2013
******************************************************************************
HOME: CURRENTLY:
Mother's house moved beautifully, and we have completed the exterior renovations and the interior renovations except for some minor wallpaper and plaster issues scattered throughout the house.
I had just finished stripping and waxing the floors when we received a letter from the County dated March 25, 2011, stating its "intent to purchase" the property, but with no offer stated. It was the polite precursor to eminent domain. They "forgot" to plan for parking. They had changed their minds and want their land back that we swapped with them in 2008!
 |
Our land was supposed to be developed to create a steady income stream but the Recession stalled all plans. Banks and developers alike are still in hiding, licking their wounds. No one could get money for commercial or residential projects. After the receipt of the March 2011 letter from the County the idea emerged to go back tot he original plan, with a twist: offer to build an administration building for the sheriff's department, a government tenant, which the banks might like. Then move Mother's house again and the duplex, but to appropriate neighborhoods where we originally intended, before the banks closed up shop. Selling now does nothing but generate ill timed taxes in one year instead of spaced out over twenty years - and at a time when the market is at rock bottom.
We could build a 60-80,000 square foot building now, get the house out now, or build a 50-70,000 thousand square foot building now and wait to get the house out later. Both proposals have advantages and disadvantages for both parties, but we lean towards getting our home out now and getting on with our lives.
One of the sheriff''s staff told us years ago that, "the only reason they bought the place was to tear it down later." The best that can be done now is to remove the panelling and transplant it into rooms for the new building and hopefully get the County to give the painted murals out of Otto's office to the Greensboro Historical Museum to someday serve as a display area for his 13 miniature rooms which are already there. Most of the panelling and the murals transferred out of his original home/studio at 215 Eugene anyway so they can be moved again.
With those design elements removed, the building becomes nothing but block and concrete and they can replace it with a parking deck large enough and central enough to the jail and the courts that will support this burgeoning judicial-industrial complex. If they want to jump start the deck they can move into the empty Edgeworth building while the new administration building is finished. When vacated it can be sold, along with the Independence Center, and those properties could be part of the tax base, as our building would be.
Built by a private developer, the project's initial design costs are considerably less, offsetting the lower interest rates paid by government, by more than enough to make it attractive to the government clients who have built forty or so office buildings with this firm. With this plan, the County gains facilities concentrated over two solid blocks, without any conflict from the YMCA, the City, Preservation Greensboro, or us, and at a savings of time, money and effort for all as well. Everybody gets what they need now and for the future.
We presented the plan to the County in mid February. March 15, the County attorney called to say all the commissioners had turned it down. If it had been any other developer/contractor they would have jumped all over it.
In talks with the leadership at Blandwood Mansion/Preservation Greensboro, they have expressed their concern that should the County execute the drastic and negative act of eminent domain on our property for a parking deck now, we only have to wait ten or fifteen years before the County considers expanding the jail yet again to provide a stark contrast between our cultural past and our future, and if they receive no federal funding for their future jail expansion it does not have to be reviewed by the National Park Service due to the jail's proximity to a National Landmark. (Only if Federal funds are used is a project subject to NPS review.)
Preservation Greensboro has also indicated that they would welcome an office building that we had designed, over a parking deck, but we even discussed ways that parking decks can be designed better, so it's not out of the question. If parking is what the County needs for the public good, then we can certainly look at fulfilling that accommodation for them, probably at less cost than if the County built it. We can currently accommodate 35-40 cars and with the duplex removed we could handle 50, possibly 60 cars, conservatively. Building just a single level deck above that, we could handle over 100 vehicles, and of course more if we build higher.
Subsequently, we returned to the County in April 2012 with a proposal to park their vehicles on our lot as it exists, or plan for building a deck to serve their anticipated needs. We could build a private deck, but in these economic times, we would need to have a contract for parking from the County, or the City, or both. By parking for 3 shifts, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, the economic engine is in place to do what we need to do to safely, sensibly, move our home and build the deck. We are trying to work with the County to solve our respective problems for the long term in a positive manner rather than a destructive one.
2003 - Blandwood in the green block, our 4 houses in green to the north, before the move, YMCA lot: upper left, Governmental Center: upper right corner, old jail: top right center
 |
| 2010 - Blandwood in the green block, our 2 houses moved to face it and the jail under construction |
Further reading:
Adrienne Skye Roberts, 2009
Memory in Place, Part II, Where This House Once Stood,
http://www.artpractical.com/feature/memory_in_place_part_2
Miriam Farris Exum, 2010
UNC-G Planning Law Paper, Hello Guilford County Jail, Good-bye Blandwood Avenue
www.hpe.com/view/full_story/17902087/article-Parking-plans-still-unsettled?instance=homefirstleft#cb_post_comment_17902087
Robert Caro, The Power Broker 1975 (Robert Moses and the building-&tearing down-of NYC)
(every town has one) http://www.robertcaro.com/the-power-broker
The Greenest Building
http://thegreenestbuildingmovie.com
Builders of Hope
http://www.buildersofhope.org
http://www.edcone.com, search "jail sentence" March 2012
Michelle Alexander, 2010
The New Jim Crow
http://www.news-record.com/content/2012/11/10/article/new_commissioners_new_direction#nrcBlk_ArticleBody
Greensboro News & Record November 11, 2012:
New Commissioners, New Direction: by Joe Killian
2nd section "Bond debt, school projects and the future"
(3rd paragraph: "Many have questioned whether the commissioners should have suspended the bond projects after the economic downturn, whether or not voters had approved the projects.")
(12th paragraph: Tom Phillips: "'They stubbornly continued to borrow money while blaming the $1.1 billion debt on the voters,' Phillips said."
Gee, who knew?
Please visit our website at www.zenkedesign.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)