237 Lowerline St.

District: Uptown - Partial Control

Owner: Florence White

HDLC Staff: Jesse Stephenson

Rating: Contributing

Applicant: Crescent Foundations

Permit #: 24-23071-HDLC

HDLC Guidelines: 

Section 12, Pages 23-24 of the Guidelines for New Construction, Additions and Demolition states that the demolition of all or portions of historic resources within a local Historic District or Landmark site are considered drastic actions, since they alter the character of the area. Once historic resources or buildings that contribute to the heritage of the community are destroyed, it is generally impossible to reproduce their design, texture, materials, details and their special character and interest in the neighborhood. When reviewing demolition applications at properties located within a Historic District or at a Landmark site, the HDLC uses the following criteria in its evaluations:

• The historic or architectural significance of the building or structure as designated by its “rating”: Contributing but altered.

• The alternatives to demolition that have been explored by the applicant: Nothing noted.

• The difficulty or impossibility of reproducing such a building or structure because of its design, texture, material or detail: The replication of the building would be not be difficult or cost prohibitive but would highly unlikely. Safe it's roof form the building has lost most of it's character defining architectural features. 

• The condition of the building or structure: 

FEMA research indicates that the single shotgun at 237 Lowerline was constructed between 1895-1905 but does not show up on Fire Insurance maps. Sometime after 1951 a camelback and carports additions were added to the rear  and side of the building.

The building in constructed with stick framing and the exterior is clad in vinyl siding and asphalt shingles. The primary façade has lost it's single shotgun character defining openings and architectural detailing. The building overall seemed to be structurally competent but there were signs of rot and parts of the building were covered in vegetation.

The interior of the building was mostly dry with sporadic of mold and water intrusion. The bulk of the interior finishing materials appeared to have been procured from big box construction supply companies and lacked the architectural detailing indicative of the time in which it was constructed.

The replication of the building would be not be difficult or cost prohibitive but would highly unlikely. Safe it's building form the building has lost most of it's character defining architectural features.  For the aforementioned reasons Staff has no objection to the demolition to grade.

• Staff Recommendation: No Objection