The Architectural Review Board (ARB) passed a resolution on February 17th recommending that Prescott House be demolished. Citing the condition of the structure and the failure of the owners to co-operate with the City and the community over the last 15 years the Board regretfully made it recommendation to the City. The ARB which is tasked to protect the historic district has in effect determined that the building is ultimately worse for the historic district than an empty lot.
If the Mayor accepts the ARB’s finding, perhaps the former volunteer fireman might recommend a ‘Phoenix House Demo,’ a controlled fire demo or some other constructive demolition activity for training purposes by our fire and rescue teams?
Who knows, maybe the owner can even be convinced to go along with such a demo? Why? No revisitation of regular, current demo cost? Possible offset of demo cost of which owner is responsible. Possible retainment of lot by owner, by absence of lien on property for demo cost. The purging of 15 years of owner inflicted blight on the city and a new beginning in the property’s history.
Its a terrible shame that such a beautiful example of turn of the century architecture has for so many years been neglected and destroyed by a lack of simple maintenance.
If I lived in a close proximity of this mess I would be livid that this has been allowed to happen over the last 15 or more years, when all the neighboring properties have been well maintained as a source of pride.
As hard as it is for me to say, its time for it to come down at the owners expense with a lien or seizure of the property if thet don’t pay.
The owners have had more than enough time.
They could have sold the property and had some money, they chose to thumb their noses at the city and their neighbors and by doing so may end up with nothing other than some legal expenses.
Not one nickle of tax money should be spent except to demo and recoup the cost bythe owners or selling of the land.
There are more important ways to spend our money.
It is a shame about the house but it is not and has never been the city’s responsibility to fix it.
It also doesn’t shock me that this has been going on as long as it has. The city is famous for citations but no consequences when they are not abated.
9500 liberty street is the perfect example. I believe that property was cited a dozen times for various reasons but nothing was done about the violations until the citizens demanded that something be done.
It is a shame that a piece of Manassas history is well… History.
Keep your eye on the pink house off of Prescott. I’ve heard rumors about this property possibly being torn down in the future for commercial expansion.
How did this come up before the ARB? Was a motion made? By whom? (Just trying to understand the various pieces.)
Rich, I would venture to guess the Mayor may have asked for their opinion since this resolution was passed at a special work session meeting; versus their regularly scheduled monthly meeting. Probably sought their opinion as he works to determine what his vote will be; and approriate to do so since all the various Boards/Committees/Commissions (whatever the purpose) have a mission to advise the Mayor and Council.
The Architectual Review Board’s authority comes from Chapter 130 of the City Code, and their primary charge is the Historic District. They are the ones who review all applications for Certiticates of Appropriateness, and responsible for the contents of the Historic District Handbook. Although they normally act on an individual/business application, not unheard of to take up action at the request of Mayor or Council.
Would have to ask a member of the ARB who made the motion since their Minutes would not be online as of yet (approved at next scheduled meeting)
It is good to see an instance when local government entities work to do the right thing!
Thanks, Ray. As you know, I (and others) admire your eye for detail. I was not surprised to see the ARB opine on this matter concerning the historic district. I merely didn’t know there was anything pending before them or how it got there. Was it a unanimous decision? Did they actually meet and vote? I assume so, just didn’t know about it.
I saw it on the City Calendar, but could not find an agenda online….of course, that does happen with the committees since sometimes the postings occur after the meeting if then…real hit and miss sometimes. By City Code, they have to physically meet, so that much we know. I’ll wager it was unanimous….the ARB is a very fact-based decision bunch, and logic says that building has lost its viability.
Thanks, Ray. Seems to me the HRB has always pushed for preservation, so if they are not doing so here it must really be telling us something about the property. Truth be told I had been all for trying to save it, but if it’s going to come down then the sooner the better. Perhaps whatever goes up in its place at some point will have some class consistent with the surrounding timeless homes.
I assume it will take a while to get the paperwork right between the City, the bank and the current property owner, especially if the property is upside down, before another party can step in to purchase and rebuild. Based on comments made to Council by a family member, there may be a sizeable reality gap between the family’s sense of the property’s dollar value and the actual market dollar value. I presume that’s fairly uncommon.
Rich, good point about the owners….for those of us who have followed the issue through the years, that reality gap by them has been huge. I recall hearing the daughter speak in the past, and read in news articles as this whole case rolled along about their strong emotional attachment. That attachement lead to some family in-fighting as some said sell it, others hold on, with the Mother having the final say to hold on to it. Unfortunately, the resources were not there even just to maintain it long enough for the family to reconcile a decision.
What concerns me though is the ARB – as stated on the City website” is charged to “protect the property. The ARB has the City’s Historic District and its Historic Propoerties’ best interests in mind. They seek to preserve, restore, and maintain the Historic Properties in their care. The committee does not allow the property to deteriorate, be altered, or be destroyed unnecessarily.”
There are over 100 homes alone with the designation of “historic” and are listed with the National Registry. Their goal is commendable, but there is no real policy-based action plan (yet, repeat, yet) as to how to make that goal an active component within the City. Possibly the Prescott House is a wake-up call…although it will take the effort of someone to come up with the plan to attempt to avoid, as AndyH says, losing one of these homes every two years.
Ray, why don’t you look at it as a needed case of amputating a gangrene limb of the body of the Historic District? So what was the ARB to do ? Save dilapidated, pest infested Prescott House until we had a Historic District of Prescott Houses? I’ve seen that brilliant approach to urban planning play out in Upstate New York.
With all due respect to Andy’s concern, it has taken 15 years to even get to this point with one house. Losing one to demolition every two years isn’t going to happen, on the other hand losing historic homes to blight and falling property values is a much more likely scenario to quickly come upon us.
I applaud the ARB for responsibly sacrificing one sick historic home to save the healthy ones, failure to do so would have been a dereliction of their duty.
Doug, I am all in favor of demolishing that house – as I have written and voiced in other forums/places/times. As a former Volunteer Fireman in another State, like your idea of a training exercise. I also commend the ARB for making the right call as if they had gone with the decision to shore it up/save it, agree it would have been dereliction.