Potential changes to Lafayette Square Historical Code

jmstokes · PostFeb 20, 2009#12009-02-20T11:39+00:00

Got this in an email yesterday:

xxxx presented a suggested draft for the amendment of some Historical Codes. For consideration

A: Red brick or exposed aggregate concrete sidewalks - no brushed concrete.

B: Definition of "living unit" and the need for each living uit to have a public facade.

C: All elevations to be in masonry - no vinyl siding.

D: Paint colors and no painting of brick.

D: The elimination of "intermediate facade".

E: The size of signage for businesses.

E: New construction be held to the same strict standards as the rehabilitation codes. Minimum requirements for new construction. A difference between new residential and new commercial code requirements.

Don't ask me why there are 2 Ds and 2 Es, I just copy this stuff.

I am very glad to read about C and D. There was a proposal for new development on Dolman with front painted brick veneers and vinyl siding on the other three sides. Barftastic.

There is also a new "green" development going up at the corner of Hickory and Dolman. It will be a single family residence.

Don't ask

stlgasm · PostFeb 27, 2009#22009-02-27T22:25+00:00

I don't agree with the restriction on the size of signs. It's the city-- there should be all kinds of signs and all sizes. I realize Lafayette Square is special, but restricting the size of a business's sign is a little stifling I think.

jmstokes · PostFeb 27, 2009#32009-02-27T23:58+00:00

STLgasm wrote:I don't agree with the restriction on the size of signs. It's the city-- there should be all kinds of signs and all sizes. I realize Lafayette Square is special, but restricting the size of a business's sign is a little stifling I think.

I agree. I love the neighborhood, and consider purchasing here, but sometimes I get really annoyed at some of the retired folks who would probably be better suited to join an HOA in the suburbs somewhere.

framer · PostFeb 28, 2009#42009-02-28T04:59+00:00

Of course every business needs a sign to help it stand out, but in a neighborhood like Lafayette Square, I think some reasonable restrictions are appropriate.

Alex Ihnen · PostMar 01, 2009#52009-03-01T00:13+00:00

And there are some absolutely fantastic painted brick in the neighborhood as well. I suppose that those owners will be allowed to repaint, but I think this should simply be regulated on a case-by-base basis.

gelatinousendive · PostMar 07, 2009#62009-03-07T04:47+00:00

Grover wrote:And there are some absolutely fantastic painted brick in the neighborhood as well. I suppose that those owners will be allowed to repaint, but I think this should simply be regulated on a case-by-base basis.

On a case by case basis, then, according to no standards. OK!

Then the standards become the race of the of the occupants. The size of the check they write to Slay. Who sleeps with which city official. etc.

I know of no absolutely fabulous painted brick in the Square, I think that all of the painted brick looks sad.

But then, I just paid thousaands to have paint removed from my Benton Park house.

Paint is what hoosiers do to keep from tuckpointing. "Oh gee hah, maw, the bricks are fallin' out of our house. Well gee whizz, paw, just paint 'em " in."

Alex Ihnen · PostMar 07, 2009#72009-03-07T21:36+00:00

^ Holy crap GE - what's the deal?

Of course standards are necessary. What's stated above is that there would be "no painting of brick." It took me about 30 seconds to find the following examples of what I think are nice painted brick homes in Lafayette Square. Of course they may look great without paint as well, but painted brick is one of the hallmarks of victorian architecture. Your "hoosier" comment is just off base and your mention of sleeping around sounds like a personal issue. Take it easy.

[edit] Oops - looks like some of these are painted stone and not brick - would there be an exception in the code for stone v. brick?[/edit]

gone corporate · PostMar 08, 2009#82009-03-08T19:32+00:00

GE, within your rant is your tell ...

GelatinousEndive wrote:
Then the standards become the race of the of the occupants. The size of the check they write to Slay. Who sleeps with which city official. etc. ...

Paint is what hoosiers do to keep from tuckpointing. "Oh gee hah, maw, the bricks are fallin' out of our house. Well gee whizz, paw, just paint 'em " in."

So you claim a racist bent in oversight, then give one of your own. Perhaps under the guise of socioeconomics, but really all the same.

I know of no absolutely fabulous painted brick in the Square, I think that all of the painted brick looks sad.

I respectfully disagree and hope the painted houses in the neighborhood are preserved well for the future.

Focus: The integrity of the neighborhood, I believe, must be upheld by the property owners within the neighborhood, as well as the businesses, with external oversight secondarily. As I am sure all property owners want to maintain the market value of their built-up equity, I have no hesitation of Lafayette Square maintaining its aesthetic quality as well as its quality of life.

May the vacant lots be filled with quality properties that keep the spirit of the neighborhood alive and thriving.

ecoabsence · PostMar 09, 2009#92009-03-09T18:51+00:00

There is little historic evidence that painting brick fronts was common in the city, including Lafayette Square.

As for stone painting on Second Empire homes: the practice was almost never done in the historic period of Lafayette Square. People started painting stone fronts in the early 20th century to hide smoke staining and cover mortar patching of soft sandstone fronts.

Then people really started painting stone fronts after someone who lived in Lafayette Square took a San Francisco vacation in the 1960s...

Colorful painted stone and brick fronts are not in keeping with the historic appearance of Lafayette Square, despite what the standards allow.

Strange that under the standards one can't hang a large business sign but one can paint a stone front a modern green.

Alex Ihnen · PostMar 09, 2009#102009-03-09T19:14+00:00

Of course painting brick fronts wasn't common in the city - just take a look around.

Absolutely correct that people painted brick and masony homes to hide smoke, alterations (varied stone), damage from cleaning and to cover poor quality brick/stone. Whether or not we agree on the outcome, some painted for asthetic reasons.

It's my opinion that if some of these homes were painted in the early 20th Century then they are in keeping with the historic appearance of Lafayette Square. Aren't "alterations" and variation part of the history a neighborhood can tell?

I absolutely agree that one should not simply be able to paint their home any color they want - or paint it at all. It only seems that there should a) be an exception for already painted homes (and maybe there is, but not per the email above) and b) requests to paint should be handled on a case-by-case basis using a stringent set of guidelines/rules regarding paint, purpose of painting/etc.

Again, I hope that very few, if any, brick/stone homes in Lafayette Square are painted, but to declare anything that was done after 1870 outside the "historic appearance of Lafayette Square" and then stating that there will never be a reason to make an exception to home painting seems the wrong course.

gelatinousendive · PostMar 10, 2009#112009-03-10T01:50+00:00

JMStokes wrote:Got this in an email yesterday:

xxxx presented a suggested draft for the amendment of some Historical Codes. For consideration

A: Red brick or exposed aggregate concrete sidewalks - no brushed concrete.

B: Definition of "living unit" and the need for each living uit to have a public facade.

C: All elevations to be in masonry - no vinyl siding.

D: Paint colors and no painting of brick.

D: The elimination of "intermediate facade".

E: The size of signage for businesses.

E: New construction be held to the same strict standards as the rehabilitation codes. Minimum requirements for new construction. A difference between new residential and new commercial code requirements.

It's impossible for me to know what D #1 means.

The current code already calls for: no new painting of brick that has never been painted.

For brick facades that have been painted, the colors allowed are 1) red brick color 2) color that matches existing color.

The code is silent on painting stone facades.

PostMar 10, 2009#122009-03-10T01:55+00:00

Paiting brick is a common, and very cheap way, to avoid tuckpointing. I'm not saying that all who paint brick are trying to get out of the more expensive tuckpointing, but MANY who do it and have done it are just avoiding real maintenance.

Again, I just paid $$$$ to remove paint from one of my properties in Benton Park. It cost $1800 to remove paint and tuckpoint. I could have slapped on another coat of paint for less than $100. I removed layers of paint stuck on ove rhte years by poor people who couldn't/wouldn't cough up the dough to do it right.

Gover, the first example in your photos of houses on Park Ave. are of limestone fronts. The second example includes painted lime facades on ?Mackay? or is it ?Missouri?. The third example is the only one that shows painted brick--the two houses on the right are brick. The 4th house and 5th photo, on Lafayette, are limestone fronts.

Again, it's impossible to know from the original post what changes are being propsed to the historic code but the current code controls it in someway. OR tries to. But there are always the weekend painters who, byt he time MOnday morning rolls around and the buidling inspectors are in their office, have completed their jobs.

PostMar 10, 2009#132009-03-10T02:16+00:00

ecoabsence wrote:
Then people really started painting stone fronts after someone who lived in Lafayette Square took a San Francisco vacation in the 1960s...

Joe Adamo.

urbanpioneer · PostMar 10, 2009#142009-03-10T04:37+00:00

^ Joe was on to something. I love seeing the plethora of color schemes people have thought up in Lafayette Square.

This picture specifically speaks to that. I couldn't imagine the neighborhood any other way.

ecoabsence · PostMar 10, 2009#152009-03-10T16:37+00:00

UrbanPioneer wrote:^ Joe was on to something. I love seeing the plethora of color schemes people have thought up in Lafayette Square.

I think that painting stone fronts often leads to beautiful results. But the practice is not "Victorian." I don't have a problem with it as long as people don't mythologize it.

Alex Ihnen · PostMar 10, 2009#162009-03-10T17:18+00:00

Perhaps stone faced homes were more rarely painted than wood?

gelatinousendive · PostMar 10, 2009#172009-03-10T21:09+00:00

UrbanPioneer wrote:^ Joe was on to something. I love seeing the plethora of color schemes people have thought up in Lafayette Square.

This picture specifically speaks to that. I couldn't imagine the neighborhood any other way.

Oh, I'm fine with color on the stone facades. Even if I hate the color.

The left most one is almost as hideous as the mustard colored one right next to it.

Houses #3 & #4 are lovely, complex, color schemes that highlight the fabulous architetural ornament. That house #4 has some of the best special effects in the Square.

When I am Queen they will all have to have their color schemes approved by me for limestone fronts. It will have to be presented to me on a scale model, and placed on a velvet clad table on rollers, pushed in front of me while I am sitting on my gold throne eating cavier and drinking champaign.

But until that Queen thing happenes, I'm ok with painting stone but not painting brick.

debaliviere · PostMar 11, 2009#182009-03-11T00:11+00:00

Those of us who live in painted brick houses should not throw stones. Or bricks.

63104mom · PostMar 25, 2009#192009-03-25T17:57+00:00

I have 6 walls on my house; 3 are painted brick. I hate it and trying to tuckpoint one elevation per year. That said, I have a bigger problem with bad paint colors than painted brick.

I would love an "approved" list of colors. There are some BAD BAD BAD color combo's in Lafayette Square.

I would also like to be the United States Baby Name Czar. I get to approve all baby names.

Alex Ihnen · PostMar 25, 2009#202009-03-25T18:06+00:00

^ The last suggestion would be especially welcome. (We went with Lucy - I await your approval [-o< )

debaliviere · PostMar 25, 2009#212009-03-25T18:18+00:00

63104mom wrote:I would also like to be the United States Baby Name Czar. I get to approve all baby names.

I will sponsor you for this post.

OT: When trying to select my daughter's name, we looked through many baby name books/web sites. One of the top names today is "Nevaeh," which is "heaven" spelled backwards. Ugh. Hopefully you would approve of the name we chose.

There seems to have been a sharp increase in hoosier names in recent years.

gelatinousendive · PostMar 25, 2009#222009-03-25T20:45+00:00

DeBaliviere wrote:
63104mom wrote:I would also like to be the United States Baby Name Czar. I get to approve all baby names.

I will sponsor you for this post.

OT: When trying to select my daughter's name, we looked through many baby name books/web sites. One of the top names today is "Nevaeh," which is "heaven" spelled backwards. Ugh. Hopefully you would approve of the name we chose.

There seems to have been a sharp increase in hoosier names in recent years.

I've recently heard of a couple names that surprise me because I think of them as "grandma" names, names that my grandmother and her generation had.

But the young moms of today wouldn't know these names because those grandmas would be their great great grandmas.

Whatever is old is new again. Or something like that.

PostMar 25, 2009#232009-03-25T20:47+00:00

It's interesting that two of the most subjective things on the face of the planet, color preference and names, are being discussed on this thread.

Now lets do humor. You think its funny, I don't. Who will get to decide what is ultimately "funny" so that we can get rid of all non humerous humor? I'll all for that.

Alex Ihnen · PostMar 25, 2009#242009-03-25T20:51+00:00

By the way - there should be a list of approved colors for Lafayette Square - not because some people think they're pretty or attractive, but because they fit the historic nature of the neighborhood (i.e., this list of colors should not change over time).

63104mom · PostMar 26, 2009#252009-03-26T02:45+00:00

My old neighbor (God rest his soul) in LafSq. was really into colors. He and I coordinated our paint colors so the houses would look good side by side. He always spoke of a "colonial Williamsburg palette" in terms of what would be acceptable. I would just LOVE to sit it on a color approval meeting.

Grover: Lucy is a good name. I like the Feast of St. Lucy and the fact the name will grow well for your girl (she can be 50 and sound good with Lucy). The only thing that would worry me is that it could get more popular and you may have "Lucy Grover" and "Lucy Shaw." in your child's class.

GelEnd: Granny names are cool. I think Grover, DeB and I are lamenting the pretend fake names that people assign their children. LIke MacBraden. On a girl. Or Nevaeh. BLECH.

These topics are related: people who paint their houses stupid colors give their children stupid names.