Editorial

Editorial

- -

Renovate or demolish?

This month a furor arose over the virtual demolition of the former home of the late Byrd Jones in Washington. The building’s new owners, Patrick O’Connell and Reinhardt Lynch of The Inn at Little Washington, gutted the house—even ripping out the walls—in the process of what they termed “renovations.”

The Washington Architectural Review Board, on which Mr. O’Connell sits, had approved plans for a renovation, but when concerned town residents saw the renovations had decimated the old building, a special ARB meeting was called.

ARB members said they knew the scope of the new owners’ plans for the building, and it was said that a hole in the Historic District Ordinance had permitted the demolition.

Asked for comment, Mr. O’Connell said, “We are very pleased that any concern over major renovations to our home was able to be aired openly by the [ARB]. Due to the fact that the structure was previously determined to have no nuyor cultural or historical significance the approved alterations were deemed to be compatible. We look forward to the completion of a handsome improvement to the community’s unique architectural heritage.”

The town has been struggling with the problem recently, and one proposed solution would make renovations become demolitions when more than 51 percent of the structure is removed; but that argument shows faulty logic.

It is possible to measure 51 percent of the homes on a given block, or 51 percent of the residents of a town, but it is not possible to measure 51 percent of a house unless, we suppose, a giant chainsaw were to cut apart a perfectly symmetrical building.

Instead of thinking in quantitative terms, the ARB ought to take one woman’s suggestion and explore what guidelines the National Trust for Historic Preservation has developed for when similar situations arise.

The main objective being to keep the house’s historical value intact, the ordinance ought to do what it can to facilitate that goal. A 10-year-old wall built from cheap materials can be tom down without diminishing the building’s architectural contribution to the town as a whole. New storm windows, a new coat of paint, roof repairs: these are all renovations that preserve the building’s charm from the ravages of time and weather.

In the case of the Jones building, most would agree that it was never a major landmark and the renovations are an improvement. But the process sets a precedent that may lead to a much bigger problem if one of the town’s more valuable structures gets the same so-called “renovations.”