abraham lincoln in a Tutu

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:44 pm

Yes, renovation on the Brownell house has begun.

It will prove interesting. I am sure they will do a wonderful job bringing the old place back to 2009 standards, new and shinny.

On the other hand:

Don't be surprise once the vinyl siding goes up.

As I can see, chances of renovating the old place to 19th century standards are probably going to be nil to none. For one, one does not renovate an historical building by gutting it.

The new construction replacement windows are quality made. Though they mimic real divided lights, the illusion is but that, an illusion and a poor example for the real thing. It reminds me of the old station wagaons, cars from the 50s with simulated wood on the side.....but really sheet metal to look like wood......sort of like making a violin from presure treated wood and real simulated grain formica.

Let's hope they make the sacrifice and use real cedar shingles for siding.

When they get done I am sure it will look like an original........Abe Lincoln in a Tutu.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:29 am

When my cousin drove me into Lunenberg, Nova Scotia, he told he how they had a by-law where you couldn't put vinyl siding on your house.

The reason for this was that Lunenberg is a tourist town ( thats where the Bluenose II is ) and they want the tourists to see the houses looking original. My cousin showed me one house where the owner put the vinyl siding on just before the by-law took effect.

For the most part driving through that part of Lunenberg and going south along the Lighthouse Route ( except for the modern cars ) looks like you went back in time 150 years.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:46 am

Yes, there is no mistaking the design of the Brownell house in Fairhaven.

Constructed as a Classic Greek Revival, with careful attention to the laws there in, it is a sister building to the Andrew Borden house on 2nd street in fall river.

Being Pre-Victorian motif, it is a design that I favor and one that is rarely used today. (the Victorians borrowed from the Greek Revival design and embellished it greatly to grandiose levels) One can see how pure and true both buildings are to the blueprint guide lines of there respective architectural scheme. Wonderful little building. Those of like mind would agree with me that placing vinyl on the Brownell house would be a said development.

I would be very surprised if they were to return the Pilasters and wide corner boards and the original Greek Revival door and trim. True working wood shutters are definitely out of the question. The expense for a pair of shutters would be more than the window itself.

We can only hope.

Below is a photo of the Grey colored Brownell house and the Green colored Charles Trafton/Andrew Borden house. Along with those are close up shots of the wonderful particular Greek Revival details of the Brownell house.

It really is a dear little building.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:15 am

Below are two Greek Revivals. One is the Kirkwood Mansion in Eutaw, Alabama, the other is the Carr Osborne House in fall river.

Both are constructed on a impressive and majestic scale. There is almost something gloriously obscene and magnificently vulgar behind their appearance, scale and size.

Far cry from the tiny Brownell home.

An exercise in success, power and an almost in your face arrogance.

The sort of place most people probably envision Maplecorft to look like. But Maplecorft, though dear to many, are just servant quarters when compared to these stately properties.

Wouldn't we all love to live here.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:56 am

Yes, Now for the critical or cynical portion of my little Greek Revival display. You didn't think you were off the hook, did you.

Here are two more examples of Greek Revival Architecture. The first is an original and intact Greek Revival Cape Cod, namely the Cunningham House. It's located in fall river and once sat on interlachen peninsular the home of Spencer Borden and was in his possession. The owner has kept it looking just as it was when it was built about 150 years ago.

The next photo is a perfect example of how to destroy the architectural fingerprint of a classic home.

The other Cape Cod Home use to be an exact replica of the Cunningham house when it was sold. It also is located in fall river. The new owner, peeled, skined and crudely shaved off all the period trim and made the building new and shinny.

What a shame. Common practice in fall river and strongly encouraged by fall river government officials and common man alike. No one has a clue. No one cares here.

Destruction of history and a wonderful little jewel, gone forever.

Pity.................

In the future we will soon discover how the Brownell House will hold up and what sort of care and concern will be used in putting that wonderful period building back together.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:04 am

While I absolutely support the right of a property owner to do what he will with his property, I have to wonder about the mentality behind some of these "restorations". If what you want is shiny, chrome-plated plastic, then why not buy shiny, chrome-plated plastic, rather than an antique? There was a television show on at one time which featured drastic home renovations. People purchasing craftsman cottages and turning them into multiple story conglomerations of some description or another. Why the hell didn't they buy what they wanted to begin with? Even if they built the house from scratch it would be half the work, no demolition involved and no back-fitting! Unfortunately, Abe Lincoln in a tu-twice is a very good description of the ordinary end result.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:39 pm

Wow, what a difference! I looked at the pictures first, then I read your write up.

Until I read your write up I didn't even know that those 2 girls were sisters, let alone twin sisters

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 7:04 pm

Blue vinyl siding going on. Looks decent from a short distance.

We should be thankful the building was saved. Siding is temporary and when I chaired a Historic District Study Committee for another part of town, we were going to allow artificial siding.

And honestly, it costs more to install and maintain natural siding than many folks can easily afford. We put on cedar shingles a few years ago, but it cost a lot and we didn't paint 'em.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:07 pm

The choice made on the Brownell house to go with vinyl is not one made because the owner did not have the money, but because he is abandoning the historical value of the building, a value which goes far beyond any connection that home has with the Borden saga.

To me the value in that building has all to do with the period architecture, how it fit into its historical surroundings and very little to do with who lived there or stayed the night.

Some serious expense is being spent on that little building: new windows all around, rebuilding the sills, new siding, new interior, kitchen, bath, an entire new extension to rear of building (for new kitchen) plus new siding doors, an entire new building. The extra expense for cedar shingles would not kill the project for the new owners.

But, the historical significance of the building probably has Zero value to this owner, and his only interest is to have a shinny new building in a very desirable part of town, where property values hold their own. There was a similar house for sale near the Brownell house (an almost duplicate) last year and the asking price was over 450,000. It sat on a tiny house lot with had just enough room for a narrow driveway, but it had its period shingles and decor.

In the end the new owners heart is just not into it, that is, into the historical significance.

Below are two similar buildings in Fairhaven which sold for 450,000plus.

If they spent 100.000 to buy the building and spend upwards of 150,000 to renovate it, they can still end up making well over 100,000 profit if they can sell it for between 350,000 and 400.

I am willing to be the new owner will not be living there.

And that is really what it is all about.................the profit.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:29 pm

I was planning to re-side my entire building in cedar. I have completed work on the front of the house and have replaced all the cedar siding.

Making my measurements on the entire 3 family, 3 decker home I came up with a total of 9400 dollars for cedar. That was by Home Depot prices which are average. The surface of my building is over twice the surface of the Brownell House. So Siding for the Brownell house in cedar would be around 5000. Subtract from this the difference they are paying for vinyl and the savings are minuscule when compared to the money they are spending on that building.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:47 pm

I don't want to appear to sound so fatally expository or critical.

Everyone has their ideas, beliefs and standards.

But to me............it's like placing vinyl planking on the Ernestina.

(It will be great to see her after her refit......the Ernestina, that is.)

Stefani · Post by **Stefani** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:40 pm

New photos of the new look for Green Street are on MondoLizzie.com.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:37 pm

Yes, I see it.

John Wayne is old and ill.

He is rushed to the hospital. While there the staff decides that his heart is worn, this legs are done, his chest caved, why his entire body is just finished, so they decide to make him faster, better, it must all be replaced.

So they chop old John up and replace his entire body with a new Brad Pitt Special.

Since he has a lucrative medical plan why stop there. They complete the renovation and unscrew his head and replace it with Tom Curise Deluxe vinyl cranium skull.

Presto, a shinny new, handsome, trimmer, stronger John Wayne.

How pathetic.

What a shame.

Though the building looks like a million bucks so does the Trump palace.

But it is no longer a John Wayne.

Just another pretty face.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:28 am

Its like years ago when I worked in a garage. This guy had parked his Model A Ford car by the Shop. The car's body had been lowered, the front end was stretched, it had a Chev 350 in it, it had mag wheels. The guys I worked with were talking about how much money the owner had invested in it, to turn it into a hot rod.

I said "its not worth 50 cents to me, there should be a law against people doing that to a car." The only way I would ever buy a car in that condition would be if I intended to turn it back into its original condition or at least more original than he had it. I would have to deduct the value for all the damage he did to it when he butchered it.

With a car as with almost anything the question it how original do you want it to be ?

I seen a Model A Ford that was basically original except for one obvious thing. The owner had put an overdrive in it. That I can see, as that car with its original gearing could not be driven at modern highway speed without overeving the engine.

I have a vintage car that I have owner for several years. Some guy came up to me and said "I notice that your old car has seat belts." I said "yes" he said "you know that's not original ?" I said "yes I know that" he said "well you don't have to have them you know, you can take them out" ( where I live seat belts are grandfathered, if the car didn't have them when it was built, then you don't have to have them in the car ) I said "why would I want to do something like that?" He said "that way your car would be original" I said "if I get into an accident and I go flying through the windshield, do you think I am going to care if that car is original or not ?" he said "yes, I guess that's true. "

Things change, technology changes, its not just about safety its about everything. people have criticized me for not having the original tubes Radio in my car and having a tape player instead. I tell them "it looks almost the same, so who cares ?" At least I have kept the main parts of the car original. It has the original power train, seats, door panels, wheels etc.

Am I going say that the Lizzie House should get rid of the Fridge and bring back the Cooler ?

Am I going to say that the backyard should be all grass, when it is obviously needed for guest parking ?

Am I going to say they should get rid of the Air Conditioning and the TV ?

Am I going to say they should rid of the Electrical Wiring ?

Am I going to say that they should get rid of all the Bathrooms and Showers and let the guests go without those conveniences ?

Of course not, it would be taking the originality too far.

What I should be doing is paying compliment for having the house basically the same as it was in 1892. There are some modern things in the house but they are very helpful.

When it comes to someone totally destroying most of the originality of something that has a large historical value, that is a different story.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:57 pm

Also playing Devil's Advocate here:

1. The Green Street house is not architecturally unique, rare, significant historically, former home to a person of historical importance, or designed by a famous architect.

2. It was filled with filth, rodents, insects, was condemned, was an eyesore, a health hazard, a safety risk, devalued the neighborhood homes surrounding it, and an embarrassment to the town.

3. The tenant was unable to alter the situation and deteriorization.

4. That a thing is OLD, Victorian, nostalgic, remotely connected to a murder case over a century ago (and only very remotely at best) still has one or two nice features left, etc. is not enough for preservationists to make a case for National Register status and city intervention for restoration.

5. Given a little more time and rot, the house would have come down. caught fire, or worse yet, someone could have been killed inside. Clearly kids or transients had been inside the house at various points.

6. Vinyl siding is removable. It is not the final death sentence to a structure. The place is now rentable, liveable, clean, and will soon be structurally sound. The contours of the original may still be appreciated. Hopefully the new windows are energy-saving and the house is user-friendly, while still maintaining some original charm. We will be able for many years to drive down Green Street and point out "the place where Emma once stayed".

Having said all that, I am, as most know, a mad preservationist. I love Victorian houses- old houses, architecture of all kinds, and have gone to the mat for The Cause and pleaded several cases for various edifices of historical significance over the years. But I am also a realist, - we cannot possibly save everything all the time, everywhere. Nor should every edifice be saved, preserved, and restored.Nor, I believe, can we condemn people who spend their own cash to make a home in a way they can comfortably live in it.

My husband is 61. He is a handy guy and can do almost anything by way of carpentry. For 30 years he has maintained our garrison colonial home covered in cedar shingles and clapboard. He is a perfectionist. He has lovingly sanded and stained with historically-correct colors. He manicures the grass with tweezers. Last year I thought he would kill himself up on our very steep roof, swinging from scaffolding and ropes. Vinyl siding in our future- you bet! When I saw the figure for sandblasting and painting our house I decided this was the last time we would try to be historically correct. Whoever buys my house in the future can strip it back to pristine form. The good bones will still be there to work with. If you can do -it-yourself or have the big bucks to hire it done, God bless you! If not, do the best you can- it is your home after all.

I appreciate beyond measure, people like those who bought FR's Sanford House on Lincoln St. and poured money into it. How I wish the Borden house could truly be brought back to 1892- but the doors to the B&B would shut in a nanosecond. As a museum even, open only days, we would still have to offer fire protection, sprinklers, electricity, public toilets, parking space, and other demands for modern living. We are not even eligible for a grant. Given the Green St. House or the Central Congregational Church (Abbey Grille)- the latter receives the lion's share of my concern-and if the wrecking ball comes- my outrage. In the preservation world- there are so many battles, one must pick and choose, and be prepared not to win the war. I see Lincoln not in a tutu- maybe a pair of jeans and a hoodie with contact lenses and sneakers- but he is still with us and underneath, he is still Lincoln.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:42 am

I would just like to mention that I don't agree with the Green Street House being modernized the way that it is, with the vinyl siding, etc.

I just wanted to show that there are somethings that are not practical to keep original, like having the cooler instead of the fridge.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:22 am

Yes, not to be disrespectful to anyone, or rude or anything. I do value the opinion of everyone on this forum.

But, if you think anyone will ever rip off the shinny new vinyl from the Brownell house and place cedar clapboard up, you are dreaming..................., and every time you wake up it will be to a vinyl world.

As a classic paradigm of colonial architecture the Brownell house is finished.

It stands now as a Xerox impersonator , a plastic faux-naif of the real thing.

In historical Americana the Brownell house had more significance for its colonial architectural construction then the fact that Emma Borden stayed there.

In the great scheme of things, when it comes to living up to it's noteworthiness as a famous place, it fails to make a big enough mark, at least in the greater historical community and the eyes of the town of Fairhaven, and the common man on the street.

As the place where Emma was resting the day her parents were murdered?????? Not significant enough.

If Mark Twain or Lincoln himself had stayed there, the chances of someone returning the place to it's original facade could be considered.

So if you are looking back to the days when the Brownell house gleamed in all it's colonial glory and are waiting for the day that it will again............................., let us all humble ourselves and get real.

As the old song goes:

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
An another one GONE and another one GONE
Another one BITES THE DUST.

Stefani · Post by **Stefani** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:56 am

When I went on the Holiday tour of homes through the Preservation Society just this last Christmas, I was amazed by the restoration and preservation that had been done to some of Fall River's old homes. They were lovely inside.

The tours allowed you mostly to wander around and every single time I ended up in the kitchen, I would find the only modern, totally modern room, in the house. It seemed the owners were willing to keep the characters of their houses intact, except when it came to modern conveniences. It was pretty amazing to see the centuries side by side this way.

A place that respects and enforces its historical preservation rules, put in place to preserve the character and value of old homes, is always a place people want to go to. They become tourist attractions and people vie to live in these communities.

When you let anyone do anything with their houses, from landscaping or paving, to vinyl or shingles, to paint color choices, you get mishmash. It isn't just curb appeal that make the house worth anything to a new buyer. It is the quality of the workmanship and the use of materials.

Sacrificing an old home the way they did in Fairhaven is sad to me. It shows me that the owner is not interested in the house but interested in the bucks it will bring and save in maintenance. Of course, there is nothing to be done, but we are entitled to stand and frown that yes, as mbhenty says, another one bites the dust.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:08 am

Actually even the Mark Twain house is on the brink of going under. Even Twain fails to rally the state of CT. The case with Twain House was plain overreaching and mismanagement. A few in power had erected a colossal fancy gift shop, screening room, exhibit gallery and entry way when money was more plentiful. Now the bills come due and staff cuts had to be made- to the bone- and hours reduced. Around Christmas time every other CT newscast had it ready to close so I have been making trips as often as possible to Hartford. Now- they are begging for dollars as you can see here http://www.marktwainhouse.org/ Pathetic. I also visit Orchard House in Concord (Louisa May Alcott)frequently and the Emily Dickinson Homestead in Amherst and have been stunned over the years at how little money they have for upkeep of these properties, and how rundown they are. Finally some grant money is shoring up Orchard House and an all-out campaign for the two Dickinson properties. Funny how everyone screams and wails when one of these great, historic homes falls down from neglect- where were these people earlier? Where was the money then?
On a happy note- YES- vinyl siding reversals go on everyday -three recently in historic Stonington. When Doris Duke decided to save The Point section of Newport and restore it to its 1700's glory, the plastic and vinyl went flying into the streets. So -it can happen. It only takes the right owner, or a philanthropist with a vision. Another happy thought is that when the day may come for Green St., a house will still be there to be restored. Lincoln can doff the tutu and put on the stovepipe hat and frock coat once again. Hope I am alive to see it.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:31 am

Damn shame we got rid of all the original and wattle and daub houses from the 1600s, too. You know the ones with the flammable thatched roofs that Plymouth Colony eventually outlawed as a hazard.

A house is a shelter that must be usable and affordable by whomever is living in it. Period.

How it "fits" in the neighborhood. What it does or doesn't do to the other property values on the street or how it looks to "tourists" is really not anyone's business, when it comes down to it.

To require every home to remain as it was when it was built is simply not practical. It also would mean that the owner of a ranch built in 1968 with aluminum siding as its original exterior should not strip off the aluminum and replace it with cedar. It means that a house built in 1944 should always keep its asbestos/cement shingles.

Home building and maintenance has changed over the centuries as advances in technology brought improved manufacturing methods and materials.

Oiled paper windows were replaced by small glass panes. When technology allowed larger sheets of glass to be made, people could have bigger windows of single panes, so their views wouldn't be chopped up into a bunch of 6"x9" rectangles. When wooden widow frames--prone to swelling and sticking and rotting and splitting--could be replaced with stronger, more stable, more easily maintained materials, they were. Why in God's name should rickety old wooden windows with iron counterweights in the walls and tiny, hard to clean and paint panes of glass held in place with putty be considered superior to energy efficient, smoothly working windows that can easily be opened and closed and washed and don't need to be scraped and puttied and painted every few years?

To save a few old houses as specimens of times past is a noble cause.

To belittle all homeowners who try to make THEIR HOMES more comfortable, efficient, affordable and easy to maintain is rude.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:42 pm

There are two schools of thought here and in the real world both paths do not cross.

I don't expect the average person to understand the world of preservationists, the value of antiquity or lessons embedded in the past.

We are talking of apples and oranges here when we compare what is efficient and what is correct. This is a renovation not a restoration. In a restoration efficiency takes second tier. But in today's suspect society no one is ready to exchange maintenance free for architectural correctness. And that's ok. It's a homeowner's right. Just as much as it is my right to complain about it.

The Brownell house was a diamond in the rough. The building stood as it did when Emma stayed there. What you saw was what Emma saw.

Buying such a building, constructing it as you see fit is your option. This is a free country. After all, how do you suppose the Indians gave it up.

But to dismantle such a building in a purists eyes, such as myself, is a shame and speaks to the ignorance and disregard of the common man in understanding the unique opportunity that was dropped in their lap.

But it is true. It is their building to do as they see pleased.

If it is insulting to me, so be it.

But it is also true that it is my right to exercise my opinion no matter how jarring and stinging it is to their ego................if that is rude, so be it.

Now, if I insult anyone on this forum by speaking freely................it is not my intent. I am not a rude(?) person.

But people who destory the character of such historical places as the Brownell house give us purists the right to be rude(?).

Believe it or not, I don't see myself being rude, just impolite.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:33 pm

You're not a rude person and you never insult members of this forum.

This is, however, a public website that may be viewed by the general public, including the owners of these properties we often discuss. These are not public properties and they are privately owned by ordinary folks who would probably be dismayed to see some of these comments.

It's one thing to call down a big corporate hospital for flattening a neighborhood to make a parking lot. And someone who owns a commercial or public property might not be exempt from criticism in public.

The ordinary owners of a private home, however, could really be offended that the choices they have made for their home are being criticized on a website that anyone in the world may see.

If that house were in the historic district that the committee I chaired was proposing several years ago, both the artificial siding and the replacement windows would be allowed. The state law governing historic districts allows such exemptions to be included in local historic district by-laws.

Sadly, it is sometimes the purists who frighten property owners into opposing historic districts. Because property owners fear having to face somebody so strict when they wish to make any sort of change to the home they own and live in.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:32 pm

Yes, as a purist, you may considered me a moderate, one with conservative intentions and realistic conception to the approach of historical properties.

Allow me to go on the record and state that I can accept replacement windows as a necessary evil. I can live with them. Just so. Almost. Ok.......

But as a 'Purist" I cannot live with vinyl.

You may be of the opinion that I am confused about how I should be labled.

Purist????????

I am not as pure as you would think when it comes to this issue, but I am pure enough; that is to say, I feel that the owner should be aware of what sort of property he has purchased. On the other hand, he should be able to paint the house any color he wishes. Gutters do not need be of wood, or should the roof shingles be of cedar. The owner is free to do what he wishes with the entire interior.
Extensions are welcomed as long as they are in line with period architecture. Though, steel front doors would be pushing it a bit, if you are able to fool us...... well accepted.

So you see, just by eliminating the vinyl siding would be a huge concession.

I have an idea to your interest here Fairhavenguy. I do have respect for your viewpoint, stance and convictions on this issue. Your compassion, position and empathy has been recorded, respected and appreciated.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:53 am

Yes,

Again, I must get real here, at least to what I see as real, though some would see me blind.

The owners of the Brownell house are not as innocent or ignorant as you think.

They have applied for an Historical Preservation Grant and have been refused.

At least that is the rumor in the mill.

They are aware of the historical card.

They are a sagacious bunch.

In the end, they will walk with some serious cash in their pocket in exchange for a nice clean building, similar to money laundering. All is forgotten. All is new. Judas would be proud.

Thus, they are not ignorant of the game rules. Since they were refused they now feel they can do as they please. So it has little to do with historical correctiveness and much to do with "cash".

They were ready to take free money but sadly not because they love historical property. They were refused, for what ever reason, and lashed out with vinyl.

That's ok.

Free country.

Life is good.

Ask an Indian.

But...................and there is a but.

I don't give a FLYING COW what the owners of the Brownell house may read on this forum.

If they are that sensitive of what others think, they have no business monitoring the internet or probing this urban and cosmopolitan community of candid liberal thinkers.

Thus the owner of the Brownell House have made their choices. They are not puppies or babes in the woods. I am willing to bet they are shrewd business people who are doing their best to profit at will. I predict they will place the Brownell house on the market and ask 350 ytp 450 for it. You watch.

And right they are.

It's a free country.

Ask the Indians.

Shame on you Borwnell People. Don't pretend you don't know the rules here.

And, if your skin is that thin, get off the computer. Go wrap yourself in vinyl. You'll feel better..............or at least your wallet will.

.............................................................

Not you Fairhaven guy.

all is good.

Sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable Fairhavengyuy.

It is sometimes the levy we ingest when someone's ethics are debriefed and scrutinized and the choice of participation is exercised.

But when we get down to Brass tacks, we see the world on a contrasting plane.

Different strokes for different folks?

Ocean or Lake we must all learn to swim. (?)

Again, all is good.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:03 am

I can't help but think that if vinyl siding had been available when the house was built, they probably would have used it.

Stefani · Post by **Stefani** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:49 am

I can't help but think that Fairhaven Guy was speaking to me not to you mbhenty. I am sorry you are upset with me. Truly.

I am an active member of both Save Our Neighborhoods and The Preservation Society of Fall River. I attend rallies, I attend community events, I give of my time and muscle as a volunteer. I work very hard at these issues, and enjoy the time I have given, and the new friends I have made.

I also am the co-founder of the Fall River History Club. Here we discuss the history of this fair city in very polite ways, sans politics amongst us----but of course politics is involved as this city's political complexion has always been part of its history.

That said, I am sorry if you think that i have crossed the line. You are a great great guy and I feel that now you are going to have a bad taste in your mouth in regards to me, which I hate.

But my opinion on this is, of course, my opinion. I mean no disrespect to anyone. I thought that was clear with my words. That I can sit and sadly shake my head is my right, and if I share that here, or on MondoLizzie, then that is the truth of how I feel.

I never had an eye for preservation before coming to New England. It is not something folks and communities in Florida care about, mostly. I was raised in what I would not consider ugly architecture. Here, all that is gone, the buildings are amazing, and i have a new found appreciation of preservation and old homes. So perhaps I now have the zealousness of a convert. I will admit to this for sure.

I now know the difference between a mansard roof and a colonial, I know what a cape, a half cape, a 3/4 cape is. I know what a garrison is ----and so on. I am amazed by cities like Westport Point, which I visited last evening as the sun was setting. There isn't a vinyl sided home in sight. The houses date from the 1700s to the modern era, and all of them are with natural materials. It was stunning. And a place I could never afford to live.

One other point that has not been mentioned, is that vinyl is NOT GREEN. It is not environmentally friendly. In these days, when we are more and more awakened to the idea that we must not abuse our ecosystem any longer, vinyl poses a special problem. In fact, it creates more issues than it solves.

http://www.dovetailinc.org/files/Doveta ... 1007ku.pdf

"You’ve seen the ads. “Maintenance-free,” “virtually maintenance-free,” “no hassle,” “durable,” “never needs painting.” These are the words that helped propel vinyl siding to a leading 37 percent share of the U.S. house siding market in 2002. These words have also helped make the case that vinyl siding is a “green” building product and responsible material because it is durable, has a long life span, and doesn’t require additional inputs or have the environmental impacts of maintenance. So how accurate is this description of vinyl siding? Is vinyl siding really “maintenance free”?

A recent study of the environmental and health impacts of vinyl products manufacture, use, and disposal was commissioned by the U.S. Green Buildings Council (USGBC). The authors of the final 205-page document (Altshuler et al. 2007) conclude that the health-related impacts of vinyl siding are the worst of all competing products. The same study, however, indicates that environmental impacts of vinyl siding are comparable to or better than potential substitutes. The latter conclusion is interesting since earlier comparative studies of siding products have identified vinyl as clearly among the worst alternatives from an environmental point of view. The difference between earlier studies and the USGBC effort is that maintenance was considered in the latter study, whereas previous work included only product manufacture and installation; in the USGBC study all siding products, except for vinyl, were assumed to require maintenance, including periodic painting. The USGBC study specifically assumed that vinyl siding is “maintenance free.” Is this an accurate assumption?"

........

"Green Building Movement Brings Questions Regarding Vinyl Products Health Implications Deemed Serious Health-related concerns involving vinyl products are many and include risk potential at every point in product life from manufacturing to disposal. Chemicals used or emitted in the process of manufacturing include diethylhexyl phthalate, dioxin, lead, cadmium, ethylene dichloride, and vinyl chloride monomer. All of these chemicals are classed as hazardous or extremely hazardous to human health and to the environment in general. Health issues following manufacture relate to persistence of emissions in the environment, emissions from PVC in incineration or in building fires, and continued emissions throughout the life of the product.

.........

"The Bottom Line
The health related impacts of vinyl siding production and use are substantially higher than for other commonly available siding products. Environmental impacts are likewise very high relative to alternatives when tracked through all steps from raw material extraction through installation at a construction site. Recent findings suggesting near equal performance of vinyl siding to wood when maintenance and disposal are considered are highly suspect, particularly in view of a key, and faulty, assumption that
vinyl siding is maintenance free."

Stefani · Post by **Stefani** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:11 am

Just had a thought. Not green on Green street. get it?

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:58 am

Yes, that's very funny Yopper and very true.

You can hear the talk: "Hey dude, why are you using that cedar stuff. A colonial like yours should have its period vinyl."

.......................................................................................

On window efficiency let me add, it is all hype.

A solid old period wood window along with a storm window is just as efficient.

I had replacement windows placed in my home. At the time I was choosing between having the building done with blown insulation or new replacement windows. I went with the replacement windows.

Worst decision I have ever made.

The replacements windows saved me almost nothing.

There was no change that I could see in the heating bill.

The same was true with the replacements on my Mom's home.

A year later she had her home done over with blown insulation. The insulation chopped her heating bill almost in half.

But again, it's all about maintenance free, and that is what people really want.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:24 am

Yes, in all respect Stefani, I think you are over playing your hand.

Fairhavenguy is just playing hard ball with an issue he feels very strongly about. I fully understand. I engage in the same sport; only I use a Lead ball. But I would not do so unless I was sure FHG was using a well padded glove.

Living in the same town as the Brownell House he is probably intimate with the property and feels very strongly about it.

Though, I do not see any assault or offense here and what you may experiencing is a game of hard ball.

Oh yes, in this game I don't use a steel bat...........only the best White Ash.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:09 pm

I went over to the Green Street house today to have a gander myself. The fellows were friendly who were working at the house and let me prowl around and peer close-up and take some photos. I wasn't too horrified by what I saw. The new windows were a bit of a too-modern note for my taste -mostly I was sorry to see ALL of the foliage was gone. Trees, shrubs, vines, -no plantings left. I guess new stuff will go in. It sort of had a "skinned" look but I think the fresh-fresh new-new effect will be greatly softened by wise choices in plantings and in a few years the brand-shineynew look will be considerably softened.

Mystic went through a firestorm a few years ago when one riverfront owner of a fine old house decided he wanted to put on solar panels a few years back. Okay, so hurray for the Green Team- but the rabid preservationists said no-go bubba. So, as the guy knew when he bought the house, he could only use white paint with green or black shutters, and no modern day alterations visible-he had no case. I think if you know upfront what the deal is- then buyer beware. If Green Street has no such provisions and prohibitions - then an owner if free to express themselves. Sometimes it is possible to reach a compromise-like solar panels in the back yard and not visible from the river.

Westerly recently went through an issue with a bright lavender Victorian on the main "upscale" district. People in town went nuts. It was even over the top for me! And I love painted ladies. Still, the owners did a fabulous job in restoration inside and out- the place was literally falling down and apart. All the millwork was reproduced, plaster redone inside- the works. They were just purple people. Taste is a very personal thing-and not everybody is on the same page with mine. I daresay somebody will buy it eventually - and paint it white.

Stefani · Post by **Stefani** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:08 pm

So Shelley, do you have a stand or position on this issue, or are you open to whatever the buyer wants and the laws allow? I am unsure after reading your posts just what you think. Or is in the middle, and depending on the circumstance?

For instance, how about the removal of the stained glass window on Maplecroft. Does this matter? Or is it whatever the owner chooses to do? And what if the owner then sells that stained glass window? It is his right as he owns the thing. But he has changed the historical character of the home with this move, has he not, and Maplecroft is an historical home, I think we can all agree.

How about the ugly addition of the dish on the front porch of Maplecroft. Anyone bothered by this as well? There are certainly ways to not be so blatant with modern contraptions, and still get excellent reception.

If the owner of Maplecroft were to vinyl it, how would you then feel? Fairhavenguy? Shelley? That ok with you? There are no rules about it here in the city. No regulations. Would make the house look decidedly cleaner than it does in its current state, would it not?

Remember, mbhenty has put his money where his mouth is. he is the guy who fought the Maplecroft owner, spending his own funds on a lawyer, to fight the subdivision of the property and the destruction of the garage so another house can be built. Remember, everyone, there used to be a house there where the garage is now. There used to be a home in between mbhenty's house and Maplecroft, but Lizzie had it moved. So was the owner of Maplecroft returning the property to its original design? Or perhaps was he merely into making money selling a house?

Motives can be tricky to determine. But mbhenty stopped that subdivision. Have any of you spent your money doing this kind of preservation work? Please do tell, I am most interested!

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:11 pm

Would mbhenty have spent as much money, motivated no doubt by preservation, if he did not live within spitting distance of Maplecroft? Would he sue to stop somebody up in the north end from subdividing his historical property? Would he even know if it were going on?

I really have no problem at all with people who are preservationists, even though more and more I feel that if you freeze a particular property in time, you are then creating something nearly as artificial as Disney World.

My street--Main Street, Fairhaven--is one of the longer streets in town. Part of it was an Indian path, later used by European settlers beginning in the 1660s. The oldest "house" on the street is the remains of the chimney of Thomas Taber's house, built just after the King Philip War around 1678. There are three different sections on Main Street where there are pre-Revolutionary homes. And here and there along Main Street there are homes of every architectural style built over the course of two hundred years. There are Georgian, Federal, Greek Revival, Colonial Revival, "Victorian," 1920s bungalows and "three deckers," ranches. . . So, should one part of Main Street be preserved more than another part? Should the whole thing as it stands today in 2009 be frozen in time?

Okay. Enough of this.

I, too, respect everyone's opinion here. (And Stef came to Fairhaven today to make sure we're still friends and to give me a hug. Which makes me think I should provoke her more often. I like hugs.)

I have no idea, really, why I chose to be the devil's advocate for the "anti-preservation" side. I think the preservationists might have been sounding a little too much like religious fanatics and other conservative social rule makers.

I'm sure we can all still be friends though.

We need a good round of RayS and Phaye bashing to get us all on the same page again.

Love you guys! Really!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:26 pm

Stefani @ Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:08 pm wrote:So Shelley, do you have a stand or position on this issue, or are you open to whatever the buyer wants and the laws allow? I am unsure after reading your posts just what you think. Or is in the middle, and depending on the circumstance?

For instance, how about the removal of the stained glass window on Maplecroft. Does this matter? Or is it whatever the owner chooses to do? And what if the owner then sells that stained glass window? It is his right as he owns the thing. But he has changed the historical character of the home with this move, has he not, and Maplecroft is an historical home, I think we can all agree.

How about the ugly addition of the dish on the front porch of Maplecroft. Anyone bothered by this as well? There are certainly ways to not be so blatant with modern contraptions, and still get excellent reception.

If the owner of Maplecroft were to vinyl it, how would you then feel? Fairhavenguy? Shelley? That ok with you? There are no rules about it here in the city. No regulations. Would make the house look decidedly cleaner than it does in its current state, would it not?

Remember, mbhenty has put his money where his mouth is. he is the guy who fought the Maplecroft owner, spending his own funds on a lawyer, to fight the subdivision of the property and the destruction of the garage so another house can be built. Remember, everyone, there used to be a house there where the garage is now. There used to be a home in between mbhenty's house and Maplecroft, but Lizzie had it moved. So was the owner of Maplecroft returning the property to its original design? Or perhaps was he merely into making money selling a house?

Motives can be tricky to determine. But mbhenty stopped that subdivision. Have any of you spent your money doing this kind of preservation work? Please do tell, I am most interested!

That's an interesting point about Lizzie removing the house to build a garage. At what point do we freeze time? If the object is to preserve the site as Lizzie knew it, then it seems a bit self serving. Lizzie apparently also knew the site with a house on it. Why insist on one rather than the other? Lizzie was apparently unconcerned with historical preservation, she did what was convenient for her. Why don't we chew on her for a while, isn't she also the "enemy"?

Stefani · Post by **Stefani** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:40 pm

It is a sticky wicket. There isn't an easy answer. Choosing the time to freeze is the decision made at that time, isn't it? For instance, if we were to TODAY decide to freeze it as it is now, then that would be the complexion we preserve.

If the freeze happened at an earlier time, then that would be the complexion.

I guess I don't see the problem with the freeze. But since there hasn't ever been one, as in Fairhaven Guy's case on his own street, then that is what you have, an interesting mix of periods. But my point is, that without the freeze, then you have an ongoing chance of destruction of history.

Since the garage is there now, and it was Lizzie that built it, I would argue that that is the preservation moment. To keep it Lizzie history.

And yes, Fairhaven Guy gives good hugs and I love him even though we disagree.

I find this all so fascinating. Really. Keep up the discussion. Pick sides, or play the middle. We really aren't going to change each other's minds, I don't think, but we can have fun rolling around in cyberhay about it, can't we?

I went to Fairhaven to make sure we were still buds. I am oh so glad we are.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:02 pm

Didn't Lizzie also add a bedroom at the back of the house? What did that do to preserve the historical integrity of the place? As far as that goes, didn't Andrew renovate 92 Second St. to a degree? Hasn't it been further renovated in order to operate as a B&B?

Stefani · Post by **Stefani** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:13 pm

The historic integrity is Lizzie's time, when she left it. Using your logic, Yooper, if we tear it down now and build a brand new house, that would be ok? One draws lines, doesn't one? These types of circular logic statements lead nowhere. We could do that until the end of time and not come to any conclusions.

Oh, and to answer Fairhaven Guy's question about caring about other parts of the city, I said earlier I was an active member of Save our Neighborhoods. It started years before me, but one of the main missions is to attend every single zoning board meeting and speak out against ALL variances when the size of the lot is less than permissible by law. I myself have attended them. We do speak out for all sections of this city. That is our job, as we see it.

And we have had success. Instead of the dozens and dozens of variance approvals, the ZBA is down to only a few requests allowed to be heard. We think we had some impact. We showed them we were a watchdog to their willy nilly allowances. We showed them we spoke out about them all. And this has helped greatly! But of course, part of it is that the economy is making the citizens request them less. To what extent it is us and/or the economy we cannot tell. But the trend is heartening.

We fight for all city issues, not just up on the hill. We try to make sure the city follows its own ordinances. We are ever vigilant.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:15 pm

There is nothing circular about the logic. Which version of "Lizzie's time" do we use, before or after the garage? Lizzie renovated the property to suit herself, why does any other owner have fewer rights than Lizzie? Because WE think she is more important? Does the effective life of the structure as a residence end with Lizzie's occupation? Who besides us thinks so?

Your logic favors renovations, not mine. You're willing to accept anything Lizzie did to change the original integrity of the structure, but unwilling to let anything else be done. My argument is that the integrity was breached when the first renovation was done.

One certainly does draw the line, wherever it is convenient for one, apparently.

Stefani · Post by **Stefani** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:21 pm

Lizzie and Emma bought the house when it was but three years old. It is now 118 years old. It now is historical. Not only because Lizzie lived there, but because of its age.

I am not trying to insult you or rankle you. Please accept my apologies if I came off that way.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:41 pm

Please feel free to insult and rankle at will, I'm not the least bit offended! Fair warning though, I insult and rankle back!

I think the root of the problem with maintaining the historical integrity of Maplecroft is probably a lack of general interest. People might even agree it is worthwhile to preserve it, but few would contribute to the cause in any meaningful way. Face it, we are a small group of Bordenites who share a common passion for the case. Not everyone does. I expect there may even be a few left in Fall River who might be happy if Lizzie was no longer associated with their town.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:56 am

I just got to wondering what happened to the furniture that was in the Green Street house before the house was sold. We might have had the chair that Emma was sitting on when she read the message from Dr Bowen ( if she was sitting down when she read it )

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:40 am

Ah yes: you would be VERY WRONG there FHG.

Yes, I do spend money on other parts of the city. Fall River's SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD is one of the organizations I support, and do so financially. Though it's main core is saving fall river's valued historical property it also supports and fight for the rights of the common man and family neighborhoods and principles by fighting the commercial interests and a crude city which constantly supports and chooses commercial claims over family values.

Yes, I do spend money for the salvation of the city's valued properties no matter where they are. Not as much as I would like.

You must also be aware that I am a Flint Boy. I live in the Highland area but my first concern has always been the Flint Village.

My friend Tom and I have had frequent conversations about how important neighborhoods such as the Flint, Maplewood, North and South ends and other parts of the city really are.

Most of the money, and people with it, live in the Highlands in Lizzie's old haunt, and along Highland Ave continuing a couple of miles North.

These are the people who are concern ONLY with their own neighborhood.................. and most will not spend a red nickel to even save their own backyards. As for the rest of the city, most are only concerned with your hubcaps or how to locate the front door of the welfare department.

For someone who is on a fixed income it would be foolish for me to spend thousands all over town when there is so much to take care of in my own backyard............as it should be.

And, if everyone took the same interest in their own backyard there would be a resounding chorus of support for every neighborhood throughout the city, creating a consortium of concerned citizenry and desirable place to raise a family.

But life is not only about money. Those who are very concern with the greenback are sure to die and have others spend their precious funds.

It's all about principle, ethics, fairness, pride, esteem. Virtues that are lacking in this "me, I, me, I me world."

One must be careful what commentary one reveals, especially if all the facts are not known or clear. Such declarations can be awkward, embarrassing or even challenging, which in this case we can safely agree, thus my response.

I am very surprise you choose the side you do FHG? But I have never been a good judge of the human condition.

But why do I display so much concern for how they dress the Brownell house? Why am I so concern to why it looks a certain way>

For the same reason musket totting historians run around in Period military clothing reanacting a battle.

It is history, there is something to learn, appreciate, salute, it is a dignity and a respect for those who came before us. It's all connected.

If anyone does not understand that, do I have the city for you.

fall river, small f, small r. to match the small minds of the many who live here.

Come live with us and "We'll Try" and fail together.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:23 am

The section of Fairhaven where I guide Henry H. Rogers Walking Tours is filled with lovely European style architecture built more than 100 years ago by Mr. Rogers, a Standard Oil Co. millionaire. Most of these buildings are on the National Register and the whole neighborhood is soon to be a National Register District.

But that neighborood developed in the 1830s and 40s, either before Henry was born or when he was a child. Henry Rogers, 60 years later, bought up and tore down or moved a lot of fine 50 to 60 year old homes to build his lovely gifts to his hometown. Many people did not like that. A couple would not sell out to Henry, forcing him to build the Unitarian Memorial Church complex on the east side of the block, far too close to Green Street. (A house that Helen Brownell lived in later in her live was on that remained on that block for several years after the church was built.)

Again the question that I asked and Yooper repeats is when, exactly, we should freeze "history" or should we at all?

The Capt. Warren Delano House, built by FDR's great grandfather had many large wings added to it over the years. When FDR visited as a boy and during his presidency all of those additions were on the house. But after the Delano family sold the house in 1942, those wings were chopped off, converted into separate homes and moved away. Now the house looks pretty much as it did when it was built ca. 1832, but not at all the way it did when Franklin announced his engagement to Eleanor at Thankgiving dinner there in 1903. Which way is right?

Not a question we'lll ever answer.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:34 am

Do I have a "stand" ? Yes, and I thought I had made it pretty clear, but to reiterate, I think restoration (not renovation) of property needs to be examined on a case by case basis. Not all "old houses" (whatever that term implies) are candidates for preservation. Thank goodness, or else preservationists would be exhausted running from place to place saving every period window, door, and edifice. Historic New England (formerly SPNEA (Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities) has its criteria for what constitutes a "historic property". I have done applications for National Register properties recently and I know the criteria for national standards. Historic towns like Mystic, and I would imagine other New England towns, also have their historic districts, some which impose conditions on house owners to comply with various guidelines for maintaining their properties.

America, by European standards is a young country. What we consider sacred spaces and historic edifices would make Europeans snicker-they have barns and garages older than us!

I have to wonder if Emma Borden had not passed a few days at Green St., would this topic even be the center of so much attention here on the forum? I doubt it. Is Emma Borden any more historic than my Grandmother in the great scheme of things. No. Is Maplecroft the only Queen Anne in Fall River? Is it the best example, was it built by a famous architect, did anything significant happen at this address? Were treaties signed, summits held, issues of national importance conducted? There is, I believe, a great difference in notorious and historic. Sagamore Hill is the historic home of a nation's president. Maplecroft is the house where a notorious individual aquitted of murders happened to live. Do we as a country need to make that a qualification to be considered? Do we add O.J. Simpson's home, Jeffrey Dahlmer's digs to the list of places which ought to be preserved pristine because they were "famous" or more properly "infamous".

Do I like the satellite dish on the front of Maplecroft. Do I think the stained glass window should have been removed? No. I think it is too bad, and unsightly. I don't like the nudie statue crouching under the rhododendron on the lawn of Maplecroft. But I do not own Maplecroft and Mr. Dube did not ask my opinion on what his home should look like. I disapprove personally of many things I see in Fall River. I am not thrilled with the new color scheme on the house (one of two twins) on Rock St. currently being painted. I don't much like garden gnomes, tacky doodads and religious plaster statues on lawns of some of the historic homes in Fall River. There are gardens which are overdone, paint colors which are jarring. Even some who call themselves architectural historians make mistakes. I am all for calling in expert advice, pay for it - when tackling a true restoration.

I think it is very hard in this forum, to be detached in any way from anything Lizzie Borden. We all have our passions for certain periods, architecture, personalities. We are subjective. The grant writers, and the good folks who consider whether or not an edifice is an historical one of significance have to be objective when those passionate about it cannot be. Were I a zillionaire and had the final say, I would wish every Victorian house in the United States be preserved just as it was built, and furnished inside with the correct furnishings. I would buy Maplecroft in a nanosecond and Second Street too and freeze them at 1892 inside and out. I doubt anyone would want to live in my houses and I probably could not sell anybody on kerosene lamps and chamber pots but I would personally feel great about it all. They are my personal passion and I am not objective about them in the least. Good thing I am not a zillionaire!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:26 am

I agree, it should be considered on a case by case basis. Sometimes it is a question of whether the structure has historical value or whether it has been stigmatized by a former owner. Maplecroft is not Mount Vernon or Monticello, nor is it Falling Water or Taliesin. Interestingly, Frank Lloyd Wright's first designs were considered an eyesore by many when they were constructed among the grand Victorians of that era.

Stefani · Post by **Stefani** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:29 am

I think we are speaking of apples and oranges. Separate buildings that are preserved for historical reasons (ie a great person lived there or visited, etc.) usually has a grant behind it or federal preservation money invested to preserve the place from the standpoint of the historical moment it was occupied or finished being lived in by that person or family.

Then we have historical districts. That is a different animal entirely, and requires the approval of homeowners to make it possible. Here in FR they are trying to create the historic districts again, and they are surveying properties to see who wants to join in. This is the US and you can't force people to do what they don't want to do unless they move into an historic district and it is already in place---as part of the covenants to live in the district.

Historic districts set up their own standards, from color to restoration materials, and often, or mostly, residents must get approval from historical commissions to make changes in their homes. No wonder, I guess, that folks balk at such rules and regulations.

This house in Fairhaven, as this house in Fall River (Maplecroft) are not a part of an historic district that requires a commission to decide their fate. Maplecroft IS part of a national register district called the Highlands. However, having National Register status means NOTHING when it comes to preservation. The buildings on the list are not protected by any laws or regulations. The owners can demolish or paint them black or put on awkward additions or vinyl side them.

Fall River, as a matter of fact, has more of its city on the National Register than almost any other city in NE (this according to the Preservations Society figures). So here they also mess around all the time with their buildings and have even allowed businesses to move into the district.

Until and unless the Highlands becomes a 40C district, and is on the state register and thus protected, no amount of oversight will occur. If for instance Maplecroft were a part of a 40C district, the tv dish would not have passed muster.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-40c-toc.htm

So we should be more aware of what we are referring to.

A house can "contribute" to an historic district, which means they are in the district, but are not old enough to be considered historic. The cut off age, I think, is 50 years old.

The situation in Fairhaven is unknown to me. Fairhaven Guy, is the Brownell house part of any National Register district? Just curious.

My argument is that it is a shame that the old house, which was quite beautiful with its whale adorned window boxes, was changed so drastically. That is my opinion and I don't make the rules or laws. The owner is allowed by law to do whatever they want, according to the community standards of Fairhaven.

So I am not condemning the owner for violating any law or rule or ordinance. I am merely upset in my own way that they decided to make it plastic. As I would feel for any home in the world that does so. Vinyl is not a green material. And we may all live to regret believing the hype from the vinyl manufacturers that it is maintenance-free (because it is not if you read my other post and the source it contains).

Easier is not better, and certainly not historically better. To me.

Now the argument as to when do we freeze is not a logical one, I am afraid. We freeze when we freeze. If it isn't frozen then it isn't. If today we decide to freeze then that is the standard. I don't get the complication to the idea.

If we choose never to freeze, then we get a wide variety of styles, which is fine if you want to live with that. Your choice. But freezing doesn't mean going back in time. It means today, this is where we stop. Everything is grandfathered in. It just stops there. And if new changes are to be made they must be period to the house as it stands now. Even if that means 50s, 60s, or 70s houses. Unless of course the ordinances allow for houses that are less than a certain age to be free of restraints. It is all in how the regulations are written and agreed upon. Like minded people coming together to preserve the historic nature of their neighborhoods. Not us, from the outside, imposing anything on them.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:52 am

I also dislike plastic materials, I always have. That is not everyone's taste, however. As long as I'm not condemned for using or favoring natural building materials, I pretty well leave those with dissenting viewpoints alone. I'm not out to save the world from vinyl siding, the world may choke on it as it sees fit.

The concept of freezing time is an illogical argument when it comes to having a choice. If the argument is for the structure, it has to be frozen at the time the structure was built. Otherwise changes have been made and the precedent of allowing change is established. It is pointless to freeze a Victorian structure at a time when typical 50's style renovations are included, except to illustrate bad taste. If the argument favors an owner or occupant, then it becomes absolutely subjective and without guidelines. It is difficult to get a broad agreement on the merit of preserving the structure, depending on the individual and their accomplishments. For example, Ed Gein's farmhouse was the object of extensive curiosity after he was apprehended. It mysteriously burned to the ground not long after.

I agree, there is no complication to the concept, you either allow change or you disallow it from the start. I don't take issue with any group of property owners who see fit to establish an historical area or district using their own property, as long as they inform anyone buying their property of it.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:23 pm

Yes Yooper, it is not so much about freezing time. Not all buildings are significant enough to save. The value in such historical architecture is not how long the building has existed but what it has to offer as a valued edifice.

There was nothing historical about Maplecroft when Lizzie Borden lived there. The historical importance had more to do with the neighborhood, and at that time that process was still evolving, than with Maplecroft.

Also, when she purchased the Kenny House next door and had it moved that building was only around 26 years old. That is like us talking about a home built in 1983. Hardly historical.

There are also times when a building takes on historical value by its virtual connection of an event; such as the TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY or the Borden place on Second Street.

In speaking about the Borden place its historical significance is twofold: one by being a famous crime scene and the other by its architectural construction and age.

Another aspect of historical importance is RARITY. How many of these places still exist.

A place like Fairhaven is very fortunate in having a small community full of early 19th century homes. Perhaps it feels that the sacrifice of one or two is more than acceptable.

Either way you look at it it can not be denied, the Brownell house was a treasure from the past. When Abraham Lincoln was shot that little home had just passed out of its teenage years. When the foundation of the Brownell House was embedded Lizzie Borden had 15 years left before she would be born. Add to that the connection with the Bordens of fall river and the importance of that little building becomes elevated even further.

It would have been a blessing if someone with my convictions had purchased the Brownell House. Old growth cedar is one of the most resilient materials as a siding, and once painted and kept up can last upwards of a 200 years. I inspected the cedar shingles on that home. Their condition were satisfactory candidates for salvage, though any savings in material would be lost to time, effort and labor.

But to those in love with such buildings the job would be a welcomed challenge and easily done.

Though careful attention would need to be taken to repair the rot and work around the existing siding, there is no reason the existing cedar could not have been saved and made to look very presentable.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:10 pm

Yes, below is an radical example of what can be done with an historical property.

This is the JOHN CODDINGTON HOUSE in Newport R.I. It was restored back in the early 70s.

Not sure who John Coddington was but the Coddington name goes way back in R.I. The first governor of R.I. was William Coddington, who had a son who also became a governor.

Without disclosing the date of this bulding let us just say that when it was built ANDREW BORDEN'S Grandfather, LIZZIE BORDEN'S Great, Great Grandfather was yet to be born when the foundation for the Coddington house was embedded.

The work gone into restoring this building was extreme.

As a purist it brings a tear to my eye.

What convection, dedication, appreciation, honor and respect, it can all be seen in this, one of many, beautiful true colonial s in Newport.

The first picture is of the Coddington house (c1730) just shortly after it was renovated. The middle photo is how it looked for many years. Notice the widows walk on the roof. One would think that this was original to this building but in reality it was added during Victorian times. Around the same time the building was elevated and shops placed below.

The last shot is a modern one and how the building looks today.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:23 pm

What a building has to offer is its presence. The value of that presence is subjectively determined by absolutely anyone in an arbitrary fashion. There are no guidelines.

The idea of changes being allowed after 26 years goes back to the argument of some floating value attached to freezing time. Is there a defined number of years, some limit, after which an historical designation re-defines a house or neighborhood? Maybe there is, automobiles reach a "classic" designation after a set number of years, or at least they used to.

The school book depository and the Second Street house have much the same connection to a crime, but how intent are we in preserving Oswald's former residences?

The Brownell house may indeed have some architectural significance, but I can find little direct connection to the Lincoln assassination or to Lizzie's birth, unless she was conceived there, except by accidental timing. It was also there some time before and after many other significant events occurred. Not every structure the Bordens graced with their presence needs to become a shrine.

Not everyone shares the same esoteric values. It would be nice if old houses only went to those who can appreciate them and maintain them in period style. It would be nice if children were born to those who would appreciate them and raise them properly. Unfortunately, it is an imperfect world.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:59 pm

To answer Stef's question, at present there are no local historic districts or National Register districts in Fairhaven.

There is a National Register district application currently pending for Fairhaven Center. I do not think the Brownell house falls inside the proposed district, but it is within a block one way or another.

I need to explain something that may have influenced my feelings here.

In Fairhaven during the last 15 years there have been a couple of very big controversies regarding town projects. In both cases what many people viewed as positive proposals were opposed by what one might call "anti-change" groups.

The first was our bike path along the former railroad bed in town. A small group of eleven residents in the center of Fairhaven sued to town to try to stop the construction of this bike path. They claimed it would lower property values, bring an "unwanted element" into their neighborhood, and pose a security risk to children. (The seem to have been completely unaware that just 40 years earlier TRAINS had traveled that route into the center of town. . .)

The lawsuit was eventually thrown out and now everyone loves it and raises the prices of home that are near the path.

The second, more recent, project is to install two wind turbines in town to power our wastewater treatment plant and provide discount (and green) electricity to other municiple buildings. The some of the VERY SAME PEOPLE who opposed the bike bath have been opposing and filing lawsuits to stop the building of these wind turbines.

In both cases the opponents to these projects used positions on the town's Historical Commission, Historical Society and Beautification Committee to try to stop these worthwhile, forward-thinking proposals.

So to me, recently at least, "anti-change" people have been a thorn in the side of some public projects that I believe in.

I may be taking out my anger on architectural preservationists right now.

I don't like vinyl. I do like "green." My sister was named Fairhaven's woman of the Year by the Standard-Times this year for starting our Farmer's Market and other work she's done on our town's sustainability committee.

I also love history and spent all day today celebrating Patriot's Day partipating a historical encampment at Fort Taber in New Bedford.

I still think the Brownell house owner can do what they want to with their property, whether they want to resell it or live in it.