Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nilsrva OP t1_jdv5tjp wrote

Reply to comment by fluufhead in CAR meets tomorrow to discuss removal of BustArt’s mural (info in comments) by nilsrva

They feel the bare brick is of more historical value within these specific areas

24

bkemp1984Part2 t1_jdvf2fq wrote

I didn't even know about City Old and Historic Districts until I had my house a few years. As soon as a new property owner is registered to a Richmond address within one, they should send something in the mail informing owners of them. It's not hard to break the rules, even basic changes to appearance might need approval, not just stuff like murals.

6

Far_Cupcake_530 t1_jdxaty0 wrote

They do send something. You are also made aware of it when purchasing the property in one of these districts. All of the "rules" have wiggle room and that is why there are monthly meeting to appeal. There is a big difference between painting your white trim grey and covering the entire side of a building with a mural. Your neighbor, who likes the historic architecture, may not enjoy staring at a giant face because you like it and hired a friend to paint it.

3

nilsrva OP t1_jdye15w wrote

Fortunately the neighbor in this case is the largest supporter of the mural and actually provided the paint

2

bkemp1984Part2 t1_jdykoa7 wrote

I never said I was defending slapping up a mural without asking within one of these districts, or that I was against these districts with rules. I also understand how and why they work. Though I will say someone liking old architecture and the city having specific colors to choose from for a house are pretty different things.

I've known three people who said they got nothing in the mail about it and were not made aware of it during the buying process. I also just spoke to a code guy the other day who said they don't send anything.

Regardless, this is a common problem in this city, not just with things like mural. The city has a problem with people knowing they are in these zones and educating them as to what that means. It's not all their fault, but they're doing a pretty crap job at their end if they want these rules followed.

2

ShadyAdvise t1_jdy4hbh wrote

Well then my neighbor can buy my property and do with it as he pleases. Having to ask permission to do anything on private property is asinine to me

−1

LostDefectivePearl t1_jdwairz wrote

Out of curiosity, has anyone compared this map to the historical red lining map of Richmond? It looked like a lot of overlap with red and yellow zones but I freely admit I could be confused by the red lining map.

https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=5/39.113/-94.57&adviewer=sidebar

Anyway. Is this hullabaloo about the murals just a way to exert control over the people in these neighborhoods? Sounds like it to me.

−1

Far_Cupcake_530 t1_jdxa8pa wrote

Which historic preservation map are you trying to erroneously connect to a racial injustice from the past? Would it be the one on Monument Avenue or Jackson. Ward? Both are historic districts that were voted into by property owners in that particular area years ago.

7

LostDefectivePearl t1_jdxc966 wrote

I’m talking about the one linked in the comment above.

0

Far_Cupcake_530 t1_jdxfgd4 wrote

So, why do you think a historic preservation district may align with old discriminatory real estate practices? Historic districts are often of higher value. Monument Avenue Church Hill south of Broad Street would be local examples.

3