David's On Broadway to Go Historic?
Our fine friends at Historic Tacoma have submitted a nomination of the University-Union Club, aka David’s on Broadway/Winfields, to Tacoma’s Register of Historic Places. If you are unsure of what building we’re talking about, this is the white mansion just north of the Elks Building between Broadway and Stadium Way. From the press release:
“Architecturally and culturally the University-Union Club is a significant property; many of us were surprised that the building had escaped listing on any register. Historic Tacoma thought a nomination overdue but also an appropriate means to both safeguard the building and attract a buyer interested in its preservation.” said Brett Santhuff, Board Vice President of Historic Tacoma. With register status, rehabilitation of the building becomes eligible for property tax relief.
The nomination will be reviewed by the Tacoma Landmarks Preservation Commission early this spring. This is the first property nomination that Historic Tacoma has directly submitted. In support of this action, Santhuff said, “We must be proactive in identifying those buildings that played a key role in the development and history of our city, buildings which also contribute to the quality of our built environment.”
This is interesting in that it appears the existing owner had no part in the nomination and may be actively opposing it. It was Historic Tacoma and neighbors of the property that took the action to start this process. Is this the first of many similar actions?
More information via Todd Matthews
Previously on Exit133
UPDATE
Dan Voelpel’s column over the weekend gets the owners perspective. Bottom line: they don’t want it. Link to The News Tribune.
Filed under: The-Politics-of-Development, stadium-way
13 comments
J Jesse February 26, 2009
It’s a great building but will it’s historic status stop any development in that side of the street between it and the Elks club? Or can it stop the demolition of the building itself? What does a historic status mean to the future of the building? Is it detremental for the owner and his/her future plans if they want to change the buildings use, looks, additions, ect, etc, etc…
W WesS February 26, 2009
Now I’m curious: CAN the city designate a building as historic, in a way that restricts its alteration or destruction, without the consent of the owner?
M morgan February 26, 2009
I’m glad Historic Tacoma has taken this on! It’s not often you see people or groups ruffle feathers in quiet Tacoma.
This is a great opportunity to educate the public and property owners about what being on the historic registry can and can’t do. While it can create a barrier to demolition, I think the more important facet is that it tells the world that historic preservation gets more than lip service by the community. Also, there are financial incentives made available to the owner of a registered property that would not be available otherwise.
Let’s keep the discussion going!
E EK February 26, 2009
I think it’s complete BS to have a building designated as historic without the owner’s consent. It immediately drops the value of the property. If an owner is forced to accept this designation, the city should reimburse them for the reduced value caused by the restrictions of being “historic”. The owner didn’t buy the property with those restrictions.
M morgan February 26, 2009
<i>It immediately drops the value of the property.</i>
Not true. The information I have seen indicates the opposite is true. In fact, a study conducted by the State of Washington indicates that the values of homes in historic districts tend to hold steady to value and actually increase in value. It has to do with pride of ownership and pride in neighborhood.
But simply being listed on a historic registry is actuilly neutral, the value of the building remains unchanged. However, if you choose to renovate the building, then you can take advantage of the financial benefits that go along with being on the registry. And the value then increases. It’s as simple as that: it’s an incentive to help people restore historic buildings. That said, there are guidelines that must be followed when doing the renovations, but again the goal is to increase the value of the property by doing the work properly, not decrease the value by using substandard materials.
Great dialog! Let’s keep it going!
P pegsterdtown February 26, 2009
I have been to David’s on many occasions. I have been there as staff at funcions and also as the public. I think this building should be nominated for being a haunted house. Ask anybody who has worked in this building. You will be surprised at what you hear.
P.S. Be warned of the small space off the side down in the sub basement Dirt floor and all.
J Jesse February 26, 2009
Morgan: If it’s truely an incentive for property owners to have thier structures on the hstoric registry, why is the owner of this building fighting it? That makes no sense.
I’m with #4 here. If the community deems a building worthy of saving, perhaps they should put thier money where thier mouth is and not punish the owner.
W WesS February 26, 2009
Part of the value of a property is what ELSE might be built on it, or how it might be modified to better serve the needs of the owner. I suspect this is especially true of view properties like David’s.
P P February 26, 2009
My understanding is that this would do little to limit the land’s potential use or value. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think there’s anything in law right now that would prevent a future owner of a registered property from demolishing the building to build tall or build big. It may limit the incentives available, but if those aren’t needed, it doesn’t matter.
On the other hand, the historic designation would provide additional incentives and tax credits for those developers that wanted to keep the history.
Gain for historic preservation minded developers. Neutral effect for the non-preservation minded developer.
W WesS February 26, 2009
Anybody have a link to the law itself?
T The Fish February 26, 2009
I have been told by Reuben McKnight with regard to Trinity Methodist Church on McKinley Hill, that no building can be placed on the register against the wishes of the current owner (the Methodist church opposed the nomination of Trinity). If the current owner is actively opposing the effort the neighborhood may be wasting its time.
D Derek staff February 26, 2009
I have been told by Reuben McKnight with regard to Trinity Methodist Church on McKinley Hill, that no building can be placed on the register against the wishes of the current owner (the Methodist church opposed the nomination of Trinity).
This is very specific to churches. A 1996 state Supreme Court ruling exempts churches from historic status against their wishes. This came up frequently during the First United Methodist debate a few years ago.
W WesS February 26, 2009
That’s correct w/respect to churches. By the way, the Trinity building has been renovated for the use of another congregation, which plans to be moved in by Easter.