I walked the proposed Wedge historic district tonight. Before getting into it, I'll say that I'm not sure what I think about the proposal yet. It seems like some kind of historic district is warranted but I'm not sure what the boundaries should be. But I have some questions.
For reference, here's a Southwest Journal article:
http://www.southwestjournal.com/news/ne ... edges-core
Looking purely from a consistency standpoint and not advocating for any particular boundaries yet, here are some thoughts I had while walking the neighborhood. I haven't had time to read the whole designation report but I'm assuming the district is being created as a cohesive place rather than because the individual properties are historic, much like the North Loop and St. Anthony areas.
It seems to me that the area covered on Bryant should extend another block and a half north to Franklin, certainly at least to 22nd St. The houses are the same style and the block and a half is pretty much completely intact. I believe there are two 1950's or 1960's era apartments on the stretch north of the designated part of Bryant. Is that enough to prevent designation up to Franklin? Some of the properties on this block are problematic with respect to exterior alterations (vinyl, etc.) but that is pretty easily corrected. Most of the properties are completely intact to my untrained eye and many are in better shape than some properties currently included n the proposal. It seems arbitrary to cut off designation at "23rd" because it's basically the same all the way north.
I've gotta say I kind of agree with Meg about Aldrich. The designation maybe should extend further south. This block is more problematic than the Bryant one because close to half the west side is newer apartments but the houses are at least as quality as the Bryant properties. As on Bryant, extension north to 22nd or Franklin seems possible from a consistency standpoint though there are more newer apartment buildings here than on Bryant. Bryant is the more obvious one to extend given a choice.
There are two houses on 22nd between Colfax and Bryant I'd like to see designated. There's an absolutely amazing brick and stone Queen Anne on the NE corner of Colfax and 22nd. Along with the adjacent properties on 22nd it seems like this should be added to the district. To keep a more cohesive district layout it may make sense to include the east side of the 2200/2300 block of Colfax though the rather large modern apartment building on the southeast corner of Colfax and 22nd is prolematic.
There are several apartment buildings either on the same blocks as the proposed district or just outside it that seem to merit inclusion. Right now there is one apartment building included and it is not as nice as most of the others nearby. There's one period house on the included Colfax block that is not included and I can't for the life of me understand why.
Smoley's comment about houses outside the proposed district being newer is flat out wrong. My house a good distance south is the exact same age as many of the houses in the proposed district (it's only three years younger than the Glueck house, for example) and my neighbor's house is seven years older than mine. It's true that houses further south have more exterior alterations. Many of them are beyond restoration, with bizarre additions for apartments and so on, but many of them are intact . Exteriors are relatively easy to restore. The houses further south are definitely a different style and that is certainly enough in my mind to exclude them from the district. I was just really puzzled by Smoley's age-focused reasoning because there are much better reasons not to include houses south of 26th.
Again, I'm not necessarily advocating for exapansion, I'm still trying to figure out what the proposal means. But just looking at the properties, the includes and excludes seem quite arbitrary. I am wondering how the decisions were reached. I know that the additions I mention above would increase the area quite a bit. I'm simply looking at the houses and saying that if you're going for consistency of place, it may make sense to include them. I mean, even the streets.mn article recognizes the included houses have historic value. If that's true, why not the nearby houses and apartment buildings that are of the same style and in basically the same condition?
https://streets.mn/2015/03/04/historic-c ... -district/
And I totally disagree with that article's take that the zoning make historic designation worthless. One of the reasons to do the designations is the "regulatory headaches" that prevent owners from making inappropriate modifications to the structures. If your goal is to preserve a place, that's necessary.
I'd encourage folks to walk the area. It's pretty unique. The houses across Hennepin are completely different and I don't think there's much like it in Whittier anymore either, though Whittier definitely has some stunners here and there.