Riverview Listed on National Register

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by Rico

To me structures that have been moved from one location, to within a Historic District, should be viewed as a contributing fact of the History of the District....therefore a contributing entity of the Neighborhood. JMO

I agree.  I wonder if the hideous apartments built in Riverview after the 1950s are considered to be contributing structures while a house built in the 1880s and moved to the neighborhood around 1910 is not.

I agree that the Perryman has historic significance to Tulsa, but it does not contribute to the historic relevance of Riverview. It's wonderful that the house was saved and relocated and even better that it's rehabilitated. I think it should be added to the NRHP on its own merits.

[booWorld]

Nearly all of the buildings in Riverview were built after the Perryman house was moved there.  Riverview neighborhood developed around the Perryman house.  It is an integral part of the history of Riverview and of downtown Tulsa.

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Nearly all of the buildings in Riverview were built after the Perryman house was moved there.  Riverview neighborhood developed around the Perryman house.  It is an integral part of the history of Riverview and of downtown Tulsa.

What year was it moved?

[booWorld]

The Perryman house was moved to Riverview around 1909 or 1910 to make way for the new county courthouse at Sixth and Boulder.

[Rico]

Several of the other homes in Riverview were moved as well.

As the Policy, of the Historical Preservation Commission, these homes including the Perryman House are "non-contributing"..

I agree that with boo.... the policy stinks

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

The Perryman house was moved to Riverview around 1909 or 1910 to make way for the new county courthouse at Sixth and Boulder.

Well that puts it in the neighborhood before the neighborhood was established, so a special exception should be made to consider it contributing. I think the story of the life of this house is incredibly interesting. The fact that it was a Perryman residence alone should give it sufficient historic value.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

Houses that were moved to the neighborhood or have been altered are considered "non-contributing"

Alterations that detract from contribution are: Removing wood frame windows , changing the "face" of the home, removing exterior sideing, adding vinyl siding etc.

The Perryman house was moved to Riverview, and it has been significantly altered.

That's typically what happens to buildings over time.  They are either altered to remain useful for their owners or they are destroyed.

[pmcalk]

^I thought I heard they were trying to refurbish it to bring it back to its original design.

[booWorld]

^  The owner is working now to alter the house so it is closer to its original appearance when it was at 6th and Boulder near 5th and Main.  The house has never looked like that after it was moved to Riverview.

According to carltonplace, a structure which has been moved or altered is non-contributing.  The Perryman house has been moved AND altered.

[carltonplace]

Now


Then


The North Wing has been replaced, it looks more and more like it did

[booWorld]

The rear of the Perryman house has been greatly altered.

Much of what you see on the house today is not original fabric.  It has been reconstructed to resemble some of the features shown in the old black and white photo.

Since the roofline, the massing, the trim, and the fenestration have been substantially altered, and since the house was moved to Riverview, I can understand how it might be immediately categorized as a non-contributing structure.

[TheArtist]

Hadnt seen it since the latest remodel. It does look more like the old photos than it did for a long time. If they added some gingerbread on the one peak, changed the roofline on the tower and added the balustrade over the porch, that would go a long way to making it look like it once did. The funky roofline on the tower is that homes most unique and defining charactersitic imo.

[carltonplace]

I had heard that the owner wanted to put the crow's nest back, but ran into some zoning problems. He has not put a new roof on the tower, even though the rest of the roof is new so I wonder if he is still hoping to make those changes.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

Houses that were moved to the neighborhood or have been altered are considered "non-contributing"...

Tulsa World Article

What about houses that have been moved within a neighborhood?  What about a house which has been moved on its own lot?

Thanks for the newspaper link.  The article itself includes a couple of links.  The Tulsa Preservation Commission's website is very informative.  It mentions some Intensive Level Surveys from September 2005.  Perhaps all the non-contributing structures are listed on those surveys.  Anyone know if these are online now?  If not, are copies available to the public?

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

I had heard that the owner wanted to put the crow's nest back, but ran into some zoning problems. He has not put a new roof on the tower, even though the rest of the roof is new so I wonder if he is still hoping to make those changes.

According to the minutes of Tulsa Preservation Commission from April 12, 2007, the owner requested that the TPC draft a letter of support for his Board of Adjustment appeal for a height variance so he could build a replica of the house's original tower.  The TPC voted unanimously to approve the requested letter of support.  (See item 3 on page 4 of this pdf link.)

As far as I know, the owner hasn't requested a variance from the Board of Adjustment.  But it seems to me that the proposed tower, provided it is not intended for human occupancy nor taller than 52 feet 6 inches, could be built without Board of Adjustment approval according to Section 208.C of the Zoning Code.