2803 Hillsborough Road

Like life there is bigotry in historic preservation. Just because a Duke, Lyons, or Stagg didn't live or work in a structure does not mean that it is unworthy of restoration or reinvention.

In fact the majority of historic properties are the dwellings and workplaces of everyday Durhamites, the people that actually made this city work and thrive.

Excuses like, "its too far gone," or "it would be too expensive" are, excuse the expression, BS. My argument over and over has been that the richness and diversity of Durham and its architecture is what makes it so attractive to these folks who would tear it all down.

Thank goodness for this recession/depression, maybe it will slow the pace of these highly leveraged, short sited, profit only, driven fools who are destroying the architectural fabric of our historic city.

Of course these idiots could not get away with these crimes if not for the willing participation of city administration... are you listening Bill Bell, Tom Bonfield? You are allowing these simpletons to kill the goose that laid Durham's golden egg! If it continues you won't have a growing tax base to squander any longer.

We have enough image problems, lets not the the city that destroyed its crown jewels and replaced it with weedy lots, aluminum clad "retro" houses, and acres of surface parking. Durham's citizens deserve better than that.

lwn

As this is right down the street from me, I drove past this property in process of neglect for over a year before it was torn down. (I also have some slightly better pictures of the demolition somewhere, I think, although they may have died with my old laptop.)

I was by then a regular reader of Gary's blog, and so continuously racked my brain for things to do with the property. The owner, Jim Hardin Assoc., kept the property on the market for well over a year before deciding on demolition, reducing the price several times. In the middle of the Roxboro St./Housing for New Hope properties fooferaw, I considered trying to figure out a way to get HFNH to get the property as an exchange for losing the Roxboro St. property.

The problem, of course, was the ABC store right across the street, which is probably what killed this building more than anything. Its layout made it pretty unusable as commercial space, and its situation and the general condition of that corner meant the building had "Wino Apartments" written all over it for any developer, even if your tenants were the finest people ever. (And it seemed like a perverse thing to do to homeless persons to house them in a space right across the street from the liquor store.)

By the time it went down, big chunks of the outer (very thin American bond) brick curtain were pulling away in chunks, and the roof had started leaking pretty badly. I'm very sorry to see this property go, but by the time of demolition the best "preservation" may have been to find the architects' original drawings and do it from scratch with as many of the original materials as possible. Replacement or re-laying of at least 40% of the exterior brick was probably in order by that point.

The irony is that probably in 5-10 years, this is exactly the kind of housing some developer's going to want to put along Hillsborough Rd. there, which is why it killed me to see it go down.

I hate to see the identity of a town erased in this way.

Our endeavors as humans are temporary. Without getting rid of some of the old buildings, nothing new would ever be built. I don't think advanced age alone is enough to make a building special enough to save.

It is true that there is no magic number of historical structures that we should preserve. But the people making these decisions still have to come to some sort of agreement. By fighting every demolition, does it make it harder to fight when something truly unique comes on the block? Does continued noise raise awareness over time or cause people to tune out?

Thanks for this blog, I've enjoyed it for about a year now, and I hope you can keep it up!

Anon #2:

You want to tear something down? Fine tear this down (Exhibit A):

http://hpw.com/search/property-detail.aspx?Mls=Triangle&MlsNum=1663542

But please renovate this (Exhibit B):

http://www.presnc.org/index.php?option=com_estateagent&Itemid=194&act=o…

The problem in Durham is that it normally happens the other way around: Exhibit B gets torn down to make way for something like Exhibit A.

Please tell me that this Jim Hardin is not the same as the Durham County District Attorney.

Gary,

I always thought that building was deserving of better treatment than it got. To pick a nit, I don't think it was a duplex, but a "four-plex." The two front doors were usually open, and you could see a stairway going up on each side. I think there were two units upstairs and two downstairs.

And, RWE, I'm pretty sure that Jim Hardin Associates is ex-Durham DA Jim Hardin.

I've thought many times over the past several years as I drove past this abandoned eyesore turned vacant lot that it was surely a different Jim Hardin.

After all, why would a (former) District Attorney and (current) Superior Court judge advertise his ownership or management of a long neglected property that required demolition at taxpayer expense?
That would be incredibly shameless, even for Durham.

Durham County lists the owner as Couch Development Inc., which does not appear on the Secretary of State's register of corporations.

""its too far gone," or "it would be too expensive" are, excuse the expression, BS."- I disagree.

This irritates me. Many seem to want to save things, but do it with others money. This four plex, which I actually went into when it was for sale, and as I remember, it had tremendous structural problems from the foundation up. The costs versus reward for renovating this thing were very high, and what has grown around it would make it unattractive to any potential buyers. Progress may not always seem forward, but it's necessary and usually rights itself in the end.

RWE, you don't have any contact info listed. Zap me an email for more info about your inquiry.