New construction should complement historic architecture. Through sound planning and design, it can reinforce and respect the existing patterns of a historic district. Successful infill design does not have to imitate demolished or extant buildings to be successful. Rather, it picks up significant themes, such as height, materials, roof form, massing, set-back, and the rhythm of openings to insure that a new building blends with its context.

 

While the Secretary of the Interior's Standards are oriented toward rehabilitation of existing historic buildings, Standards 2, and 9 apply to new construction in historic districts and near individual landmarks. Under Standard 2 the setting of historic buildings should be preserved when new construction is undertaken. The relationship of the new construction to adjacent buildings, landscape and streetscape features, and open spaces should be considered. New construction adjacent to historic buildings can dramatically alter the historic setting of neighboring buildings or the district. Under Standard 9 new construction is appropriate as long as it does not destroy significant historic features, including designed landscapes, and complements the size, color, material, and character of adjacent buildings, neighborhood, and environment.

 

Because of its design, materials, scale, massing, and set-back, non-historic construction in Springfield has often been out of context. Community context has been sacrificed through ignorance, indifference, or, in the case of public housing, in an effort to make projects absolutely cost efficient. In some instances compatible design can in fact save money. For example, when new construction shares a common set-back with historic buildings located close to a street edge, water and sewer connections are less expensive. In addition, reduced land cost of smaller lots translate to more affordable housing.

 

The city can facilitate the process of infill design by modifying its land development regulations. Presently, as is the case with building codes, modern standards are imposed on a historic district. Many buildings in Springfield could not be constructed today because of setback, lot coverage, and parking requirements. The city should consider exceptions to these requirements based on the historic block, lot, and building patterns found in the Springfield District.

 

The following criteria should be used when reviewing new construction in the Springfield Historic District.

 

1. Height: The height of buildings in Springfield, particularly at the block level, is similar. Most buildings, with the exception of the Bungalow and some commercial buildings, are 2 to 2.5 stories in height. The height of new construction should be compatible with surrounding historic buildings.

 

2. Width: Building or lot width is another important visual quality. In Springfield, lot frontage is narrow (as little as 37.5 feet) and buildings are generally located with the narrow side (20-30 feet in width) toward the street. This results in a very tight street edge with common sized buildings and a characteristic rhythm. The width of new construction should be compatible with surrounding historic buildings.

 

3. Setback: Setback is the distance a building is located from property lines. Residential buildings in Springfield often share a common front and side setback. In Springfield, front setback is close to the public right-of-way (generally from 6-20 feet) and side setback can be as little as 5 feet from the property line. Commercial buildings in Springfield are generally set directly on the property lines, creating a wall effect. In locating new buildings, the side and rear setbacks should be maintained and aligned with the facades of surrounding historic buildings.

 

4. Proportion of openings: Window openings in the three historic districts often share similar size, spacing, and shape. Given the height of the buildings, generally 2-2.5 stories, windows are predominately narrow and vertically oriented. On many buildings, particularly the Colonial Revival and other classically inspired styles, they are stacked, with a narrow space between them. Other styles, particularly the Queen Anne, exhibit randomly placed openings. Storefronts have wide horizontal windows and little or no spacing between openings, providing a greater transparent area. In designing new construction, the proportion and spacing of openings on adjacent buildings should be maintained.

 

5. Horizontal Rhythms: Repeated elements on neighboring buildings is characteristic of buildings in Springfield. Divisions between upper and lower floors, uniform porch heights, and alignment of window and window sills are examples of such rhythms. New construction in the three historic districts should maintain or extend these strong shared streetscape elements in blocks where they appear.

 

6. Roof forms: Similar roof form and pitch are characteristics of buildings in Springfield. Nearly all residential buildings in the districts have pitched roofs, with gable or hip the predominate type. A few examples of gambrel and clipped gable (jerkinhead) are also found. In contrast, commercial buildings have flat roofs with parapet. Roof designs should be compatible with surrounding buildings. Sloped roofs with pitches similar to those of nearby buildings should be required for new residential construction, and flat roofs with the roof plane hidden from view on the front facade should be required for commercial construction.

 

7. Materials: Certain materials are characteristic of Springfield. In Springfield, wood frame buildings with horizontal wood siding predominate. Materials that are compatible in quality, color, texture, finish, and dimension to those common to the district should be used.

 

Recommendations:

 

1. Keep new construction to a minimum.

 

2. Design new buildings to be compatible in materials, size, color, and texture with the surrounding buildings.

 

3. Employ contemporary design that is compatible with the character and feel of the district.

 

Avoid:

 

1. Designing new buildings whose massing and scale is inappropriate and whose materials and texture are non-historic.

 

2. Imitating an earlier style or period of architecture in new construction, except in rare cases where a contemporary design would detract from the architectural unity of an ensemble or group.

 

 

 

Relocating a building is a last resort to avoid demolition. From a preservation perspective, relocating a building has many negative consequences. First, the context of the building is lost. The association with the surrounding natural and built environment is destroyed. Left behind are sidewalks, retaining walls, and landscape features that make each building unique.

 

Moreover, many of the character-defining features that contribute to the architectural significance of a building have to be removed or are seriously damaged as a result of relocation. These include foundations, porches, chimneys, and interior finishes, particularly plaster. Structural damage can also result.

 

Furthermore, an improperly relocated building can have a negative impact on the setting of an existing buildings. Side and front setback, orientation, scale, mass, and individual features of existing building should be considered when choosing an appropriate site.

 

Despite the negatives, relocation is preferable to demolition. This is particularly true with regard to buildings whose significance is primarily architectural. There are several essential criteria to be considered when reviewing a proposal to move a building to a new site. They are essentially the same as those for compatible infill. The built environment for the new site should be similar to the old one in terms of the age of the surrounding buildings, their height, materials, set-back, and architectural detail. If not properly planned and executed, a relocated building can be just as incompatible as a poorly designed infill structure.

 

A hardship provision that allows a building to be moved to a less than optimum site should be included in the ordinance. Criteria for this provision would include excessive costs involved to move the building to a more appropriate site or the unavailability of such a site.

 

Recommendations:

 

1. Move a building only when there is no alternative to its preservation. Provide documentation that there is no feasible alternative for preserving a building at its historic location.

 

2. To mitigate the impact of the relocation, move the building to an existing vacant lot within the historic district in which it is located.

 

3. In choosing a new site for a moved building, select a setting compatible with the original. Consider the age of the surrounding buildings, their height, mass, materials, setback, and architectural detailing.

 

4. Properly locate the moved building on its new site. Place the building so that the orientation of its principal facade and front and side setbacks are compatible with surrounding buildings.

 

5. Provide a new foundation whose design, height, and facing materials match those of the original. Salvage original foundation materials where possible for re-use as veneer on new foundation.

 

Avoid:

 

1. Relocating a building not threatened by demolition.

 

2. Relocating a building outside a historic district.

 

3. Relocating a building to a site where the surrounding buildings date from a different period or are architecturally incompatible due to their height, materials, setback, and detailing.

 

4. Destruction or alteration of significant features, structures, or archaeological sites at new location.

 

5. Improperly locating a building on its new site so that its orientation and front and side setback are incompatible with surrounding buildings.

 

6. Placing the building on a new foundation whose design and materials are incompatible with the original. Examples include slab foundations or unfinished concrete blocks.

 

Examples of properly moved buildings in Springfield:

 

Henry J. Klutho House, 30 W. 9th Street

 

Robert Naudain Ellis House, 1131 Laura Street

 

 

 

Demolition is an important issue in Springfield. The main reasons for demolition have been institutional and commercial expansion, particularly by hospitals, and condemnation by the city, principally due to fire damage and deterioration.

 

Demolition invariably exerts a negative impact on a historic district. Under current zoning, land-use regulations, and market conditions, compatible new construction is often not feasible. Furthermore, eliminating a building from a streetscape is like pulling teeth. Either a conspicuous, void is created, or the replacement, even if well-designed, is usually less well-designed and constructed than the original.

 

Beyond aesthetics, demolition creates other problems as well. While the problem of vacant and abandoned buildings is serious, vacant land can be worse. For example, many condemned buildings in Springfield have been rehabilitated at reasonable costs. Except for public housing, little new construction is currently taking place because of market conditions and unbuildable lots. As a result, demolition contributes to a poor environment. Many lots are unmaintained and become trash dumps. A nuisance abatement problem results and contributes to the following scenario. Since there is little or no market for many of these lots, particularly ones where land development regulations prohibit new construction, owners have no incentives to maintain them. They must still pay taxes and expend money for mowing and trash removal. Since land is not depreciable there are not even tax advantages for vacant land. Given this scenario, owners frequently abandon their property. The city then must fine owners and clean their property. Nuisance abatement liens accumulate on the property. The city is eventually forced to condemn the property, remove it from the tax rolls, maintain it, and assume the cost and liability of property ownership.

 

Demolition of significant buildings, outbuildings, and individual features conflicts with Standards 2 and 4. Demolition alters the essential character and integrity of a building and the district in which it is located. As part of the Jacksonville Preservation Ordinance the following additional standards are prescribed when a property owners applies for a certificate of appropriateness for a demolition.

 

1. The historic or architectural significance of the building or structure.

 

2. The importance of the building or structure to the ambience of the historic district.

 

3. The difficulty or the impossibility of reproducing such a building or structure because of its design, texture, material, architectural detail or unique location.

 

4. Whether the building or structure is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the neighborhood, the county, or the region.

 

5. Whether there are definite plans for reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out, and what effect of those plans on the character of the surrounding area would be.

 

6. The difficulty or impossibility of saving the building or structure from collapse.

 

7. Whether the building or structure is capable of earning a reasonable economic return on its value.

 

8. Whether there are other feasible alternatives to demolition.

 

9. Whether the property no longer contributes to an historic district or no longer has significance as a historic, architectural or archaeological landmark.

 

10. Whether it would constitute undue economic hardship to deny the property owner the right to demolish the building or structure.

 

Demolition of significant outbuildings and additions should also be avoided. Carriages houses and garages can be significant components of building complexes in Springfield. Many buildings in the district have had additions, new ornament, storefronts, porches, windows, wings, and additional stories. These changes might have gained significance in their own right and should be retained under Standard 4. Assessing significance of later additions requires careful professional review and should be done on a case by case basis.

 

Demolition of components of a complex, such as garage, workshop, or shed, is permissible under the following criteria.

 

1. The component is secondary in nature and lacking architectural significance.

 

2. The component does not comprise a major portion of the historic site.

 

3. The component is less than fifty years old and not within the period of significance of the district.

 

4. There is persuasive evidence that retention is neither technically nor economically feasible.

 

Demolition of non-significant features of buildings is permissible under the following criteria.

 

1. The feature is less than fifty years old.

 

2. It is not a fine example of a significant architectural style and does not exhibit significant architectural design, materials, or workmanship.

 

3. It does not contribute measurably to the period of significance described in the district nomination.

 

4. It is in deteriorated condition and replacement would constitute a level of reconstruction not required in rehabilitation.

 

5. It obscures earlier significant features.