This sort of abuse of historical/landmark designations is very frustrating. The designation basically even admits that there’s nothing historically significant that is specific to this development, noting that there are “many other such complexes”.
Except that isn't how it works. This designation doesn't mean they can ignore maintenance. It actually makes renovations and other updates to maintain code MORE expensive. If they can't keep the property maintained, they can't have occupants.
However, this also lets them go after grants specific to historical landmarks, so the costs potentially offset. This is likely why they pursued the designation.
Why on earth are these considered historic? These are generic garden apartments found all over the country. They aren’t by notable architects and nothing historically significant happened here.
For once it's actually not money, it's NIMBYism (at least usually).
By designating a location as historic it's really hard to build new developments and properties or conduct significant renovations. If they can get the location designated as Historic then the owners can't sell to a developer to build a larger complex or rebuild and renovate large areas.
It's interesting that the article says it doesn't impose any new preservation requirements since the whole point of a historic designation is to set those preservation requirements, so I wonder if maybe it already has some limits on their various permits.
I’d argue that’s still money. I bet the NIMBYs bribed the people who designated it as historic so they prevent their precious lake Bancroft property from being developed.
An affordable housing complex on Columbia Pike has been added to the Virginia Landmarks Register, setting the stage for possibly achieving historic status.
The Barcroft Apartments community, located near the corner of S. George Mason Drive and S. Four Mile Run Drive, was one of eight properties added to the Virginia Landmarks Register by the Virginia Board of Historic Resources on Dec. 11.
The designation paves the way for eventual inclusion of the apartment complex on the National Register of Historic Places, but neither designation will impose any new preservation requirements on the property.
This article claims that this designation doesn't impose any new preservation requirements on the property. Is that actually the case, or does this create hidden barriers to redevelopment.
I lived here for one year and it was the worst experience anyone could imagine. The apartments are old, vehicles stolen continuously, none of the neighbors spoke any English. I appreciate diversity but when kids are throwing rocks at cars and the mother says “no habla ingles” when asked to stop it creates an issue. Then when police do come the office will accuse you of creating a hostile environment lol
I lived there with my ex and her son in the 2010s. Besides the coach roaches, I (white male) had zero issues and actually enjoyed all my neighbors. I got along with everyone but it just taught me I never want to live in this concrete jungle ever again.
Not every kid who lived in that complex did the things you claimed. Me and the neighborhood kids we played a lot soccer and football there. You are making it sound like Barcroft was just as bad as Green Valley, Del Ray, Chirilagua, Culmore and DC. Those places were far more wild than Barcroft.
This sort of abuse of historical/landmark designations is very frustrating. The designation basically even admits that there’s nothing historically significant that is specific to this development, noting that there are “many other such complexes”.
Example of the gross misuse of historical labels to restrict development
Might even be used as a scapegoat to save costs, as the apartments deteriorate over time and need obvious remodeling.
But they cant because its historical.
So much for working electrical outlets and pest free 100yr old buildings, right?
Except that isn't how it works. This designation doesn't mean they can ignore maintenance. It actually makes renovations and other updates to maintain code MORE expensive. If they can't keep the property maintained, they can't have occupants.
However, this also lets them go after grants specific to historical landmarks, so the costs potentially offset. This is likely why they pursued the designation.
Why on earth are these considered historic? These are generic garden apartments found all over the country. They aren’t by notable architects and nothing historically significant happened here.
I’m guessing money.
For once it's actually not money, it's NIMBYism (at least usually).
By designating a location as historic it's really hard to build new developments and properties or conduct significant renovations. If they can get the location designated as Historic then the owners can't sell to a developer to build a larger complex or rebuild and renovate large areas.
It's interesting that the article says it doesn't impose any new preservation requirements since the whole point of a historic designation is to set those preservation requirements, so I wonder if maybe it already has some limits on their various permits.
I’d argue that’s still money. I bet the NIMBYs bribed the people who designated it as historic so they prevent their precious lake Bancroft property from being developed.
Why these apartments? What benefits, if any, does the complex get because of the designation? And who pays for those benefits?
No real benefits except it becomes harder to redevelop. It’s just another way to promote NIMBYism under a more altruistic sounding method.
This doesn’t pass the smell test. It clearly does not belong in the same cohort as the other locations listed.
Would love to be wrong, but there’s likely NIMBYism or Cronyism at play here.
What about the roaches ?
It's a niyby move from homeowners trying to fight against more housing density
This article claims that this designation doesn't impose any new preservation requirements on the property. Is that actually the case, or does this create hidden barriers to redevelopment.
I lived here for one year and it was the worst experience anyone could imagine. The apartments are old, vehicles stolen continuously, none of the neighbors spoke any English. I appreciate diversity but when kids are throwing rocks at cars and the mother says “no habla ingles” when asked to stop it creates an issue. Then when police do come the office will accuse you of creating a hostile environment lol
😬
(No, I don't have much to add beyond that)
I grew up there as a kid. The memories there.
Ah yes, car theft and constant violence. The memories!
You insinuating I did all you described when, I was young?
I lived there with my ex and her son in the 2010s. Besides the coach roaches, I (white male) had zero issues and actually enjoyed all my neighbors. I got along with everyone but it just taught me I never want to live in this concrete jungle ever again.
So you’re the one who owes me a ‘93 Toyota Camry!!
I didn’t say you did it lol but that’s telling
All you described did not happen back in the mid 90's. Outside the property, all you described happened a lot. Stop generalizing.
It happened back then too, it’s always been a bad complex. Sorry your memory is faded
Not every kid who lived in that complex did the things you claimed. Me and the neighborhood kids we played a lot soccer and football there. You are making it sound like Barcroft was just as bad as Green Valley, Del Ray, Chirilagua, Culmore and DC. Those places were far more wild than Barcroft.
Yeah the kids playing soccer don’t care if it hits a car or not. Checks out
There was a lot fields around the property far away from cars. Stop generalizing
Not true, the fields are not in the complex. There is a park across the street that kids choose not to use. Are you ok?
But missing middle is a priority.
I lived there in 1967.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOO