Europe Versus America

Although there are many similarities between European and American cities, their differences tend to outweigh one another. The majority of the physical differences are due to deep-rooted and long enforced policies that European countries and governments take most seriously as methods to control growth within their cities. Whereas in the United States, very different objectives have been sought, policies more lax and the momentary desire to develop the vast frontier trumped the real need for properly developed towns and cities. The expansive mindset of the country has been a catch-22, as cities have paid the price.

European cities are definitively different from their American counterparts, as they have retained the concept of “old urban systems,” and the city centers remain relevant, continuing to hold meaning throughout the decades even though they have seen their share of changes. The merging of history, culture, involved citizens, small businesses and appropriately placed public spaces boost the elements that support this city center ideology. Small and local businesses remain in demand; therefore encouraging the local economy and larger corporations are no longer such a considerable threat, as they have become in the United States. These cities look different and surely feel different than most American cities because they do feel older and most were originally planned as small, fortified towns which eventually grew out of their fortifications into burgeoning towns and cities as more people relocated. Because European countries lacked the same ‘frontier’ to explore, they had to set-up strict regulations and policies that would ensure the viability and longevity of their cities. They had to find ways in which to deal with the population increases, while maintaining the same key characteristics that set their cities apart from one another.

As American cities began to expand they started pushing the borders of the original framework, but instead of keeping the boundaries somewhat intact, urban sprawl took control. “Since 1950 about half of America’s central cities at least doubled their territory by annexing new suburbs.”[1] This would later wreak havoc on the future health of American cities and leave behind faulty and spread out fragments. This phenomenon can be seen perfectly in Miami, Florida. Miami sprawled from originally having 300 residents in 1896, right when the city was incorporated, to 5.5 million in just a century. To cope with the surge of new residents Miami sprawled in every direction, creating smaller disconnected neighborhoods. Downtown Miami suffered and became obsolete as chain stores took over in new strip malls that were more accessible to these neighborhoods; it literally became a ghost town full of homeless people. Only recently has downtown Miami been able to reemerge as major revitalization and planning have been kicked into full gear. There have been great advances downtown with the addition of a new performing arts center, art museums, boutiques and shops, restaurants, housing, parks, etc. that make downtown once again relevant and welcoming.

The main mechanism that changed the course of events for both American and European cities was transportation. In the United States, the majority of the transportation budget was reserved for the implementation of highways as urban sprawl was taking over. Automobiles had become the next big thing in this country, as individualism was further marketed, allowing citizens to move farther away from the city centers. No longer did the city center have to be a concentrated hub as people had migrated to the outskirts, this changed the mindset and expectations of downtowns in the United States. Europe was late to the rise of the automobile and instead focused on railroad transportation, ensuring that the country as well as neighboring countries could be easily accessible to the general public. Even though European cities expanded, creating new neighborhoods, they were still compacted in comparison to the level of sprawl in the United States. For example, “the urban region of Paris comprises 1,300 municipalities,”[2] but because of the planning of arrondissements and the implementation of taller buildings, the city has managed to retain a concentrated city feel that is geared more towards the city-citizen relationship versus the suburban-city experience. A similar city is Barcelona, Spain, as much of the downtown interworking is comprised of former medieval and narrow streets that are not automobile-friendly, but they do oblige active citizens to maneuver. This aids in retaining a citizen-driven city center.

Larger American cities such as Chicago, San Francisco or New York have tried to maintain this citizen-driven city center, but as they have ‘grown-up’ and stretched to accommodate growth, only certain parts of these cities still incorporate this feeling. But, as mentioned earlier, it is more complicated than simply changing an aspect of an American city to replicate the feel of a European city – there is more at play than meets the eye. It took years of intensive and restrictive planning to ensure European cities would maintain their look and feel. The two are just different. Public policy has played a large role and the fact that European and American policies are so different has been a major reason why their cities have ended up being so different from one another.

[1] Nivola, Pietro S.. “Fit for Fat City: A “Lite” Menu of European Policies to Improve Our Urban Form.” The Brookings Institution. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1999/01/metropolitanpolicy-nivola (accessed June 24, 2014).

[2] Ibid.

Interior Assessment: the Shamrock Building and the Renaissance Building, Mount Dora, Florida

The two buildings that documented were the Shamrock Building and the Renaissance Building. Both of these buildings are important buildings in the downtown historic district of Mount Dora, as they were usefully implemented additions to the area. Since their original construction, they have been modified to provide better functionality for their new uses throughout the years. They both retain many fragments of their initial design and character, but mostly on the exterior; with regard to their interiors they have greatly altered.

The Shamrock Building (Fig. 1), currently a realtor’s office, was once the former Mount Dora Bank and Trust built in 1925; it was the first and only bank in Mount Dora. The main entrance was formerly on the east façade of the building, but after its change to the Shamrock Building, the entrance was moved to the north façade of the building while the east entrance was filled in and made to match the surrounding wall. As a bank, the ground floor was filled with a series of teller windows, metal cages, a large vault and marbled countertops, floors and wainscoting throughout. The second floor had a secondary vault and a mezzanine floor and office spaces on the third floor, all of which featured wood paneled walls.

After it’s transition to a realtor’s office, just about every bank related element on the ground floor was removed except portions of the marble flooring and wainscoting (Fig. 2). All of the original light fixtures were removed and partitions and cubicles were introduced. The mezzanine and third floor offices were minimally changed. However, in 2008, a tropical storm wrecked havoc on the building, causing serious damage to the interiors. The water damage was so pervasive it damaged the wood paneling on the third floor and second floor mezzanine, and leaked completely through the building to the ground floor. Water damage is still visible on the interior walls of the ground floor. The wood paneled walls of the third floor offices are still in disrepair and a musty smell still permeates the mezzanine and third floor. Despite the damage and the alterations over the years, sections that remain of the original marbled floors and wainscoting are in very good condition.

A similar example is that of the Renaissance Building, which is currently a mixed-use commercial building filled with retail shops, restaurants, bars and office space. It was originally a hotel built in the 1920s, referred to as the Dora Hotel. The hotel functioned until the mid- to late-1970s and once the 1980s hit the building became vacant. It transferred several owners before it was retrofitted to serve as a mixed-use commercial building.

The interior aspects of the building have completely changed as the layout was altered to fit separate retail stores and offices, merge spaces for restaurants and completely open up the building to the public as a walk-through shopping mall of sorts. The only historicity this building can claim is its slightly altered exterior; as for the interior, compromises have been made, but unfortunately not in favor of the protection and preservation of historic features. In this case, the Shamrock Building, and many buildings found in the historic downtown, the exteriors retain much of their historic integrity, but the interiors have changed too much and lack much of any connection to their former use.

Mass-Produced Copies and Hyper-Developed Skeletons of Our Once Quaint Towns and Cities

I believe our cities and towns have lost a lot of their uniqueness, making it difficult to distinguish between one place and another. Every town has similar big box retailers, food chains, shopping malls, and the like, which eventually turn into vacant areas once suburban sprawl shifts into another direction. Originally every town had something that set them apart from the next town, but as modern times have developed, and with it the advancement of technology, globalization has kicked in full gear and our towns and cities have suffered, turning into mass-produced places.

There have been efforts through the Main Street Program, and they have been successfully carried out, but not every aspect of a town fits within this program. There are many other aspects of planning that need to be considered. It is already apparent in comparisons from decades before to present day; towns almost shift into one another without much change or consciousness of the transition.

As the Main Street Program focuses solely on the downtown area of a town, the surrounding business and residential community, which supported the downtown originally, is being overlooked as to its importance in the development of that downtown area. Areas that were considered nice residential communities and light commercial zones have been overlooked and essentially forgotten. The economic dynamic that once supported the town has changed; so even though the town is renovated, the economic support is not there to maintain that renovation and this is due in large part to ‘urban sprawl’ (where people have moved out of the downtown areas to be in newer and shinier suburban meccas). There have been a great deal of strip malls and larger stores built into those suburban areas which are now being abandoned because of tax incentives elsewhere and/or a change in the economy.

As much emphasis as has been put on the historic rehabilitations of a few buildings, there should also be consideration for past and present rehabilitation and development. Most developers tend to plow under open areas, trees, older buildings, and anything that might be in their way of projected development. Through the years, this approach has been very prominent and has caused a complete change in the makeup and appearance of the original town.

Examples of this phenomenon can be experienced along interstate corridors linking one metropolitan area to another. An example of this is witnessed in Florida, from West Palm Beach to Fort Lauderdale to Miami. Infrastructure has not historically kept up with the developing areas and consequently retrofitting roadways, traffic patterns, sewage, electric and water, have changed the appearance of ‘quaint’ communities into hyper-developed skeletons. Examples of these ‘skeletons’ can be seen in towns and cities across Florida, such as Tampa, Jacksonville, and Orlando, to name a few. The original flavor of the town has morphed into a conglomerate of mega-roads and multistoried complexes. Towns located along a coastline have often been altered to an unrecognizable state due to the allure of high taxes and high-density complexes. This has greatly changed sleepy tourist destinations into high-priced, glamorous and glitzy tourist marketed meccas devoid of their unique originality.

Conflicting Issues in Preservation: Solar Panels and Later Addition of Insulation Systems

The first conflicting issue within historic preservation and/or restoration projects is the use of solar panels with historic structures is an issue that most preservationists tend to agree diminish the integrity of a historic building. As many building owners look for ways and means to reduce their ‘footprint’, solar panels are one of the most popular sources that ensure improvement of the building’s environmental profile. Considering most historic buildings lack environmentally appropriate resources, as they were built prior to energy efficiency assessments and LEED ratings, and most rehabilitation projects can cost a small fortune, it makes sense that a client would request the implementation of solar panels as a means of cutting their overall costs and ecological footprint.

Great attention, care and thought needs to be taken when discussing the implementation of solar panels with a historic building, as many times these paneling systems can detract from the appearance and historic integrity of the building. Local historic guidelines should be consulted as well; as many times there are strict limitations enforced regarding what can and cannot be added to a historic building. These findings, along with the evaluated pros and cons, should be discussed in detail with the client.

If the local historic board is restrictive against the addition of solar panels to a historic building, then either more research will need to be completed to discover alternative paneling options that may be more readily accepted or alternative placement ideas will need to be considered.[1] Luckily, there have been great advancements to the original prototype of panels first available on the market. Most models today are more historically accepted and less of an eyesore, including solar shingles that resemble slate shingles and are just as affective as panels but are more accepted by historic boards as well they are eligible for tax credits.[2]

The second conflicting issue within historic preservation and/or restoration projects is that historic buildings were originally built without the addition of insulation systems, as building technologies at the time were not as advanced as they have become today. A majority of building owners want to counteract this problem, as it is not energy efficient and tend to unnecessarily raise electric bills. Again, this is a conflicting issue for many preservationists as later addition of insulating materials to historic buildings risk damage of architectural details or historic finishes. Another problem is limited space, as historic buildings may not allow for the necessary space in building cavities to allow for appropriate R-value (insulation).

Polyurethane foam is used in certain cases, where historic buildings are not in jeopardy of losing their character or integrity through structural alterations of any kind.[3] Through careful analysis of the building and dialogue with professional insulators, it is possible that this type of foam could easily remedy insulation problems without building or structural modifications; the only drawback is that it is not removable. Another method, if the building’s original interiors have already been altered or removed, is to apply an insulating lining to the surface. This is surely not a possibility if the original interiors are intact and untouched. Research in Scotland has been carried out involving a system comprised of a thin gel mat, secured against the plaster wall with a steel mesh fastening system.[4] The positive thing in this case is that it is removable and non-damaging to the original wall. I would discuss possibilities with both the professionals and the clients to determine the best and most appropriate procedures to insulate the historic building.

It is important that above all, the historic integrity and character of historic structures are not altered in any way through the realization of either of these issues. It is best to keep an open dialogue with a client, while referring to professionals for assistance and direction in these more complicated and detailed matters.

[1] Benfield, Kaid. “Can Solar Panels and Historic Preservation Get Along?.” The Atlantic Cities. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2012/06/can-­‐solar-­‐panels-­‐and-­‐historic-­‐preservation-­‐get-­‐along/2364/ (accessed April 20, 2014).

[2] “Residential Installations.” Performance Solar. http://perfsolar.com/services/residential/ (accessed April 20, 2014).

[3] “Historic Preservation Problems.” FOAM-­‐TECH: Problems=Solutions. http://www.foam-­‐tech.com/problems/preservation.htm (accessed April 20, 2014).

[4] Curtis, Roger. “Energy Efficiency in Traditional Buildings: Initiatives by Historic Scotland.” APT Bulletin 43, no. 2/3 (2012): 16.

Overview of Mount Dora, Florida

The city of Mount Dora, Florida, is an older town that was settled in the late 1800s, and as the majority of the original buildings are still in existence they greatly add to the town’s historical significance. Some of the earliest buildings were erected anywhere from the late 1800s to the early 1900s (Fig. 1) and although they have changed, many significantly throughout the years, they retain much of their exterior historic integrity and architecturally significant details (Fig. 2). The town has experienced a decent share of growth and change as many of the original businesses are long gone and the buildings within the historic downtown commercial zone have been flipped in several attempts to stir about new business opportunities.

There is an active and vocal historic board that ensures any project located downtown, within the historic district or considered historic in any matter, follow strict guidelines and request special permission before changes or alterations can occur. This has been the case in the past to an extent, as most of the historic buildings within the downtown commercial core have all been altered or radically changed on their interiors. Before historic guidelines were into effect, most of the local building owners freely manipulated the interiors of their historic structures without much thought or consideration. Although most of these buildings have been ‘rehabilitated,’ they were not rehabilitated with the idea that the interiors should retain some form of their originality. For example, the interiors of the former Mount Dora Bank & Trust building, which was the first bank in town, was completed transformed to fit a local realtor’s office space. The exterior was slightly altered (Fig. 3), but retains much of its original character (Fig. 4); unfortunately this cannot be said for the interior space.

The positive aspect of this occurrence is that the exteriors have been carefully conserved and they are regularly maintained. Therefore, to the average visitor Mount Dora keeps its appearance as a historically, quaint, New England modeled town as the building exteriors retain much of their unique character and charm (Fig. 5, 6). If you consider that the building exteriors have stood the test of time, for the most past, while businesses have come and gone and they have only slightly changed, then it is fair to say that rehabilitation has greatly impacted the area. While several buildings are being utilized, there are many vacancies in town due to overpriced rental rates and therefore a lack of motivation to realize new and different business opportunities. I believe rental rates need to be reconsidered to allow for more potential opportunities to take place and businesses need to be given more thought. Even though the median age is 48, there is a slow growing trend that younger families, originally from the area, are coming back to Mount Dora to raise their new families. As this shift becomes more noticeable, the community’s necessities will inevitably change to meet the demands of newer and younger residents and the downtown area will again face further transitions to stay relevant; hopefully this will happen with careful attention to retain the existing historic charm of the town.

Many of the incentives in Mount Dora, for the rehabilitation efforts, were to maintain a functioning downtown that would be attractive to tourists and remain memorable, adding significantly to the stimulation of the local economy. This economic stimulation has only increased as Mount Dora has set itself on the map for being an arts and crafts community, hosting various art, craft and antique shows and events. These efforts have surely had a positive impact on the local community as many of the buildings downtown have been transformed into restaurants or small retail shops, adding to the commerciality of the town. Through it all, the town retains its charm and likeability, almost in a Mayberry-esque manner.

What Makes the Ramsey-Donnelly Building Worth Saving?

The Ramsey-Donnelly Building was an early addition to the downtown commercial district of Mount Dora (Fig. 1) and has played an important role in town as it has been host to many of the area’s integral businesses. The building’s position on the corner of the main thoroughfares through town, both Fifth Avenue and Donnelly Street, has highlighted the building throughout the years and has made it an inviting building that successfully creates a dialogue between the building and the town.

The size of the building makes it one of the larger buildings in town and puts it in the position of having to pull its own weight, in a sense, as the town is comparatively small. The building’s connection with the commercial downtown is aided greatly by the glass façade on Donnelly Street and the wrap-around cast-iron balcony (Fig. 2); it successfully opens up the building fabric and detracts from the scale of the building. As well, having multiple spaces with openings and entrances alongside Donnelly Street maintains the ‘main street’ appeal and charm of downtown.

The Ramsey-Donnelly Building fits in well with the surrounding built environment, despite its size, as it is a two-story structure and the buildings in the area range anywhere from one-, two- to three-story structures. The cast-iron balcony that covers the adjacent sidewalk ties in perfectly with many of the covered sidewalks in town that further promote the appeal, character and walkability of the town.

The original building’s landscape was not tied directly to the building, but rather to the city, as they incorporated the older trees within designated green areas between the sidewalks and the streets. Most of those trees were removed and brick planters were added alongside the building and the street on the sidewalk surrounding the building. The planters now hold small plants, shrubs and young trees. The Donnelly Park directly across the street remains intact, for the most part, with regard to the original landscape and trees, which gives an idea of what the past historic landscape might have resembled.

Historic Rehabilitation and Housing

Considering the majority of the residents in Mount Dora are aged 48 and older, most housing options revolve around apartments, condos, villas and homes. There are also many 55 and older communities and assisted living options, which are provided through similar apartment, condo, and villa setups. Other residents that are younger than the average median aged resident tend to have the same options unless they live below the poverty line.

Although this is not such a troubling issue in Mount Dora and the town surroundings, there are affordable housing options (although not historic rehabilitations), one in town, and the others on the outskirts of town. There is not a real need or desire from the residents for affordable housing. Historic homes are already rehabilitated for the most part to comply with unique needs or growing families. If Mount Dora was a larger town, perhaps with more diverse age groups looking for affordable housing, and if the local Historic Board was more approving of these endeavors, then this could be further explored and realized.

If the issue is to become a problem and the Historic Board decides to change their perspective, then there are a few historic properties around that could be considered, given that they are available on the market at that time. One historic structure, located at 301-399 E. 4th Avenue (Fig. 1), is currently a doctor’s office, but could be turned into affordable housing units. Another complex located two blocks north at 525 N. Tremain Street (Fig. 2), is currently an apartment building that could possibly be switched over to affordable housing. Yet another building, located one block north at 610 N. Tremain Street (Fig. 3), is another example of a historic building that could be retrofitted for affordable housing. Given the availabilities, options and needs at the time, these historic buildings could be transformed into affordable housing if the Historic Board decides the need for affordable housing trumps their current opposition. Keeping in mind that Mount Dora is not a metropolis like Orlando, Miami, or Tampa, it is understandable that there is not a dire need for affordable housing, given that most residents are retirees.

Driving Survey: Piglet's Pantry and The Drawer, Mount Dora, Florida

The area surveyed was that of the commercial downtown area of Mount Dora, Florida, which stretches from McDonald Street to Baker Street (a four-block stretch from west to east) and Fifth Avenue to Third Avenue (a three-block stretch from north to south). Within this area there are several historic buildings, although not all have been completely rehabilitated, and there are still many vacancies in the area.

The two structures chosen for this assignment were that of Piglet’s Pantry et al. and The Drawer. These two buildings are located directly across from one another, along one of the main streets, Donnelly Street, and the cross street, Fourth Avenue. They were chosen because of their historic significance to the area, as both were early additions to the town.

Piglet’s Pantry et al, formerly Rehbaum’s Hardware, was built in a masonry vernacular style in 1914 and functioned as a town hardware supply store with apartments on the second floor. Rehabilitations were made in 1924 and again in 1950, as the second story porch was removed from the front facade along with additions to the rear of the building. The additions housed a small drugstore and furniture store. Since 1997 it has functioned as a dog bakery called Piglet’s Pantry and other retail spaces including a wine bar and a shoe store, with apartments/office space for rent on the second floor. These businesses have remained in place for a while, with great success for the dog bakery and wine bar, although not as fortunate for the case of the shoe store. The apartments/office space rentals on the second floor have been vacant for the most part.

The Drawer, a masonry vernacular building built in 1880, was originally a general store. Additions were made in the mid-1920s as it later became Crane’s Furniture, which was an operation originally commenced at Rehbaum’s Hardware, but since space was lacking it was moved across the street. Since 1984, with the introduction of another rear addition, it has functioned as a women’s clothing and accessories retail store. The Drawer been a successful operation and receives a lot of business locally and from the surrounding area.