I have mixed feelings in general. While it can be noble in certain situations to retain and respect old and/or "historical" buildings, it requires plenty of cash, desire and a sustained effort to do so.

My parents live adjacent to a 100+ yr old stone home where I was born and lived, etc, so it's historical to ME at least. I am saddened that the latest owner of only two years is losing the battle of keeping it up. Before that it was maintained throughout. Branches and leaves linger on the slate roof, ivy going up the walls, paint touch-up needed, and flower gardens just wasting away. Sad indeed, but we can't afford to buy what would be another ongoing project.

I understand if someone does not have the money to maintain a house, but this house was solid and the developer has money. It just needed cosmetic work.
The developer prematurely jacked up the house and has left it sitting.
The land is 7 acres in town and has original stables and outbuildings and is a great example of the way life was in the 1800's.
I know I can not do anything about it now but it just made me sad.

Here is a link that might be useful: National register

It doesn't sound like the builder had "lack or respect" - rather - complete lack of understanding of how to deal with various government agencies. They "tried" to move the house instead of bulldozing it.

I'm not an expect on greenville, but I'm guessing that a 7 acre lot in town is worth considerably more to developers that anyone would be willing to pay for "stables and outbuildings." Relocation of the main house is really the best you could hope for in that type of situation.

billl, I agree. It is worth more as land to be developed.

I just wonder now since the inside of the house is exposed to the elements, it may never be moved but just torn down for salvage.

Another subdivision in our town was built on an old plantation and the plantation home became the clubhouse.
It would have been nice for that to have happened in this situation.

The 'before" pix is lovely. Aren't you glad you took it? This developer of a new neighborhood about a mile from us did the same thing - kept the old house and built high end THs on the property. Guess it depends on the builder and the condition of the original house.

I just went to a meeting last night about our town historical district and the new rules they're instituting. They rated our homes from Priority to Secondary to Contributing. The higher rating the more restrictions to protect the property from being damaged by bad restoration, remuddling, and destruction. Many were worried about the rules, especially those with the higher rated homes, but I saw it as a great move to protect the town and it's victorian feel because too much development can ruin a good thing :) Our lot for instance can be split in two and our gorgeous gardens could be a nice condo development. Or at least they could have been last week....now we're "priority" and to try to build on that lot would be a challenge...it can be done, but only following stringent rules that protect what happens next door from effecting the value of our home and the neighbor's victorians.

This house (from the OP) is a great example why the rules are good. Sure they make life more challenging if I want to build condo's with a water view :) But they will protect our home from any future dorks who want to damage it as well...and that's a good thing :) They also make it easier for us to do a couple of restoration projects (rebuilt the 4 story water tower and the original fence). Because we can document their existance, they fall under the same high priority as the house when it comes to any improvement that take the aestetic value backwards to what it originally was. We literally went from "I don't think so" to, Oh ya, let's build it! in the blink of an eye :)

Rules-happy foot dragging bureaucrats can take the real credit. The Army Corps. of Engineers? The sterling group partiallyresponsible for innundating New Orleans.

I love well-built old homes. But as a general rule, property owners should have the right to demolish, alter or even desecrate what they own. There's nothing more galling than the groups of self-appointed diletantes with two cents to their name presuming to dictate to property owners what and what they cannot do in the name of "history".

If they had their way, we'd all be living in sod huts, sharing the warmth of our hearths with farm animals and defecating in the yard out back like half of India still does.

" The higher rating the more restrictions to protect the property from being damaged by bad restoration, remuddling, and destruction. "

And soon we can go the way of Venice, Italy.

They have made everything so expensive and complicated that most of the city housing sits vacant.

Very few people can afford the exorbitant costs associated with trying to do anything to older houses, even on the interior.

The "self-appointed dilettantes" were likely very much officially-appointed panel of folks who care about the city's heritage. Historic District Commissioners in my town are appointed by the mayor. So, in any case there is some political accountability. And just what's wrong with being a know-it-all? Worthy is self-identified as such it would seem, at times. I know I am, but then I have the Preservation degree, and all.
Two things:
Our old buildings have no voice, and need people to advocate for them.
You can tear down an old building only once; you can restore it many times.
Casey

In an on camera interview I saw on TV, they didn't salvage anything. Nothing. Bulldozed every single piece of furniture and every bit of the house. Someone had self esteem issues, I would say, to do something like that.

Hansen: Demolition of house from '20s upsets upscale neighborhood

Most of the neighbors - not to mention architects, preservationists and real estate agents - are sick about it.

Holly Craiger, who showed the property to a client when the house was standing, says the place was in perfect condition: updated bathrooms, state-of-the-art kitchen, a spacious great-room addition with stunning window walls. An enormous deck, a beautifully manicured formal garden.

Here is a link that might be useful: distruction for the sake of distruction

That isn't destruction for the sake of destruction. That is destruction of the sake of money. According to the county assessment, the property tripled in value over 12 years. The location was obviously worth more than the structure. It is sad to see old houses destroyed, but let's not pretend people are just trashing them for fun. There is a nationwide trend where people are moving back into urban areas. There is big money to be made building modern houses in city centers.

"According to the county assessment, the property tripled in value over 12 years. "

And since property taxes are based on the assessment, they likely increased also.

Trying to force someone to pay ever increasing taxes on an asset, and then interfering with modifications is a recipe for the bulldozer.

We just purchased an old house built in 1780. It used to be the Kimball Tavern in Pembroke NH. We just closed on it Friday. The first thing I plan on doing before we change anything, is to contact the historical society and try to find people who work on old properties and keep them up. Sure everyone want the modern comforts and conveniences, but those can be done while still keeping the historical integrity of the property. On the other hand, I may have just bought a money pit!!!! You can see pictures at

http://historiccolonial.checkoutmore.com/

Bummer. Just noticed that link doesn't work anymore. Maybe it was up just while the house was on the market. I'll try to figure out how to get other pics up later.

Bummer. Just noticed that link doesn't work anymore. Maybe it was up just while the house was on the market. I'll try to figure out how to get other pics up later.

Worthy, thank god for the efforts of our historical society to get this ruling passed. We could go the way of the Krantz's and just rip down a valuable historic structure to build our "dream house" which may or may not have value to the neighbors....who all live in victorians. Our historical district is unique in that it's one of three well preserved victorian seaports in the US. In your view, it could be some mess of 1990's condo's...after all the property is valuable...lovely views and new is so much better than old plumbing right?

Thank god for the Casey's of the world. Really, I mean every word of it.

What a shame...

If you want to keep historical buildings from being torn down then buy one. Don't tell me what I can or can't do with my own property...

The idea that the government can't tell you what to do with your property is just false on its face. Pretty much every inch of the country is covered by some zoning or use law. You can't put a skyrise in a residential neighborhood just like you can't build a parking lot over wetlands. Every city and town has thousands of pages of rules about how a building must be constructed from the foundation to the roof and everywhere between.

Buying a home on the national register isn't much different than buying a home with a homeowners association. You know what you get up front. If you don't want to put up with the restrictions, then don't live there.

Even with restrictions and laws there are idiots who purposefully destroy old houses, and the local government let him get away with it:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=53139092668&index=1