I would like to start by thanking my thesis committee, particularly Ned Crankshaw, thank you for keeping me on track through the whole process. I could not have done it without your help.After hearing about two mill village rehabs in the news.
I began with my a research question…
To give you an idea of where I ended up…here is my project outline. I will cover most of this in todays presentation, however, not all points will be covered although they are all covered in my paper.
BACKGROUNDFollowing the Civil War, the South needed a solution for its fraught economy that would put large numbers of poor white farmers to work and regenerate the region.Answer: cash crops! (shift from food to commercial production)Previously, New England served as home to the majority of nation’s textile mills, fueled by cotton from the South.With the establishment of railroads, southerners who’d lost their farms and northern capitalists looked to “bring the mills to the fields”The south was ripe for the occasion as it was home to local capital, plentiful streams, access to raw materials, rail connections, and a large labor supply; which lead to the Cotton Mill CampaignAs part of this, the mill village developed.This represented a new, paternalistic view of mass employment unheard of in the South that physically manifested itself on the landscape. Mill developers turned to hiring poor white farmers from Applachia willing to relocate their entire families and work for meager wages.
These villages soon dotted NC turning the Piedmont into, as one author put it, “one long mill village”On average, 6 new mills were built each year between 1880 and 1900, with a residual affect on the cities themselves as “postbellum mill building was accompanied by an unprecedented public zeal that turned factories into potent symbols of regional regeneration, yardsticks of a town’s progress, and badges of civic pride.”
Railroad track mileage tripled in NC after 1860.Existing city populations skyrocketed and there was an influx of small towns.
This 1929 map shows the concentration of mills in the Piedmont – counties with over 200,000 spindles are the darkest.
Because the majority of mills were established on rural waterpower sties and most employees were relocating their families, housing had to be provided in order to attract and keep workers.Mill factory buildings were modeled after Northern prototypes however the villages were not.Mill sites typically consisted of a brick factory, company store, and roughly 100 mill houses. Larger mills may also have a school, one or two churches, and sometimes meeting halls, libraries, and other buildings.Mill houses had uniformity, present in façade and floor plan, as a way to provide economy to their construction. This was most evident in the early construction of mills, to the point that the same paint color was often used throughout the village, This grouping of structures, their layout and design styles, and the average size of villages changed over time.
Housing followed a standard pattern, duplicating the most common and inexpensive types of rural dwelling present in the Piedmont countryside. Whereas row houses and duplexes were utilized in the North, the South typically built single-family homes, raised on brick piers to avoid damp ground, with 3-4 rooms, a front porch, and typically a rear kitchen extension.Weatherboard became the standard sheathing.Homes were built on the same sized lots and in rows, each house being equi-distant from the other.Most 19th c villages were small and relied on forms from the Piedmont countryside and were located in rural areas (left).As mill village development progressed and waterpower was no longer a necessity, mills were built closer to cities along railroad lines and mill housing reflected these developments – incorporating Greek Revival, Victorian, and later Arts and Crafts styles in simple house designs (right).
No matter the setting, certain house types appear in most mill villages. For example, the center-chimney-plan, was built in several villages. Seen here at Edna Cotton Mills in Reidsville on the top left.Another typical mill house was the central-passage plan, which consisted of a 4-room cottage divided by a center hall with two fireplaces and two porches, a basic cube broken by two roof gables. The L- or T-plan cottage became a standard mill house, seen here at China Grove in Rowan County in the bottom right.
In order to understand which features are of the most importance to mill villages, I relied most heavily on National Register nominations and the 1899 text “Cotton Mill, Commercial Features” by D.A. Tompkins, the only published mill designer. Some of the key elements advocated by Tompkins are listed here. While not representative of all mill housing, these are elements that are common. The importance of mill housing preservation is secondary only to the harmony and rhythm intended in the original design. Also, mill villages included other elements, such as landscape design, that are significant and contribute to this harmony.For example, if a mill house has been lost, a compatible infill house should be constructed to preserve the village rhythm. Further, garden lots between the houses were common and depending on the village, these lots were either later infilled with newer housing, creating a rhythm as every-other-house was from an earlier period and every-other from a later period, the earlier from the late 19th or early 20th c and the later from the 1920s or 30s. This is visible in villages where there is a farmhouse, bungalow, farmhouse, etc.
Mill villages began to change in the late 1930s. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 raised wages and ended child labor.Mill owners then began to sell housing, placing it in private hands.Automobiles allowed workers to live away from the village.Textile job #s peaked in WWII and then began a long decline.Textile manufacturers along with much of America’s industry thus began the transition overseas for even cheaper labor.Interestingly, in 2000 the Carolinas manufactured almost as much textile as it did in the 1940s with half the labor, due to advances in technology.
While there are dozens of mill villages across the state, their nature as simple vernacular dwellings representative of industrial, working man’s history has lead few to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Further, listing is a time intensive project typically necessitating professional research. in comparison to the large number of extant villages, few have been studied. More is needed on this front.The state has worked to highlight these places, specifically the reuse of many of the abandoned mill factory buildings, textile and otherwise, through the creation of the State Mill Rehab Credit, which offers a greater return than the state historic credit. The mill credit is used in place of the state credit and can be combined with the federal credit. My case study at Golden Belt Mills, utilized the Mill credit, the federal credit, and new market tax credits.
There has not always been a common link between HP and affordable housing. However, HP that is done with only buildings in mind is missing the point.When studying the current status of mill housing it was evident that the majority of mill houses retain their original form and have relatively few alterations as a direct result of their development as worker housing as residents have not been able or have not felt the need to alter their homes.When mill houses have been altered, changes are typically reversible, such as the addition of vinyl siding over wood weatherboard, the replacement of porch posts with wrought iron, or the enclosure of a porch. By rehabilitating mill villages as affordable housing, their original intention and historic integrity is honored. Furthermore, this contributes to the larger need of low-income single family housing that is owner occupied. This has become increasingly important due to the foreclosure crisis and the economic recession although, the housing market seems to be on the rise.Luckily, the original characteristics of the houses – their small size, local materials, and vernacular style – all help to reduce the cost of rehab.There are some concerns regarding HP and affordable housing, as the revitalization of communities has often led to the displacement of people and the rising of property values, which may force low-income residents out. When working to rehab historic mill villages these issues must be addressed. My two case studies delve further to better understand how the rehab of mill structures as affordable housing can be achieved without these ills.
Before we look at projects related to affordable housing, it is important to examine what has become the state’s premiere mill village rehab.Completed by the state HP non-profit, PNC, this project transformed a rural Alamance County abandoned mill village from the late nineteenth century into market rate housing. While not an affordable housing project, it is important to examine this precedent project and its goals & strategies.Using a real estate strategy called “options,” PNC typically asks the current owner of a desired historic property if they can try and sell the property for 6-12 months at little or no cost to either party. This allows the property to be showcased to a broader market. During the option period, the owner may not sell or transfer the property to others. When a purchaser is found, PNC acquires the property for resale with protective covenants, ultimately helping to “buy time” for the property, which is often most important.While this strategy was not used for this project, it is applicable.With Glencoe, PNC starting by doing minimal stabilization work, such as plugging roof leaks. Eight mill house lots had been lost, so PNC constructed the first infill mill house to preserve the rhythm of the streetscape and spur development. The house was then available for tours, spurring interest.Protective covenants were added, providing long-term assurance of the property’s protection as they run with the deed. Finding stewards is most important and covenants that address long-term concerns and balance preservation and ongoing utilitarian needs are preferred, so as to not detract buyers. As stated by PNC’s director Myrick Howard, “Maybe the next roof will be historically accurate.” After all, “Most historic buildings have evolved through the years anyway. Rarely have they survived unaltered. Sometimes buildings are more interesting precisely because of their evolution…”The Secretary’s Standards, which were developed as part of the federal historic tax credit program, were the backbone of the project, allowing PNC to achieve good rehabs rather than true restorations.Also, the project utilized state tax credits and had to adhere to standards set forth by the county and city historic commissions.Ultimately, PNC attempted to reach a balance between honoring historic integrity and practicality for living.The village is also home to a Textile Heritage Museum in the original company store, and there are plans for Phase II at Glencoe for the rehab of the factory bldgs.Also, a county park has been developed south of the village.On the financial side, the investment at Glencoe is justified. – 1998: valued at $244,000, mid-way through the effort in 2006 it was valued at 8.7 mil, at completion it is estimated it will be worth $18 mil. Only $3 mil was invested by PNC.While the historic integrity of the architecture is honored through PNC’s enhancement, the mill village stands today in a much different light than at its inception. The museum and other exhibit boards tell the story of the village however, the new residents are very different socioeconomically than those who originally resided in the homes.This project should not be touted however, as all preservation is good preservation, and PNC’s effort has sparked interest in mill history and spurred the rehab of other villages.
As part of my study, I decided to look at two precedent projects that combined HP and affordable housing in non-mill buildings.Two Habitat for Humanity rehab projects were chosen for study, one in Winston-Salem, NC and one in Louisville.Until recently, Habitat has been known solely for new construction of low-income housing with volunteer labor. Thankfully, the organization has realized the potential abandoned houses embody for low-income housing.As stated in a recent article, “The classic Habitat model of single-family houses using infill lots is not fully addressing some of the most urgent needs of communities with devastating foreclosure rates [and] a lot of affiliates are having to rethink their business models.”In Louisville, Habitat was able to acquire two historic houses by donation, a cambelback shotgun and a bungalow. As part of this, the affiliate adopted a new rehab rule and they trained personnel in lead paint abatement. They were also able to utilize the nearby Brown Forman Co. as a sponsor, as they provided volunteer labor on company time.While both projects appear to honor the historic integrity of the houses from the exterior, press coverage has stated that the interiors were gutted. Also, the windows were replaced on one of the houses although it takes a trained eye to notice this.Most importantly, however, these historic houses are home to low-income families while the typical Habitat house image is lost.
Likewise, I studied a project that got my attention years ago when I was an intern for Winston-Salem’s HPC, fueling my initial interest in hp and affordable housing.The Cherry Street NR Historic District is a Historic African-American neighborhood from the 1930s and 40s that had fallen into disrepair. The city for years struggled with what to do with the neighborhood as more and more code violations amounted. After convening community meetings, Habitat for Humanity got involved.At the project’s start, five houses were slated to be razed, citing demolition by neglect and code violation.In addition to the Habitat infill houses, other groups were contracted to rehab existing houses and several Y-stair apartment buildings, a style unique to WS. A CDBG was also utilized.Due to the instability of the area, conservation easements were placed on three “contributing” houses.Five houses were indeed razed as Section 106 was not enough to save them from demolition.While these efforts were positive, the “compatible” infill houses approved by the SHPO and built by Habitat actually detract from the neighborhood and do not respect the rhythm and integrity of Cherry Street. The area is not listed as a local historic district therefore, the city’s HRC did not have to approve the infill design plans.It is arguable that some of the houses demolished could have been saved and rehabbed as pre-demolition photo documentation suggests they were structurally sound.Further, while the NTHP has praised this project, in my opinion the Habitat infill houses are now examples of bad infill, deemed by some as compatible, however, a true preservationist can spot the vinyl, raised basement, and disproportions that make these houses unsuitable for the district.
At this time, I just want to briefly note that the project model of rehabilitating mill houses for affordable housing aligns with sustainability - environmentally and socially. These ideas are not new however, the connection between hp and the green movement is undeniable. I felt this was an important component to my project, as sometimes the connection is not as obvious to laypeople.
Now to begin the bulk of my project – my two mill village case studies, both on-going affordable housing projects. Erlanger Mill Village is located in semi-urban Lexington, NC aka “Barbecue Capital of the World.” The mill was founded in 1911 and has two periods of mill house construction 1916-17 and a later addition from 1917-23 by city planner and mill village designer Earle Draper.In addition to the houses, the mill still retains three church buildings, one of which was used as a school, and a unique mill office. Although it is not under original ownership today, the mill is still in operation and produces yarn.Like other historic mill villages in the 21st century, Erlanger has experienced transitional issues such as lost integrity rooted in the addition of modern materials, particularly vinyl and fake stone. Further, the city has struggled to enforce the building code and the neighborhood has suffered from reoccurring gang activity.The Lexington HRC was organized in an effort to save Erlanger. As part of this, an Erlanger Subcommittee was formed. The group consists of 12 members who either reside in Erlanger, have an interest in the community, have an interest in historic properties, are law enforcement familiar with the area, are real estate professionals, or represent the Hispanic population living in Erlanger. This group listed Erlanger on the NR in 2008.To start, the group applied and received a $1 mil CDBG.At this time, several partners were enlisted including PNC and the Lexington Housing and Community Development Corporation.The city then set aside a $150,000 for PNC to purchase 12 homes for the Housing Corporation to rehab.PNC offered owners $3,000 and tax incentives to sell their property. If the owner did not accept, they returned later and offered $2,000 and incentives, if the owner still did not accept they returned later to offer $1,000 and incentives. If the house was still not sold, PNC used the reserve fund to purchase the house.As the rehabbed houses were sold, 25% of profits were returned back to the reserve fund.The SHPO was enlisted for rehab review and guidance in the creation of a local historic district. The rehabilitations honor the history integrity of the houses, respecting their original form and using appropriate materials. The local district has yet to be established, as this is often a slow bureaucratic process.
Here is a map to help you get a better understanding of Erlanger’s size.Note: Winston Road, factory buildings, and grocery.Erlanger is one mile northwest of downtown Lexington and is separated from the core of town by Interstate 85.
Interestingly, the CDBG had stipulations. The city must facilitate a meeting with the residents of the community, which it already had – in the creation of the Erlanger Subcommittee. Also, it had to make an effort to improve homeownership levels.In response, the Housing Corporation set up classes to guide qualified homebuyers through the home buying process and teach them how to handle the burden financially. Further, CDBG funds advocate that you select a target area for redevelopment to serve as a model for future areas. Park Circle, where the concentration of house rehabs were located, was chosen as a target area. In addition, the grant allocated money for an “innovative activity,” which essentially means a park. In order to get the most for their money, boy scouts were enlisted for the park’s construction.Also, two infill houses were constructed here with a hired preservation architect. They are compatible and appropriately address issues of material, form, and proportion.Lastly, the grant requires streetscape improvements, including sidewalks and lighting, increasing the neighborhood’s walkability. While this village is inherently walkable and livable, with alleyways, wide streets, grassy medians, and a grocery as its neighbor, the area has never had sidewalks throughout. The houses sell anywhere from $39,000 to $59,900.A recent story in Lexington’s paper, The Dispatch, tells the story of Margaret Berry who purchased a rehabbed house and received an FHA loan with the help of the Lexington Homeownership Center, which is part of the Housing Corporation. Berry noted that although federal tax credits for home buyers have expired, the lowest mortgage rates in years are making it possible for buyers to have affordable monthly payments. There is still much work to do as the reserve fund has not yet been replenished, largely due to bad economic times, and only 12 houses have been rehabbed, but the work has inspired others to fix up their houses and lawns, and the HRC hopes to continue work in later phases.
My second case study, Golden Belt Mills in Durham began in 1900 as an arm of American Tobacco, weaving pouches for loose tobacco for rolling cigarettes, the mill thrived into the 1950s before later closing in the 1990s.Durham is located in the northeast part of the Piedmont and is known as the “Bull City” after Bull Durham Tobacco. Thus, it is not surprising that the city has become a hub for historic mill rehabs. The downtown core is even home to the American Tobacco District, which includes the Durham Bulls Athletic Park and numerous buildings originally part of the American Tobacco Co.GB is located southeast of downtown Durham and the central business district in “east durham” along the Norfolk-Western RR line.The campus consists of roughly 40 acres of factories, company-built housing, and a small commercial area.109 houses in all, Morning Glory mill village had two building campaigns, similar to Erlanger. One in 1900 and the other in the 1910s. The houses in this village are clustered according to period and type. The village has been particularly resilient, as was noted in 1978 by author Henry Glass who stated, “[Morning Glory] has proven its resiliency as a vernacular design. It has survived the migration to the suburbs in the 1950s. It has been refined over the years but retains its essential nineteenth century form. It is this form that allowed for the basic needs of a rural population. These needs have proven to be universal. Proximity to workplace, easy access to community services and open space, avenues of social interaction – these are qualities of any well-balanced living space. The mill hill has provided this balance in its design.” Not only does this quote suggest its excellence of design but also its sustainability over the years.At the helm of this project is Scientific Properties, a vertically integrated company focused on community based urban real estate development. After the head of the firm discovered the work of Gary Kueber, particularly his historic preservation blog titled “Endangered Durham.” Kueber, a former medical doctor, was asked to join the firm based on his passion for preservation and talent for research. After taking on the Golden Belt project, Kueber rose to be CEO.To start, GB rehabbed the factory complex to house artist studios, apartments, retail, and office space. All LEED Gold certified. SP later went on to rehabilitate several mill houses.Other stakeholders include Habitat for Humanity, which has rehabilitated several mill houses, The Community Builders, who have constructed infill houses, and the Rescue Mission and Durham Housing Authority, which both own several properties.
This map provides a context of where Golden Belt Mills is in relation to Durham.
Here you can see the Golden Belt Mill buildings, the historic district outlined in orange, the properties rehabbed by Habitat in pink, those owned by the Durham Housing Authority in purple, those owned by the Rescue Mission in green, and the HOPE VI properties in blue. Note the number of HOPE Vi properties surrounding the district and pay attention to the area that says Holman Homes to the east, as I am going to talk more about this site next.We will come back to this map.
I cannot talk about Morning Glory Mill Village without also briefly touching on the surrounding context.Interestingly, Morning Glory Mill Village has a sister mill village, Edgemont, which was part of the Durham Hosiery Mill, Golden Belt’s neighbor. In between these two communities was a shared commercial area on E. Main Street.When these two white working class mill villages were built, they were positioned with an African-American enclave in east Durham, known for prostitution and accessible alcohol during prohibition. The addition of the mill villages served somewhat as a beautification project, as the streets were named after flowers, such as Laurel, Verbena, Red Rose, etc. Elm and Morning Glory however are the only ones that survive today.Historically, the vacant land east of Morning Glory was the site that began a cycle of public housing that would become characteristic of the area. This was the area I pointed out on the map.Durham’s first housing project, Few Gardens, was constructed here in 1952 as part of Urban Renewal and “slum clearance” as several Edgemont mill houses were demolished for it. Another project, McDougald Terrace soon followed. This disrupted the mill village, as many residents with ties to the mill left at this time.Today, Morning Glory is part of two separate but intertwined projects. First, the mill houses are part of the all-encompassing renovation at GB by SP. Second, the houses are part of a larger HUD HOPE VI revitalization target area. After the city was awarded a $35 mil HOPE VI grant, Few Gardens and McDougald Terrace were demolished and The Community Builders Foundation was hired to implement several HOPE VI initiatives.As part of this, the foundation constructed several single-family and rental units in the area, reminiscent of the suburban vinyl cul-de-sac designs of the 1980s and early 1990s and more recent new urbanist ideals. While the roof gables and other features are arguably compatible to the Morning Glory historic district, the differences in scale and material are apparent. These projects are technically outside the historic district, however.
In addition to the surrounding HOPE VI buildings, The Community Builders constructed senior apartments just outside the district and 4 infill houses in the district. Unlike their other projects, these houses are highly compatible and respect the form, scale, and material of the surrounding mill houses as they have wood weatherboard, vents in the gables, etc. I had to do a double take when I first saw them. They are some of the best infill houses I have ever seen.This slide shows a review of the strategies implemented in this mill village.
After the completion of the factory building rehabs, SP went on to rehab three mill houses. Their strategy was to rehab the exterior and gut the interior in preparation for rehab. While this is not necessarily a sound historic preservation strategy, many of the interiors were extremely deteriorated.In an interview with Gary, the CEO, he argued that the houses were rehabbed for sale as affordable housing. However, by only rehabbing the exterior the houses sell at 80% AMI (area median income), the highest tier of what is defined nationally as “affordable housing.” It is likely that someone with a low-income would not be knowledgeable of rehab or willing to hire someone for the task thus, these houses are arguably affordable.
Habitat for Humanity also joined the cause, rehabilitating three identical mill houses. Similar to the work done by SP, Habitat gutted the houses for reasons similar to those cited in Louisville. While the finished product is highly compatible with the district and has produced low-income housing unnoticeable to visitors, once again - gutting is not a sound historic preservation strategy.Lastly, with the incorporation of a CDBG, several walkability improvements were made within the district. Although the neighborhood is highly walkable and livable as it is close to downtown and on several bus routes, like Erlanger, sidewalks are not prevalent throughout the district. The widespread use of these grants has proven their effectiveness.
Back to this map once again. As you may have noticed, I did not speak of the role the Durham Housing Authority or the Rescue Mission has played. While both of these stakeholders hold a large amount of property, neither have been heavily involved and both have actually have been difficult to work with, as described by SP CEO Gary Kueber, who has tried to acquire their properties for rehab as much of them remain deteriorated.It is noted, however, that the houses they own provide transitional housing for single mothers and others in need and contribute positively to the needs of the area.Lastly, the city is taking steps to evaluate the work done in this area as these maps came from “The Golden Belt Revitalization Proposal” completed by the firm Urban InSite to assess the work undertaken and assess what needs still exist.
In an effort to assist mill villages still in need of rehab in the Piedmont, I adapted the knowledge gained from the case studies to a mill village in need of rehab. Oakdale Mill Village in Jamestown, NC serves as a great case study as an early mill village that is relatively unaltered and valued by the local community.
You have to get people involved from the start, particularly those already residing in the village.HPC – Jamestown is already doing this. Only local district status has teeth. Jamestown is working toward this.Outside help – PNC or SP (public or private) if this is a no go, look to city’s community develop. Office (Erlanger)CDBG funds have proved helpful in all these cases, however, the recent national budget cut removed $900 mil from CDBG money. Acquire properties when necessary. Offering money and tax incentives (Erlanger) seems smart (establish reserve fund).It is apparent that the best work comes from those who have HP experience, however, these groups are not often cheap. Work to find someone willing to work altruistically (GB motto – they didn’t have to move on to the mill village).Historic integrity – Habitat obviously not the #1 choice, this should be a secondary option. Apply for historic tax credits and use the Secretary’s Standards.A model mill house rehab can stir excitement and investment.Harmony and rhythm preservation is key. Choose infill designers wisely. Habitat should not be enlisted. Make compromises for affordability! The retention of every historic window is not necessary, laminate on the interior is okay, the preservation of mill houses as worker housing is important.Incorporate the history – exhibits! Easy, cheap, informative, and draws interest.Walkability – ultimately these communities will not be sustainable without greater walk- and liv-ability and streetscape improvements help.
To close I am going to read the last paragraph of my conclusion as it provides a good summary.READCONCLUSION SAY THANK YOUAsk for questions.
Historic Preservation and Affordable Housing: The Rehabilitation of Historic MIll Villages in the North Carolina Piedmont
Historic Preservation and affordable housing:the rehabilitation of historic mill villages in the north carolina piedmont<br />Rebecca Gall<br />Department of Historic Preservation,<br />University of Kentucky<br />
In response to the recent rejuvenation of interest in mill villages across the North Carolina Piedmont, <br />why should these structures be preserved as an important part of the cultural landscape?<br />what is the best way to rehab mill villages with respect to their historic integrity?<br />what literature is available related to the combination of historic preservation and affordable housing? <br />what ultimately are the best practices for mill village rehab projects in the Piedmont?<br />Research question<br />
Establish significance of mill villages<br />Determine their current status<br />Define elements worthy of preservation<br />Establish reasoning for rehab as affordable housing<br />Examine literature and precedent projects working to combine historic preservation and affordable housing<br />Determine relationship of ideas to sustainability<br />Evaluate two mill village case studies<br />Create step-by-step model for mill rehab based on findings<br />Apply this model to a mill village in need of rehab and advocate for its use across the Piedmont<br />OUTLINE<br />
Post-Civil War – Economic Downturn Industry<br />Rural farmland Mills and Factories of Tobacco & Cotton<br />New industrial scheme – the mill village<br />The new south<br />
Railroad development<br />On average, 6 new mills were built each year between 1880 and 1900 <br />Population growth<br />By 1900, NC Piedmont housed 90% of all mills (177 in all)<br />End of Great Depression – Southeast surpasses New England as world’s leading producer of cotton cloth<br />Cotton is king<br />
24 on National Register<br />25 on State Study List<br />12 determined eligible through environmental review<br />Total = 61 Listed or likely eligible<br />State Mill rehab Tax Credit<br />Strictly factory buildings<br />30-40% credit<br />13 completed projects<br />20 proposed or ongoing projects<br />Mill villages Across nC<br />Golden Belt Mills, Durham<br />
Benefits<br />Honors historic integrity<br />Contributes to larger need<br />Socially sustainable<br />Environmentally sustainable<br />Concerns<br />Displacement<br />Gentrification<br />Small amount of helpful literature exists<br />HP and Affordable housing<br />
Who: Preservation North Carolina (Non-Profit)<br />Setting: Rural Alamance County, NC<br />Status at DOC: Abandoned<br />Listed on the National Register 1979<br />Strategy: <br />Minimal stabilization work<br />Purchasing “Options”<br />Model Mill House by PNC<br />Protective covenants in deeds<br />rehab agreements<br />Secretary’s Standards<br />State Historic Credits<br />County Historical Landmarks Commission<br />City Historic District Commission<br />Glencoe mill village<br />Historic Mill House<br />Infill Mill House<br />
Louisville, KY - Urban “California” Neighborhood in West End<br />Status at DOC: Donated to Habitat<br />Not in historic district<br />Strategy: <br />Incorporated a Renovation, Repair, and Painting rule<br />Staff from ReStore trained in lead paint abatement<br />Gut the interior <br />Brown-Forman volunteer labor<br />Preservation Louisville “Top Ten Preservation Success” 2009<br />Habitat for humanity<br />
Winston-Salem, NC - Cherry Street National Register Historic District<br />Strategy: <br />Consult Historic Resources Commission<br />Hired architectural firm to develop Master Plan<br /> and design infill houses<br />Demolish 5 houses<br />Construct 16 new infill houses<br />SHPO approval<br />Section 106<br />Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)<br />Conservation Easement on 3 Contributing Houses<br />Habitat for humanity<br />Infill and Downtown<br />Rehabilitated<br />Demolished<br />Infill House<br />
Social<br />Historic districts are:<br />Walkable<br />Mass transit accessible<br />High quality of life<br />Equitable access to quality neighborhoods<br />Variety of incomes<br />Environmental<br />Reduces demand for new resources<br />Reduces waste<br />Preserves embodied energy<br />Prevents sprawl<br />Sustainability<br />
Lexington, NC – Erlanger Mill Village<br />Who: City of Lexington<br />Setting: Semi-Urban Suburb<br />Listed on the National Register 2008<br />Strategy:<br />Established HRC & Erlanger Subcommittee 2006<br />Working toward local district status<br />Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) (2)<br />Preservation North Carolina <br />Protective covenants<br />rehab agreements<br />Lexington Housing and Community Development Corp. (LHCDC)<br />$150,000 reserve fund<br />SHPO review<br />Mill village case study 1<br />
Mill Village Case study 2<br />Durham, NC – Morning Glory Village, Golden Belt Mills<br />Partners:<br />Scientific Properties<br />Habitat for Humanity<br />The Community Builders<br />Rescue Mission<br />The Durham Housing Authority<br />Setting: Urban, <br /> Downtown Core<br />Listed on the <br /> National Register 1985<br />
rehab prospectus<br />Jamestown, NC – Oakdale Mill Village<br />Setting: Rural Jamestown/Guilford County<br />Listed on the National Register 1976<br />
Hold community meetings<br />Establish Historic Preservation Commission and list mill village as local district<br />Work to enlist outside help – public or private altruism<br />Apply for grants<br />Acquire properties when necessary<br />Hire experienced professionals<br />Work to retain historic integrity – compromising when necessary for affordability<br />Rehab model house<br />Design & build infill houses<br />Sell houses at affordable prices<br />Create interpretive exhibit so history is not lost<br />Implement walkability initiatives<br />rehab prospectus<br />