Die-Hard Preservationists?

This week I’ve been trying to allay concerns in the community that have circulated during the past year. In my previous post I talked about how nonofficial venues are not threats but complements to the formal work of the civic association and its committees. Here I want to address the misconception that advocates for stricter enforcement of the Guidelines are die-hard preservationists who want to freeze the neighborhood as it was fifty years ago. Here’s my take on this.

After we’d lived here a short while, I figured I understood Hollin Hills — as a certain kind of modernism, a particular slice of time, that moment shortly after the steel and concrete of the Bauhaus melted into the organic forms of Neutra, Schindler, and, yes, Goodman. Then on the Fourth of July two summers ago, Mary Normile invited Kelly Valceanu and me to come visit her house around the corner from the picnic. We hiked over and walked up to the second floor of her split level and I was astonished. Here was this Carribean paradise, complete with a side room full of exotic birds chirping, open cabinets revealing rustic dishes, windows that looked out on to lushness. Mary’s house had the soul of Jamaica and it was firmly planted in Hollin Hills. That’s when I realized these houses could do so many different and unexpected things. …. The Damitz’s perfect square house that now evokes Frank Lloyd Wright… The Cox’s house with a potter’s spirit, with every space a tableau of special objects. … The Cohen’s house with its icons of high modern design… The Carr’s house full of colorful contemporary art… The Polo’s house with a wall of glass in the back looking out on to an incredible vista.

But what ties these houses together are the elements, a certain proportion in the windows, a particular kind of siding, rescued brick, a rhythm of elements and proportions that repeat from one house to the other. And of course there’s the landscaping that makes Hollin Hills so utterly different from most any neighborhood anywhere else. I’ve meditated on these elements on many long morning walks.

What makes Hollin Hills Hollin Hills? Not fixed notions of 1950s modernism, but the elements of the design itself, elements that are extremely well put in the Design Review Guidelines and the little landscaping book published by the Civic Association in 1989, A House in the Woods: A Landscape Aesthetic for Hollin Hills written by Dennis Carmichael. While only the former are enforceable, both can be recommended as aesthetic, community ideals. My hope is that those are the design ideals that guide this neighborhood into the future.


Wallpaper Does Hollin Hills

The March 2007 issue of the shelter magazine, Wallpaper, has a spread on Hollin Hills by Jennifer Kabat, who grew up on Saville Court and is now an architecture and design journalist. The story itself isn’t available online, but a nice tease with some photos are. Check it out here.

Modern on the Cheap

Washington Post article on the search for affordable Modern housing. See:

How Did We Get Here?

by Noëlle McAfee

My post of two days ago surfaced strong feelings. So let me back up to say how we got here and clarify the goals that some of us supposed-troublemakers are hoping for.


Late last spring, my husband and I invited some people we know in the neighborhood over to discuss general matters of preservation, architecture, and design in the neighborhood. Just before we met, the Hollin Hills Bulletin reported that a house on Drury Lane was applying for “near complete demolition of an existing structure” and that the Design Review Committee (DRC) thought that this demolition was “outside the scope of its review” but was trying to persuade the applicants to consider alternatives. At our meeting, we discussed the possibility that the teardown might result in the kind of controversial project that had prompted the civic association to appoint a Special Design Review Committee (SDRC) to review the DRC guidelines. Some of us at that gathering felt strongly that teardowns should be a last resort; others were more concerned with making sure the design review guidelines were followed closely so that whatever was built up was really in harmony and conformity, that site lines were preserved, et cetera. All of us in the room supported the SDRC process; one person there was on the committee. Others had served on the civic association’s board or the DRC in the past.

During that meeting, someone said he had just learned that the DRC had given approval for the homeowners on Drury Lane to tear down their house. That turned out to be incorrect. As we learned the next day, the DRC does not approve or disapprove teardowns. It only gives approval for new construction. In this case, it had still only given conceptual approval. Final approval could not come until actual construction plans were presented. The Special Design Review process had just gotten underway and it was still an open question as to whether the covenants allowed teardowns. It seemed as if two arms of the civic association might be working at cross purposes if the DRC was staying mum on teardowns—and hence letting them proceed—while the SDRC was still figuring out whether teardowns could be banned.

Because of our concern, we decided to initiate a petition to call a special meeting of the civic association. The by-laws read that we needed just 25 signatures to call for such a meeting. Overnight we got about 75 from 39 households, so we stopped gathering signatures and sent the petition to the Board. (If we had kept going, at that rate, I think we could have easily gotten over 100 households to sign on.) The petition aimed at slowing things down until the SDRC had finished its work and the civic association had had a chance to revise the guidelines. The Board chose to delay the special meeting for which we had petitioned. (I hope a review of the by-laws will consider whether the Board can unilaterally postpone a meeting petitioned by the membership.) Anyway, for reasons that have been amply explained in the Bulletin, the special meeting was postponed for several months. By the time the meeting was actually held, things had changed: on the one hand we had the lawyer’s opinion suggesting it might not be possible to ban teardowns and on the other hand the Drury Lane project had not proceeded any further, yet.

But in the meantime much had happened. Some of us, some of whom were members of what we dubbed “the House in the Woods Club,” started attending DRC meetings so that we could follow what was happening with that potential teardown and to see how the DRC worked. Because the time, place, and agenda of the meetings was often not up-to-date on the website, we would write to the DRC chair to ask for details and the agenda. When we received it, we’d post it on this blog. After the meeting, since the minutes usually wouldn’t be publicized until the next Bulletin appeared several weeks later, we’d post our observations on the blog as well. None of this was greeted with open arms. Many were probably thinking, “Who are these people and why are they second-guessing us?” Clearly things had been running as they were for quite some time, so that our polite but insistent questioning was taken for something other that what it really was: simply access to information that should be public, anyway.

At the first DRC meeting we attended, there was a huge amount of tension. During one session with applicants, the observers were told that the applicants wanted privacy and hence that the observers would have to leave. And so they waited out in the hall during that session. Also, in between meetings, some of us asked to see the plans for the Drury Lane project, but we were denied because of “privacy issues” and because the process had long been such that only the DRC and contiguous neighbors were to be shown the plans. During another session we were told we couldn’t attend the DRC’s executive session, which is the time during which the DRC looks over proposed plans.

In the Bulletin, one letter from a neighbor said that we could go directly to the homeowners to see the Drury Lane plans. It’s true that the applicants on Drury Lane said once, during one of our House in the Woods Club meetings, that if we wanted to see the plans, we could have just asked. But when we subsequently asked to see the plans, they said no.

So, it seemed that something was amiss: the only people who could see the plans were immediate neighbors and the DRC itself. It seemed quite possible that immediate neighbors, because they are neighbors, might hesitate to raise objections. The DRC itself was following the guidelines in a way that had just allowed that very controversial house. And all the other members of the community, who certainly had a stake in the outcome of DRC decisions, were often prevented from seeing proposals. The Drury Lane case, in particular, is not the issue. Maybe it’s a perfectly great design for a Hollin Hills home; maybe it’s in harmony and conformity with the community. But who knows? Only the DRC and the neighbors.

Now, I say none of the above to disrespect the neighbors or the DRC or the owners of the controversial house that set off much of this discussion. The latter I am quite fond of, and they are the parents of one of my son’s best friends. They also followed the protocol as it was spelled out all the way down the line. As for neighbors, I trust that they will often call things the way they see them—most of the time, though likely not all of the time. And all the people that I personally know on the DRC I like and respect very much. And the others whom I don’t know as well I like, too. I even like the fellow who threw the observers, including my husband and some of my friends, out of the DRC meeting. This person and I have disagreed on things and still will talk things through via email and the blog. Also, as my friends and I have attended more DRC meetings, the DRC has become more open and accommodating. They even ask for our input. So I have no gripe with the people involved. In fact, I am very grateful that there are people with such integrity and commitment who are willing to serve the community.

Our concern is with the process. As it is currently formulated, the DRC process allows for approval of projects that violate the guidelines; it allows the committee to bar civic association members from observing deliberations, plans, and votes (that is, to the extent that votes are taken during closed proceedings); it allows the DRC to post minimal minutes of its meetings, well after the fact; it provides no process for appeal by the community nor any avenue or opportunity for community-wide input. (By this last point, to anticipate Barbara Ward’s concerns, I do not mean that the whole community should vote, only that all should have a chance to weigh in, just as any city council allows for public input while the council itself decides things.) The existing process allows all this. In the heat of a decision, it is the rare DRC member, a neighbor after all, who would begrudge another neighbor a Home Depot pre-fab shed that no one else would see – even if this means violating a clearly stated guideline. The process allows it, so why not. And what DRC member would begrudge a neighbor’s “right to privacy” of plans that many others in the community might start picking apart? When torn between the face of a beseeching neighbor and an abstract set of design review guidelines with vague parameters, it’s a hard road to always stick by the abstract and negate the beseeching neighbor.

It is because we are neighbors and want to wish each other the best that we need a stronger process that ensures harmony and conformity.


Having come across these problems with the DRC process, we decided to offer the SDRC some ideas for its survey of the community. The SDRC was, after all, inviting community input. The SDRC chair, Chris McNamara, attended one of the House in the Woods meetings over the summer to discuss issues, and the SDRC invited members of our group, including my husband, to one of its meetings to offer suggestions.

Our hope was that these suggestions would make their way in to the questionnaire. We also hoped that questions would be framed in a way that would capture the extent to which the community might value preservation, a word that easily conjures up images of time capsules, museums, buildings frozen in time. It’s easy to caricature a movement to value existing buildings, to paint advocates for preservation as dyed-in-the-wool obstructionists and purists – when in fact most preservation movements are keen to make sure that people are happy and comfortable in their homes, that additions can be made in a way that preserves the original aesthetic without preventing contemporary living. It’s so easy to misrepresent preservation that we wanted to have a look at how the questions are framed by even the most well-intentioned and hard-working volunteers, many of whom also value preservation.

But, as my last post noted, the Board and the SDRC decided not to make the questionnaire available in advance. I still think this is a mistake. Various reasons were offered in defense of this decision.
• One advocate of this decision argues that community input into the questionnaire could lead to “respondent bias.” But that term applies to entirely different phenomena, such as when people respond to questions in a way to make themselves look good to the survey researcher (“yes, I always vote”), or due to other personal proclivities.
• Another argument was that time was wasting and posting the questionnaire would set back the process. But we started asking for the questionnaire nearly two weeks ago, and there was no reason that a very short time limit couldn’t be made for accepting suggestions. So this rationale doesn’t hold much water.
• As for the other rationale, “trust us, we’re hard workers, and you can complain later if you don’t like, it,” well, gosh. How does one begin to respond to this? The issue is not about the integrity of the volunteers but about making the process fully open to community input in the midst of things, not after the fact. Linda Hesh made this point in a comment to the previous post.

Anyway, we won’t be seeing the questionnaire in advance. So let me pose here some things for us all to consider, points we hope are covered in the questionnaire. Let’s consider the following:

Whether, in the interest of openness and transparency, all Design Review Committee sessions with applicants should be open to all residents of Hollin Hills;

Whether all Design Review Committee decisions should be made at sessions that are open to all residents of Hollin Hills;

Whether all plans pending before the Design Review Committee should be made available to residents of Hollin Hills;

Whether the Design Review Committee should post its agenda on the Civic Association website at least 48 hours before any session;

Whether the Design Review Committee should notify the residents of Hollin Hills of any non-regularly scheduled meeting no less than 48 hours in advance;

Whether the Design Review Committee should post minutes of its sessions within 72 hours;

Whether, when issues of privacy are raised by applicants, the Design Review Committee should give equal weight to the principles of openness and transparency.

It’s not up to the Board, or the SDRC, or the House in the Woods Club to decide these things. It’s up to everyone in the community. So, please think these and other ideas though; debate them over dinner with your family and at parties with friends. If there’s no question on the questionnaire about any of these matters, write something in, whatever your views. And let’s ask the SDRC to look at all the qualitative suggestions made and not just run the numbers. Let’s  make sure that the DRC process as well as the guidelines are the best they can be.

Paying Attention: Notes from Observing the September DRC Meeting

by Noëlle McAfee

I showed up at 7:30 to observe the September 6 Design Review Committee, but board liaison Pam Koger-Jesup informed me that the meeting does not begin until 8:00 and I was not welcome to attend until then. “But you all are here,” I said, noting that they were in fact meeting at 7:30 and that the Hollin Hills website shows the meeting beginning at 7:30. Koger-Jesup indicated she had changed the time on the web site this morning.

I knew that the DRC did not start seeing applicants until 8:00 and I was also aware that the DRC met starting at 7:30 to look over the plans and talk frankly about the applications. It is during this session, I knew from attending it in August, that much of the initial work of the committee takes place.

Standing outside the doors of the Hollin Meadows School building as we waited to be let in, Koger-Jesup and DRC chair Judah Ginsberg said that the committee needed some time to meet in closed session before meeting with applicants. I said that I appreciated this; that they would want some time to prepare before meeting with the applicants, but why couldn’t a civic association member observe this portion of the meeting? And was it a civic association approved policy to hold part of the meeting in private? No, it wasn’t, Koger-Jesup said. It only became their unofficial policy when people started “paying attention.”

So, I waited in the lobby as the DRC met privately and then, along with a few others, joined them at 8:00. Here are my unofficial notes of the meeting. If you only have a minute to read this, take note of the Nordok house case.

7221 Beechwood: Gibber/Harrington – Renovation
Approval with condition that the siding match. Neighbor notification done.

2312 Kimbro – Ogilvie/Altman -Windows
Major interior renovation, not really visible from the street. Reorienting the entire inside upstairs. DRC asked for side elevation and cut sheet on the casements. Conceptual approval pending.

7312 Rippon: Oliver – Masonry Repairs
All of the brick had been painted and is now in bad shape. Owner wants to put on a brick veneer. DRC asking for sample and explanation of what will happen where it returns back (this is a technical term I don’t quite understand). Not approved until more information received and assessed.

2320 Nordok: Rutledge – Shed
Prefab shed, nonconforming, ordered from Home Depot. Shed to rest on ground without pouring concrete. All DRC members seemed to agree that the shed was not in harmony or conformity with the house or community and they spent at least 20 minutes trying to persuade the applicants to do something else. Homeowners replied that they did not want to spend the money for a custom shed and that the shed would not be visible to any other neighbors and that they would remove some of the more offensive features. Applicants reported that neighbors were notified and raised no objections. Despite the DRC Guideline, from which one DRC member quoted, that says that “all non-attached structures should be in harmony with house and site,” DRC approved the structure in a 3 -2 vote. Two of those who voted to approve did so while voicing deep reluctance. The other DRC member who approved it suggested that the shed was not a permanent structure. (If the latter were the case, then the DRC may not have needed to vote on this at all – certainly a better outcome than starting a bad precedent.)
This observer would like to know whether all contiguous neighbors, including those behind the house on Nemeth Street, were notified and approved the Home Depot prefab shed.

Misc Issues & Items

There is now a sample notification letter to be sent to all contiguous neighbors and neighbors with sitelines of house.

Next meeting Wednesday Oct. 4, 8:00 p.m. Hollin Meadows ES library. (Though no doubt the DRC will actually begin meeting at 7:30. Other civic Association members not welcome until 8:00.)

In conclusion, I should say that I am not happy that I was turned away from the first part of the meeting. Certainly the reader can tell that I am a bit sore about this. I think it is really unfortunate that this happened. Apart from this, though, the DRC members themselves have been, especially during their last two meetings, very accommodating, cordial, and open to observers.

A Quote from 1956

“It is perfectly OK to wear Bermuda shorts anywhere in Hollin Hills, whatever the occasion. More formal affairs require knee socks. It is also OK to have no furniture or decent lighting, but it is not OK to have a knicknack shelf.” — from the Hollin Hills Bulletin, as quoted in Hollin Hills: A History into the 4th Decade, p. 52.