The Observation Deck

As much as I love the idea of preserving our past - there is a point at which something has to give.

Given the age of many structures in Lakewood, and changes in the surroundings/lifestyles/etc since they have been built, it is only logical and responsible that the city (meaning private and public owners) look at the properties that are standing and realistically evaluate them in terms of whether or not there is any added value to saving them.

Every house was someone's grandmother's home... children were born there, people died there, history was made in many - but it is not reasonable to think that we can save them all.

As unpopular as it may be to say so, I will say that I would not want my tax dollars spend on saving a structure that is only marginally historic. I want more teachers, I want clean - well-maintained streets, I want police on foot patrol and a place to park. If some public entity wants to pay to move the house - have at it... but please put my tax dollars to productive use.

It is really time for us to realize we cannot have it both ways. More parking, renovation of retail, or even widening of streets, will require the demolition of some property. Period. If the city decides that they do not want that then we need to redirect our discussions on how we can improve the state of retail without improving parking... and i am not convinced that we could do that without a significant increase in both property and income taxes.

JMO,
Peace,
~Charyn

As unpopular as it may be to say so, I will say that I would not want my tax dollars spend on saving a structure that is only marginally historic. I want more teachers, I want clean - well-maintained streets, I want police on foot patrol and a place to park. If some public entity wants to pay to move the house - have at it... but please put my tax dollars to productive use.

I don't think anyone is talking about the use of tax dollars to save anything. If the house were to be saved, it would be by way of it being donated and the Historical Society coming up with the bucks to move it, through donations, fundraising, etc. At most, there may be City involvement by way of providing a space at Lakewood Park, or elsewhere. Structures such as the Old Stone House and Nicholson house are maintained outside of city finances.

Jeff

Jeff/Charyn


There has never been any talk of using public money to save the house. The fact is there is very little talk of using public money for anything outside of running the city. City Hall is very aware of what they have to work with which is very little and have set to the task of getting the most for what we have.

The sad fact is that the Historical Society doesn't have the money either. They are trying to finish the Nicholson House, and are looking for I think $10,000 to do that. In my dream worl they would have had enough to buy the Lombardo House, but even buying parts of it was out of the question. Like the city, the Historical Society knows what they have to work with, and stays well within it's means.




.

Jim/Jeff,

Thank you for clearing that up - I was incorrectly under the impression that this was something that was going to be addressed through the city.

Kind regards,
~Charyn

If someone foots the bill and zoning allows it you can move th house to my backyard. My parents can live it.

John

Let's fix it up, Bela West!





.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:John

Let's fix it up, Bela West!





.

Looked into it a while back. It's not zoned for that so it would cost a bundle to convert it to assembly use.

john crino wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:John

Let's fix it up, Bela West!





.

Looked into it a while back. It's not zoned for that so it would cost a bundle to convert it to assembly use.

What about Ribs in the front yard with cans of pop?



.

Would anyone from the Historical Society like to comment on this subject?

Saving a structure TIED TO ONE OF LAKEWOOD'S ORIGINAL FAMILIES is HARDLY "trying to save every old home that someone's grandmother was born in" (I'm paraphrasing) as one person commented.

We already LOST the 1800s home on Arthur Avenue across from Taco Bell behind Discount Drugmart (I don't know the name of the home, but I'm wise enough to realize that it had some historic significance and should not have been demolished).

During the 1950s and '60s Lakewood, not unlike many cities of the time, systematically demolished a vast number of historically significant homes -- not just "old homes with emotional ties," but buildings that belonged to our key founding families -- notable Lakewoodites -- Jared Kirtland, to cite one example.

YES we have to progress with the times -- no one can debate this. But once again, it doesn't mean that we need to eliminate the structures that have historical ties to our earliest days. And there are so FEW of those in existence today! And to DEMOLISH this historic marker for a small parking lot? As if THIS 'solution' would even begin to solve Lakewood's parking problem?????

I hope that a representative from the Lakewood Historical Society could comment on this situation -- I understand that money is very tight right now -- but if this home was once designated as an historic landmark, why is it not exempt from demolition? And is there anything that we Lakewoodites could do to help you (the Historical Society) prevent its destruction? I for one, would like to say that there are still Lakewoodites who truly care if we preserve historical landmarks of our city for future generations. What can we do to help, so this home doesn't suffer the senseless fate of so many other important structures?

It's time to stop merely preserving the memory of everything that has ALREADY been destroyed. Let's start SAVING EXISTING LANDMARKS that are in DANGER of being destroyed.

Ill take the unpopular position here and ask the question - how many 'historic' homes can we/should we save? My comment, although light-hearted, had the distinct purpose of pointing out that virtually ALL of the older structures in Lakewood will have some historical significance to someone.

Personally the fact that the house was here near the beginning of the city is not all that important to me considering that we already have the Oldest Stone house and the Nicholson House. Other structures that were, perhaps, home to notable figures or where important city decisions were made would be more meaningful to me. Should we save both? all? Who is to decide which is the most important? Who are you (or anyone) to say that my grand parents two-bedroom flat in birdtown is less important? After all, those structures are part of an important segment of Lakewood's history.

I am not saying that it isn't worth investigating; however, there is such a negative energy about this issue that it seems to me that there is a blind eye to the progress that is being made. Drawing a line between preserving the past and building the future is a difficult one at best - and more frequently something that can be quite divisive.

In all honesty - I do hope those who wish to preserve the house can find the private financing necessary to make it happen. Just because it isn't important to me doesn't mean that I cannot appreciate that it is important to some.

Kind Regards,
~Charyn

The son of Lakewood pioneers Joseph and Sarah Curtis Hall, Mathew C. Hall built his first home at 16906 Detroit in the 1860s. The simple frame house has three original rooms downstairs, a modified kitchen and one low bedroom upstairs. The floors are wide planks and the upright beams in the basement are trunks of young cedar trees with the bark still attached.

The current proposal is to demolish the Mathew Hall house along with two houses on Edwards to create an L-shaped parking lot with at most 44 spaces.

The Lakewood Historical Society has been working with the City of Lakewood, City Council members, Hall family descendants, interested neighbors and the current property owner to determine a solution to the problem that is reasonable for all involved. It appears that the best solution will be to move the house to another location, thereby allowing for parking and still preserving the house.

The Lakewood Historical Society simply does not have the financing to purchase the house or to operate it as a museum. Our hope is that Hall family descendants will take ownership of the house and use it as a residential property. We would also like the house to remain on the original Mathew Hall property, which extended from Detroit to the lake, between Hall and Granger.

You can help by contacting your council person or Mayor George and expressing your concern for the Mathew Hall house.

For more information on this house and the Hall family’s significant impact on the history of Lakewood, please go to our website at www.lakewoodhistory.org and click on the Artifacts link. You will find a recent Society newsletter article regarding the Halls, as well as other information about the Historical Society and Lakewood history.

One of Lakewood’s greatest assets is its history. The architectural gems and cultural history of the community set it apart from newer suburbs. Preservation is a vital aspect of the continuing economic development of our city. The Lakewood Historical Society and the Lakewood Public Library have co-sponsored a lecture series that explores the important balance between preservation and economic development. This series, titled Your Lakewood Home, includes:
March 20: House History workshop
March 22: National Register for Historic Places
March 27: Lakewood’s Mainstreet Program
April 3: History of Detroit Avenue slide show
April 10: Maintaining Your Old House
April 24: Local Preservation Legislation
May 17: Painting your Lakewood home

We should celebrate the history that makes our city special! For more information on our upcoming programs or other Historical Society activities, please call me at 221-7343 or email at lakewoodhistory@bge.net. Your support of and membership in the society will help us to continue to work to preserve Lakewood’s history.

Ms. Adams.

Thank you very much for the info. I have a few questions.

Was this property part of the Y project from the start? As I understand it, the expansion has been in the pipeline for at least 4 years. If the Hall House was part of the original plan, and nothing has been done to now, is it fair to demand a halt or moratorium now that the building is going up? On the other hand, if this is a recent development, the Y is changing the rules, and I'd definitely support a move to block the demolition pending another solution.
How important are those 44 spaces? Can the Y be successful without the?
And can 44 spaces be found elsewhere, perhaps by buying homes to the rear of the Y lot?
Any light you can provide would be much appreciated!

This parking lot is not and was never related to the Y project. The current Y development includes a generous parking lot. This development on the north side of Detroit is an activity of the private owner of the property.

Some of the confusion concerning the relationship with the Y could be traced to the history of the Y site. That property on the south side of Detroit was originally the John C. Hall house. The city purchased the property in the 1940s to create a park. The second Mathew Hall house (a much bigger brick building) on the north side of Detroit was purchased by the Y and used as it's facility into the 1940s. The city and the Y then essentially swapped properties. So the John C. Hall/city park parcel on the south side became the current Y location and the 2nd Mathew Hall/former Y brick house on the north side of Detroit became Edwards Park.

Joan

It is my understanding that the 44 parking spaces would be for McCarthy's Pub, The Drink Cafe and maybe Pannini's.


.

Unimproved land, or land without buildings, is taxed very meagerly. It's the improvements, or buildings on property that are the main generator of value and thus tax value to the city.

If the old house and the other two homes on the lots, which I believe are doubles, are removed, the tax value of those parcels plummets. The city will collect very little property tax on a parking lot.

I wonder how this affects the whole equation. Does the city have a say in an owner removing buildings from the parcels? Has the city considered this and how much will they lose? Should there be some concern over this?