HFFI comments to Planning Commission on Railroad Station Overlay (RSO)

/0 Comments/in /by

The area immediately south of the railroad is featured in some of the most famous photographs of Fredericksburg during the Civil War. What do you think new construction in this area look like?

6 December 2024

Dear Planning Commissioners and City staff:

Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. (HFFI) respectfully asks that the Planning Commission defer action on removing the Railroad Station Overlay District (RSO).

The recent staff presentation did not provide much context for the establishment of the RSO, the factual basis on which it was created, nor why its “failure” seems solely predicated on recent adaptive re-use projects of existing historic buildings. The primary point made was that parcels were removed from the district for past projects and should therefore, be removed from the entire covered area. Staff’s presentation did not discuss that these projects involved the rehabilitation of historic properties—the driving factor in the removal of these parcels from the RSO. The historic preservation component of these projects was used to justify their exemption.

The city’s preservation goals have long supported the adaptive re-use of existing historic buildings. State and federal governments along with the universal building code also enable special exemptions and greater flexibility in support of the adaptive re-use and preservation of the built environment. Thus, it is unsurprising that these particular projects were “grandfathered” out of current zoning.

Before changing zoning, a substantive and thorough explanation of why such an alteration is needed, why the existing zoning is having undesirable effects or failing to meet city goals, and how the proposed changes is expected to meet stated new goals should be clearly presented to the public.

During works sessions and meetings, a majority of City Council members have indicated that density and height restrictions throughout the city needed to be increased. It was made clear that this included the Old and Historic Fredericksburg Overlay District (OHFD). The area around the train station has been specifically mentioned by council members for more intensive residential development. Discussions have also occurred among some on council who are not prepared to support the city’s goal of establishing Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD) to preserve the distinct features of our city unique as it runs contrary to their height and density goals.

These discussions represent significant changes in the city’s goals to maintain Fredericksburg’s unique and historic character. And these discussions have occurred without any community engagement at work sessions and retreats.

Before considering any further changes affecting the OHFD, City Council needs to clearly articulate their height and density goals across the community and engage directly with the public to better understand the level of community support for those changes. This is especially pertinent around the train station after the recent derailment. Residents in the immediate vicinity of the rail line have voiced concerns with the City’s position that the OHFD will, “ensure an appropriate transition is maintained in the Train Station District.”

Staff presentation at your November 13th meeting referenced the proposed 400 Princess Anne Street project as a successful example of the OHFD’s protections, yet failed to mention City Council’s vote to deny a special permit to this project because it did not meet OHFD goals and design guidelines. Has any internal review of this project or process been conducted following the council’s vote? Might such a review be completed before further zoning changes are made to clarify potential impacts and expectations for future development in the immediate area and OHFD?

HFFI strongly recommends that the Planning Commission delay any action on the RSO until the “failure” of the RSO is clearly articulated. While the guiding principles of the RSO seem at odds with current thinking of City Council, the concerns of impacted area residents, members of the public, members of the Architectural Review Board, and council’s voting record provide sufficient cause for further review of this matter to ensure community support going forward for increased density and building height in the city and especially in the OHFD.

We sincerely thank you for your consideration of this issue, and for all you do to ensure the stewardship of Fredericksburg’s cultural historic landscape for residents and property owners–past, present, and future.

Sincerely,

David James, President
Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc.

Infill & Teardown Statistics in FXBG

/0 Comments/in /by

City of Fredericksburg Planning staff made a  presentation at the August 28, 2024 meeting of the Planning Commission on the amount of infill development and teardowns in town over the past few years (a copy of staff’s memo and presentation is available at the end of this post). HFFI was pleased to see that City staff conducted such an analysis and hopes they will continue to keep the public informed on this matter – as it provides insight into potential gentrification and loss of historic housing in some of the City’s older established neighborhoods.  HFFI’s public comments read at the meeting are provided below.

The Historic Fredericksburg Foundation has reviewed the upcoming agenda for the August 28, 2024, meeting of the Planning Commission and submits the following comments on select items: 

Discussion of Potential Policies, Ordinances or Applications: Item 5.A. Analysis of Tear Down and Infill Housing

HFFI is pleased to see staff’s assessment of recent teardowns and infill development and are thrilled to see the long-standing historic trend of infilling vacant lots continue in our community. We also understand that the demolition and replacement of some older buildings is necessary for the continued growth and development of the city. The buildings constructed today and those erected decades ago will not last forever. Regardless, what we choose to preserve and what we discard is a direct reflection of our culture and community values.

The adaptive re-use and rehabilitation of existing buildings is important for many reasons, some of which are not commonly known.

  • Environmental Benefits: Reusing buildings and making them more energy efficient plays an essential role in meeting our community’s goals for sustainability, resilience, and climate action. Modernizing existing buildings greatly reduces greenhouse gases by keeping many tons of material out of landfills and reducing the need for new construction, which typically generates far more carbon emissions than conservation and reuse.
  • Economic Benefits: Repairing, reusing, and renovating historic places keeps money in the local economy by spending more on labor than materials compared to new construction, and employing local laborers. Furthermore, the rehabilitation of older buildings gives property owners a marketing edge—with buyers paying a premium for the resource’s unique features and stories.
  • Health & Well-Being Benefits: Older places also support our emotional and psychological health in multiple ways. We form strong emotional bonds with the places that helped shape us or that provide the backdrop for our daily lives, and we take comfort in their familiarity. Older and historic places remind us that we’re part of something bigger than ourselves, connecting us with our past and with each other, while fostering a sense of belonging and pride of place in our community.
  • Blight Reduction Benefits: Reviving vacant and underused buildings, maintaining older multifamily housing, and adding compatible new construction in older neighborhoods can add density and vitality to a community while keeping what makes it unique.
  • Affordability Benefits: Most of the country’s existing affordable rental housing is unsubsidized, privately owned, and at risk. New construction can’t keep up with demand, and the vast majority of new construction isn’t affordable to low- and middle-income residents. Rehabilitating our existing housing stock keeps these buildings safe and maintains greater affordability at a fraction of the cost of new construction.

Infilling vacant lots is the most organic way a city grows new built resources. The other way involves the demolition and replacement of older structures or buildings of lesser market value. While HFFI is pleased staff’s study highlights just four of the 14 new houses in 2024 resulted in the demolition of older buildings, it is both common sense and proven fact that vacant lots are low hanging fruit. As time goes on, Fredericksburg neighborhoods will increasingly lose their older, smaller, and more affordable housing.

The fact that new buildings raise the property value of the existing parcel is made clear in staff’s analysis. This infill will also impact the value of neighboring properties—good news to many homeowners whose residence is likely their largest financial asset. Sprinkled across the city in various neighborhoods, incremental increases in property value enhance the wealth of our community slowly over time. However, such changes also increase property taxes—impacting some people and neighborhoods at higher rates than others. Given Fredericksburg’s ongoing challenges of affordability, rising cost of living, and the forecasted growth in renter-occupied houses, investor-driven rapid growth in our older established neighborhoods can only exacerbate these issues.

Preservation isn’t the sole solution to pressing local issues, but we can’t solve them without it. We can’t build our way out of the housing crisis or bulldoze our way out of climate change. We need to use every tool we have, including our existing places and infrastructure.

Hired consultants and planning experts like Streetsense and Heritage Arts have repeatedly advocated for increasing local preservation incentives—a priority task for City Council since 2021—to encourage the conservation and rehabilitation of our existing housing stock. We can support preservation and new development simultaneously—it is not either or, it’s both.

HFFI hopes that the Planning Commission and City staff will continue to assess the quality of infill and impacts of teardowns in the City, sharing these statistics regularly with the public to monitor character loss and any rise in gentrification. We further urge Planning Commissioners to support the expansion of preservation incentives to retain and rehabilitate our unique, authentic, historic, and most affordable housing assets.

2024.8.28_PC_staff memo_infill-teardownanalysisDownload
2024.8.28_PC_infill-teardown analysisDownload

Cecil L. Reid: Engineer of Hydro-Electric Plants, Pragmatic Houses, & City Council

/in /by

by Professor Michael Spencer, Department of Historic Preservation, University of Mary Washington

Fredericksburg, like many communities in the early to mid-20th century, saw a significant number of concrete houses constructed. Cecil Latta Reid, although not the most prolific builder in the community, was responsible for the design and construction of at least 11 of these, mostly in the College Terrace neighborhood. His pragmatic design approach seemed to appeal to the 1930s mindset, so much so that his 1938 Reid Court development was noted in The Book of Houses, a 1946 publication by John Dean, Regional Economist of the Federal Housing Authority, and Simon Breines, an architect with the New York firm Pomerance & Breine.[i]

However, Reid designed houses only late in his career. His primary work centered on design and construction of hydroelectric plants throughout the South.[ii] The engineering of such early electric works was a job well-suited for Reid, who was noted as “hard driving and relentless” as well as “exact and precise.” A later description saw him as always carrying a slide rule and collapsible steel tape “which he uses at the slightest provocation.”[iii] No doubt Reid’s strong work ethic was, in part, a necessity. Born in 1882 in Rock Hill, South Carolina, Reid lost both his parents, Samuel and Frances, by the time he was 18 years old.[iv] Despite this hardship, he enrolled at Clemson University in 1899 and worked his way through the mechanical engineering program by tutoring, drafting, and working in the dining hall. Even with these jobs, Reid still graduated in 3 years at the age of 20.[v] Clemson would continue to feature prominently in Reid’s life after graduation. He dedicated significant time and resources to the university, including establishing the Baskin Loan Fund in honor of his mother.[vi] Clemson awarded him two honorary degrees, one in 1928 and another in 1953.[vii]

Upon graduation, Reid began working for the Seaboard Air Line Railway where he became acquainted with William C. Whitner of Richmond, Virginia. Whitner by this time was known as a pioneering “waterpower development engineer of the South.” That apparently appealed to Reid, because he began working with Whitner shortly thereafter. The work eventually brought him to Fredericksburg in 1906 where Frank Jay Gould employed him to survey the Rappahannock River and its potential use for hydro-electric power generation. On the basis of Reid’s survey, Gould purchased the old Fredericksburg Power Company and proceeded to finance the construction of a new dam and power plant. Both new structures were designed by Reid, who served as the Resident Engineer under the guidance of his mentor, Whitner.[viii] Work on the dam, later called the Embrey Dam, was completed in August 1909.[ix] In April of the same year, plans for the power plant had been completed and construction began the following year, culminating in 1911 (Figure 1).[x] Although the use of reinforced concrete was a significant departure from traditional Fredericksburg building materials, similar design and construction techniques had been used a few years earlier in the construction of the James River Power Plant located on Belle Isle in Richmond, Virginia.[xi] Reid would go on to design and oversee construction of a number of such power plants, including Virginia Western Power Company’s plant at Balcony Falls in Rockbridge County, Virginia, in 1916.[xii]

Figure 1: Embrey Power Station, designed by Cecil Reid in 1909 and completed in 1911.

When the United States entered World War I in April 1917, Reid enlisted and was appointed Chief Construction Engineer at Camp Bragg (now Fort Liberty) in North Carolina.[xiii] After the war, he continued to design and build hydroelectric plants, although he also dedicated significant time to community service, stating that “every citizen should put public duty above self for it is through this that we can better our community and make the world a bit better for our having existed on it.”[xiv] Reid’s community service included chairing committees to erect two new school buildings in Fredericksburg, creating the Department of Manual Training at Fredericksburg High School (now James Monroe High School), serving as President of the Fredericksburg Building and Loan Association, and eventually serving 9 years on City Council (1933–1942). Despite these accolades, Reid was not driven by the need for power or recognition, expressing in his run for City Council that he was willing to “serve if the citizens wanted him but…if it was a matter of personal preference he would decline the offer.” At the time, Reid was elected to Council with the highest number of votes ever obtained in a contested election—despite never asking for a vote—a testament to his ability and character.[xv]

During his service on City Council, Reid began to design and build a series of homes located in the Kenmore subdivision of the College Terrace neighborhood. Although he was not new to real-estate investing—having bought and sold a number of lots in Fredericksburg—designing and building homes was new ground. Building permits were issued to Reid on the first three houses he designed in 1936—906 (later 918) Grove Avenue, 922 Grove Avenue, and 1601 Franklin Street. The latter, 1601 Franklin Street—ultimately was the most expensive house he would design and build, with a permit value of $4,500—would be a significant departure from his other house designs.[xvi] Designed as a Colonial Revival residence, the two-story central passage building used brick laid in a stretcher bond, whereas Reid’s other houses would employ concrete block, including both 906 and 922 Grove Avenue.

The use of concrete block had advantages over brick at the time, primarily in terms of reduced construction time and cost. With the country still emerging from the Great Depression, cost was a major consideration and would factor into all of his subsequent designs. Concrete was also a material that Reid was quite familiar with, having used it in his hydroelectric plants since the early 1900s. Despite this familiarity, the construction of 922 Grove Avenue, when compared with his later concrete block buildings, suggests that Reid was experimenting to some degree. Rather than laying the concrete block in a stretcher bond pattern, a smaller course of concrete block was inserted every other course, creating an interesting aesthetic. Although this configuration of concrete block appears to be unique to 922 Grove Avenue, slate roofing and cast concrete lintels, with shallow recessed panels, appear in virtually all of his later buildings. Both 906 (918) and 922 Grove Avenue were designed with a Tudor Revival aesthetic, incorporating asymmetrical fenestration and projecting front entries, with 922 Grove Avenue even incorporating a “kick” at the eave. Scroll work was also included in a wood panel above the fixed picture window at 906 Grove Avenue and the door surround at 922 Grove Avenue.

Figure 2: 922 Grove Avenue. Note the cast concrete lintel above the window with recessed panel as well as the scrollwork on the door surround. Close examination of the concrete block walls shows the interesting bond pattern of one course of full-sized block followed by a course of ½ sized block.

Figure 3: the design of 312 Canal Street served as the model for the buildings at Reid’s Court.

Permits were issued for 1421 and 1425 Sunken Road as well as 312 Canal Street the following year. Both Sunken Road houses also incorporated the Tudor Revival aesthetic, with 1425 Sunken Road even using the same door surround as 922 Grove Avenue. However, 312 Canal Street employed a less stylized aesthetic consisting of a symmetrical fenestration with three-bays and a central entry that was covered by a small gable roof supported by brackets on either side. The size of the building was also reduced, resulting in a more cost-effective residence with a permitting value of $1,200, significantly less than Reid’s earlier houses.[xvii]

During the summer of the following year, Reid began construction of Reid’s Court, located at 1420–1428 Franklin Street.[xviii] With 312 Canal Street serving as a model, five concrete block houses were erected using three similar plans. Both 1420 and 1428 Franklin Street were perhaps the most similar in design to 312 Canal Street. The only difference was that both 1420 and 1428 incorporated paired windows within the bays flanking the central entry. Located at the end of the U-shaped “cul-du-sac,” 1424 Franklin Street followed a similar design but with an exterior end chimney. The two houses at 1422 and 1426 Franklin Street offered the most variation. Still three-bays wide, the buildings were asymmetrical owing to the west bay of both buildings being recessed. Otherwise, the buildings incorporated many of the same design aesthetics as the other buildings constructed at Reid’s Court. Collectively, the 1938 building permits noted the value of the project at $7,000, approximately $1,400 each, comparable to 312 Canal Street. The individual design aesthetic of these houses was critiqued by John P. Dean and Simon Breines, authors of the 1946 publication, The Book of Houses. With 1426 Franklin Street as an example, the authors compared Reid’s design with mid-century modern aesthetics noting that in: 

“…small homes of traditional style such as above [1426 Franklin St.], the windows are little holes knocked in the wall at even intervals. In the modern small house…windows are grouped to admit lots of light at well planned points.”[xix]

However, the authors went on to extol the virtues of the larger five-house development, of which 1426 Franklin Street was a part, noting that individually, the houses were “undistinguished”:

“…by combining them in a pleasing neighborhood plan, the group takes on a character which the individual house does not possess. And a neighborhood of this sort has many advantages in livability which go far beyond the mere pleasant appearance of the structures. With land as plentiful as it is in the United State and with the raw land comprising such a small part of the total cost of a completed house, we may ask ourselves why all our neighborhood developments are not so intelligently planned and constructed as the one shown above.”[xx]

Figure 4: Images from the 1946 publication, The Book of Houses, by John Dean and Simon Brienes. Note the courtyard created by the buildings which are oriented toward the green space and not Franklin Street.

Although novel to Fredericksburg at the time, the idea of a planned courtyard neighborhood, albeit small in scale, echoed aspects of the larger Garden City movement. Begun decades earlier in the early-20th century but popularized in the United States in the 1920s through developments such as Radburn, New Jersey, the movement emphasized affordability as well as interaction with green spaces. Both developments, while vastly different in scale, created neighborhood courtyards that provided residents with community green space free of automobiles, which were relegated to the street or rear of the development. 

In 1940, 2 years after completing Reid’s Court, Reid began construction of Caroline Terrace, named after his wife.[xxi] Located at 1430 Franklin Street, adjacent to Reid’s Court, Caroline Terrace consisted of two cinderblock structures each with three units. These units were similar in appearance to Reid’s earlier standalone residences, such as 312 Canal Street, but with some window variations. Like Reid’s Court, Caroline Terrace faced a large communal green space with parking at the rear of the lot accessed via an alleyway. While the houses remained affordable, quality materials, such as slate roofing, were used in construction.

Reid would contract with W.T. Courtney in 1948 to extended his garage on Cornell Street, but the Caroline Terrace development was his last residential project.[xxii] Reid died 7 years later in September 1955.[xxiii] Despite the small number of homes built, his contribution to the College Terrace neighborhood was significant, and he was noted at the time as introducing “some architectural and construction features which have been most pleasing as well as practical.”[xxiv] This contribution is especially noticeable along the 1400 block of Franklin Street, where his homes still help define the area’s character. Also noteworthy are the economical designs he used, which when coupled with the introduction of quality materials and green space, serve as one of Fredericksburg’s few noteworthy references to the interwar (1918–1939) Garden City planning movement.

 

Endnotes:

[i] Dean, John and Simon Brienes, The Book of Houses (New York: Crown Publishers, 1946), 28–9, 58.

[ii] Free Lance-Star, September 6, 1955, 3:3.

[iii] Free Lance-Star, June 1, 1938, 6:4.

[iv] The National Archives At St. Louis; St. Louis, Missouri; Record Group Title: Records of the Selective Service System; Record Group Number: 147, accessed August 2024, https://www.ancestrylibrary.com/discoveryui-content/view/1210104:1002?tid=&pid=&queryid=de623f72-96cb-428d-ac2d-fd51c49bd2e3&_phsrc=MjY1&_phstart=success Source; Free Lance-Star, June 1, 1938, 6:4.

[v] Free Lance-Star, June 1, 1938, 6:4.

[vi] The Newberry Observer, September 6, 1955, 2:5.

[vii] Free Lance-Star, June 13, 1953, 3:5.

[viii] Free Lance-Star, September 6, 1955, 3:3.

[ix] Engineering Record, vol. 61 no. 7, (New York: McGraw Publishing Co, 1910): 197–8.

[x] Electrical Review and Western Electrician, (March 20, 1909): 549; The Free Lance, May 20, 1911, 1:4.

[xi] Street Railway Journal, vol. XXIII no. 1, (New York: McGraw Publishing Co., 1904): 20.

[xii] Rockbridge County News, vol. 32 no. 36, (July 6, 1916): 3:5.

[xiii] Free Lance-Star, September 6, 1955, 3:3.

[xiv] Free Lance-Star, June 1, 1938, 6:4.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Fredericksburg, Virginia Building Permits, 1936.

[xvii] Fredericksburg, Virginia Building Permits, 1937.

[xviii] Fredericksburg, Virginia Building Permits, 1938.

[xix] Dean, John and Simon Brienes, The Book of Houses (New York: Crown Publishers, 1946), 58.

[xx] Dean, John and Simon Brienes, The Book of Houses (New York: Crown Publishers, 1946), 28–9.

[xxi] Fredericksburg, Virginia Building Permits, 1940.

[xxii] Fredericksburg, Virginia Building Permits, 1948.

[xxiii] Free Lance-Star, September 6, 1955, 3:3.

[xiv] Free Lance-Star, June 1, 1938, 6:4.

 

“The Most Historic Park in America’s Most Historic City”

/0 Comments/in /by

by Danae Peckler, HFFI Preservationist

On the first page of his 1991 book, Robert A. Hodge called Alum Spring Park, “the most historic park in America’s most historic city.” These days, people might view that ambitious moniker with suspicion. However, the more one learns about Fredericksburg’s past, the more remarkable it becomes. The park encompasses 34.75 acres around the Alum Spring—named for the crystalized salts that form on the surface as the spring’s water evaporates. However, the area has also served many other purposes:

  • A source of clay for local indigenous populations that camped along area waterways
  • The site of multiple 18th and 19th century grist and saw mills along with millworker houses
  • A hospital and prison camp for Hessian and British soldiers marched to Fredericksburg after Cornwallis’ surrender in October 1781
  • A place for dueling and more than a few tragic deaths
  • A quarry for local sandstone
  • A place of refuge and conflict during the Civil War, as well as the site of many veteran reunions into the 20th century
  • A plentiful source of ice in the winter
  • A popular local swimming hole in the summer
  • A wondrous place to explore the area’s natural and cultural history.

Local newspapers and long-time residents credit Hodge—a geologist, educator, and local historian—as the galvanizing force behind the creation of Alum Spring Park. After moving to Fredericksburg for a teaching job at James Monroe High School in 1956, Hodge began taking students to Alum Spring to illustrate the area’s natural history, using its diverse rock formations, from the bed of Hazel Run to its sandstone cliffs, as visual aids for teaching geologic time. And for the many decades that he lived here, Bob Hodge also read, thoroughly researched, and wrote about local history in his spare time. Decades after his efforts to create Alum Spring Park, he published a small book about the property, entitled A History of Alum Spring Park, to chronicle all that makes it unique and historically significant (copy available at the CRRL Downtown branch).

The area was actually first proposed as a park by the Fredericksburg Development Company and appears in the firm’s 1891 map of holdings in and around the city. However, the idea for a public park did not come to fruition until the land was threatened by a large townhouse development in the mid-1960s. The Planning Commission and Recreation Commission supported the park idea, and in October 1965, Fredericksburg City Council voted unanimously to purchase the land that comprises Alum Spring Park today (The Free Lance-Star, Oct. 6, 1965:4).

The city’s Recreation Commission, of which Bob Hodge was a member, made a careful study of the 34.75-acre property in consultation with National Park Service staff and state Outdoor Recreational Department officials. In December 1967, a formal report made to the City Council “emphasized the primary purpose of the park was to preserve the natural state of the tract as much as possible,” and provided a plan for the park’s immediate development along with some long-range proposals (Hodge 1991:39).

Presently, two planning efforts stand to substantially affect the landscape within and around Alum Spring Park—both require and assume that the city will acquire the neighboring 34-acre tract of woodland on the east side of Emancipation Highway, north of the park, from the University of Mary Washington (UMW).

The Parks & Recreation Master Plan currently proposes a wholesale redesign of Alum Spring Park, reorienting it toward the busy Emancipation Highway (Route 1). This plan calls for closing the ford entrance and removing most of the existing facilities to build a new larger parking lot, bathroom/ welcome center, and playground on UMW’s undeveloped land (Figure 1). Simultaneously, the Small Area 5 plan currently proposes the construction of a new “connector road,” extending from the William Street/Blue & Gray Parkway (Route 3) intersection to meet with Idlewild Drive or Beverly Lane (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Detail of proposed alterations to Alum Spring Park in a recent update provided to City Council and the Planning Commission (City of Fredericksburg Parks Master Plans, July 2024).
Figure 2: The Small Area 5 Plan report from April 2024 features several graphics with varying depictions in the locations of the new connector road, as well as the new entrance and parking lot at Alum Spring Park (above images on pages 32, 40, and 42).

City staff’s proposed plans to build a new roadway with a multi-use path, 50-space parking lot, new welcome center/restroom facility, picnic shelters, and a playground on UMW’s forested tract seems to be at odds with many stated environmental and historic preservation goals.

Given its proximity to Hazel Run and Alum Spring, much of Alum Spring Park and UMW’s wooded 34 acres are located within “Resource Protected” and “Resource Management Areas” under the Chesapeake Bay Protection Program. The rest of UMW’s parcel is within the “Whole Lot Provision” of the Resource Management Area (Figure 3). Both the Alum Spring and UMW tracts have also been identified in George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC) reports focused on bettering our environment. In the Green Infrastructure Regional Plan, both parcels are identified as Contributing Eco-Core areas, and “the over-arching finding is that proper forest retention can provide important water quality benefits to the Commonwealth and Chesapeake Bay Watershed,” based on recent studies on the impact forest buffers have in protecting against erosion and stormwater runoff (GWRC 2016, 2017). 

From a preservation perspective, these plans will have a negative effect on known cultural historic resources. The 1968 Recreation Commission report to the City Council called for archaeological investigations at one of the known mill sites; however, few, if any, such studies have been conducted. The area also has a significant indigenous, Colonial, Civil War, and industrial history—much of which has yet to be thoroughly documented and analyzed. Localities and other state agencies often avoid disturbing areas known to contain important cultural artifacts, embracing the cheapest option, which is to preserve them in place. Given that almost every inch of the UMW and Alum Spring Park tracts falls within the highest probability in the City’s Archaeological Predictive Model, both plans will come at a higher price to taxpayers (Figure 3).

Figure 3: FredGIS imagery showing the current Alum Spring Park property and neighboring UMW tract with the Chesapeake Bay Watershed layers at left and the Archaeological Predictability Model at right.

It is often said, “history repeats itself” and “no idea is ever new.” In 1980, a proposal for a new road connecting the end of Alum Spring Drive to the Route 1 Bypass was voted down by City Council after an uproar from local groups, including “the Jaycees, the Planning Commission, Recreation Commission, Economic Development Commission, and the Rappahannock Garden Club,” who “chiefly [opposed the road] because it would border tranquil Alum Spring Park” (The Free Lance-Star, Feb 28, 1980:17). The Public Works Committee had supported the idea as a “trucking link that would open an undeveloped section to business use” (The Free Lance-Star, Jan 25, 1980:3). A January 28, 1980, editorial in The Free Lance-Star addressed the feelings of many residents had for this special place in the city:

Crossing tiny Alum Spring is like entering another century. You may hear a truck on the Bypass or spot the top of a nearby apartment complex. But the distractions are few amid the splendid isolation of Alum Spring Park’s wooded hills.

There is a sense of discovery and reflection to these 35 acres. A 2,000-year-old sandstone cliff and an abandoned railroad bed from a century ago suggest a resistance to change. For close to 40,000 visitors a year, a piece of Fredericksburg’s past has been delicately and beautifully preserved….

With the Fredericksburg area leading Virginia in growth, it has never been more important to safeguard our remaining natural and historical resources from the temptation of short-term economic gain….

The Council should do more than ratify the overwhelming arguments against this proposal. It’s time to go on the offensive in protecting our natural assets. Possible scenic easements on nearby undeveloped tracts should be explored as a way to insulate the Alum Spring “experience” from future developments.

As currently proposed, the “new” plans fail to protect much of what City Council’s Vision for 2036 describes as important to Fredericksburg’s future and identity. They do not preserve one of the few sizable, undeveloped, Eco-Core areas in the City; do not reduce run-off into our waterways; do not protect known cultural historic resources; and do not appear to make prudent use of taxpayer dollars.

The Ties Between Modern Architecture and Healthcare History in Fredericksburg

/0 Comments/in /by

Danae Peckler, HFFI Preservationist

*A public meeting to discuss the proposed St. Mary’s Landing townhouse development is set for Thursday, June 20th at 6 pm at the Dorothy Hart Community Center.

**Next week is the first public meeting about revising Fredericksburg’s Comprehensive Plan on June 26, 2024, 6:30-8:30 pm, at 210 Ferdinand Street in the School Board meeting room.

In the last few years, there has been much talk about the future of the old hospital building at 2300 Fall Hill Avenue and the neighboring lots. The property was owned by Medicorp Properties Inc—an arm of Mary Washington Hospital—until earlier this year (FredGIS 2024). Since the site plan for the St. Mary’s Landing townhouse project was initially submitted to the City at the end of January 2024, the public has become aware of the developer’s intention to demolish two extant buildings on the block across from the hospital bounded by Fall Hill Avenue, Hunter, and Elm streets. One is a brick bungalow built in 1947 by contractor H.H. Tyler for Arthur Greene at 2315 Fall Hill Avenue, while the other is the former Fredericksburg Public Health Center at 435 Hunter Street, designed by architect John J. Ballentine, Jr., and constructed between 1959 and 1960 by contractor L.C. Mitchell (Stanton 2014).

Although little funding has ever been dedicated to documenting our historic built environment, the demolition of our existing building stock is not something we should continue to ignore. As with the conservation of natural resources, preserving and repurposing our built environment has great benefits. It is estimated that 25–30% of our landfills are now filled with construction debris, some of which has proven toxic to our air, water, and wildlife. In an effort to save high-quality historic building materials, some localities have established programs to foster salvage and reuse of these valuable materials. Acknowledging that some older buildings cannot be salvaged or that the greater needs of the community outweigh the benefits of preserving them, many localities have policies and procedures that allow the thorough documentation of historic properties, recording their historic occupation, use, and physical fabric before their removal. Regardless, it’s always good to know what you’ve got before it’s gone. HFFI hopes this article provides some historic context for the old hospital and the associated healthcare buildings around it, as well as for the architecture and time period that defined them. 

Funding for the construction of the hospital and public health center stemmed from landmark healthcare legislation referred to as the Hill-Burton Act. Passed by Congress in 1946, “this bill invested significant sums of federal tax dollars to increase access to healthcare for citizens across the nation. Among its many initiatives, the program offered local governments the majority of funds necessary to build dedicated structures for their health departments” (Marshall 2021:96–97). Government’s role in preserving the health of its people was certainly nothing new, but the impacts of wartime mobilization revealed both the relative scarcity of healthcare facilities across the country and how successful “public health centers” could be in maintaining it, distributing vaccines and offering basic care. Work to erect Fredericksburg’s third hospital building began in 1949. More than $520,000 in federal funds and over $314,000 from the State of Virginia supported its construction, augmented by roughly $350,000 from local sources and donations (Alvey 1989:60,62). On February 18, 1951, a small dedication ceremony on the grounds of 2300 Fall Hill Avenue marked the official opening of the new Mary Washington Hospital. At five stories and encompassing nearly 28,000 square feet, this new brick, steel, and concrete facility became the very model of a modern healthcare facility (Figure 1). It was designed to accommodate future growth, and between 1951 and 1990, the building underwent seven major upgrades and expansions. One of the more dramatic changes to the hospital building was the relocation and reorientation of its main entrance from the southwest elevation to the east side, facing Fall Hill Avenue. A 1980 aerial image and more recent photographs from the 2023 property listing provide a striking contrast to its initial architectural form and design (Figure 2 and 3).

Figure 1: Early 1950s postcard image of the old Mary Washington Hospital on Fall Hill Avenue
Figure 2: 1980 aerial photograph shows two new wing additions under construction (“Hospital Expansion,” The Free-Lance Star, Feb. 28, 1980).
Figure 3: Ground view of south elevation (top) and aerial image looking west (bottom) from property listing webpage (Coldwell Banker Commercial Elite 2023).

The growth and success of Mary Washington Hospital prompted the construction of other supportive, Modern-era, healthcare buildings around it. The “Medical Arts Building” at 2301 Fall Hill Avenue was constructed in 1956 by local builder/contractor, Bernard Cline, as a “professional office building” for a select group of physicians with private practices (Stanton 2014). The building also contained commercial space. A second Peoples Drug Store opened in the Medical Arts Building that year, offering “free prescription delivery service anywhere in the city” (The Free Lance-Star, Dec 20, 1956:16). A third-floor expansion occurred in 1964 as demand from local practitioners grew (Moore 1979:13). In fall 1969, drawings by architect Henry C. Johnson, Jr., for a sizable addition to the north side of the building were submitted to the City Engineers Office, along with a request for exemption from the setbacks and height limits of earlier residential development. The requested variance was granted, but Johnson’s Modernist addition to this Georgian Revival-style building did not materialize (Figure 4 and 5). However, a single-bay addition matching the original material composition of the building was added to the north elevation sometime after 1969, along with other modifications to the exterior.

The Medical Arts Building’s Georgian Revival style reflects a conscious choice by the physicians who funded its construction. Did the doctors believe a more traditional look  would give a sense of continuity to their previous practices or instill greater trust among new patients in the physicians’ depth of experience? Or perhaps they felt that a Georgian exterior would help their new multi-story office building blend with the surrounding residential neighborhood (Figure 6), composed of one- and two-story dwellings?

Figure 4: Sheet 5, “Preliminary Design Addition to Medical Arts Building, Fredericksburg, Virginia,” by H.C. Johnson, Jr. Architect, AIA (October 1969). Full image of west or Fall Hill Avenue elevation (top) and detail of “Existing Construction” (bottom) (City of Fredericksburg Planning Department).  Note: most of the Georgian Revival architectural features depicted in these drawings have since been removed and replaced.
Figure 5: Façade or west elevation (top) and southeast oblique of Medical Arts Building (bottom) from property listing webpage (Coldwell Banker Commercial Elite 2023).
Figure 6: Detail of 1941 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of Fredericksburg, Sheet 21, showing scattered residential development in the area.

On another lot across from the hospital and southeast of the Medical Arts Building is the modest one-story Public Health Center, at 435 Hunter Street. Fredericksburg’s City Council voted unanimously to support its construction with the understanding that at least 55 percent of the cost would be obtained through the Hill-Burton Act (Figure 7; The Free Lance-Star, Aug 29, 1958:1). Designed by local architect, John J. Ballentine, Jr., in conjunction with Fredericksburg Health Director, Dr. Frederick J. Spencer, this Modernist building was completed and open to the public in 1960 (Figure 8; The Free Lance-Star, May 20, 1960:11).

Figure 7: News article detailing City’s approval for creating the Fredericksburg Public Health building (The Free Lance-Star, Aug. 29, 1958:1,3).
Figure 8: Image of the south elevation and main entrance to the “Health Center” (The Free Lance-Star, May 20, 1960:11).

At a time when “new planning techniques, modern medical equipment, advanced building systems, and sterile treatment spaces radically changed health-care design,” some historians view healthcare architecture in the postwar period as the embodiment of medical technology used for patient treatment (Marshall 2021:102). The administration of Modern-era healthcare planning and services placed stringent demands on its architecture—the design of such facilities needed to be as maintenance free as possible and support the efficient and economical administration of services, while remaining flexible to meet new and growing demand from the community. A Public Health Center’s plan was “delineated by five primary functions: patient waiting, administration, clinic, assembly, and service” (Marshall 2021:102).

While many new public healthcare facilities embraced the cost-effective, minimal maintenance construction of the Modernist designs with International and Contemporary elements, great stylistic variation occurred in Virginia’s units. Modernist examples most often appeared when the buildings were erected at the urban fringe—similar to the approach and design trends that affected public schools during this time period.

Fredericksburg’s Public Health Center was not the only one John J. Ballentine, Jr., designed in Virginia. In 1954, he was selected by the Board of Supervisors in Caroline County to design their new public health center, which would be located across from Bowling Green’s town hall (Marshall 2021:107). Given the site’s surrounding architectural context at the town’s historic civic core, the selected design featured a traditional exterior skin—what Ballentine called “Pseudo-Colonial” styling—with a Modernized floor plan informed by recommendations from the Virginia Department of Health and Caroline County’s Director of Health (Figure 9; Marshall 2021:108).

In Fredericksburg, Ballentine customized his design in a series of seven schematic drawings to suit local officials and medical professionals, using the popular International style. The individual with the most influence appears to have been Fredericksburg’s Health Director, Dr. Frederick J. Spencer, a young physician from England, who had been selected for training by the State Health Department (Suffolk News-Herald, Apr. 3, 1956:1). In his mid-30s at the time, Dr. Spencer held the position in Fredericksburg for just a few years before moving to Richmond circa 1962 to become the State Health Department’s Director of Communicable Disease Control (Suffolk News-Herald, Oct 8, 1962:6).

Figure 9: Figures of Caroline County’s War Memorial Health Center printed in “’A Suitable Memorial’: The History of Public Health Centers in Post-World War II Virginia,” an article written by Andrew Marshall, Preservation Architect at John Milner Associates Preservation Division, and published in the Fall 2021 issue of Buildings & Landscapes, a journal of the Vernacular Architectural Forum.

Ballentine’s use of the International style at Fredericksburg’s Public Health Center strongly reflects the building’s modern medical purpose and use, as well as its public funding, location, and context within the community (Figure 10). He continued to work in the International style when he was hired to design an addition to the building in the mid-1970s. Drawings finalized in 1975 included a one-story, three-bay, brick addition to the east end of the center, designed to accommodate a second story in the future (Figure 11).

Relatively few truly Modernist designs made it off Ballentine’s cutting room floor in Fredericksburg—a community dedicated to preserving its Colonial history and architecture. Ballentine was successful, however, in balancing Modern architecture within a traditional context. Aside from the Public Health Center, the most recognizable of his Modernist works include the commercial shopping center now home to Fahrenheit and Castiglia’s restaurants at 320–324 William Street (1956), the Virginia ABC store at 505 William Street (1963), and the U.S. Post Office (1972) at 600 Princess Anne Street (Spencer 2016). He is more often remembered in Fredericksburg for his efforts to preserve and rehabilitate historic buildings in the community, often in conjunction with Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc.—an organization for which he served as President for a time. As strong a preservationist as he was architect, Ballentine donated his collection of architectural drawings to HFFI, many of which are being digitized by our friends at University of Mary Washington’s Department of Historic Preservation.

Over time, Ballentine’s Mid-Century Modern exterior at Fredericksburg’s Public Health Center has been somewhat “Colonialized” by the removal of many original windows and aluminum panels, infilling the space with masonry and stucco, and the replacement of its original vestibule with a pedimented portico. The remaining aluminum-frame windows are original and the addition of stucco around them has some precedent, as seen in Ballentine’s 1975 addition to the building. But the cover is not the book. This customized example of Modern medical architecture is worth a closer look, particularly at the interior, which has not been explored. HFFI hopes that there will be an opportunity to more fully document this cultural historic resource, inside and out, so that we might continue to learn from it in the future.

Figure 10: Details from Ballentine’s January 6, 1959, “Fredericksburg Public Health Center, Sketch #6,” drawing with Hunter Street elevation (top) and proposed floor plan (bottom). Note: all elevations in Sketch #6 appear consistent with the as-built design; however, it is unclear if the interior floor plan from this model was also built. No documentation has been made of existing conditions at the interior.
Figure 11: Details from Ballentine’s March 1975, “Additions and Alterations to Fredericksburg Public Health Center, Schematic Sketch II…” drawing showing exterior elevations and site plan for expansion.

The omission of Fredericksburg’s Public Health Center from the area’s “Character Structures” list also offers a few lessons on how we identify and assess our historic built environment, particularly what parts of it provide valuable “character” to our neighborhoods. There’s little comfort to those who care about Fredericksburg’s cultural historic resources that even IF the Public Health Center had been identified as a “Character Structure” in Area 6, current zoning does nothing to prevent or discourage its demolition.

Some might say, “Why does this keep happening? Preservationists always sound the alarm at the 11th hour!” Yet both more common and less public are the many times when the insights and efforts of local preservation advocates are ignored, dismissed, or excluded from the discussion in the “hours” (months, years, and even decades) leading up to the alarm sounding.

In this case, the timing seems to be good. There is an opportunity to reevaluate the process for selecting and protecting “Character Structures” and also how we handle the demolition of our historic resources in and outside of the Historic District.

Next week is the first of many public meetings about rewriting much of Fredericksburg’s Comprehensive Plan: June 26, 2024, 6:30–8:30 pm, 210 Ferdinand Street in the School Board meeting room. I sure hope to see you there!

References:

Alvey, Edward, Jr. 1989. 90 Years of Caring: Mary Washington Hospital 1899–1989. Mary Washington Hospital. Moran & Company: Charlottesville, Virginia.

Coldwell Banker Commercial Elite. 2023. 2300 Fall Hill Avenue property listing webpage. Coldwell Banker Commercial Elite, https://cbcelite.com/property-search/?propertyId=1195794-sale

Marshall, Andrew. 2021. “A Suitable Memorial”: The History of Public Health Centers in Post-World War II Virginia, Buildings & Landscapes, Vol. 28, Issue 2, Fall 2021, pp. 96–123.

Spencer, Michael. 2016. “John Jennings Ballentine, Jr., Fredericksburg Architect,” Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc., https://hffi.org/john-j-ballentine-jr-fredericksburg-architect/

Stanton, Gary. 2014. “Surviving Fredericksburg Building Permits: 1938-1960,” Fredericksburg Research Resources. Department of Historic Preservation, University of Mary Washington, https://resources.umwhisp.org/fredburg.htm

Fredericksburg’s 2024-2025 Goals for Preservation

/in /by

For generations, Fredericksburg residents have taken pride in learning, sharing, and retelling tidbits of the extraordinary history our city holds. Many might recall that we once proclaimed ourselves to be “America’s Most Historic City.” An ambitious moniker that might sound audacious and pompous to some, yet we need only spend some time at local historic sites or read about the notable individuals and events that have put FXBG “on the map” for a few centuries now.

Other places have their own important history, but what TRULY sets Fredericksburg apart from the majority of localities is our community’s decades of dedication to Historic Preservation—the act of preserving the physical tangible evidence of our unique past.

Fredericksburg was a national leader in preservation in 1891 when a group of residents saved Mary Washington’s house from dismantling; in 1922 when efforts were made to save one of the finest examples of early American plasterwork; in when 1955 when Historic Fredericksburg was created to save an antebellum kitchen outbuilding; in 1972 when our historic district was listed in the National Register of Historic Places; in the 1980s when the nation’s first undergraduate program in Historic Preservation was established at what is now the University of Mary Washington; in 1991 when Fredericksburg was one of two localities selected for study in a ground-breaking economic analysis on the financial impact of historic preservation across the community; in 1996 when Ferry Farm was saved from being turned into a Walmart; and in 2021 when an archaeological ordinance more than a decade in the making was adopted.

Preserving the City’s cultural legacy—the historic buildings, sites, stories, and places, big and small, elaborate and commonplace—is a choice. It’s what we choose to do in Fredericksburg and our elected representatives are preeminently charged with caring for this tangible inheritance from the past.

As another Historic Preservation Month draws to a close, HFFI’s Board of Directors has laid out some important goals for the coming year—many of which are familiar to those with local leadership experience. By May 2025, we hope to report that these goals have been met. A full description of these goals is spelled out in HFFI’s press release (at bottom of post) with an abbreviated list below:  

  • Establish a Preservation Advisory Committee—Outlined in the City’s 2021 Preservation Plan, listed among Council’s top priority tasks that same year, and more recently proposed by the City’s Preservation Planner, this standing advisory committee would provide local preservation insight, expertise, and additional resources to carry out several City preservation goals. HFFI will work with the City to provide needed support and network with professional preservationists in the community to accomplish the goals of this committee.
  • Conduct a Historic Preservation Economic Impact Study—It is important that the community and its leaders are aware of the significant and far-reaching economic impacts generated by the preservation of the City’s historic character and diverse built environment, including its direct and indirect benefits. Last summer, the National Park Service released an economic impact study of the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park that found its visitors spent $49.9 million in surrounding communities in 2022 alone. Funding for this kind of study was requested by City staff and the Planning Commission last fall. It did not make the FY2025 budget and was recently struck from a list of potential state grant applications. HFFI will work with City staff, the EDA, EDT, Main Street, Chamber of Commerce, cultural historic sites, and other organizations to make this longstanding goal come to fruition. We hope we can count on City Council’s support in the future.
  • Implement Incentives for Preservation—Daniel Becker’s expert Recommendations report, completed in June 2023,outlined several potential incentives to fulfill one of City Council’s priority goals for Historic Preservation. The EDA and Council were briefed on this study last summer. We will work to support the City in acting upon those recommendations.
  • Implement the 2012 MOU between City and HFFI—In 2012, a Memorandum of Understanding was established between the City and HFFI following years of proactive discussion and collaboration to improve the community’s response to decaying and blighted buildings. Several of the tasks and goals therein were reiterated in the June 2023 report on Economic Incentives and Prevention of Spot Blight and Demolition by Neglect. In the next year, HFFI will work toward implementing some of those tasks to assist property owners in and around Fredericksburg’s historic downtown core that are affected by blighted resources. We will coordinate with City Planning and Public Works staff in our efforts and expand the community’s support network for preserving our existing building stock, especially its residential resources. HFFI hopes that increased outreach, combined with more productive preservation incentives, will help achieve the City’s goal to ensure demolitions of historic buildings are the option of last resort.
  • Preserve Neighborhood Character—HFFI is pleased to engage in ongoing Planning staff and City Council discussions about Neighborhood Character Preservation, including the current dialog concerning Conservation District zoning. We share the desire to help protect the character of neighborhoods and to ensure housing options in the City.
  • Adopt Best Practices for City-Owned Historic Properties, including Renwick Courthouse Complex—HFFI would like to see the Renwick Working Group continue to interact with City staff and meet quarterly to support work to rehabilitate the complex. This model of collaboration among different skill sets from the community looks to be the best chance for success. Beyond the Renwick, the City oversees many historic resources that require sensitive and thoughtful approaches for their maintenance and preservation. HFFI will continue to advocate for best preservation practices to prevent the deterioration and destruction of our historic built environment. 
  • Assist in Identifying and Protecting FXBG’s cultural historic resources as Master Plans, Small Area Plans, and Comprehensive Planning moves forward—The civic pride distilled from the preservation of historic places and spaces across our community is visible and reiterated in every planning document intended to guide Fredericksburg’s growth and development since the twentieth century. Hiring consultants for assistance in steering future growth, many based outside the Fredericksburg area who lack the depth of awareness that local historians, organizations, and repositories possess about local history, has limited the City’s ability to preserve and nurture our community’s sense of place. Recent planning documents and presentations have shown significant gaps and omissions regarding known archaeological sites and historic resources within the City. Greater awareness of local history and the places that embody it is important to avoid the unnecessary destruction of cultural resources along with any valuable information they could reveal. HFFI wants to work with various city department staff to fill those gaps and support the City’s goal to preserve significant historic resources and protect archaeological sites across the community moving forward.

HFFI’s Board of Directors and staff hopes that the next year will bear witness to the successful completion of longstanding preservation goals in Fredericksburg. To ensure their completion, we would greatly appreciate your help. Show our elected officials and leaders that you care! Write them a note directly (visit City Council’s website to submit comments) or sign HFFI’s petition to show your support!

2024.5.21_HFFI_AdvocacyReport_toCouncil_v3Download

HFFI’s 2024 Preservation Award Recipients

/0 Comments/in /by

The Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc., held its 69th Annual Membership Meeting on Saturday, March 9, recognizing people, businesses, and institutions that have made outstanding contributions to preserving the unique cultural heritage and historic built environment of the Fredericksburg area.

Five recipients of HFFI’s 2024 Preservation Awards were individuals. The first, retired Spotsylvania middle school teacher Mayo Carter, was honored with the Lillian D. Reed Volunteer Award for her support of local history education and efforts to connect the public to the past at HFFI events and throughout the community. This award, given to a dedicated volunteer, is named for one of HFFI’s founders. Lillian Dooley Reed (1903–1998) was an outstanding area preservationist who championed HFFI’s earliest efforts to save and relocate the two-story brick dependency from behind the National Bank, now home to Foode restaurant.    

Linda Billard received the President’s Exceptional Service Award this year in recognition of her unflagging support and invaluable editing and writing skills for HFFI’s publications for many years. Ms. Billard is a retired writer/editor, who has supported the production of many HFFI publications, including the 2018 book, Home for the Holidays: Historic Fredericksburg’s Candlelight Tradition.

Mayo Carter, 2024 Lillian D. Reed Volunteer Award (left); Linda Billard, President’s Exceptional Service Award (right).

Two individuals received the President’s Special Recognition Award. The first is historian and author, Dr. Keith Littlefield, who grew up in Fredericksburg and continues to research and publish local history. His most recent book is From New Post to Princess Anne St: The Postal History of Fredericksburg, Virginia 1657–1990. The second recipient of a Special Recognition Award is Michael Way, a project manager with Island Architects in Richmond. Mr. Way was recognized for volunteering his time and expertise to retrieve and reformat measured drawings of the Renwick Courthouse, Wallace Library, and Old Jail. This documentation has already been used to assist the ongoing structural analysis of the tower by REI Engineering and will reduce the cost of any future rehabilitation work at the complex.

Dr. Keith Littlefield (left) and Michael Way (right), President’s Special Recognition Awards

The last individual honored at HFFI’s meeting was Noel G. Harrison, recipient of the Dr. Edward D. Alvey, Jr. Education Award. Named in honor of Alvey (1902–1999), a former Dean and Professor of Education at Mary Washington College and past president of HFFI, the award recognizes Harrison’s significant contributions since 1984 toward the advancement of preservation-related education. A cultural resource specialist with the National Park Service at the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park, and specializing since 2007 on the management of Park Service-held conservation easements, Harrison is an exemplary scholar of histories well beyond Fredericksburg and regularly shares his knowledge in regional publications. He has written definitive reference guides to local sites of historical importance to the Civil War, including Fredericksburg Civil War Sites, Volumes I & II (1995); Chancellorsville Battlefield Sites (1990); and A Walking Tour of Civil War Sites on the Campus of Mary Washington College (1993). Harrison was also a regular contributor to the National Park Service’s website, Mysteries & Conundrums: Exploring the Civil War-Era Landscape in the Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania Region and has written articles for HFFI publications. Fellow cultural resource specialist at the National Park Service Eric Mink presented the award on behalf of HFFI, and many local researchers posed for a group photograph to show their appreciation.

Noel G. Harrison (left) and select published works (right), 2024 Dr. Edward D. Alvey, Jr. Education Award

The final two HFFI awards recognized the act of preservation through the rehabilitation of historically significant resources in the Fredericksburg. One project was spearheaded by the University of Mary Washington and the other by the Virginia Railway Express. 

In the UMW project, the university undertook a historically sensitive rehabilitation project to adaptively reuse the 1931 Seacobeck Hall designed by architect Charles Robinson. The project converted the former dining hall into a mix of “classrooms and lab space with the latest technologies, faculty offices, collaboration and group work rooms, student organization spaces, a large assembly space, a curriculum lab, and makerspace,” according to architects at the Richmond firm Hanbury. Members of Hanbury’s design team and the Whiting-Turner Contracting Company joined Capital Outlay Director, Gary Hobson, of UMW in accepting HFFI’s E. Boyd Graves Preservation Award, presented by Professor Michael Spencer, author of UMW’s Campus Preservation Plan and acting Chair of the Department of Historic Preservation. The E. Boyd Graves Preservation Award is named for one of HFFI’s founding members who played an instrumental role in protecting, preserving, and adaptively reusing some of Fredericksburg’s most recognizable historic landmarks.

Left to right: G. Scott Walker; Michael Spencer; Robert V. Reis (Hanbury); Gary Hobson; Yatharth Shukla, Paige, and Bryan Ozlin (The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company); Danae Peckler: Seacobeck Hall, 2024 E. Boyd Graves Preservation Award.

HFFI recognized another notable preservation project by the Virgina Railway Express (VRE) to preserve the Fredericksburg train station’s 1927 concrete platform and Sophia, Caroline, and Charles street overpasses. Designed by noted engineer John E. Greiner & Company in 1924, the platform and overpasses are a connected series of form-poured, reinforced-concrete structures that carry the elevated tracks through downtown. VRE’s laudable effort required skillful precision and technologically advanced techniques to properly analyze existing conditions, remove deteriorated fabric, conserve sound historic material, and make necessary repairs. Recognizing the significance of this historic transportation resource and the vital economic role it serves in our community, HFFI gave its Preservation Spark Award to VRE CEO Rich Dalton and Fredericksburg Station Project Manager Kip Foster. Fredericksburg City Council members Jannan Holmes, who represents the city on the VRE Operations Board, and William Mackintosh, Ms. Holmes’ alternate on the VRE board, were also in attendance.

Left to right: Danae Peckler; Rich Dalton and Kip Foster (VRE); Jannan Holmes and William Mackintosh (Fredericksburg City Council members/representatives): Fredericksburg Train Station Project, 2024 Preservation Spark Award.

HFFI’s Board of Directors is pleased to honor these exceptional individuals and organizations for their unwavering commitment to preserving Fredericksburg’s rich history, architectural legacy, and cultural landscape. Their dedication serves as inspiration to us all, reminding us of the important ways that historic preservation nurtures our collective memory and challenges us to learn from the past.

Most Affordable Housing Isn’t New

/0 Comments/in /by

We all support increasing the supply of housing within Fredericksburg city limits. We just don’t have much of a shared understanding about what that growth will look like—what types of new housing is best suited for which locations or what kind of benefits and trade-offs are expected in those places.

Our city is not alone in grappling with the current housing crisis and this is not the first time local residents have voiced concern about rapid growth’s impact on the community; shown interest in preserving the character of their neighborhood; and struggled with the rising cost of housing.

A look back at vision statements, goals, planning documents, and action plans produced by our elected leaders and professionals on City staff over the last two decades reveals a consistent dialogue about Fredericksburg’s future with the simultaneous desire to grow AND preserve this community.

It is widely acknowledged that the most “affordable” housing units are within older, smaller buildings on smaller, narrow lots. Densely developed from the start, these spaces are essential, critical components of a city’s housing stock—yet they are also at the highest risk. The last 30 years or more across Virginia, areas with increasing development pressure saw these older resources become soft targets for neglect and demolition as profit margins from newer, bigger buildings rose.

In the last decade, several less “historic” and “attractive” houses have disappeared around town. Perhaps you have noticed one or two?

This circa-1900 house at 619 Lafayette Blvd was demolished in November 2020.
Located outside the local historic district, the now-vacant lot at 619 Lafayette Blvd and the turn-of-the-century, working-class houses that flank it are documented historic resources within Fredericksburg’s “Extended Historic District”—an area determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places that includes much of the Lafayette corridor and older neighborhoods north of it. These four contiguous lots are zoned as Creative Maker District and owned by the same entity (January 2024).

Some people say that is “the way of things”—older smaller buildings should be sacrificed for progress. Short-sighted and wasteful, this thinking has eroded the historic fabric and collective memory of many American cities.

Fredericksburg’s existing residential resources—in and out of the historic district—are the most vital and affordable components of our housing stock. What kind of support is available for individual property owners and smaller-scale real estate investors who wish to maintain and significantly rehabilitate these assets? 

A June 2023 report produced by a nationally recognized expert compiled nearly a dozen ways the City of Fredericksburg could incentivize the preservation of our built environment—none of which place any restrictions on property owners or City staff.

So if we, as a locality, are going to change the rules in support of new housing construction, why hasn’t the City Council moved with equal speed to encourage and support those seeking to preserve and update our existing stock? We hope that our elected representatives will join HFFI and engage whole-heartedly in the thought-provoking dialogues occurring throughout the Preservation community, particularly at the local level. Because we can all agree that Fredericksburg should do as much as we can to promote the preservation and rehabilitation of its most affordable, most sustainable, and most culturally diverse housing type.

More About the Connections Between Preservation, Affordable Housing, & Increasing Density:

“Older, Smaller, Better: Measuring how the character of buildings and blocks influences urban vitality” National Trust for Historic Preservation Green Lab, May 2014. Analysis of data from three major American cities shows that areas with a mix of older, smaller buildings perform better than districts with larger, newer structures when tested against a range of economic, social, and environmental outcome measures.

“Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation: Opportunities in 2024.” National Trust for Historic Preservation webinar featuring expert panelists from the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP), American Planning Association (APA), and an conservation architect working in the private sector who examine the opportunities and strategies for changing federal policy and expand the marketplace for utilizing historic and older buildings to increase the supply of housing nationwide.

“Why Housing Policy Should Include More Funding for Home Repairs” by Todd Swanstrom and John N. Robinson III – August 17, 2023 – Researchers found that older homeowners in St. Louis averaged $13,000 in unmet home repairs. Here’s how advocates can measure home repair need in their own cities, and why repairs make a difference.

“Densifying Suburbs Is the Better Path to Housing Affordability” by Alan Mallach -August 10, 2020 – Alan Mallach responds to critiques of his assessment of urban versus suburban upzoning.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Policy Statement on Housing and Historic Preservation. Finalized in December 2023, the ACHP’s “policy statement discusses the need for more incentives – including expanded rehabilitation tax credits, plus energy and housing credits that work well with rehab credits – to promote rehabilitation of historic buildings for housing and the need to remove disincentives. For instance, changes to zoning codes could encourage greater density and availability of housing, and allow for mixed uses and for creation of housing in historic buildings in areas where it is now prohibited…. [It also] supports the federal government making underutilized historic government buildings available for housing development and developing expanded guidance regarding reuse and rehabilitation of historic properties for housing…. [It further] encourages consultation and engagement with Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, disadvantaged and underserved communities and communities with environmental justice concerns, all of which are disproportionately affected by the housing shortage. Another focus of the document is the need for research and sharing of information about the costs, benefits, incentives, and disincentives associated with rehabilitating historic buildings for housing.”