A neighborhood eyesore gets some TLC and a transformation.
PROJECT DETAILS
> Location: Short North neighborhood, Columbus, Ohio
> Builder and Interior Designer: Joshua Wood
www.jwaainteriors.com
> Architect: Dean Berlon, urbanorder architecture, www.
urbanorder.com
Smartly renovating an existing structure represents one of the greenest approaches to building sustainable housing; the process does not disturb pristine land, and often reuses and re-purposes elements and materials that might otherwise wind up in a landfill. In the case of one 1895 house in Columbus, Ohio, converted to apartments and so damaged and derelict that it appeared ready for the wrecking ball, a transformative remodeling surprised nearly everyone but its determined new owner.
Josh Wood developed his interest in houses as a boy, trailing his father around their rural Ohio home, helping him with carpentry projects and repairs. Later, as an adult, he began his career as a builder by restoring the first house he owned a definite fixer-upper and then selling it.
With a profit in his pocket, he decided that finding, reviving, and then selling the homes he remodeled could become a rewarding and enjoyable career.
“I am always drawn to the biggest mess of a house,” confesses Wood. “The ones that have really fallen apart and need to be put back together capture my interest more than others that require less work.”
Living just a few blocks away from the stucco-clad corner house on a historic block in Columbus’ artsy Short North neighborhood a police handle that stuck even after gentrifi cation Wood often walked by, noticing its run-down condition. After a small fi re broke out in one of the building’s eight small apartment units, rendering the structure uninhabitable, the neighborhood looked forward to its demolition.
“The place had become a magnet for unsavory characters,” recalls Wood, “so even though the house had a 19th-century Victorian core, the neighbors had no urge to preserve it.”
Despite its sorry condition and bad reputation, the house spoke to Wood. He bought it, determined to provide it with a new and more appealing incarnation.
Enlisting architect Dean Berlon, a partner in urbanorder architecture in Columbus, the pair convinced the neighbors and, more important, the local historic commission, that the project could comfortably coexist with the well-kept, restored Victorians that surround it.
Wood wanted to keep the building’s sturdy shell. The original brick house and its L-shaped, 1950s concrete block addition, both covered in dirty, faded stucco, looked terrible but maintained their structural soundness. The owner also needed to use both pieces to keep the project’s grand- fathered footprint and ensure its financial feasibility.
It fell to Berlon to craft a series of drawings to convince the commission that the 1950s piece of the puzzle merited salvage. Showing the skeptical commission how the building’s appearance and function could evolve over time from single family residence to residence plus retail, to multiple-unit dwelling finally won their approval for a two-unit dwelling within the existing building envelope.
“We examined other corners in the neighborhood and researched their alterations over time,” Berlon remembers. “Fortunately, we managed to demonstrate that embracing this evolution and patina was not only acceptable, but in fact, desirable for corner lots, which always have visual impact because of their exposure.”
To enhance the plain, cracker box facade of the 20th-century addition, Berlon designed a cornice that would not only give the 1950s piece a 19th-century Italianate character, but would also provide a privacy wall for the roof deck that the architect and owner envisioned.
“The cornice allowed us to take the squat, boxy addition and alter its scale by making it taller and more Italianate in spirit,” says Berlon. “The feature creates a lighter, simplified version of a typical heavy Victorian cornice that makes the bones of the building fit the scale of the neighborhood.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96