The Nominating Process

I heard back from the Office of Historic preservation this week about my nomination to add The Thomas D. Petch House to The National Register of Historic Places. As I suspected, I was asked to make some changes to the application. Most would not be too difficult to do. Basically, I was asked to move some things around and to clarify a few points.

Some of the request are nearly impossible to fulfil, though. For instance, there is no way to tell when the garage/apartment structure was built, yet the hand written notes on my write-up seem to indicate they want proof. I’m not really sure if I should not include it or just say I don’t know. There are no records that prove exactly when it was built. Also, I stated that the period of significance is 1895 to 1926. The 1926 is because of the garage structure, but I was told that the period of significance should end in 1920 when the house leaves the Petch family. Again, should I not include the 1926 garage/apartment building. I’m sure this could be cleared up with an email.

Other things are odd, though. According to the hand written notes, if I don’t explicitly say something is original it is questioned by the person who reviewed the application. For instance, when I describe the wrap-around porch there is a hand written note, “original?”. This is a little confusing because I plainly state what is not original to the house, so it would seem intuitive that everything else is original. I’m not sure if I’m supposed to explicitly say what is original and what isn’t. Do I itemize every window and stair tread? It seems that if I clearly state what is not original I should not need to state what is original.

Again, this is minor stuff and I’m not really dinked that much. They do say that “The physical description is very well organized and detailed”. Another odd thing, though. I’m told that “The statement of significance must begin with a summary paragraph stating which criteria the property meets and the level of significance”. I broke this up in to three short paragraphs, which was a mistake I guess. I was going for both the architecture and the a significant person. Maybe it would just be a matter of taking out some line breaks. Again, very minor stuff and easily fixed.

There were a few things that were not minor and not easily fixed. First, the reviewer did not think I made a strong enough case that Mowry was the architect. I will admit that the association is tenuous. There is no “smoking gun” that proves that Mowry built the house, yet the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. I would either need to delete all of this, or go on what would be an almost certainly fruitless search to find something that says that Mowry built the house. Another house just down the street is on the National Register and it claims that Mowry is the builder/architect. Some question this around town. I’m not sure where they got the proof for this. Mowry was prominent enough that there may be an archive some place, but I’ve never found it, and no one I know has ever seen anything like it. I’ve been in every archive in the county.

Also, the reviewer did not think that Petch was significant enough to warrant being considered for Criterion B. Another way to look at it is that I did not make a strong enough case. This is another area where there just is not enough information available. Unless I just start making things up, there is really nothing else to add. Maybe I could embellish all of my paragraphs and stretch it out, but I don’t think that is what they are looking for. Again, either a lot more research needs to be done, or it would need to be removed. I don’t know where else to research. It is a small county with few resources.

The last issue that would be a stumbling block is the photographs. This was the most puzzling because the reviewer said my photographs did not meet the standards. What is most puzzling about this is that I bought a printer, ink, and paper that is listed on the National Parks Service web site as being acceptable. The person who reviewed did not really say how they came to the conclusion that my pictures did not meet the standards, she just said, “The photos do not meet The National Park Standards. If the photos are digitally produce they must be printed with the combination of papers and ink that are recommended by the NPS”. This is the only one that really made me mad. Instead of asking how I produce the photographs, I am just old that they don’t meet the standard. It’s just, you know, give me the benefit of the doubt. It goes a long way.

As for the photos, I think that is just a mistake on their part and could be cleared up. As for the Petch and Mowry connections, I’m left with the choice of taking it all out, or at least not trying to make the case for it, or spend a lot more time researching. Neither of those things is appealing right now. I know Mowry is the builder/architect and he should be recognized. I also feel that Thomas Petch should be noted for his early work with electricity in the county.

Do I cave in just so I can stick a feather in my cap. I don’t think so. It seems it is better to withdraw the nomination until the facts can be found to prove the case I know is right. I don’t have the time or the emotional strength to go back in to a researching mode right now. I wrote the following in an email to the woman at the Office of Historic Preservation that reviewed my application…


Thank you for getting back to me about my nomination of The Thomas D. Petch House to the National Register of Historic Places. Rather than make the changes you’ve requested I’ve decided to withdraw my nomination. I am in the middle of a crucial part of the restoration and I don’t think I will have the time this year to do the research and complete the changes you requested.

I doubt I will be resubmitting the nomination in the future. I have found after 6 years of working on this house that it is not so much the end results that I enjoy, as much as it is the process. Teaching myself traditional plaster work was much more enjoyable than the finished walls. Teaching myself to make cabinets is more enjoyable than using the cabinets. In this same light, doing the research on the house and submitting the nomination was far more enjoyable than actually getting the house on the register.

It is interesting that after 6 years of research and working on the house, after literally uncovering the hidden past of the house, I found that I almost forgot about the nomination once the package was in the mail. It is the journey that I enjoy and not so much the destination.


I'm going to give my nomination and the reviewer's notes to the The Heritage Society and someone else can take up the cause in the future. Honestly, it's not that important to me any more. I had my fun. I got to do all of the research.

The Rooster Has Flown The Coop

Roger that! {*crackle*}

As I write, government couriers are transporting highly sensitive documents and photos to a secret government compound in the State Capital. Once there, trained officials will begin the painstaking chore of pouring over these documents with a fine toothed comb. The revelations that will come to light in the weeks and months ahead will shake the very foundation of our civilization.

I sent in my application to have The Petch House listed on The National Register of Historic Places.

This is a process that started more than 3 years ago, and languished for months because, as I’ve said time and time again, I am basically a very lazy person. I finally got every thing together, and with the help of a distant associate, I was able to dot the final Ts and cross the final Is in what will be remembered as one of the finest, most eloquent documents to be crafted since the Declaration of Independence.

I don’t think I’m over stating this, folks. It is that big. And if they can look past the dotted Ts and crossed Is, The Petch House will finally be given the recognition it deserves. It will be given a place of honor along with the other great architectural treasures this country has.

God Bless America!

Petch House Noir

These are the photos I submitted with the application to add my house to the National Register of Historic Places.



















































"Forget it, Petch. It's Eurekatown."

Photo Finish

I finally, officially, completely, and totally finished the application package for nominating my house to the National Register of Historic Places. It is quite the involved process. Baring a natural disaster, I should get the thing in the mail tomorrow.

The last part, which I did today, was making the pictures for the application. Mainly these are pictures of the house and some of the finer architectural details. As I said in an earlier post, they want archival quality, B&W photos. Also, because I’m sending digital photos, they require the original color images to be sent on a CD as well.

I ended buying in an Epson Picture Mate Dash photo printer for this. It’s a pretty cool little device, and it utilizes a new printing technology to render long term, fade resistant photos. I tried to buy one at Staples, but they were continually out of stock for 6 weeks and running. I ended up ordering it on-line from Epson and it was the same price as the one at Staples. I did need to pay shipping, but I didn’t pay sales tax, so it sort of balanced out. It ran a little more than $100.

It looks sort of like a lunch pail or a 1940s era bake-a-lite purse. It doesn’t use ink cartridges, in the traditional sense. Instead, there is a single cartridge that slides in to a slot in the back. The cartridge looks kind of like a VCR tape, only about a quarter the size. Because it only prints 4X6 photos, you buy a Print Pack for it that comes with a print cartridge and photo paper. One Print Pack will print 150 photos and costs about $45 with tax. That works out to be 30 cents a photo.



While 30 cents a photo is not the cheapest price for photos, the quality is superb. I have an Epson Stylus Photo R200 as well, and the Picture Mate photos are much better. With the R200, the photos look fine, but when you look at them at an angle you can faintly see where the print head moved across the page. You don’t see that at all with the Picture Mate.

Epson claims the Picture Mate photos will last 200 years. I’m not really sure how they determined that, but its good enough for the people at the National Parks Service, so its good enough for me.

Write-up: Check

My computer crossed the last “T” and dotted the last “I”, and with that the write-up for the National Register Nomination is done. I want to formally thank Alicia – a Tenured Professor, no less – for helping with the editing and proofreading. I feel so much better about the whole thing after that.

Thank you, Alicia – if that is your real name.

The entire write-up has 4 parts to it. The first part is the basic application. This is the fundamental information about the location and ownership of the house, who prepared the nomination packet, and under what category it is being nominated. The hardest part about that was finding the houses Northing and Easting location. I’m not sure why they don’t just use longitude and latitude. I also must supply a USGS topographical map with the location of the property marked on it.

After that is the detailed description of the house. This is called the Descriptive Narrative and it is basically a detailed description of the property using excepted architectural terms. Then there is the Statement of Significance. This is where you plead your case about why the house deserves to be on the Register. I’m trying to add both my house and the 1926 Mission Revival garage structure to the Register. I’m basing my case on the high style of the architecture, and the significance of Thomas Petch to the early development of the city. The last section is the bibliography, which I finished today.

Next, I need to get the pictures squared away, and after that I can submit the application. If everything goes perfect, I can expect the process to take 6 months. If everything doesn’t go perfect, then who knows. I don’t expect things to go perfect.


In the mean time, here are a few more confirmed and suspected Mowry houses. Enjoy.



I feel good about this one. It is almost identical to a Mowry I street house. It is freshly painted. Very colorful. It is a little too wild for me, but some do like this type of paint job. At least it is being cared for.


This one has a lot of potential. The detail in the barge board, and other trim work is very similar to other confirmed Mowry houses.


This one has a front porch that is very similar to mine, and even closer to 739 K Street. It also has the sunbusts over the windows just like mine, and it has the gable decoration exactly like 739 K Street. I've always loved this house.


This one is next door to 739 K Street. They really don't have a lot in common, other than the general massing of the structures. This is another one of those that just smells like a Mowry house. Unfortunately this house has been horribly butchered. As with 739 K Street, the insides are gone, and they both have those hideous additions on the front.

This Just In....

On an earlier post today I showed all of the homes and buildings that I could find locally that are attributed to Eugene Mowry, the man that I think built my house. Someone posted a comment about The Gingerbread Mansion in Ferndale, asking if it was another Mowry house. It does have some Mowry traits to it, so who knows. I Googled the Gingerbread Mansion, trying to find out, and I came up with squat on the builder/architect. It is now a popular Bed & Breakfast, and so there were a zillion hits for the house, but none mentioned the builder.

Weeks back, before I did the research, I speculated on some houses in town that I thought might be, or that I hoped would be, Eugene Mowry Houses. One of these was The Vance House. My main source for information is The Green Book, (aka "Eureka: An Architectural View") and either I read it wrong, or this is another of the errors in the book, but it did not say the house was a Mowry house.

Well, tonight as I was hopelessly Googling for The Gingerbread Mansion, another Mowry house popped up, and guess what, its The Vance (Simpson) House! The house is on The National Register of Historic Places and the NRHP site lists Architect, builder, or engineer: Mowry,E.C.

Take that, Green Book!

The Vance House Listing



Years ago, when I first wrote the draft for the nomination to the National Register I wrote about some of the more subtle similarities between The Vance House and The Petch House. The similarities are subtle at best, and I thought the connection was tenuous at best, so deleted it all. I think its time to get out the keyboard and do some updating.

And I thought I was done editing.

Eugene Mowry: A Retrospective

These are all of the local houses I could find that are in some way credited to the local builder and architect Eugene Mowry. He is the man I suspect built my house. You can click on most of the photos to bring up large format image.

All of these are relatively recent photos, except for The Grand Hotel, and all of the buildings still stand, except for The Grand Hotel {sniff!}. For any locals reading, The Grand originally stood across from The Eagle House and Chapalla Café, where that butt-ugly, low-rise warehouse complex now stands. What a loss. It was torn down in the 40s.

You can really watch as his style changes from the Eastlake cottages with the square bays, to the more elaborate Queen Anne style in his later work . My personal favorite is the second to the last house. I mean, its just absolute perfection. Why, I could go on and on about it.


The Grand Hotel - 1887


1025 J Street - 1887 (Mowry’s own house)


1035 J St - 1888 (The first Petch House)


1006 2nd Street – 1888 (Moved from 6th street. Second story lost in fire)


309 O Street 1889 (Moved from 3rd street)


1731 & 1739 Third Street - 1889


1807-19 California - 1889 (A pair of rare, early duplexes. Both the purple and the green homes are each a duplex.)


942 G Street - 1890


1323 I Street - 1891


915 G Street - 1892 (I tried desperately to buy this house. The owners wouldn't budge)


The Bell – 2nd & E Streets - 1892


Edit
The Simpson-Vance House - 1892

Edit

220 Hillsdale - 1893


216 Hillsdale - 1893


The Petch House - 1895


738 K Street - 1896



PS: Al, I can’t seem to get your email address. Are you still interested in helping. If so, email me at petchhouse at windswetpsoftware dot com.

At Some Point….

At some point I need to stop writing about the house and submit this damn thing to the State Office of Historic Preservation. Actually, its not so much writing anymore, as it is editing. I have a bad habit of scrutinizing every little detail and making endless edits. Or, I guess should say, re-writes. You know, making changes to something to clarify what is I want to say. Constantly refining it over and over until it sounds exactly like what I want. I re-read it over and over again and make minor, subtle little changes that I think better get my point across. Constant and repeated changes so there is no mistake about what I’m trying to describe. Does that make sense? Do you understand what it is I’m going through here? Because if you don’t, I’m happy to go over it again and again and again, until there is no mistake what so ever about the point I am trying to get across.

It just never seems to end.

The worst part, of coarse, is the fact that even with all of the edits I still make repeated mistakes in my righting. Stupid little mistakes that the spell checker doesn’t pick up and some how go unnoticed by me even after I read it dozens of time. Is there such a thing as myopic writing? I seem to concentrate so much on what I’m trying to say that my peripheral writing vision does not pick up everything. Unless I go over each letter of each word, I will never see all of my own mistakes. I don’t have time for that, though. I’m too busy editing.

This is why I’m going to take up the offer of a reader of The Petch House blog and have a professional pair of eyes go over it before I submit it. I should be finished with the editing in a week or two.

A Little Mowry Detail Work

I guess he knew what he was doing.

The Plot Thickens

Google Books has the 1890 Humboldt County business directory on-line. What are the odds of that, right? Anyway, I was poking around in it and I discovered another close connection between the builder and architect, Mr. Eugene Mowry, whom I’m convinced built my house, and the young hot-shot electrician, Thomas Petch.

A few weeks back there was an article in the paper about the house that the Petch Family first lived in prior to moving in to the real Petch House. It said that the house was built by Mr. Mowry, and in fact, he owned it and lived next door. So that establishes that Mr. Petch and Mr. Mowery were neighbors and Mr. Mowry was Mr. Petch’s landlord.

I’ve always assumed Mr. Mowry built The Petch House because there is an 1893 house, 2 years before The Petch House, built by Mr. Mowry on Hillsdale, that has an almost identical front window. Of course, everyone knows this, because I’ve been over it before.

Anyway, in the article a few weeks ago it said that in the 1880s Mr. Mowry’s mill was in Old Town at 3rd & B Streets (Sort of where the new Co-op is today, for any locals reading this). Well, either that was wrong, or it was right and he had offices at The Foot of H Street as well. That’s what it said in the 1890 Business Directory. The exact line is….

Mowry, E. C.; architect and builder, foot of H st.

This sounded a little too familiar. I knew that prior to running The Eureka Lighting Company in 1898, Thomas Petch was the Superintendent of The Gas Works in town. The gas works was as coal gas plant. Before electric lights came along most homes in the country were lit with coal gas. When you sort of cook coal and it gives of a flammable gas. Before coal gas it was mostly whale oil (Eeeeew!).

So where do you think the Coal Gas Plant was in town? That’s right, The Foot of H Street. In the 1890 Business Directory it lists…

Eureka Gas Co.; Foot of H st.

In the 1893 City Directory it lists…

Petch, Thos. D., superintendent Eureka Gas Works, 117 H St, res 1025 J St.

1025 J Street is the other Petch House. Mr. Mowry lived at 1035 J St, right next door. So as it turns out, not only were they neighbors, and Mr. Mowry was his landlord, but they worked right next door to each other at the foot of H st. Hell, they probably road the trolley together on the way to work.

So here is the conversation I imagine took place one day on the trolley ride home.

Mowry: You know, Thomas, this new electric thing is going to be big, Really Big. You know your stuff when it comes to gas, but the time has come for you to learn electrical. It is the wave of the future.

Petch: You know, you’re right. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. In fact, I’ve doing a lot of reading about it. Its not that hard. I just need to get some practice with it.

Mowry: Well listen to this. I’m starting a new house next week over on California St and the gentleman has told me he wants those new gasoliers with the electric lights down stairs in the parlor. I know you can run the pipe for gas, and if you think you’re up to it, I’m willing to let you run the wiring for the electrical as well. You’ve done some nice work for me over the years and I know you can do it. Besides, if you screw up, I can always evict you!

{Hearty laugh from Mowery and a nervous chuckle from Petch}

Petch: Al right! I do it!

Mowry: Excellent! And in a few years, when you’re making a fortune on this new electric thing, I’ll build you a fine house for your family.

Petch: That’s sounds great! You know, this electrical thing is really going to take off. Its going to be bigger than the internet.

Mowry: The internet? Oh, you mean how the fisherman interconnect their nets to catch more fish in one haul.

Petch: Yea, the internet just really changed their whole world.

Mowry: Yes, the internet….

Both men grow quite as they gaze out the window of the trolley car and think about the future

Mowery Was A Busy Little Boy

I went and did a little more research tonight. Some of my dates were fuzzy, and I needed to find out if Mowery built the house over on K Street that I talked about the other day. Unfortunately that house is also unaccredited in The Green Book, at least I think it is. Now that I think about it, I know it didn’t say Mowery, but I don’t recall if it said anything else. I may need to go back. Oh, and I had the address wrong.

The Green Book (a.k.a. Eureka: An Architectural View) was compiled back in the 70s. It is basically an inventory of many of the cities historic homes and buildings. At best, you get one or two short lines describing the house, the year it was built, and in many cases, the first owner, builder, and architect.

The question I really came away with was, were did they get the information about builders and architects for the book. I know you can go through property tax records and get owner information, but where did they get the builders and architects. Not every house is listed with a builder and architect, but many are. It might be the building department. I’ve seen my file and it doesn’t list anything.

My house does not have a builder/architect listed, but as I said the other day, I am fairly sure it was Mr. Eugene Mowery. Mr. Mowery was a fairly prolific builder in the 1880s and 1890s. Aside from a few prominent commercial buildings he built, I found no less 14 houses he built between 1887 and 1893.

All of these homes are still standing, and some are quite nice. You can bet pictures will be following. He did not build The Vance House. I was really hoping for that, and I can’t directly credit him with my house or the K street house, although I didn’t see any homes with his name in 1895, the year my house was built. To be fair, I didn’t go through the whole book.

He did seem to build homes in clusters, though. He built 2 on J Street in 1887 right next door to each other. He built 2 on Hillsdale in 1893, right next door to each other. In two instances, in 1889, he built two sets of pairs on California Street. In 1890 he built 3 on Third Street, all on the same block. The one on K Street is only 3 blocks from me. If that one was built in 1895 like mine, that would be in keeping with his pattern.

The one on G Street is just 2 houses down from The Vance House and the owner was a Vance. I just about craped when I saw that. Because the addresses were almost the same, I thought I was reading that Mowery built The Vance House. No such luck.

Pictures Every Where

I love digital cameras, but sometimes it can be a pain to decided which pictures to keep and which ones to get rid of. Its nice to be able to shoot 10 frames of something and then be able to pick the best one. The problem is, I never seem to get rid of the ones I don’t want. I mean, you just never know.

This may be one of the most photographically documented restorations of all time, but do I really need 84 pictures of my first plaster wall repair job done in the kitchen. I mean, I am absolutely swimming in photos. If this had been old time film photography there would be one or two, at best.

I use Picasa to manage my photos. It is a great utility except that it is a bit of a resource hog. I’ve been going through old photos trying to decided which ones I want to send along with the application to have The Petch House listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Naturally, I will be sending photos of my house. I will want at least one shot of every exterior elevation, along with shots that highlight some of the more important exterior elements. There will also be some interior shots of the stairs, fireplaces, burl dado, and a few other things. I need to show its High Artistic Qualities {Said in a snooty voice}.

I also want to include pictures of houses I reference in the write-up. Because I’m claiming Mr. Mowery, the builder, is a “regionally prominent master builder”, I want to be able to prove that. So below are a few shots I’m considering. I also need to find an old shot of The Grand Hotel. Mr. Mowery is credited with building it. It was a pretty spectacular 1880s Eastlake Hotel in Old Town Eureka that was torn down in the 40s. I’ve seen several photos, so it’s just a matter of getting one.



The is a house on Hillsdale built by Mr. Mowery just 2 years before mine. I showed a few shots of this one last week, but this shot really shows off the detail. You’ll notice this has my front window. My window is actually a little more detailed than that one. Mine has 41 pieces of stained glass, while this one has a paltry 25 pieces of glass. Frankly, I’m embarrassed for them. I mean, come on, 25 pieces of glass. Who are they trying to kid?



This is a house I suspect is a Mowery house, but I’ll need to confirm it. It is only 3 blocks from me. It has been horribly butchered, but it has a lot of very similar characteristics to my house. The floor-plan is just like my house, only reversed and stretched a bit. It has the sunburst over all of the windows, but again, these are less prominent than mine. These sunbursts have 9 rays each, while mine have 15. The frieze is identical to mine. The window over the porch is identical. The porch is nearly identical, with the exception of the brackets. On the inside, it has my exact stair case, only going the other way.

On the left side, you’ll notice it has the large bump-out with the window that faces the front of the house. On my house this bump-out is on the other side, because the floor-plans are flipped, but the bump-out on my house only goes out a foot. The stained glass window in the front is much simpler than mine. The bay brackets are almost identical, but again, a slightly less complex design. My house is missing the gable decorations – stripped off when the asbestos siding was put on – but the witness marks tell me they were very similar to those. The shingles on the second story are staggered squares instead of the octagons, like on my house. Again, it is very similar, but everything is just kind of dialed down a notch. The only thing that is dialed up a notch is that paint job. I’m not a fan of it.



The only reason this one makes the list is because this is where Thomas Petch ended up after the divorce in 1905. The poor bastard was really slumming it. I’ve never been in the house, but just from looking at that hideous plate glass window on the front, I’m willing to bet the inside has not faired well. No doubt there was once a pair of narrow windows, or maybe even a large stained glass window where that modern monstrosity now sits.



This is the Vance house, which is on the same street as my house. It is about 6 blocks down. Of course, this house is in another league than my house, but it does have a nearly identical frieze as mine, and this house is already on The National Register of Historic Places. I’m not sure who the builder was, although I’m sure it is well documented. I don’t think it is a Mowery House, but I need to check.





The 2 commercial buildings in the above photos may or may not make the list. The only connection they have is that these were where the eldest son had is offices at the turn of the century. Thomas Petch sent all 3 sons to Stanford University and the eldest became a doctor and had a long and successful practice in town.

I’ve been questioning how much I want to get in to Dr. Petch’s life. I’m concerned that the write-up will loose focus. The house is the primary focus, with Mr. Mowery being the Regionally Prominent Master Builder. The life and times of Thomas Petch Sr. should add to the provenance of the house. I don’t think the son really needs to be in there with little more than a passing comment about his success as a doctor.

I think I’m nearly finished with the write-up. I have a list of 4 or 5 things I need to double-check on at the library, but other than that I think I’m done. I’ll probably re-read it dozens of more times and tweak it over the next few weeks. Now I need to pick the photos, and I think I’m pretty much ready to go. The way things happen, it probably will be close to the end of this month before I’m really finished with the whole package of information. It is quite a process. Fortunately I started all of this 3 or 4 years ago, so most of the writing was already done.

What The Hell Do These People Want

That is the question. What do they want from me in order to get my house on the National Register of Historic Places. Well, there are several things that can get a house listed. One way is to think of it in terms of George Washington.

Did George Washington sleep here?
Did George Washington live here?
Did George Washington shoot somebody here?
Did George Washington sign something here?

For most properties listed it is not going to be George or anyone like George that had anything to do with the property. So than it must be size, right? If no one important had anything to do with it, then it must be a grand home, right?. Well, that’s not really all that important either. It was years ago that I read the criteria for considering a house to be listed, so this is my interpretation of it, but I seem to remember them talking a lot about Context.

A house, place, or building can be listed because someone important is associated with it, but it can also be that it is a good representation of a particular style that was constructed when that style was popular. And more importantly, that the house is still in its original context. It hasn’t been moved or changed drastically and it still retains a lot of the characteristics from the time it was constructed. Essentially, when you look at the house, you should be able to see it as it was and how it exists now in the same environment, even though the environment may have changed.

The style does not necessarily need to be true to some nationally recognized style because that would disqualify many regional variations of style. That is also, I think, where the whole Context thing comes in. If the property is a good representation of a regional style then it is a good candidate for listing. This could be an 1,100 square foot bungalow or a 16,000 square foot mansion.

I’m submitting two papers for the listing. One is a detailed description of the property itself. Mine is about 6 pages, single spaced. I describe the house in architectural terms, starting with all 4 elevations of the exterior and then each room of the interior. Along the way I do my best to point out what I think are important details that either help define the style, Queen Anne Revival, or elements that put the house in a regional context.

The second paper, which is also about 6 pages long, tries to express why the house should be listed. Here is the key sentence in the first paragraph that I use to plead my case.

“The house meets National Register Criterion C in the area of Architecture because it is an exceptional example of late Victorian architecture and it posses the craftsmanship of a regionally prominent master builder.”

In the next 6 pages that follow, I do my best to clarify that point. There are 4 areas of consideration that you can use to try and get your house listed. Obviously, I’m going for C. Below is a list of the 4 areas of consideration.

A. that are associated with events that have made significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

You can see that the way C is written it really opens up the door for just about anything. I think what it really comes down to is how well you plead your case. Any house in Levittown could be said to “represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction”. A lean-to shack on the Ozarks could be said to “embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction”.

Aside from the two write-ups, there is a cover sheet that gives a lot of basic information about me, the property, and its location. And then there are the photos, and I need to make a bibliography to site my sources.

Good news on the photo front. Three years ago when I looked in to this there were only a few ink jet printers listed on the National Parks site that were considered good enough to print archival quality photos. It really comes down to the ink and paper, and not so much the printer. The caveat is, only certain printers use certain inks. It was really a limited combination of ink and paper that made the grade. At the time, the least expensive printer was an Epson printer that used a 8 color, UltraChrome K3 ink. It started at about $900 just for the printer. The high-end ones go for a couple of grand. I went back and looked at the site this morning and they’ve add the Epson Picture Mate printer to the list. It must be a home version that uses the same ink and paper as the high-end Epson printers. This one goes for around $200!

They have also reduced the required size. Three years ago it was a minimum of 5X7 photos. Now is it 3½ x 5, which is great because the Epson Picture Mate only produces 4X6 photos. They do mandate that digital photos be accompanied by a CD containing TIF (Tagged Image File) images of the photos. These must be at least 1600x1200 pixels at 300 ppi. I’m not sure if my camera produces that resolution.

Once I submit the application, I have no idea how long the process takes. I fully expect to be asked to makes some changes or to clarify somethings. That is, if I’m not turned down immediately. I’ve been told that one thing that can kill an application right out is if the building has been moved. Mine hasn’t, but this would take the house out of its original context. I am a little concerned with the fact that the exterior had asbestos siding. Even though it is mostly original and has been fully restored, that still worries me.

I’m going to shoot for February 1st to mail off the application.

Going National

That’s that plan, anyway. We’ll see if The Nation welcomes me in to its open arms. I started this project a good 3 years ago, and the recent developments of finding an architect and builder’s name has brought it back to the forefront. Well, that, and the fact that it is too damn cold and wet around here to do anything else. If I can’t bang on wood with a hammer, I might as well bang on the keyboard with my fingers.

This is all about getting The Petch House the recognition is so sorely deserves. I’m going to try and get it listed on The National Register of Historic Places. As I said, I started this several years ago, but after writing and editing for months the whole thing sort of petered out when it came time to get pictures taken.

The historic preservation people demand - yes, thats right, Demand! - that the pictures that accompany the write-up be archival quality, black & white photos. These run $300 to $500 to produce. At the time, I was hemorrhaging cash on wiring, plumbing, paint, and tools trying to get this old shack in to a livable state. Spending that much on photos was not in the budget.

Before anyone writes and says that their $129 inch jet printer produces very nice B&W photos, I just want to say that that is not good enough for the listing application. When I was researching the whole process of submitting the application to the State Office of Historic Preservation (SOHP) I found that 99.9% of what is referred to as “Archival Quality” is not really Archival Quality. That term is tossed around so much these days that it has really lost almost all of its significance. The use of the term seems to have really taken off with the whole Scrap Book craze that has swept the nation over the last 5 years or so.

There is the term Archival Quality that is plastered in eye catching letters on packaging in stores, and then there is really Archival Quality materials used by professionals in the trade. The photos must be the latter, and they are not cheap. Now that I’m not building kitchens and bathrooms, though, I think I can find it in the budget to get the pictures produced.

So what does it mean to have your house listed on The National Register of Historic Places? Well, it doesn’t mean much. It is really little more than a feather in my cap and a nice plaque on the front door. In fact, I’m pretty sure I must buy the plaque myself if I want it.

The recognition is little more than just that – a recognition. There are no other restrictions placed on me, the house, or future owners, unless I get any type of Federal or State funding to maintain the property. If the house is listed on The National Register of Historic Places I could gut the inside, build a giant pink pyramid in here, sit under it naked, and eat dog poop. No one cares.

If you’ll notice, in order to list my house on The National Register of Historic Places, I first submit my application to the SOHP. Each state in the Nation has a SOHP. These offices do all of the vetting for the National Parks Service that maintains The National Register of Historic Places. Ninety-nine percent of all applications that make it past the SOHP and are submitted to the National Parks Service for listing, are placed on The National Register of Historic Places. The tricky part is getting past those bastards down at the SOHP. {Me shaking fist at screen} Damn you, SOHP!

I think some people confuse National Landmark Status with The National Register of Historic Places. A National Landmark would be a building or place that is significant to the nation on a cultural or historical level. It could be a battle field or building where an important event took place. The National Register of Historic Places is just a list of buildings and structures that largely only have significance at the local or state level.

Both lists are maintained by The National Park Service. They are in a way just an inventory which archives the architectural history of the Nation. There are currently about 80,000 places in The National Register of Historic Places, and of those, about 2,400 are considered National Landmarks.

The reason there are no restrictions placed on the current or future owners of homes placed on The National Register of Historic Places is because if there were, only nut jobs like me would ever place their home on The Register. It would defeat the whole purpose of The Register. If individual property rights weren’t insured, then The Register would be all but empty.

It is only really when you get down to a local level that cities can place restrictions on structures deemed historically significant, and that has nothing to do with The National Register of Historic Places. It is really no different than the city preventing me from turning my house in to a 24-hour tire shop or strip club. This is what cities do. They create ordinances so that it makes it easier for us to co-exist. If anyone could do anything they wanted with their private property in the city limits the place would be chaos. As far as city ordinances go, preservation ordinances are some of the most benign and benefit the city in the long run. My house could be listed at a National and State level and still not be listed at a City level. These are all separate things.

Even then, if I’m listed locally in my own city, any restrictions are only placed on the facade that faces the street. The level of ignorance about this is astounding. Just tune in to a City Council meeting when they are discussing local preservation ordinances and you will see what appear to be otherwise intelligent people lose the ability to read and understand simple language that spells out the ordinance. For the last time people, NO ONE CARES WHAT COLOR YOU PAINT YOUR BATHROOM!

My own house, which is on the Local Register of Historic Places has very few restrictions placed on it. Only changes I make to the front facade that faces the street has any restrictions on it, and even that has nothing to do with paint color. It pretty much only has to do with windows, porches, and siding. That’s pretty much it. These ordinances are only designed to maintain the historical look and feel of the home as it is seen from the street. Your house, when listed locally, can be little more than a Disney Land façade on Main St. As for the rest of it: Go Hog Wild and butcher your place as you please. Right now, if I wanted to, I could gut the inside, build a giant pink pyramid in here, sit under it naked, and eat dog poop. No one cares.

Hey, maybe that will be my next project.

Hmmmm, eating dog poop under a pyramid. Grrrrllll

A Builder's Name

Its funny how things come together sometimes. It is rare, I think, that you stumble on to a treasure trove of information about the history of your house, or the first owners. More often than not it is a long process that takes years, with little tidbits sometimes revealing themselves when you least expect it. Just recently another piece of the puzzle came together.

The local paper has a monthly insert called Restore & Preserver. It is about local architecture, and several years ago they did a write-up on my house. The most recent issue had an article on the other Petch House in town. While I was researching my house I found that the Petch family first lived at 1025 J Street.



I had an opportunity to speak with the current owner once. He is a very nice man, and he is doing a very nice restoration of the house, but knew nothing of the Petch family's time in the house. Not too surprising really. No matter, it is still fun to talk about old houses and local architecture. There are other houses in town, that while they have no connection to the Petch family, they do have connection to The Petch House, in architectual terms anyway.



The house above on Hillsdale has an almost identical window to The Petch House. It is a fairly unique design, so it has always seemed that there must be some connection to my house, but I could never prove it. It could be the same architect or the same builder. If nothing else, surely the window came out of the same mill.



This other house above, which is considered the sister house to the Hillsdale house, also has the same front window. This house was a full two stories at one time, but caught fire and was rebuilt as a story and a half. I’ve been told that at one time it was identical to the Hillsdale house.

The Green Book, a local inventory of historical structures in town, credits these two homes as being built by a man named Mowry. My house, even though it has the same front window, has no builder or architect credited to it in The Green Book. In fact, the book goes as far as to say that my front window is a later addition. Gasp! The Nerve!

I’m not exactly sure where this idea came from that my window is a later addition. Obviously it is a mistake. The only thing that can possibly explain this mistake is that my house was covered in asbestos siding at the time The Green Book was compiled back in the 1970s. Regardless, this obvious mistake in the book has become a bit of a running joke among my friends here in town.

So anyway, back to Restore & Preserve. I was excited to see the other Petch House on J street getting a write-up in the paper. It is a very nice little Eastlake cottage, and it too was once covered with asbestos siding. The current owner – it was his dad who covered the house in asbestos back in the 40s – has been doing a faithful restoration of the exterior for about 20 years. The house looks great.

The article went on to talk about Mr. Eugene Mowery, builder and architect of the J street house. It said that in 1884 he and a partner owned a mill at the corner of 3rd & B streets that turned out lots of gingerbread, fancy doors, and sash. It also said that he was a builder and architect and built several prominent structures in town. Not only did he build the house on J street, the Hillsdale house, and the 2nd street house, but he also built and lived in the house at 135 J St, right next door to the first Petch House at 1025 J St. In fact, he built his house first and then built the house next door as a rental. And guess who he rented it too? That’s right, the young and growing Petch Faimily!

So in the late 1880s we have The Petch Family living at 1025 J street. Right next door is his neighbor, landlord, close personal friend, and prominnet local builder and architect, Mr. Mowery. In 1895, 2 years after the Mr. Mowery builds the Hillsdale house, The Petch House gets built on M street with a nearly identical window.

Well, a blind man could connect the dots at this point. Not only did Mr. Mowery build The Petch house, but all of the millwork most certianly came out of Mr. Mowery’s mill at the corner of 3rd & B streets.

It is just one more tiny piece of the puzzle, but I find it all very fascinating.