Image courtesy of Mike Gibson.
Design Review Board
The proposed modern design for Gibson’s house created some negative reactions from his neighbors, leading to the discussion of a design review board.
Mike Gibson and his wife decided to move to Sutherland Place because they enjoyed the Edgewood community and wanted space for their children to grow up. Their plan for a modern, two-story home on a street of historic bungalows, however, made several neighbors unhappy and sparked a discussion in City Hall over the possible need for a design review board.
It began when Sutherland Place resident Gina Pearson distributed flyers to her neighbors about the Gibson home and two other bungalows on the street that are being replaced. She was upset that a historic home would disappear in favor of a “design experiment” that did not match the neighborhood.
“My neighborhood is forever diminished,” Pearson said. “We’re losing these houses built almost 100 years ago.”
Pearson said her neighbors responded with “real passionate feelings” about the modern design. She gathered more than a dozen emails with concerns about the Gibson home’s impact on property values and neighborhood aesthetics. The phrase “sore thumb” was frequently repeated.
“People aren’t happy about that, period,” Pearson said.
Gibson, the president of the design-build firm Appleseed Workshop, acknowledged that his home designs are not universally popular. However, he said his house appraises for $600,000 and will raise neighbors’ property value. Additionally, he pointed out that not every old house has historic value. The bungalow Gibson bought has a dangerous foundation, a roof in bad condition, no central air conditioning and inefficient windows.
“These old houses in Homewood are absolutely not good for the environment,” Gibson said, pointing out the single pane windows, old plumbing and lack of insulation.
Gibson added that the bungalow will not be entirely torn down. A renovated foundation and the current wood flooring, bathroom and two bedrooms will become part of his new home’s design.
A friend had told Gibson about Pearson’s flyers, but he was not expecting nearly 30 people to show up to a Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) meeting on July 10 to oppose his house. He was at the meeting to ask for a four-inch variance, a minor request that was turned down after his neighbors’ statements. The BZA does not have jurisdiction over the appearance of Homewood buildings, but Gibson believes his variance was denied solely because of reactions to the unconventional design.
“It kind of burst our bubble a little bit,” Gibson said.
This was not the first time the BZA has seen public opposition to certain designs. BZA member Lauren Gwaltney said many residents mistakenly believe the BZA or some other city committee can regulate building appearances.
In response, the Planning and Development Committee has decided to reconsider a 2009 proposal for a design review board, which would regulate materials and designs for city buildings. The committee is still researching what such a board would entail, but the members have already received a wide range of opinions at their July 21 meeting.
“The opinions that we’re hearing are all over the place,” City Council Chairman Bruce Limbaugh said.
Pearson and Broadway Street resident Sarah Walker are among many people who want a design review board to preserve the historic homes and character of Homewood’s neighborhoods.
“It’s getting less unique, not more unique, the more freedom people have,” Walker said at the planning meeting. “My fear is that the charm is going to be stripped out.”
Others in the city think design review would infringe on homeowners’ ability to express themselves and limit the city’s growth and diversity. Emily Evans, a resident of Manhattan Street, proposed a historical board at the meeting, as she wanted to preserve historic homes but felt a design review board would lead the city to become too uniform.
“I feel like Homewood has flourished and grown a lot, and I think if you put [in] a design review board, we’re going to take a step back,” Evans said. “I just think we’re setting ourselves up to go down a path in the future that we don’t want to go down.”
At the July 21 meeting, Ward 3 Representative Walter Jones said if a board is created, its purpose will be to reduce city council time spent on BZA and design issues, not to make Homewood neighborhoods look exactly the same. Committee members have been reviewing Mountain Brook and Birmingham’s design regulations to guide their decision.
As for Gibson, he has worked with design review boards before and would submit to the city’s guidelines if a board is created in Homewood. However, he felt that such a board would need to be made of diverse members, or else it would cause Homewood’s attractiveness and variety to decline.
“Homewood is this unique community that can be diverse, and the city is actually encouraging diversity,” Gibson said. “I think a design review committee in Homewood could actually hurt the progress that Homewood is making and the community it’s turning into.”
The planning committee has not set a date for its next discussion of the design review board. Ward 5 Representative Peter Wright, the planning committee chairman, said there is not enough information yet to make a decision. At the Aug. 11 city council meeting, Wright said he is “all ears and all eyes and [would] welcome proposals.”
