Talk:Historic district (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Historic district (United States) has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 25, 2007.
April 27, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] History

The rest of the history can be seen at the redirect at Historic District which leads here.A mcmurray 06:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Globalization

I've added template:globalize, but there could alternative be an argument for removing any reference to this as a worldwide phenomenon and restricting the article to the United States, where a Historic District is legally defined. Warofdreams talk 18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Could be. Although, I am not sure if there is any way to know if there is or is not legal protection in every nation on Earth.A mcmurray 20:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess you could look at having more than one country. You don't need to have every country in the world. In Australia we have the National Trust which owns/manages many historic areas. Ozdaren 08:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just do what Kpalion did and change the name of the page. Ozdaren 08:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was the best thing that could be done with this page as it is. Of course, that shouldn't stop anybody from writing an article on historic districts from a global perspective. — Kpalion(talk) 08:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. That was the best thing to do, I would have included more global perspective but I lack them. I hope someone writes other articles as sometimes I think redirect tend to discourage that.A mcmurray 13:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historic district (United States)

I looked over the article (sorry for taking so long, I had a busy day of classes) and found a few minor things, mostly grammar issues. I think once you fix the below suggestions you should nominate it (and then wait a month for it to be reviewed!). Let me know if you want any further clarification on these and thanks for the offer of reviewing an article of mine down the road. I want to work on the Leslie Nielsen article soon, but I'm waiting for some free time in my schedule.

  • In the intro sentence, entities is spelled wrong.Y Done IvoShandor 06:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "All but the eponymous district category are also applied to historic districts listed on the National Register. [5]" Remove space between punctuation and inline citation.Y Done IvoShandor 06:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In the Property types section, integrity and integral are spelled wrong.Y Done IvoShandor 06:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In Federal historic districts, physical and separated are misspelled.Y Done IvoShandor 06:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "The Register is the official recognition by the U.S. government concerning the historic or architectural significance of a district or property." This could use an inline citation.N Not done IvoShandor 06:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Y Done IvoShandor 07:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "However, if a property falls under one of those categories and are "ntegral parts of districts that do meet the criteria" then the exception for their listing will be made." Integral is spelled wrong.Y Done IvoShandor 06:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In Local historic districts section, Regulations is spelled wrong twice, once in the citation and again in the last paragraph of the section.Y Done IvoShandor 06:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "In addition, the property becomes protected under specific state laws." Could you possibly explain what type of protection? I think you do include some information in a later statement ("Local historic districts usually enjoy the greatest level of protection, under law, from any threats that may compromise their historic integrity."), but maybe move this up earlier if applicable.N Not done IvoShandor 06:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Y DoneIvoShandor 08:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I have somewhat reworded this. I can include some specific state laws that protect properties more (Tennessee) but I think Nevada and North Carolina should be suffcient for the opposite (no real protections). If not let me know. IvoShandor 08:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Possibly expand the significance section if possible and integrity is misspelled. N Not done IvoShandor 06:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Y Done IvoShandor 08:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

--Nehrams2020 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good job on fixing all of those (I'm sure the spelling wasn't that difficult). The only other thing I would suggest is to adjust the bottom two images by spacing them out more (perhaps put one in the significance section) and maybe going through and adding more wikilinks you think are necessary. I'd recommend nominating it at GAC whenever you're ready. --Nehrams2020 08:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In the discussion about resitance to local historic districts, a significant issue was overlooked. The concerns are not only about having an appropriate level of regulation, but also about interpretation and enforcement of regulations. Judgments by regulatory entities can be arbitrary and capricious.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.7.202 (talk • contribs)


A level of detail I would certainly like to see this article get to. Any reliable sources I could use? (Also, try to remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). IvoShandor 13:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Here's a couple examples of the arbitrary and capricious nature of historic district enforcements. In May of 2003, there was a widely publicized incident at the Avondale Estates historic district near Atlanta, GA. A homeowner with a non-historic, contemporary-style, non-contributing home was denied permisssion to modify his front steps by the town's historic preservation commission. In protest, the homeowner painted the house lime green with purple polka dots. In Chicago, a lawsuit challenging the city's landmarks ordinance has been filed in response to historic district designations. I believe it is presently known as "Albert C. Hanna and Carol C. Mrowka vs. the City of Chicago, the Commission on Chicago Landmarks,... etc.". It's a lengthy complaint containing many arguments. Among them are the suggestion that historic district designations are a tool for racial segregation. It also claims that historic district designations are being used as an improper substitution for failed downzoning attempts. It also claims that the criteria used to justify proposed landmark status are so broad that they are meaningless and really don't exclude any structure anywhere. This is all of particular concern in a place like Chicago where machine politics and "aldermanic prerogative" have a history of making a mockery of rule of law.69.211.7.202 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The process in Chicago is very very very politically charged, as a regular reader of the Sun Times and Trib, I realize this. I will search out the info on Avondale Estates as soon as I get a chance. As for the Chicago stuff...it may merit its own article or Commission on Chicago Landmarks could need a page, it could go there. Once I complete research on it, I will likely include some info here, so as not to stray to far into another topic, link wherever it seems that info would be best. There is already Chicago Landmark. Hmm. What do you think? IvoShandor 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think mention of this kind of controversy should be isolated on pages referring to specific locales. Widespread adoption of historic district ordinances in the US is a fairly recent phenomenon that swept the country overnight, and the forces that both encourage and resist this change in the landscape are deserving of identification.69.211.7.202 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I. The only thing I wonder about is how much to include here. How much to include there, eventually, if I include every example, it could get unusably long and merit its own article, perhaps Local historic district, or something to that effect. That's what I was getting at. I have found several references to the Avondale Estates situation. I have access to complete historical archives of the Chicago Tribune as well as the Chicago Defender, so that won't be a problem. I am probably going to break this into a "Criticism" section. IvoShandor 19:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I will be adding this after the GA process is over. Unless the reviewer asks for it, which for GA criteria this article is probably broad enough. IvoShandor 15:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal/reversion

Many historic districts from the days before cars try to keep the noise levels low and therefore, the streets might be one-way to keep the traffic low and have parking limits to keep the parking level low.

I have removed the above added by anonymous editor 66.181.89.212. My reasoning: A) it had no source, see WP:RS. B)It doesn't belong in the lead, see WP:LEAD. IvoShandor 13:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As a note, the first American historic district didn't appear until well after the invention of the automobile, the above addition contradicted the whole article in it's current form. IvoShandor 13:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

Article looks well, very clear and to the point. Automatic peer review suggestions are:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Congratulations. DoomsDay349 16:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

"...on the heels of a report from the U.S. Conference of Mayors which stated Americans suffered from "rootlessness." This comes from where?? I removed the reference since they were very likely more concerned with population flight to the suburbs than historic preservation.

Well it comes from a citation, I will add it. IvoShandor 22:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
And perhaps you should read the article that it was cited to before making snap judgements, I will re read it to make sure I didn't misinterpret anything but the citation is in line and provided right there. Go to a library and read it. IvoShandor 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I added back what you removed and added a citation, which is redundant to what already appeared in the article, read the whole thing please, before commenting in the future. If you read the article its cited to you will see that it is in fact the case that the mayors recommeded historic preservation as one way to alleviate this "rootlessness." IvoShandor 22:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)