Anonymous wrote:
Preparing a landmark application is a time-intensive process, so there is often little incentive to seek protection when an owner is effectively preserving and stewarding the property. However, the threat of sale and possible demolition is frequently the catalyst to act, because once a landmark is gone, it's gone. In any event, preserving the main house on Sidwell's Edgemoor campus still permits much development of the site (assuming that another institution doesn't buy it). Even with landmarking of the house/front lawn, the property is likely to command a high price.

If someone were going to redevelop the property, even with the "historic" house and viewshed, they would need to take down the brand new gym, the academic building and the other building where the specials classes are taught. That is a lot of removal before new construction. It is highly unlikely that a developer would do that. More likely that another school would take over the space and use it in kind.

Wow you people need a life.

Anonymous wrote:Cleveland Park: became and historic district and landmarked the Park N Shop out of threat of redevelopment;

Tregaron: landmarked and conservancy created out of thread of redevelopment;

Rosedale: created conservancy out of threat of redevelopment

You are making my case. I am not saying it is a bad thing, but the reality is that the Sidwell Lower School is not worthy of a landmark just because the manor house is old. People may try to make the claim, and they may succeed, but that doesn't make it right.

If they succeed on the merits and the nomination is approved by the MoCo historic preservation board, why is that not "right"? Factors supporting landmark status would be not only the age of the structure, but its history, architectural uniqueness and whether there are other examples of similar properties that are preserved in the area.

Preparing a landmark application is a time-intensive process, so there is often little incentive to seek protection when an owner is effectively preserving and stewarding the property. However, the threat of sale and possible demolition is frequently the catalyst to act, because once a landmark is gone, it's gone. In any event, preserving the main house on Sidwell's Edgemoor campus still permits much development of the site (assuming that another institution doesn't buy it). Even with landmarking of the house/front lawn, the property is likely to command a high price.

Different poster. As I read the Maryland Historic Easement process, it's a voluntary program available to the owner of the property. Neither the school nor any redeveloper would be required to submit the house to the easement process. https://mht.maryland.gov/easement.shtml

In addition, Maryland statute 12-104 seems to suggest that if the easement impacts the fair market value of the property, then the owner can seek compensation. This is not my field, but presumably that means whichever political entity is blocking redevelopment (Bethesda? Montgomery County?) will be reimbursing for fair market value. "If any easement in gross or other right to restrict use of land or any interest in land has been donated to the Maryland Historical Trust or the Maryland Environmental Trust, damages shall be awarded in any condemnation proceedings under this title to the fee owner and leasehold owner, as their interests may appear, and shall be the fair market value of the land or interest in it, computed as though the easement or other right did not exist."

Cleveland Park: became and historic district and landmarked the Park N Shop out of threat of redevelopment;

Tregaron: landmarked and conservancy created out of thread of redevelopment;

Rosedale: created conservancy out of threat of redevelopment

You are making my case. I am not saying it is a bad thing, but the reality is that the Sidwell Lower School is not worthy of a landmark just because the manor house is old. People may try to make the claim, and they may succeed, but that doesn't make it right.

Anonymous wrote:Except that the landmarking is to prevent redevelopment, not to actually preserve and celebrate the structure in question. You are right, there is nothing unusual about it, but the preservation community and the government officials who work in preservation do not like the movement to be used for NIMBY purposes.

If the threat of re-development is to tear down the historic structure or irretrievably alter the landmark, it doesn't matter. Preservation officials depend on the work of private groups like the DC Preservation League and neighborhood groups to do the hard work of documenting the historic and architectural significance of properties. This leaves plenty of potential for adaptive reuse and additional development.

In Upper NW Washington, a lot of major preservation grew out of major threatened development: Connecticut Ave. and the historic district in Cleveland Park, the Tregaron and Rosedale Conservancies. Citiline, on top of the Best Buy and an excellent example of adaptive reuse and expansion, was built on top of the old Sears store in Tenleytown which was preserved.

what about Fr American School? they have several campuses. Wonder if they would like to consolidate at all?

Except that the landmarking is to prevent redevelopment, not to actually preserve and celebrate the structure in question. You are right, there is nothing unusual about it, but the preservation community and the government officials who work in preservation do not like the movement to be used for NIMBY purposes.

Anonymous wrote:If it merited Landmarking, it should have happened 20 years ago. Placing a landmark on it now when it really doesn't have historic merit is nothing but a NIMBY ploy.

It often takes a threat of demolition to galvanize people and groups to landmark something, as a lot of work is involved. Nothing unusual about that.

If it merited Landmarking, it should have happened 20 years ago. Placing a landmark on it now when it really doesn't have historic merit is nothing but a NIMBY ploy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The neighborhood should try to get it declared a landmark...which would keep it a school.

The only thing they could landmark is the old house. Someone could buy the property, build 30 new houses and restore the old house. It wouldn't need to be a school.

The landmark would lIkely be the manor house and the view shed (lawn) from the street, The rest of the property to the side and rear could be developed.

So you would misuse historic preservation for your own self interest in preventing others from living in your neighborhood? I am not sure preservationists would support that.

We are a Sidwell family. I fail to see how land marking the main house is a "misuse" of historic preservation. The county historic preservation office would look at any application on its own merits. The main house on Sidwell's Wash campus is on the national register. There aren't many examples of estate houses left in central Bethesda, so a landmark application may make sense. It certainly wouldn't affect re-development of much of the site.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The neighborhood should try to get it declared a landmark...which would keep it a school.

The only thing they could landmark is the old house. Someone could buy the property, build 30 new houses and restore the old house. It wouldn't need to be a school.

The landmark would lIkely be the manor house and the view shed (lawn) from the street, The rest of the property to the side and rear could be developed.

So you would misuse historic preservation for your own self interest in preventing others from living in your neighborhood? I am not sure preservationists would support that.

McLean seems like a very likely candidate. That school is making huge strides under Mike Saxenian and it needs a second campus, or a bigger one.

I think Burke and Sheridan could use the space too but would be very surprised if they left the District.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The neighborhood should try to get it declared a landmark...which would keep it a school.

The only thing they could landmark is the old house. Someone could buy the property, build 30 new houses and restore the old house. It wouldn't need to be a school.

The landmark would lIkely be the manor house and the view shed (lawn) from the street, The rest of the property to the side and rear could be developed.

NP. What benefit would that serve? You wouldn't prevent development of the site, but rather would just make it less profitable for the property owners. Indeed, the developer would be incentivized to build more densely to maximize profit. "Manor House Coutt"? Seems like the only logical reason to seek landmark status here is to depress the economic value of the site.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The neighborhood should try to get it declared a landmark...which would keep it a school.

The only thing they could landmark is the old house. Someone could buy the property, build 30 new houses and restore the old house. It wouldn't need to be a school.

The landmark would lIkely be the manor house and the view shed (lawn) from the street, The rest of the property to the side and rear could be developed.