HRC FULL PACKET 2012-06-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

+ Law sloping roof with wide over-hanging eaves • Simpler details and basic, asymmetrical floor plan (as compared to other Victorian styles) From the early 1900's photograph of the McGowan house, it is clear that this residence has not retained the integrity of its original Victorian farmhouse origins. The house has been expanded with a 15t and 2 floor addition, a new roofline constructed, and the front porch was enclosed. Most importantly, however, the front fagade was substantially altered from its original Victorian design to a modified Colonial Revival style. This forced stylistic transformation created a number of inconsistencies. These inconsistencies include: • The verticality of the structure, due to the high Victorian ceilings, is not proportionate with Colonial Revival architecture. • The off-center placement of the main entrance and the asymmetrical window confgurafion are at adds with the Colonial Revival style. Weather drawing upon Georgian, Federal, or Cufch Colonial prototypes, Colonial Reviva! buildings feature rectangular building plan and designs which are usually symmetrical, or of least highly regular and balanced, in composition. (McAlester, 320-326} The one-story hipped roof projection, that was believed to have been a porch, was never a part of the original home. The Porte cochere, referenced in the original historic report, was never a part of the original home. Furthermore, Victorian architectural elements that remain on the house are inconsistent with Colonial Revival. These details include: • Attenuated corner pilaster detailing, pilasters in the Colonial Revival style would have been more substantial in width. • Large boxed eaves • Tall, narrow, ane-over-one Victorian windows on the East and West elevations • Rectangular doorway, with transom lite and decorative crown, on the East Elevation + Victorian box bay on the west elevation Original placement of this home in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties was proposed under Criterion 1 for `its representation of the distinguishing characteristics of the Colonial Revival style.' In light of the new photographic evidence, the inconsistencies of the Colonial Revival remodel can naw be fully understood. This is no# a farmhouse that evolved time, but rather one that was substantially, and inconsistently, altered in 1938. This home can no longer be found to "exemplify a particular style or design features," as required under Criterion 1, To continue to list this home in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties for its architectural value is misleading, as its current state is not reflective of its 1880s Victorian farmhouse conception. It can no longer be classified as a notable example of a Colonial Revival style. According to the Nation Park Service guidelines on cri#eria for evaluation of a property for design and construction (Criterion C): Page 2 of 4