Hawthorne Supports Study of Sheltering Arms House

Post and photo by the Hawthorne Hawkman

Earlier this month, the Hawthorne Neighborhood Council board took up the issue of what to do with the Sheltering Arms House, located at 2648 Emerson Ave N. Technically, this was the second time the board reviewed the house. Several months ago, before the potentially historic nature of the property was known, the board declined to oppose either CPED's acquisition of the property or its demolition. However, upon finding out new information, the support of a study to determine its historic designation was unanimous at both the housing committee and full board.

CPED has already acquired the property, so the question of acquisition is moot. As for its demolition...

...this desire to explore the historic nature of the house delays that question. The Sheltering Arms orphanages, founded in the 1880's, were led by a group of thirty Episcopalian nuns, "to provide services to children without discrimination as to race, color, or creed." These orphanages were the precursors to the Sheltering Arms Foundation in Minneapolis today.

Furthermore, the historical contributions of women and minorities in Minneapolis are woefully under-documented. Whether this house - believed to be either the first or second Sheltering Arms orphanage in Minneapolis - meets historic criteria, a group of women in racially-inclusive servant leadership is a significant part of our neighborhood's history.

What the Hawthorne Neighborhood Council has done is expressed its support for the Heritage Preservation Commission of Minneapolis to do a historical designation study. These are the following criteria used to determine if a site is historic:

(1) The property is associated with significant events or with periods that exemplify broad patterns of cultural, political, economic, or social history.

(2) The property is associated with the lives of significant persons or groups.

(3) The property contains or is associated with distinctive elements of neighborhood identity.

(4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction.

(5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail.

(6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects.

(7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

What is important here is that cost does not come into play while the study is underway. (Even an ongoing study doesn't necessarily rule out demolition; it just makes such a move more difficult.) Once its historic nature (or lack of) has been determined, THEN cost comes back into the picture.

I've argued from the beginning that first, I believe this property to be historically significant, and second, that such designation should not be necessary to prevent this house from being demolished. But if this study finds historic significance at the Sheltering Arms House, and therefore keeps it from demolition, so much the better.

One person who was inside the house did express concern that it has serious water damage that could make it unsalvageable at any cost. If JNS readers know of some basic ways that Hawthorne could help the city protect the house and mitigate any further damage, please share them in the comment section below or contact me directly.

A Light of Hope for the Sheltering Arms House

Post and photo by the Hawthorne Hawkman

This blog has identified a property owned by the city at 2648 Emerson Ave N and has been advocating for its rehabilitation and against demolition. (click here, here, here, and here for the story) I just received word from a credible source that the Historic Preservation Commission has flagged the Sheltering Arms House as "potentially historic." The Historic Preservation Commission apparently has also recommended rehabilitating the building, although it's not clear in what capacity that recommendation was made (a member voicing an opinion vs. a formal decision by the commission, for instance).

The salvation of this property is not yet guaranteed, but what this news means is...

...that there will be a more formal process if a demolition permit is sought by the city. The HPC will review the permit in the same way they review all such permits. The Historic Preservation Ordinance lays out this criteria in a format available online. Go to title 23, chapter 599, article VII, or read the relevant section below:

"99.450. Identification of historic resources. The planning director shall identify properties that are believed to meet at least one of the criteria for designation contained in section 599.210, but that have not been designated. In determining whether a property is an historic resource, the planning director may refer to building permits and other property information regularly maintained by the director of inspections, property inventories prepared by or directed to be prepared by the planning director, observations of the property by the planning director or any other source of information reasonably believed to be relevant to such determination. (2001-Or-029, § 1, 3-2-01)

"599.460. Review of demolitions. The planning director shall review all building permit applications that meet the definition for demolition to determine whether the affected property is an historic resource. If the planning director determines that the property is not an historic resource, the building permit shall be approved. If the planning director determines that the property is an historic resource, the building permit shall not be issued without review and approval by the commission following a public hearing as provided in section 599.170. (2001-Or-029, § 1, 3-2-01; 2009-Or-023, § 13, 3-27-2009)

"599.470. Application for demolition of historic resource. An application for demolition of an historic resource shall be filed on a form approved by the planning director and shall be accompanied by all required supporting information, as specified in section 599.160. (2001-Or-029, § 1, 3-2-01)

"599.480. Commission decision. (a) In general. If the commission determines that the property is not an historic resource, the commission shall approve the demolition permit. If the commission determines that the property is an historic resource, the commission shall deny the demolition permit and direct the planning director to prepare or cause to be prepared a designation study of the property, as provided in section 599.230, or shall approve the demolition permit as provided in this section.

"(b) Destruction of historic resource. Before approving the demolition of a property determined to be an historic resource, the commission shall make findings that the demolition is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property, or that there are no reasonable alternatives to the demolition. In determining whether reasonable alternatives exist, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to, the significance of the property, the integrity of the property and the economic value or usefulness of the existing structure, including its current use, costs of renovation and feasible alternative uses. The commission may delay a final decision for up to one hundred eighty (180) days to allow parties interested in preserving the historic resource a reasonable opportunity to act to protect it.

"(c) Mitigation plan. The commission may require a mitigation plan as a condition of any approval for demolition of an historic resource. Such plan may include the documentation of the property by measured drawings, photographic recording, historical research or other means appropriate to the significance of the property. Such plan also may include the salvage and preservation of specified building materials, architectural details, ornaments, fixtures and similar items for use in restoration elsewhere.

"(d) Demolition delay. The commission may stay the release of the building, wrecking or demolition permit for up to one hundred eighty (180) days as a condition of approval for a demolition of an historic resource if the resource has been found to contribute to a potential historic district to allow parties interested in preserving the historic resource a reasonable opportunity to act to protect it. The release of the permit may be allowed for emergency exception as required in section 599.50(b). (2001-Or-029, § 1, 3-2-01; 2009-Or-023, § 14, 3-27-2009)"

More seasoned preservationists, please feel free to put that into regular English for the rest of us. But what I take from that section is that if the property is deemed a historic resource, then a public hearing must be held before a demolition permit can be granted. Connie Nompelis was kind enough to post and expand upon the designation criteria and the nomination criteria on the Historic Preservation forum.

We're not out of the woods yet in terms of saving this house, but we're a big step closer.

Expanding on a Proposal to Save the Sheltering Arms House

Post and photo by the Hawthorne Hawkman.

About a month ago, I was chatting with Connie Nompelis about this property after I'd been inside of it. I was in a mood of despair, since PPL also examined the place and felt that the city's estimate for rehab of $450,000 was accurate. But Connie came up with a novel idea on how to save this building. I've been playing phone tag with various contacts and didn't want to write about this prematurely.

(ADDENDUM regarding the ownership status and purpose added in the comment section of this post.)

Connie, on the other hand, decided to post her idea on her blog in order to build momentum for this house. Now that the idea is out there, I'm adding my own proposals to it...

First things first, go to Overnorth and read Connie's proposal. Are you back? Great, let's get started.

The $450,000 price tag is just plain unrealistic for saving this house. With the city as its owner, we essentially have three potential buyers: PPL, Urban Homeworks, and Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity. Habitat can only do single-family residences or conversions to single-family homes, so they're eliminated right off the bat. That's too bad, because the number one thing this house needs is sweat equity.

The other thing it needs is an exemption from a lot of the federal strings attached to the NSP dollars used to (unnecessarily) acquire it. For instance, the inside has extensive water damage, resulting in paint hanging off the walls in huge strips. Every single wall/ceiling is going to need to be stripped bare. If you or I were to do this, we'd get the following essential tools: masks, goggles, scrapers, friends, pizza, and beer. The masks and goggles would be optional. But with federal government worried about the effects of lead paint, this simple procedure becomes prohibitively expensive.

But if we get the cost down to somewhere in the $200 - 250,000 range, then it becomes manageable and desirable. A $200,000 mortgage would cost about $1,100 per month, plus taxes and insurance. Rent for each of the three non-owner-occupied units would bring in $1,800 - $2,100 per month.

So how else might we bring the costs down? Well, the city would spend at least $30,000 in demolishing a structure that simply should not be destroyed. I think it's fair to expect them to spend that $30,000 or more in helping out the new owners with the rehab.

I'm also going to push this one step further and propose that we implement principles from tax-increment financing districts. Wake up! I promise the rest of this paragraph won't be as boring as the last few words of the previous sentence. The premise is that an owner-occupied house will be far more beneficial to the area than a vacant lot. That in turn will stabilize or raise surrounding property values and bring in more revenue to government coffers. So why not cut the owners a break on their property taxes as long as the place remains owner-occupied?

For instance, structures like the Sheltering Arms House, once fully renovated, will bring in between $2,500 and $4,000 per year in property tax income. A vacant lot of this size would bring in between $150 and $500 per year. WOULD, except that the city owns the property and will pay no taxes on it. So give the owners a break by taxing the property at the rate it would be taxed at if it were a privately-owned vacant lot. That's still more money than would be received otherwise, and the whole area benefits. Plus, it would allow the owner to absorb more of the rehab costs in the form of a higher mortgage amount.

Finally, I'm still mystified about how the city goes about acquiring houses for the purpose of demolition. According to the Hillside Chronicles blog, the HPC has blocked the demolition of the infamous 1564 Hillside property. I don't agree with the Hillside blog about the necessity of 1564 Hillside's demolition, nor do I feel that historic designation of any kind should be necessary to bring about adequate rehabilitation of 1564 Hillside OR the Sheltering Arms House at 2648-50 Emerson Ave N.

But what I find MOST disagreeable is what appears to be the muddled bureaucracy inherent in the system. The Historic Preservation Commission is part of the city of Minneapolis. The city acquired 1564 Hillside FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEMOLITION. Now the HPC is refusing or at least delaying signing off on the demolition. Can someone tell me what's wrong with this picture?

Furthermore, the Hillside property has few, if any, of its original features left. The most famous historical connections it has coincide with mortgage fraud and identity theft. Contrast that with the Sheltering Arms House, which has many of its original features and was one of the first (perhaps THE first) Sheltering Arms orphanages in the city of Minneapolis. How can it be even remotely possible that the Hillside property has its demolition prevented by the HPC unless identical or stronger action is taken regarding the Sheltering Arms House?

However, historic designation shouldn't even be necessary. Solutions for saving this house abound, if we are only willing to act upon them.

Is the Sheltering Arms House the Corner Stone?

Guest post and photo by the Hawthorne Hawkman.

I've been hesitant to attach more historical significance to this house than what is known for sure. After all, I think there's plenty of grounds for preservation here but if one overstates and then has to retract historical significance, it could actually weaken the case for saving the Sheltering Arms House.

But the more I find out, the more this looks like a very significant historical find. I just received an email that indicated...

This house could indeed have been the first Sheltering Arms orphanage in Minneapolis. The email referenced an article from the August 19, 1883 Minneapolis Tribune:

"It is expected that the corner stone of the new Home for the Sheltering Arms, under the care of Sister Annette, wil be laid at the close of the service today in Holy Innocent's Church, corner of Twenty-seventh avenue north and Twelfth street, in the Fairmount Park addition."

12th Street was eventually renamed Emerson Ave N, and the county website lists the property as being located in the Fairmount Park Addition to Minneapolis.

We still don't have what I'd consider definitive proof that this house was the first Sheltering Arms orphanage, but given that there was a special church ceremony to commemorate its construction, this is looking more likely all the time.

Finding More Sheltering Arms History

Guest post and photos by the Hawthorne Hawkman

Yesterday I asked the question of "Who will save the Sheltering Arms House" at 2648 Emerson Ave N. However, I know that regardless of how convinced I am that this treasure in Hawthorne must be preserved, there are plenty of people (its current owners at the city included) who may wonder not WHO will save this house but IF it should be saved. So with the help of a preservationist, I went to the Hennepin History Museum for the very first time.

Much of what I found there, I have uploaded to the Sheltering Arms House JNS pdf support site. I've summarized those findings and added more information below...

First off, the photo above is from the one of the directories available at the museum. These must have been what phone books were like before there were phones in every house - and before seven different companies tossed these things on your front porch whether you wanted them or not. These aged, leather-bound directories often do not even list a specific address, but instead reference a house as the only one at a specific intersection. The books are fragile, and cannot be copied.

Another directory referenced a Sheltering Arms house at 27th and Fremont Ave N as well. I went to that corner and saw several candidates, but the most likely ones were 2701 and 2653 Fremont Ave N. I made that guess based on the similar second-floor windows when compared to the Sheltering Arms House in Hawthorne:



The Sheltering Arms history document on the pdf site states: "1882...The Sheltering Arms founded as an orphanage by Sister Annette Relf, an Episcopalian nun. Incorporated as a private, non-profit, charitable organization to provide services to children without discrimination as to race, color, or creed. Control vested in a Board of Directors of thirty Episcopalian women, fifteen from St. Paul, fifteen from Minneapolis. Endowment funds gradually built up from gifts and bequests. Orphanages in various locations until...

"1910...When present main building was completed. (Hawkman interjects: Main building in this case refers to the former building at 4330 West River Road) Over time, social and philosophical changes decreased need for orphanage; it was discontinued in...

"1942...When Sheltering Arms became a convalescent hospital for treatment of poliomyelitis, under supervision of Mrs. Josephine Poehler and in conjunction with St. Barnabas Hospital. Later, prevention of poliomyelitis became possible, so in...

"1955...The Board of Directors sought advice from Hennepin County Community Welfare Council concerning community needs it might fill. Planning committee, under chairmanship of Dr. Maynard Reynolds, recommended program for mentally retarded children, in cooperation with Minneapolis Public Schools, to provide education, study family problems, develop parent education and counseling, study needs of trainable retarded. Mr. John W. Gregg appointed Business Administrator and Dr. Harriet E. Blodgett Program Director. School program began September, 1955, with two classes for trainables, one for educables, six to ten year olds. Older children soon knocking at doors led to addition of class for eleven to fourteen year old trainables in the fall of ... 1956"

(Hawkman skips ahead to 1968, see pdf site for full story)

"1968...The fruits of which you now see in our new building, Gregg Hall, named in honor of John W. Gregg, our Business Administrator and the man to whom Sheltering Arms owes much...whose first question always is not 'How much will it cost?' but 'How will it help our children?'"

Note: The ellipses (...) are often used during quotes to refer to material that is glossed over. In this case, the quoted items appear exactly as written. Also, the building/site referenced in these notes is the facility at 4330 West River Road. This is pertinent to the Sheltering Arms House on Emerson, though, because the River Road facility has been demolished. The only structures that remain as a historical testament to the initial work of Sheltering Arms are the orphanages scattered throughout Minneapolis. This blog currently does not know how many (if any) such structures still stand, or their conditions at this time.

There's a lot in there that's historically significant and impressive. What jumps out at me first is that the organization was directed by a board of thirty. THIRTY!!! Most boards I've been involved with are considered large if they're a fraction of that size. And even then, agreeing on something and taking action is, well, difficult at best. Even more striking is that this board was made up entirely of women. In 1882.

Also, bear in mind that at that time in history "orphans" weren't just what we think of as children with no parents at all. These could have been the currently held definition of orphans, or children of single or divorced parents, children out of wedlock, those with mental or physical disabilities, or otherwise indigent children. And for these orphanages to be dedicated from their very inception to providing services "without discrimination as to race, color, or creed" is nothing short of phenomenal.

This is in 1882 when they had this publicly stated vision folks. To think that 128 years later we're STILL striving for that kind of equity! The Sheltering Arms House was BUILT with the core values in mind that our community STILL aspires to! To demolish this structure today is to destroy and devalue what we as a neighborhood hold most dear.

The other principle that Sheltering Arms recognized was that their values did not have a dollar amount attached to them. They did not ask how much it cost, only to decide that the least among them were not worth the effort or dollars. That same mindset should be applied when preserving a piece of neighborhood history at 2648 Emerson Ave N.

The history and values inherent in our buildings have much to tell us. Here's hoping that we as a community are listening.

Who Will Save the Sheltering Arms House?

Guest post by the Hawthorne Hawkman. Contributed Photo.

Although I'm not sure of the original source, I've been told of an Eastern proverb that you are responsible for the life you save. I look at that saying and think that one act of kindness isn't enough; once you've extended your hand in that way then your connection to that person is ongoing. That's quite similar to how I feel about a certain house in the Hawthorne neighborhood that is at risk of being demolished. After a bit of research, I've come to call this place "The Sheltering Arms House." The property is located at...

...2648-50 Emerson Ave N. It's been vacant for quite some time and I drive past it at least once almost every day. From the very beginning of my time in Hawthorne, this house stood out as one with architectural features that just aren't incorporated into houses being built today. I've called it in numerous times when it's been open to trespass. I've kind of "adopted" this house, and I feel that connection to its fate. This is a house that does not deserve to be demolished.

Up until today, the house has either been called by its address (which is clunky) or referred to as "The Purple House." I did some research, however, and found some early building permits (link goes to the JNS pdf support site where other documents will be added as they are found). The original owner of the house is listed as "Sheltering Arms." There is even a "matron" listed on the permit: Florence B. Hynes. How interesting is that? A matron of the house in 1908 listed right on the permit?

Although I can't be sure yet, I think there's a strong possibility that the "Sheltering Arms" owner of this house in 1908 was the predecessor to Minneapolis' Sheltering Arms Foundation. It appears that the home was built as a group home, perhaps for orphans. This house may have been the first such home owned by Sheltering Arms in Minneapolis. Given that the permit is titled "Permit to build outside of fire limits," it would seem that the house was built in what would have been the 'burbs in 1908. So this is almost certainly the first such home in NoMi.

There's no doubt that repairing this home will be a significant undertaking. But it is a four-plex that appears to have actually been built that way. In a neighborhood where so many of our mult-unit housing has been poorly spliced and diced, this house is also unique. Given that it sits on the border of the Hawthorne and Jordan neighborhoods, its place in NoMi's history is substantial. To tear it down, as is being proposed, will be to lose that piece of our communal history forever.

I will continue to research this property in attempts to find out more of its history. JNS readers, please share what you know as well. The Sheltering Arms House can be saved. The question is, who wants to save it?