by Lorraine Arnold

On February 16, 2016 the home at 178 Columbia Heights will be one of the properties on the New York City Landmark Preservation’s hearing calendar. The request—to modify a window opening in the rear façade--is a small one for the home which once housed the “best-hated man in the US” who sent General Ulysses S. Grant into crippling debt.

It was the fateful spring day of May 6, 1884 when General Ulysses S. Grant’s son stopped in at the office of Grant & Ward to greet his father with the words, “Father, you had better go home; the firm has failed.”
 
Four years earlier, in 1880, General Grant’s son, Ulysses Jr., had opened a Wall Street brokerage house with business partner Ferdinand Ward. In that same year on September 23, Ward purchased 178 Columbia Heights for $40,000. Life was looking up for Ward, and he outfitted the home in what the New York Herald called “regal splendor.” The Brooklyn Daily Eagle described the house as, “one of the most elaborately and expensively furnished houses in Brooklyn. The parlors resemble the private room of a Turkish prince, with its costly divans, rugs and bear skins scattered as if carelessly around. Every inch of wall is covered with some work of art, twenty-seven paintings, large and small, being in the front room and almost as many in the back room, while bric a brac and articles of virtu are in every position about the room.”

​In 1883, General Grant invested $100,000 into Ward’s firm, making him a special partner. It was expected that the money would be used as collateral to borrow more money to trade, however Ward used the same money as collateral for multiple loans—a method of fraud today known as a Ponzi scheme. As fate would have it, several of the trades went bad and multiple loans came due simultaneously. In order to cover what Ward said was a temporary shortfall, General Grant borrowed $150,000 from New York businessman William Henry Vanderbilt. This was unfortunately lost along with his initial investment. While Grant attempted to sell most of his war memorabilia in an endeavor to honorably repay the loan, he was unable to repay the debt. Vanderbilt generously insisted that the loan had been paid in full despite the shortcomings of Grant’s available funds. As the downfall of the brokerage became known, Ward’s home at 178 Columbia was taken into possession by the authorities. Ward and his wife, along with their newborn son, were removed from the splendid house.
​

After over a year of court hearings while Ward was imprisoned in the local jail, he was convicted of grand larceny and sentenced to ten years of hard labor in Sing Sing. He became known as the “Young Napoleon of Finance” and the “Best-Hated Man in the United States.” His reputation was so nefarious that his own grandson wrote a book about him titled, A Disposition to Be Rich: How a Small-Town Pastor's Son Ruined an American President, Brought on a Wall Street Crash, and Made Himself the Best-Hated Man in the United States.  
This scandal alone would have given 178 Columbia Heights quite a history, but it was not an isolated incident. Not long after Ward’s loss of the home, a subsequent owner, Adrian Van Sinderen, misappropriated funds as a trustee of the estate of a wealthy merchant, William Lawrence. The money, which was to go to nieces and nephews, was stolen over a period of 18 years by Van Sinderen. In 1885, one of the heirs noticed some irregularities in Van Sinderen’s business methods and in 1891 he too was indicted on grand larceny charges. However, he did not suffer the same fate as the home’s previous occupant. As soon as he was indicted he disappeared and was later discovered in Berlin. At that time, the US did not have an agreement with Germany to extradite embezzlers, so he was free from fear of arrest. He later died in 1905 having never returned to the US.
 
While the discussion on February 16 concerning 178 Columbia Heights won’t be quite so controversial as past hearings, the home is no stranger to legal discussions. 

By: Lorraine Arnold

Crain’s New York Business recently featured an article, titled, “Tiffany if feeling blue, boxed in, addressing Tiffany & Co.’s unexpected post-holiday stock-holder exits. It was intimated that share prices were drastically driven down by the 1% drop in Christmas sales, leaving the company struggling to recover. While the Tiffany & Co. of today is working through the details of their recovery, perhaps we should consider the company’s long history of shrewd choice and business savvy. 

Advantage - DIAMONDS
Charles L. Tiffany along with his partner John B. Young, established a fancy-goods (small decorative gifts) and stationary store in 1837 as “Tiffany and Young.” In 1841, another partner, J. Lewis Ellis, was admitted into the firm which then became “Tiffany, Young & Ellis.” By this time the company was growing exponentially. The company was so in tune with its customers that in the four short years of its existence it had not only steadily grown, but had relocated several times to keep up with the growth. Soon Tiffany, Young & Ellis began sending a representative annually to Europe to secure the choicest creations. By 1848 they were creating their own silverware and diamond jewelry. However, in that same year the business met with some difficulties. Due to political disturbances in Paris, the price of diamonds plummeted to about fifty-percent of their then value. Rather than allow this to bring them down, the company took advantage of the situation and invested all available funds into diamonds, bringing the company to rank top among diamond merchants of the time.

Advantage - HISTORIC GEMS
With the success of their diamond purchase, the company plunged deeper into the precious stones market by purchasing notable gems — becoming one of the largest purchasers in the world. They obtained amazing pieces including those worn by Marie Antoinette and Hungarian Prince Esterhazy. Their greatest purchase in the nineteenth century was in 1887 when they obtained over one-third of the French crown jewels. This was a larger purchase than the nine next largest buyers combined.

Advantage - INTERNATIONAL BRANCHES
In 1850 the firm took on Gideon F. T. Reed from one of the leading jewelry houses in Boston, Massachusetts. It was immediately after this that the company established its first house overseas at 79 Rue Richelieu in Paris, France. This overseas branch was called Tiffany, Reed & Co. and became invaluable as Reed — being a resident partner — was able to take advantage of the fluctuations in the foreign market and develop a large profitable trade in Paris.

Advantage - SILVER
One year later, the highest quality silversmith of the time was contracted by Tiffany, Young & Ellis as an exclusive smithy for the company. Edward C. Moore brought a new artistry to the company’s silver products that was, as Henry Hall in his book, America’s Successful Men of Affairs: The City of New York, wrote: “marked by an individuality and strength of character wholly different from that of any other manufacturer.” It was at this point that the company began making special presentation pieces. 

Tiffany & Co. like many other companies is processing changes in the economy and the nuances of this upcoming generation. Drawing on the examples of its past strategy in comparative situations, there is little doubt that once again it will rise above these difficulties. Then, as George Frederic Leydt said in his book Charles L. Tiffany and the House of Tiffany & Co., it may once again be said that, “these and other obstacles, which to most men would have seemed insurmountable, were overcome by this young (now old) firm in a manner that augured well for their future success.”

 

Contact us to learn more about the history of Charles L. Tiffany and the buildings the company occupied.

By: Lorraine Arnold

Built in 1643, the Lady Moody/Van Sicklen House at 27 Gravesend Neck Road in Brooklyn has remained on the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission’s calendar for designation hearings for nearly 50 years. It is also one of the 94 buildings which recently was being considered for removal from the hearing calendar. With an outcry by local politicians and preservationists, the plan has been dropped. 27 Gravesend was originally calendared in 1966, but was deemed worthy of being preserved by the Municipal Art Society much earlier, in May of 1954. At that time The Brooklyn Daily Eagle stated that it was “One of Brooklyn’s most historic structures.” So, it is rather surprising that it has remained on the calendar for so long; the house isn’t getting younger.

The architecture alone might deem the building worthy enough to preserve it. At times though enough significance to preserve a building is leant to it by a former resident’s contribution to society. Lady Deborah Moody, a 17th century Englishwoman, was significant in the development of the town of Gravesend, Brooklyn and some historical accounts claim that she built and was the first resident of 27 Gravesend Neck Road. But was she?

LADY DEBORAH MOODY
Lady Deborah Moody was a nonconformist who fled England in the mid-17th century in search of liberty of conscience and freedom from Parliament. The exact date of her departure is unknown, but a book written in 1880 by James Watson Gerard, Lady Deborah Moody: A Discourse Delivered Before the New York Historical Society, places her arrival in America, Massachusetts Bay Colony, sometime before 1640. Moody was not an ordinary immigrant. She had come from a family of power and means. Her father, Walter Dunch, was a Member of Parliament during Queen Elizabeth’s time and her uncle a member during the reigns of James the First and Charles the First. Five years before Moody’s departure from England, she removed herself from the center of London where there was much political controversy over the desire of Charles the First to unite England, Scotland, and Ireland into a single kingdom. She was ordered to return since the law required that no woman was to be absent from her “herediments” (i.e., home) for more than 40 days. Instead, she chose to leave the country. As a widow, she left her children in England and exiled herself.

FROM MASSACHUSETTS TO NEW YORK
By 1643, Moody had settled in Salem, Massachusetts. We know this because a record of the town indicated that she was excommunicated from the church in Salem because of her belief against infant baptism. Not about to change her belief, she removed to Brooklyn against the counsel of her friends. There she continued in her stalwart independent spirit of freedom of religious beliefs and became a leader in the area. While she experienced much trouble from Native Americans assailing her home, her wealth enabled her to obtain the assistance of the current Director-General of the colony of New Netherland, Peter Stuyvesant. Her influence grew as she was given the power, in part, to nominate magistrates. In the 1909 Historical Guide to the City of New York she is also credited with entertaining Stuyvesant and the previous Director, Willem Kieft in her home, which was later used as a hospital during the Revolutionary War. But are these just stories surrounding the building which hangs in the balance of being preserved?

WHO IS THE TRUE OWNER?
While the stories of what occurred in the home at 27 Gravesend might be true, there are some documents which bring into doubt who the builder of the house truly was. The house, dubbed “Lady Moody House,” was given several names in the 1918 edition of Documents of the Assembly of the State of New York, including the “Van Siclen [sic] house,” and the “Hicks-Platt house.” The AIA Guide to New York City notes that a real estate developer, William E. Platt, in 1890 publicized the house as “Lady Moody’s own home” supposedly beginning the rumor which continued throughout the following decades.

The 1918 Annual Report of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society claims that the Van Siclen [sic] house, located on the corner of Gravesend Avenue and Neck Road, is erroneously called the Lady Deborah Moody’s house. The house was built before the American Revolution, which provides architectural significance; however, in the report a man by the name of Mr. W. B. Lake was said to have accurately located the site of Lady Deborah Moody’s house “on the northeast corner of the town stockade” which, if true, would mean that Lady Moody never resided at 27 Gravesend Neck Road.

The 1918 report however, cannot be counted as conclusive because contradictory reports also exist. Converse to the 1918 report, in a 1932 article in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, the owner of the home at 27 Gravesend, Annie M. Anderson, claimed to have researched the home back to its origins which included Lady Deborah Moody. And yet, in this same article, the president of the Kings County Historical Society, Charles A. Ditmas, claims to doubt the building is that old (1643). Instead, he states that the home was constructed by the Van Sicklen family shortly after 1700.

There is no doubt that searching the property deeds and origins of this house was difficult and subject to more errors in those early years because of the lack of accessible records. Today that is less of a problem. Along with online information, digitization of records, and the awareness of our need to discover accurate historical property information, more records are becoming available. While the answer to the question is discoverable, it is simply waiting for someone who can fund the quest.

Contact us to request further research on this building.

By: Lorraine Arnold

As Thanksgiving draws closer, so too does the designation of a small enclave of eighteen row houses in Flatbush, Brooklyn. The houses, built by prolific Brooklyn architect, Peter J. Collins, are being considered for historic designation next week. 

The houses date back just over 100 years. They were built along a new street that was being constructed in Flatbush in October of 1911. The street cut through the old property which once belonged to the Vanderbilt family and which included part of the old family homestead. Ironically, although the Vanderbilt homestead was called "a Flatbush landmark" and was said at the time to be one of the few remaining landmarks left in Flatbush, it was demolished to make way for Chester Court - the area now under consideration to be dubbed Chester Court Historic District.

During construction of the houses in 1912, the name, Chester Court was chosen because the houses were modeled after a house in Chester, England. Each house was to be surrounded by "an attractive front court in keeping with the English style" according to the The Brooklyn Daily Eagle. The homes were advertised in July of 1912 to include, "9 large rooms and bath; electric lights, steam heat. Parquet floors; tiled kitchen and baths; laundry and extra toilet in cellar; maid's room and billiard room on the third floor."

The builder, Peter J. Collins, was Brooklyn's Superintendent of Buildings and a prominent architect in the borough. To landmark the Chester Court Historic District, where the demolished Vanderbilt landmark once stood, and to recognize the work of this Brooklyn architect, would be a nice compensation for the loss of the Vanderbilt homestead.

The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, November 25, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. at a public hearing at 1 Centre Street, 9th Floor, Manhattan. To learn more, view the agenda here: NEW YORK CITY LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION - RESEARCH DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA.

Contact us to schedule a consultation for building research.

By: Lorraine Arnold

A few years ago, while researching whether or not to buy stock in Tesla Motors, Inc. I ordered and read the company prospectus - a document that details the company’s financial statements, board member biographies, any litigation that is taking place involving the company, etc. I also looked at the financials, the press releases, and notes from quarterly board meetings. Before investing, I checked to see how the stock had fared over time, continued to keep my eye on new developments, and read everything I could about Elon Musk, the CEO and chief product architect of Tesla cars. This is probably no surprise to anyone who has ever purchased stock or invested in a business. It caused me to wonder though, why is it that we don’t do the same when investing in personal real estate?

We are so often told to focus on “location, location, location” when researching property, and we do. Sites such as Zillow, Trulia, Property Shark, Loopnet and StreetEasy provide a wealth of information regarding a building’s location such as area amenities, schools, what other properties are selling for, etc. These sites provide good introductions to help you move into one of your biggest investments. But when you finally find the property in the best location, you then begin to take ownership of a property with a history that is largely unknown to you. And this is where having a Historical Building Prospectus (HBP) comes into play. 

RENOVATION/RESTORATION - ACCURACY COUNTS
For restoration work, a comprehensive HBP would contain the information needed to assist in planning the work, such as replacing missing trim or period windows. This information can be easily accessed and reviewed by the architect and design team to utilize in their plans. As work is conducted on the building, applications and reports can be analyzed by the building researcher and pertinent information can be abstracted and added to the HBP for future projects and reference.

Adding to the HPB as you go along provides assurance that the restoration venture you are working on has been planned surrounding a total understanding of the history of your building. For instance, a building engineer’s report which outlines risk factors, or the proposed plans of an architect and interior designer are included regardless of whether or not the work ends up being conducted. Personal, professional, or historic commission notes of why any work was halted, delayed, or reworked would also be included.

BUILDING RESALE - GREATER VALUE
When it is time to sell, information in an updated HBP provides you with the confidence that you have everything you need to consider and factor into the property’s valuation. Informing potential buyers that a comprehensive Historical Building Prospectus is available can provide them with confidence knowing that they will have a full understanding of the property they are purchasing.

Aside from knowing your building’s worth, the information in the HBP will assist you or your broker in developing a story using information about previous owners, residents, and events surrounding your property. This can be included in a listing write-up to distinguish your property from others on the market and just might reveal a story big enough to increase the value of your property. (See example stories at www.buildingchronicles.com) 

BUILDING A LEGACY - YOUR LEGACY
There is no doubt that an HBP is useful when it comes to having a complete understanding of your building, essential when renovating or restoring, and is invaluable during resale. But there is another more personal use for the information - building your legacy.

Your personal contribution to your property is an integral part of its evolution.  You might have restored the building, renovated it, hosted events, supported charities, patented an invention, or impacted society in other ways while living or working in the building. When researching the evolution of the building you might want to include the owners and residents, events which occurred, and uses of the building along with your personal contribution. Tell the story of friends and family. This is your story, your legacy. If you don’t document it, who will?

While the process of developing a Historical Building Prospectus may appear daunting, working with a building researcher such as NY House Histories can make the process easy and doable. Contact us for more information on research, developing a listing story, or developing your legacy.

By: Lorraine Arnold

What would Halloween be without a haunted house story? How about one that is over 100 years old? In 1901 the Griffin family was frightened away from 281 Stuyvesant Avenue in Brooklyn by ringing bells and moving furniture - occurrences both frightening and, as the family claimed, simply annoying. Despite the Griffins’ annoyance and the inconvenience of moving, the neighborhood of Stuyvesant Heights was more than happy to now include a “genuine haunted house.” It was such an attraction that tour guides would point out the house as having a residential ghost. The ghost didn’t have a name, nor did it have a past which could be explained, but nevertheless it was a resident at the turn of the 20th century.

GHOSTLY BEGINNINGS
The ghost showed itself for the first time to the newly married Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Griffin who were living on the first floor. At precisely 2 o’clock in the afternoon, the vestibule bell would ring. At first the Griffins thought that it was the result of young pranksters, and Mr. Griffin decided to surprise them by catching them in the act. One afternoon at 2 p.m., Joseph stepped out into the vestibule only to find it empty. At that precise moment the bell rang inside his home. While he was not completely scared, it did concern him. The ghost must be rather fiendish as it had broken away from the normal wind whistling, strange shadowed shapes on the wall, and other scary antics typically attributed to ghosts. The ringing bell wasn’t its only original ghostly trick though. It eventually succeeded in removing the couple after exhibiting hollow groans, creepy noises on the staircase, and what the Griffin’s described as “unexpected trips from room to room by articles of furniture.”

GHOSTLY NONSENSE
Not everyone was spooked into believing that a ghost haunted the house. A young woman who also lived in the house claimed that all the noises and frightening occurrences could be explained, though she didn’t know how to resolve the ringing bells. At the time the house stood as a single building with no construction on either side, so of course the wind will sweep through the vestibule and, at times, would blow hard enough to whistle through the hollow tubes in the kitchen, she justified. Explaining moving pictures which hung above radiators, the woman said that it was the heat waves. Pipes groan and the plumbing rattles as part of the normal movement of water through the heating system. Though her husband claimed that it was the spookiest house he ever lived in, she claimed that the idea of a ghost was “nonsense!”

GHOSTLY PERMANENCE
The creepiness had been enough to scare away the Griffins though, and they even checked to see if the ghost had followed them to their new home. When reporters asked the janitor’s wife at the Griffins’ new residence, 602 Bedford Avenue, whether there were ghostly happenings, she said there were no spooks on the premises there. Stuyvesant Heights was very happy to hear; the ghostly residence of 281 Stuyvesant was one of their claims to fame. After all, not every neighborhood can claim to have such a famous occupant.

Does 281 Stuyvesant Avenue still have ghostly happenings? Can anyone - or - any spirit answer?

By: Lorraine Arnold

Last blog entry we began to seek to identify Sarah Mills of 927 Broadway and were met with many brick walls. She was not discovered in the US Federal Census records and aside from the fact that she had never married (ruling out a marriage certificate as identification), birth and death records were not mandated during her lifetime. So...

Where to go from here? 
There was only one place left to turn. Had Sarah not been a holder of real property she may have been a mystery still. That place to turn was toward probate records. The real property of her estate was being sold off in 1857 by her executor, but this didn’t necessarily mean that she had died that year, nor, as I later found out, did it mean that she had died in the last ten years. Oddly enough, tax records continued to be recorded in her name up until 1859 further confusing the attempt to pinpoint a death date.

Mystery Solved
As it turns out, she died in August of 1849. This was discovered in probate records. Here I say, kudos to those who are working on digitizing and indexing old documents. Had these records not been searchable it more than likely would have taken a considerably longer time to solve the mystery of Sarah Mills. But once I found a will which belonged to a Sarah Mills, how did I know this was the correct Sarah Mills? Thankfully she detailed so many individuals in her life, including her brother-in-law, William Banta, who was also named as the executor in the sale of 927 Broadway in the 1857 deed and newspaper notice. This discovery opened the doors to her identity and her entire family.

Another Mystery 
 While the identity of Sarah Mills was discovered, to my client’s disappointment, no particularly bizarre events had occurred in the building as he had hoped. One mystery did remain though. If Sarah Mills died in 1849, how could she have built the house at 927 Broadway? The Landmark Preservation Commission’s Ladies’ Mile Historic District Report states that Sarah Mills was the builder/owner in 1857. How could that be? This mystery will be solved in our next blog piece at www.nyhousehistories.com. 

By: Lorraine Arnold

Several years ago I was asked to conduct a house history for 927 Broadway in New York City with two specific questions from the manager: Who was Sarah Mills (who supposedly had the house built), and were there any bizarre happenings that went on where spirits would be still walking the halls? Simple requests, one would think, but knowing genealogy and how difficult it is to track women in the early to mid-19th century, I was concerned that she would remain a mystery. Prior to 1850 records did not always include women. For instance, census records only listed the name of the head of household which was most often a male. Other family members only showed up as ticks in a column which listed gender and age ranges. Birth, marriage and death documents were scant during this time and because few women had rights or were not often in business, they were nearly invisible in records. For some time Sarah remained an enigma and probably would still be were it not for the fact that she owned property.

LOTS OF RECORDS, FEW ANSWERS 
 The Landmark Preservation Commission Historic Designation report for the Ladies’ Mile District includes 927 Broadway and lists Sarah Mills as the owner in 1857 when, supposedly, the building was constructed. Ladies’ Mile District consists of an area encompassing Broadway and Fifth Avenue, part of Sixth Avenue stretching from 15th Street up to 24th Street. It is an area which was lined with fashionable shops and stores during the nineteenth century. But my hunt to discover Sarah Mills’ identity led me to a different conclusion than the report indicated. I began my search by obtaining the property deeds and studied the purchase and sale by Sarah Mills. In these she is particularly noted as a “single woman,” in other words, she never married. My continued search led to maps, tax records, and even Minutes of the Common Council of the City of New York with her name attached to the property records. Yet not one provided any information beyond her name.  

WHICH SARAH MILLS? 
 The next step would be to check genealogical records such as censuses, birth, marriage, and death, but problems abounded here as well. Aside from Sarah Mills being a rather common name, without being able to attach her to another individual, she could be any Sarah Mills in the records. The 1850 census was the first year to list all names in a household, not just the head of the household. Unfortunately, the only Sarah Mills which I discovered in those records were either too young to have owned property or were married.

BRICK WALLS ABOUND 
 Since we had no idea of Sarah’s age or where she was born, looking for a birth record would have been more difficult than looking for a needle in a haystack. Since the 1857 deed of sale to the next owner noted that she was “single,” it was clear that she had remained so throughout her life. There was no point in looking for a marriage record. During that era, if she had been married, it would have noted her husband’s name or indicated that she was a widow rather than single if a husband had predeceased her. Given the brick walls presented by the other records, the next best bet would have been a death record. The only problem with that was that officially recording deaths was not mandated until the mid-nineteenth century, and so it was unlikely that we would find one.

It appeared that we had run the gamut of typical records which might reveal Sarah Mills’ identity. So, where to go from here? Look for the answer on Tuesday when our hunt continues and is resolved. 

By: Lorraine Arnold

“You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes.
You can steer yourself any direction you choose.”      
                                                            –Dr. Seuss, Oh the Places You’ll Go

Beginning to research a house’s history is like going on an adventure. It reminds me of the Dr. Seuss book, “Oh, the Places You’ll Go.” The story basically inspires the reader to go wherever life leads. Researching your house is very much the same. There are so many directions you can go in. So, is it best to simply go in any direction you choose? Or is there a method to the madness of finding all the information needed to develop a comprehensive story of your house? The short answer is, both.

THE NUMBER ONE DOCUMENT
There is one set of documents you should gather first; that is the chain of deeds. Most often these can be found in the county clerk’s office. In New York City they can be found in the Buildings Department at 66 John Street on the 13th floor. Following the chain of owners from the present back to as far as the records will take you will provide you with a starting point from which to continue a search in any direction. Deeds list the names of buyers and sellers, details about the sale (including purchase price in some cases) and other details - such as whether or not it was an estate sale - all of which will add flavor to your story.

ORGANIZING
Making copies of each deed is suggested since you may need to refer back to any one of them for clarification of details when searching for further information. You can place these in a folder or binder, but I recommend you scan them into your computer and begin a folder on your hard drive or in the Cloud. By scanning the documents to be viewed on your computer you will find it is easier to zoom in on older documents which may contain writing which is difficult to decipher because of small, abbreviated, or old-style writing.

USING THE DOCUMENTS TO CONTINUE THE ADVENTURE
The next step would be to begin to abstract the information into a chart. List the date of the conveyance, the grantor (seller) and the grantee (buyer), price, and note any information which may be unique to the deed. You can develop this chart on paper to add to a loose-leaf notebook, but again, I recommend using your computer. Programs such as Microsoft Excel, Access, OneNote, or Evernote are useful for this.

THE PLACES YOU’LL GO
In order to develop the story of your building, the next step would be to begin researching the individuals listed on the deeds. From here you can “steer yourself any direction you choose” as Dr. Seuss says, including building records, tax records, designation reports, land maps, newspapers, city directories, and censuses. Details of what direction you may choose and the types of documents that exist will be explored further in upcoming blogs.

By: Lorraine Arnold

In Why a House History Part I we explored some of the reasons to consider conducting a house history - simply curiosity, knowing your investment and for restoration or renovation projects. Here are a few more reasons to consider:

REAL ESTATE RESALE

Now more than ever, real estate agents or owners who are selling a property are looking for ways to find something unique to market properties. While reading its history will not be the main selling factor of most properties, it truly draws the attention of a buyer who has been looking at similar properties over and over with rote descriptions. Read some of the stories on www.buildingchronicles.com to consider how the nuances might enhance your listing, brochure or other marketing piece. Also consider conducting a complete house history to produce a historical prospectus for the building including its complete economic, ownership and construction accountings. Having a complete historical prospectus provides an understanding of one’s investment when it comes to negotiations and the confidence in fully knowing one’s property.

HISTORIC DESIGNATION

Historic property owners sometimes have mixed feelings about having their property officially designated due to potential restrictions. But if your property is worthy of being designated and you would like to do so, a complete history is required to officially obtain that status. The potential to obtain funding to restore the property, in addition to the fact that at times tax credits are available are a couple of the positives to historic designation. For some however, just knowing that preservation has been assisted through designation is reason enough to do so.

BUILDING A LEGACY

The final reason to conduct a house history that we would like to point out is to consider documenting your family’s legacy. If your family moves from house to house or has multiple properties or vacation homes, this is an avenue to record the history of the buildings as well as how your family contributed to their history. This can be performed for family businesses as well. It is a great way to have something tangible to show to future generations which details the story of their ancestors.

In the next few weeks we will expand these topics to consider how to conduct each house history and explore more about the benefits of each.

NEXT: How to begin researching a house history.