Historical Information

 

 

Who were Nels & Lillian?

 

Our Nels Anderson Dairy Farm House-

Why is it significant?

 

 

ALL COMMENTS WILL BE APPRECIATED, SHORT AND SIMPLE WILL BE FINE !

WARM REGARDS !

 

 

 

SAMPLE OF LOCAL HISTORIAN COMMENT -

 

September 11, 2011

US97 North Bend Corridor Project

Oregon Department of Transportation

63030 N Hwy 97

Bend, Oregon 97701

 

RE: Nels and Lillian Anderson House (aka Nels Anderson Homestead)

 

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

I oppose of the demolition and/or removal of the Nels and Lillian Anderson House. I request that ODOT find an Alternative that would not have an adverse effect on the National Register-eligible house, which is also listed on the City of Bend’s historic inventory.

I have been in the historic preservation field since 1990. I was the Historic and Cultural Resources Planner for Deschutes County and its three incorporated cities in the 1990s. I am familiar with historic resources in Bend and the county as a whole, placing a number of local buildings on the National Register, including those on the south end of Wall Street and the Goodwillie-Allen-Radamacher House, and being the staff that assisted in the update of the County and City Comprehensive Plans, reviewing 112 sites for the County and another 55 for the City.

I served as staff to the Deschutes County Historical Landmarks Commission and as staff to the Task Force for the Preservation of Historic Resources, formed to develop long-term plans for the resources affected by the Bend Parkway and Bend Urban Renewal District, including the Oregon Trunk Railway Passenger Station (Bend Depot), its companion American Railway Express Company building, the Goodwillie-Allen-Rademacher House and the Bend Amateur Athletic Club. The Task Force represented the City of Bend, Deschutes County, Deschutes County Historical Landmarks Commission, Deschutes Historical Society, and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).

When it became obvious the Parkway was going through the middle of the Depot, I was a part of the County team that wrote the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) grant for funding to preserve the Passenger Station on County property a very short distance from where it stood. The requested amount was based on the statement, over and over, in public forums and in public documents, that ODOT would cover the moving costs, regardless of the amount. I was a member of the County team that put together a proposal to preserve the structure, based on the statement by ODOT that it would cover the moving costs, regardless of the amount. I was there when ODOT rejected this statement, agreeing to a lesser bottom line amount. If ODOT had stated its bottom line at the beginning of the process, the County, likely, could have as easily received the additional amount needed to complete the project, as it did the $261,400 ISTEA funds it was awarded. However, as the grant had been awarded and the grant process ended, requesting additional funding was not possible. Importantly, if ODOT had simply upheld and stood behind its initial and repeated word, the County would have had enough funding to complete the preservation project. At that time, given the recession the country was in, the County was not able to appropriate the additional funds needed, despite community concerns.

In another instance relative to the Parkway project, ODOT did not keep its word in its written statement that it would provide funds for interpretive signage and other interpretive measures to mitigate the effects the Parkway had on the historically- and culturally-significant canal system. To date, to my knowledge, this has not happened. In addition, though they may have only been historically significant locally, not on a National Register level, there were a number of other historic properties impacted by the Parkway with only documentation made.

In my work for several decades, I have become familiar with the Section 106 process, including Section 4(f) and Memorandum of Agreement. The process provides a means for a state or federal entity to explore alternatives and save historic and cultural resources. I do not believe that all the alternatives have been explored. ODOT has gone through the process, but not really explored a true alternative to save Nels Anderson. ODOT’s word that it has explored all the alternatives carries very little weight with me, after its past statements. Moreover, I believe that it is an engineering problem. If ODOT wants to save the property, it can engineer a way to do so.

This is an important resource for our community and state. As someone familiar with a variety of resources in Oregon, I can state that this is a rare and unique resource; one that is not duplicated, at least east of the Cascades in Oregon. I refer you to The English House Through Seven Centuries, by Olive Cook, and those books by other specialists in this style of architecture. I am impressed greatly by the preservation work Mr. Larocco and others have performed on the structure, as are many other people and organizations, and the time and money he has invested to do so.

Therefore, I ask that ODOT, the state entity which has had the greatest adverse impact on the historic and cultural resources in and around Bend over the last two decades—more than any other entity—take this opportunity to stand up and find an alternative to demolishing and/or removing the Nels and Lillian Anderson House. Please take this opportunity to show the community that you have other goals and priorities other than simply paving over our history and culture. Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

Michael A. Hall

THANK YOU FOR REVIEWING AND CONSIDERATION ! 

TIM, JULIE AND EMPLOYEES

 

Homepage