Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / News / Business News / These Art Deco apartments in Boise to be torn down, replaced with high-end condos

These Art Deco apartments in Boise to be torn down, replaced with high-end condos

The Travis Apartments on Bannock Street will be replaced with condos.
Photo by Steve Sinovic

Travis Apartments, a 1937 building that contains 10 inexpensive one-bedroom units, will be replaced with a new building with a mix of office space and high-end residential units.

Preservationists had spoken out against replacing the 82-year-old Boise building, located at 1620 W. Bannock St., when it was made public that husband and wife Creed Herbold and Ann Swindell wanted to tear the building down and replace it.

The building did not have any sort of historic designation, city officials said, but some considered it a sort of landmark, especially because Art Deco buildings are not common for residences People also were concerned about what the loss of relatively inexpensive housing would mean in an expensive rental market.

“His proposal to remove affordable housing in the Downtown core and replace it with high-end rentals moves the city away from its goal of retaining a diversity of housing costs,” Paula Benson, president of Preservation Idaho, told the Idaho Statesman in April.

At a Boise Planning and Zoning Commission meeting about the apartments in May, one current resident testified about how housing in that price range was not being built elsewhere.

Herbold told the Statesman that he had considered renovation but ultimately decided against it, citing how the building’s electrical system is old and how the building only occupies about 20% of the parcel on which it sits.

No one who spoke Tuesday was worried about the historic value of the building being torn down, however. Instead, neighbors shared concerns on the specific design elements of the building, including how tall it is planned to be.

Nicole Windsor, speaking for the West Downtown Neighborhood Association, shared poll results of neighborhood residents. The numbers showed that 85% of people were in favor of the new development, but 60% wanted the height reduced.

“It’s much higher than anything in this neighborhood,” Windsor said. “Sixty-five feet is kind of harsh.”

The City Council approved a rezone for the lot the building is on from C-2D zoning (general commercial with design review) to R-OD/DA (residential office with design review and a development agreement), more than doubling the allotted density of the parcel. The changes also allow for different height and setbacks, making it more conducive zoning for the new building.

The council ultimately did not change the actual height on the proposed building but added conditions to the rezone that requires the developers to use certain architectural features, such as color choices and how the roof is set up, to minimize how tall it appears.

The project originally went before the Boise Planning and Zoning Commission in May. Commissioners at that time denied the rezone, voting 4-2 against it, but the Boise City Council has the final say on rezoning decisions.

The plan went before the council in July. The rezone request was deferred at that time so that the design could be revisited. Developers modified the plans slightly to address some concerns shared at the time.

About Hayley Harding Idaho Statesman

One comment

  1. Citizen for Freedom and Private Property Rights

    YES! Private property rights win again, as they should! Congrats to the owners of this project.

    To all those who think this comment is ridiculous, please realize that many of our people in this country are giving up their freedoms for the sake of comfort and security. Freedom without trespass is what this country was founded upon. Life without risk is not one worth living, as risk is inherent to human nature. Sure, you could live for a guaranteed 100 years in a bed in a dark room under a blanky, but where is the fun in that life?? We jump out of planes, drive fast, watch intense sports all because we enjoy the dynamic of life and the risks of reward versus failure.

    When developers spend real money based upon knowing the “rules” of the game (zoning laws, historic buildings, building codes, etc.), no city should ever have a right to stop them as they are investing within the confines of the rules which exist. If the public thought this was such a historic building, then either they should have bought it themselves and put it on the historic registry OR the city should have gotten involved at fair market rates… but you can’t and shouldn’t stop the free market when people follow the rules that legally exist, no matter how large of a NIMBY you can be. It drives me bonkers to see so many people choosing (more like advocating for) more governmental control and less freedom.

    Also realize, please, property is an extension of you as a human being. Property is the energy of your life spent earning money and reinvesting that money (your time and skill earned those dollars, therefore those dollars are a placeholder of you and your energy/reality, thus reinvested wherever you choose as a part of you). If you take my property (or my rights to do what I want, without trespass, to my property), you take a piece of me as a human. Why do you think the founding fathers were so poignant about property rights?!?! Because property is you, and you are not owned by anyone (but you are also not free to steal others freedoms, which is trespass).

    The government was put in place to watch over “trespass” (significant, negative impact on another person’s life). That is the only reason why laws exist, or are supposed to exist according to the founding documents of our country and the people who built those documents. Common defense was also established, as well as a common monetary system. STOP, Americans, giving up your rights willfully and see this as another small victory for stopping government intrusion into the private citizen’s world.

    We don’t live for the government, the government exists for us.