So seems to be the case with a home in Atlanta, Georgia that is listed on the Historic Registry.
image source
Here's how the Henry B. Tompkins House looked in the historic registry. Designed by Atlanta architect Neel Reid, it's an excellent architectural example of Georgian Revival architecture.Limestone stuccoed; 2 stories modified rectangle, hipped roof sections, interior chimneys, slightly projecting front center exposed limestone pedimented section featuring a single entrance with ornate transom flanked by stuccoed rusticated pilasters and surmounted by open segmental-arched pediment with cartouche, exposed limestone corner pilasters; rear formal garden with pool and garage.Well, until it's new owner opted for a updated color palette...
image source
It's been lovingly restored with a bright orange coat of paint across its exterior. T. Ruben Jones, the 80-year-old new owner, says the exterior color, Maple leaf by Behr, is meant to replicate the hue of an Italian villa. It will fade, he assured. (Is this true? I thought the whole point of paint was selecting a color that wouldn't yield to the pressures of mother nature and her elements. Any thoughts on this?)This raises an interesting question that is postulated in an article I happened upon recently:
image source
“Where do you draw the lines between private property and the good of the neighborhood?
Do owners of historic homes “have a duty to the community to maintain them in a fashion that is not offensive to the community?”"(source)
Where do you stand on this issue?