Where do you draw the line on "historic preservation"?
Where do you draw the line on "historic preservation"?
Where do you draw the line on "historic preservation"?
- 1,299
- 8,924
Take each building case by case. What is the historical significance? What is the architectural significance? What context does it relate to the street/neighborhood? How does adapt to reuse? And what is replacing it? I believe If something spectacular is replacing it than that trumps everything else in most occasions.
I think the line is that you actually review each building. Don't leave it up to the alderperson to decide whether it gets reviewed or not.
- 472
Depends on the materials. An all masonry building can be a pile of rubble and not be beyond saving. The trouble is the lack of skill on the part of the owner and hired contractors, not a "beyond saving" problem with the building. In a city built by hand, only the lazy or unskilled claim things are beyond saving.
Historical and architectural significance are great, and surely important to people like me, but the bigger issue with historic preservation is neighborhood preservation. Neighborhoods need buildings of all shapes and sizes so people can move into them from all sorts of different economic situations. I can't say it here any better than Jane Jacobs did in her chapter on the topic in the Death and Life of Great American Cities. Old buildings offer a neighborhood structure to build around. If there's a moment where you are considering demolition then ask, "Is something better replacing this or will it just be a big grassy hole in the neighborhood?" Vacant lots and surface parking lots are rarely built on in St. Louis because the barrier to redevelopment is high. You have to excavate the old foundations among other things. Rehabs in contrast happen all the time.
Cities are not built by megaprojects. They are built by individuals getting loans and taking care of little properties all over. The best way to help them is to keep the old properties around to be saved and invested in. If you clear a bunch of land so that it can only be developed by a better version of Paul McKee, you set that area off limits to development semi-permanently.
There's also the more general consideration that contemporary construction is crap. Old masonry buildings can be preserved for centuries, and the biggest problem is lead paint recently applied. New buildings last decades, and they're full of toxic nonsense through and through. Restoring what's built to last just makes more sense.
It's like throwing out a cast iron pan for a teflon one. Cast iron keeps you from getting anemic and can last generations if you take care of it. Teflon you burn some hashbrowns in once and it is ruined, and you may very well be poisoned by it in the process. The cast iron is heavy and takes a bit of attention to keep it nice, but you can scratch it with a fork.
More importantly, historic building skills can be transferred because they're based around standardized modular interchangable elements which are sustainable long term. New architecture relies on custom built materials that are horrible to replace and must be repaired in an expensive and similarly custom built way. As long as we preserve a vernacular architecture built by regular people, we keep our buildings in a technology system accessible to regular people. Let the park service worry about how to fix stainless steel panels on the arch, the botanical garden worry about glass panels in ridgeway's custom built ceiling, and let the idiots that pay Frank Gehry for buildings pay for their impossible to fix unique titanium panels that leak and concentrate water in stupid places.
Historical and architectural significance are great, and surely important to people like me, but the bigger issue with historic preservation is neighborhood preservation. Neighborhoods need buildings of all shapes and sizes so people can move into them from all sorts of different economic situations. I can't say it here any better than Jane Jacobs did in her chapter on the topic in the Death and Life of Great American Cities. Old buildings offer a neighborhood structure to build around. If there's a moment where you are considering demolition then ask, "Is something better replacing this or will it just be a big grassy hole in the neighborhood?" Vacant lots and surface parking lots are rarely built on in St. Louis because the barrier to redevelopment is high. You have to excavate the old foundations among other things. Rehabs in contrast happen all the time.
Cities are not built by megaprojects. They are built by individuals getting loans and taking care of little properties all over. The best way to help them is to keep the old properties around to be saved and invested in. If you clear a bunch of land so that it can only be developed by a better version of Paul McKee, you set that area off limits to development semi-permanently.
There's also the more general consideration that contemporary construction is crap. Old masonry buildings can be preserved for centuries, and the biggest problem is lead paint recently applied. New buildings last decades, and they're full of toxic nonsense through and through. Restoring what's built to last just makes more sense.
It's like throwing out a cast iron pan for a teflon one. Cast iron keeps you from getting anemic and can last generations if you take care of it. Teflon you burn some hashbrowns in once and it is ruined, and you may very well be poisoned by it in the process. The cast iron is heavy and takes a bit of attention to keep it nice, but you can scratch it with a fork.
More importantly, historic building skills can be transferred because they're based around standardized modular interchangable elements which are sustainable long term. New architecture relies on custom built materials that are horrible to replace and must be repaired in an expensive and similarly custom built way. As long as we preserve a vernacular architecture built by regular people, we keep our buildings in a technology system accessible to regular people. Let the park service worry about how to fix stainless steel panels on the arch, the botanical garden worry about glass panels in ridgeway's custom built ceiling, and let the idiots that pay Frank Gehry for buildings pay for their impossible to fix unique titanium panels that leak and concentrate water in stupid places.
- 1,299
The problem with this view is that we live in a society with laws, and in St. Louis, aldermen are legislators who make the laws. So they do indeed decide what gets reviewed or not.I think the line is that you actually review each building. Don't leave it up to the alderperson to decide whether it gets reviewed or not.
Huh? My point is that the aldermen should be delegating all building demo review to the preservation board or some similar entity. They have the ability to do that.
- 1,299
Edited for clarification:Huh? My point is that the aldermen should be delegating all building demo review to the preservation board or some similar entity. They have the ability to do that.
They already do that (edited: in Preservation Review Districts). Aldermen don't decide which buildings get demo'd, it's the professional review process per the preservation ordinance.
On garden variety demos (in non-preservation review areas), the final say rests with LRA or the Building Division, with the advice of aldermen on which buildings to prioritize.
- 3,762
^ that's not true (the first sentence). in the absence of preservation review the PRB has no legal recourse to stop demolition, and in the absence of local historic designation (which requires an application and vetting process for each property and/or historic district along with consent of the owner) the CRO has no legal recourse to stop demolition. (national historic designation can't stop demolition either; it can only offer incentives for preservation). outside of such instances, the only way a demo permit would not be issued is if there were other legal issues or public health issues blocking it. yes, the aldermen legislate which wards have preservation review, but in between legislations they have nothing to do with the fate of individual buildings, apart from suggestion.
and regarding pat's comment, i think you're missing his point. YOU said that aldermen do, indeed, have control over preservation and demolition via legislation of the review process. HE said that should not be the case; alderman should have ZERO control over what gets demo'd. as in, ALL demolitions city-wide should be subject to an entity like the PRB by default.
and regarding pat's comment, i think you're missing his point. YOU said that aldermen do, indeed, have control over preservation and demolition via legislation of the review process. HE said that should not be the case; alderman should have ZERO control over what gets demo'd. as in, ALL demolitions city-wide should be subject to an entity like the PRB by default.
- 1,299
I think we are saying the same thing: demolition policy vis a vis historic reviews is subject to a legislative process (i.e. enacting an ordinance for such reviews).^ that's not true (the first sentence). in the absence of preservation review the PRB has no legal recourse to stop demolition, and in the absence of local historic designation (which requires an application and vetting process for each property and/or historic district along with consent of the owner) the CRO has no legal recourse to stop demolition. (national historic designation can't stop demolition either; it can only offer incentives for preservation). outside of such instances, the only way a demo permit would not be issued is if there were other legal issues or public health issues blocking it. yes, the aldermen legislate which wards have preservation review, but in between legislations they have nothing to do with the fate of individual buildings, apart from suggestion.
No I get it, same as above. Insomuch as demolition policy in historic review areas is subject to enabling legislation passed in the Board of Aldermen, it's the same point as above. Aldermen set such policies by ordinance.and regarding pat's comment, i think you're missing his point. YOU said that aldermen do, indeed, have control over preservation and demolition via legislation of the review process. HE said that should not be the case; alderman should have ZERO control over what gets demo'd. as in, ALL demolitions city-wide should be subject to an entity like the PRB by default.
There is no default PRB review of anything without an ordinance establishing a requirement for such review.
Let's try this another way...
Want city-wide preservation reviews? Convince your alderman to demand and pass legislation requiring same and get the Mayor to sign it.
- 3,762
NN, you keep repeating "this is how it is." everyone else is saying "yes, obviously, but this is how it needs to be changed."Northside Neighbor wrote:The problem with this view is that we live in a society with laws, and in St. Louis, aldermen are legislators who make the laws. So they do indeed decide what gets reviewed or not.I think the line is that you actually review each building. Don't leave it up to the alderperson to decide whether it gets reviewed or not.
i feel like your posts pretty much always end up here, as if it's some huge revelation for the rest of us. we get it. but your original question was "where do we draw the line" not "how do we enact a change in legislation". that's another discussion.Northside Neighbor wrote:Want city-wide preservation reviews? Convince your alderman to demand and pass legislation requiring same and get the Mayor to sign it.
- 1,299
Fair enough. So how do we enact a change in legislation? Isn't that the real issue in terms of changing the city's approach to demolition policy?i feel like your posts pretty much always end up here, as if it's some huge revelation for the rest of us. we get it. but your original question was "where do we draw the line" not "how do we enact a change in legislation". that's another discussion.
Who's going to take the first step?
- 8,924
I nominate you. No, for real what's stop you?Northside Neighbor wrote:
Who's going to take the first step?
- 1,299
Not my number one priority right now. I'd much rather see action in the area of loosing slumlords from their negative influence on neighborhoods than adding more preservation review.I nominate you. No, for real what's stop you?
A lot more demo happens from benign neglect than whether or not a Ward is in preservation review.
- 3,762
we continue to voice our concerns to our elected alderman, we continue to elect progressive aldermen who share our preservation concerns and will commit to bringing back city-wide preservation review, and we continue to protest dumb sh*t like the attempted Pevely demolition, the attempted Saucer demolition, and the unfortunately successful Bridget Erin demolition (to which your response will inevitably always be something about righteous indignation). at least that righteous indignation got Alderman Hubbard to make a statement about reinstating review in her ward, not that she'll remember unless we keep the pressure on her.Northside Neighbor wrote:Fair enough. So how do we enact a change in legislation? Isn't that the real issue in terms of changing the city's approach to demolition policy?i feel like your posts pretty much always end up here, as if it's some huge revelation for the rest of us. we get it. but your original question was "where do we draw the line" not "how do we enact a change in legislation". that's another discussion.
Who's going to take the first step?
i see. a person can only do so much i suppose. so what actions are you taking to loose slumlords from their negative influence on neighborhoods?Northside Neighbor wrote:Not my number one priority right now. I'd much rather see action in the area of loosing slumlords from their negative influence on neighborhoods than adding more preservation review.I nominate you. No, for real what's stop you?
A lot more demo happens from benign neglect than whether or not a Ward is in preservation review.
I like that idea, but is it really not possible to do more than one thing at a time?Not my number one priority right now. I'd much rather see action in the area of loosing slumlords from their negative influence on neighborhoods than adding more preservation review.
A lot more demo happens from benign neglect than whether or not a Ward is in preservation review.
- 1,299
Volunteer hours and financial support to organizations doing the work. Those are community-based, resident-driven organizations. Organizations working in the tradition of the Lafayette Square Restoration Committee. There are many in St. Louis and they all need community support.i see. a person can only do so much i suppose. so what actions are you taking to loose slumlords from their negative influence on neighborhoods?
- 3,762
^ can you be more specific? which organizations? how many hours? and what *actual* work are you/they doing?
- 1,299
How to answer this question without being obvious?^ can you be more specific? which organizations? how many hours? and what *actual* work are you/they doing?
Many community based organizations representing St. Louis neighborhoods.
Fewer regionally based organizations representing St. Louis communities.
How many hours? I've lost track - lots of nights and weekends.
What activities?
For instance: targeting nuisance and abandoned properties for acquisition and redevelopment.
Another for instance: strengthening partnerships to move the needle for more effective community driven action in the area of combating urban decay.
Give out a neighborhood name, and we can list the organizations working in the area.
Beyond that, I bet if you Google "community revitalization in St. Louis" you'll get some good information.
- 1,864
NN, I must admit that reading this thread it does come across as if you are challenging members of this forum with doing more while deflecting any personal commitment to the same challenge. Now, I'm sure that's not your actual intent.
I get that it's easy to post threads about 'what should happen and how the system is broken' on UrbanSTL as we are a captive audience and have similar mindsets on the issues. However, you might be preaching to the choir when you flat out challenge us to do more. If anything, members of this forum are the ones who are active within the community and looking at how to improve St. Louis as a city and as a region.
Just my own personal $0.02.
I get that it's easy to post threads about 'what should happen and how the system is broken' on UrbanSTL as we are a captive audience and have similar mindsets on the issues. However, you might be preaching to the choir when you flat out challenge us to do more. If anything, members of this forum are the ones who are active within the community and looking at how to improve St. Louis as a city and as a region.
Just my own personal $0.02.
- 1,299
Yes, I am challenging people to do more, but how do you conclude from this that I'm deflecting anything? By not specifying my personal involvement? Don't see many others here doing that either. Remember, it's "a blog".
Besides, after reading these comments, it seems the only "challenge" is about trying to push for new legislation - for those so adamant about city wide preservation review. Beyond that, I don't see any challenge to do anything. Rather, it's more people questioning me. And so I tried to address it.
Believe it or not, I give well over $100 per year in donations to community development organizations (closer to $1,000) and well over 100 hours per year of volunteer time.
What I can say for a fact, given that many of the community development organizations in St. Louis are hurting big time financially, is that these organization need our collective time and money now more than ever or they will cease to exist and we will see more negative community outcomes as a result.
Besides, after reading these comments, it seems the only "challenge" is about trying to push for new legislation - for those so adamant about city wide preservation review. Beyond that, I don't see any challenge to do anything. Rather, it's more people questioning me. And so I tried to address it.
Believe it or not, I give well over $100 per year in donations to community development organizations (closer to $1,000) and well over 100 hours per year of volunteer time.
What I can say for a fact, given that many of the community development organizations in St. Louis are hurting big time financially, is that these organization need our collective time and money now more than ever or they will cease to exist and we will see more negative community outcomes as a result.
- 3,762
ah, but "others" aren't regularly lecturing us on what we "should" be doing while never actually indicating what they are doing. some might see such lectures as hypocritical in the absence of such details.Northside Neighbor wrote:Yes, I am challenging people to do more, but how do you conclude from this that I'm deflecting anything? By not specifying my personal involvement? Don't see many others here doing that either. Remember, it's "a blog".
please, be obvious. i'm not asking you to give away your identity, just to demonstrate that you're following your own advice. For example, what does "targeting" entail? and does it actually require you, specifically, to do anything other than give $100/year to some organization?Northside Neighbor wrote: How to answer this question without being obvious?
- 1,299
OK.
Writing policy.
Driving investment.
Preparing and implementing redevelopment plans.
Engaging community leaders.
I'm not going to get into the whole targeting thing other than to say it's community driven.
I kind of hope folks think this is all b.s. But it's not. A lot of people fit the above profile.
Writing policy.
Driving investment.
Preparing and implementing redevelopment plans.
Engaging community leaders.
I'm not going to get into the whole targeting thing other than to say it's community driven.
I kind of hope folks think this is all b.s. But it's not. A lot of people fit the above profile.