It's worth noting that local developer "The Gary" has repeatedly stated that although it would constitute the type of hardship that comes along only once in a schlockmeister's lifetime, he'd be willing to raze the classic Silvercrest architecture and build Lauren's Corner II according to the familiar exurban model if the county doesn't want to take the state up on its offer and deal with it.
Do we need any other reason to hold on tight?
---
The New Albany Historic Preservation Commission has been monitoring the discussions of the Silvercrest Hospital Historic Site during the last few months. Recent articles mentioned the possible razing of structures on the site.
The Commission has drafted the following letter to our Floyd County Board of Commissioners urging the exploration of all alternatives prior to razing structures on this historic site in New Albany:
Full Text of NAHPC Letter to County Commissioners (.pdf)
Gary McCartin's involvement as an advisor to the county in this matter is troubling to say the least. To my knowledge, he has little to no experience in the adaptive reuse of historic structures. In fact, he's been openly hostile to the idea downtown.
ReplyDeleteThere are developers all over the country, including many in Louisville, turning large, historic buildings into condos and mixed-use facilities. Why not seek their opinion or, as the letter suggests, put out a request for proposal?
As stated in a previous post on this facility, would it not be smart for the city and county to purchase this structure/grounds and move its offices there?
ReplyDeleteI've been out of the loop on this--at what point and where was it stated that McCartin is advising on this?
ReplyDeleteI got an email with an answer to my above question.
ReplyDeleteFrom media quotes, it appears that Mr. Heavrin isn't in favor of an historic designation for Silvercrest. Is he still on the Council? Doesn't his term expire this year? How do other county council members feel about the building?
At this point, permit me to aknowledge a bit of confusion on the part of the NAHPC.
ReplyDeleteThe letter was addressed both to the commissioners, and to Mr. Heavrin as the board's president.
Of course, Mr. Heavrin is president of the county council, not the board of commissioners.
I'm not speaking for him, but my guess is that Ted Fulmore merely transposed the two, given that Mr. Heavrin's, shall we say, somewhat "provocative" public statements in favor of bulldozer fetishism were responsible for the need to address the issue.
In truth, both the county commissioners and the county council need to be aware of the position stated by the NAHPC.
Wasn't Bill Cochran involved in this at the formative stages? Any word on his view of the manner by which county officials seem to be dismissing the offer of a stupendously valuable gift?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI won't argue that he is extremely well informed with respect to what he does best.
ReplyDeleteHowever, echoing Bluegill's thoughts above, I'm prepared to argue that what he does best is highly ill-suited (putting it more charitably than is my habit) for (a) historic buildings, (b) historic downtowns in general, and (c) matters pertaining to what most of us would generically refer to as the New Urbanist ethos.
See:
The Gary: An excess of pure, unadulterated ego? Perhaps tolerable in the exurban sprawl, but not relevant to downtown New Albany.
Yep, I can't swing a dead rat downtown without hitting a church building, many of them historic, and yet The Gary once stated that people wouldn't live downtown because, and I quote a Tribune article with which you may be familiar, “he thinks people would rather have a yard and live near their church and other conveniences.”
Some would. Others wouldn't. The Gary obviously understands the former, and just as obviously not the latter.
Now, with publicly stated attitudes like this, where does the “intelligent” attribution take over from my descriptive preference, which is “self-serving”?
Ali, we're not connecting here.
ReplyDeleteThe whole principle of New Urbanism is that there are people who'll come and take care of the historic buildings because they value a certain way of lifestyle.
The Gary has never indicated that he has any grasp of what that lifestyle implies, and so it is unlikely that his considerable expertise has much, if any, application to those seeking a lifestyle he all but admits to not grasping.
How, then, is his admitted exurban expertise of any use to those of us seeking to revitalize a historic downtown according to principles that he either eschews, or is openly hostile to?
Have you been to Madison? I'm sure you have. Obviously, there must be profit in downtown revitalization and reuse of historic properties. Imagine The Gary's fond desire to level square blocks of "old" buildings and bring big box shopping downtown, and how that would have destroyed downtown Madison.
Same here.
I readily concede that your boss knows all there is to know about developing raw land in the exurb, and I'm sparing you when it comes to debating the ultimate societal inefficiency of that model (although it certainly does maximize short term profits), but he knows next to nothing about what is needed downtown, and the majority of times that he's ventured a public opinion about it, the resulting statements reveal far less about his knowing what does or doesn't work as they do about his having an opinion about which demographic he prefers working with.
And I strongly disagree with him as to the merits of that opinion.
I was being facetious, Annie. In the majority of newspaper stories about the future of Silvercrest, we hear from elected officials, Gary McCartin, and no one else.
ReplyDeleteMy request here is simple: Get advice or proposals from people who've successfully handled properties similar to Silvercrest in the past. Gary McCartin isn't that person. Neither am I. Until the county does that, though, any decision they make will be uninformed.
I'm not sure how Bill Cochran has reacted to the county's reported rejection of Silvercrest. Early on he said he'd hate to see the property converted into condos. I don't understand why.
Unless the state has put restrictions on its offer to transfer the property, it would seem reasonable for a cash strapped county to consider selling the property to a private developer willing to adhere to preservation principles. Isn't that what the state will do, possibly with no guarantee of historic protection, if we say no? If this whole endeavor was about saving money, isn't making it just as good?
I think the point here is, if the buildings are torn down to build "discount" stores there is no way to build a "Madison".
ReplyDeleteRoger wants a Madison. So do I. Roger does not see the developer in question as understanding the urban mentality. Neither do I.
That said, many, many more people have chosen to go and live the developer's way. Roger doesn't like that and I think he blames the developers a little too much for that.
I'm sorry Ali and "The Gary" but in 2007 it's JUST PLAIN STUPID to question the value of saving and restoring a choice historic downtown like New Albany's. Check out Paducah's Lowertown Program for a model that's received national attention close by, in addition to the aforementioned success of Madison. Strip Malls should be illegal. Developers like "The Gary" are literally, have literally destroyed whole swaths of America...please hands off what is left of authentic city life here.
ReplyDeleteThere are city officials aplenty who will read your comments and commiserate. Some among them have worked and continue to work to make matters better.
ReplyDeleteBut -- and this is important -- none seem to be able, or willing, to piece together the entire package and advocate changes that are coherent and inter-related. I don't believe that the inaction of any is indicative of malice or ill will. That doesn't mean that their consistent failure to examine the picture from top to bottom is any more pleasant.
I walk past your house each day. The house across the street is a disgrace; nothing is done. There might yet be movement on the M Fine building; the last hopeful couldn't get financing. Every time I read about the Mellwood Arts complex, I see the Fine building, and yet there remain upstanding citizens prepared to scoff at anything approximating vision - not because the premises are invalid, but because they know they're incapable of seeing it, and can't understand why functional citizens ever would.
All downtowners deal on a daily basis with the detritus from four decades of reliance on slumlords to revitalize downtown. Nope, hasn't worked, has it?
I'm rambling. Sloburn, know that we're damned glad you're here.
We've been having decent luck in the neighborhood association with the idea of having informal social meetings at local eateries.
In 2007, perhaps we can widen this idea to include any and all, perhaps once a month or bimonthly. No particular plan, no special agenda ... just a meet, greet and gab. With beer, I hope.
"That said, many, many more people have chosen to go and live the developer's way. Roger doesn't like that and I think he blames the developers a little too much for that."
ReplyDeleteMark's probably right with respect to my personal system of beliefs, although at root, I just want a fair shake for those of us not willing to be condemned to perpetual exurban blandness.
Oops. Slipped out again, didn't it?
To echo the New Albanian, Sloburn is exactly the type of person that we need in New Albany, not because he agrees with NAC, but because he sees the potential and is willing to invest in it.
ReplyDeleteI'll be sure to let you know when the neighborhood association gatherings that the New Albanian mentioned are scheduled. I should've done a better job of that already.
Sloburn...I moved here less than a year ago after 25 in Massachusetts. I joined the Main St Preservation Org and we meet at the Culbertson Mansion once a month and it's fun and a great way to meet neighbors. Join us.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteI fully understand your concerns on all counts but would like to suggest some solutions to them.
First of all, access roads can be moved and landscaping can hide a multitude of less than pleasing views.
Second, and to me, the most obvious one that is constantly overlooked, there is grant monies everywhere to be had for projects such as this.
And last but not least, anyone who saw what the Fischer's Plant on Melrose was a few short years ago and looks at it now will have to testify that NEARLY any building can be restored into a functional and appealing structure.
Vision and the willingness to see it happen are 90% of the struggle. The other 10% has a way of working itself out.
That isn't to say the bulldozer doesn't have a place but only as a last resort.
And that's my opinion!
Steve,
ReplyDeletePoint acknowledged!