For those still unaware, the Highwayman has joined the NAC team. Welcome aboard, Lloyd.
---
The sleepy little river city of New Albany, Indiana, which lies just across the river from Louisville, Kentucky, has a rich history dating back to the early 1800’s. In fact, in just a few short years she will be celebrating her 200th birthday.
She is a city of many modern innovations, such as the home of the first storefront plate glass manufacturer in America, the first store in the Woolworth’s Department Store chain to boast an in-store café, and many other such examples.
She is home to many historic structures, both residential and commercial, and there is a plethora of public and private entities that speak volumes about their preservation.
Various non-profit groups host a variety of street festivals annually to tour these structures and provide their histories to all who are interested.
The city's mayor, economic development staff and Historic Preservation Commission uses the presence of historic structues as selling points to entice business, industry, and home buyers to our community.
All of the above mentioned entities are constantly speaking to both residential and commercial property owners alike to restore these structures (or at least the outside façade of them) to acceptably near their original historic appearance.
So, why do we still see so much decay, and more specific to this query, why do we see it at all in property owned by the city itself?
As cases in point, the city of New Albany currently holds title to two formerly prominent downtown historic structures.
One is the Schrader Stables building on Main Street, that was acquired as a part of the Scribner Place land acquisition.
The other is the Baptist Tabernacle on 4th Street, which was bought in March of 2008 for the sum of around $90K with no specific purpose in mind at the time of the purchase.
The latter lost its roof along with whatever historic architectural features were left in the interior as a result of Hurricane Ike's early September winds.
The former has a collapsing roof in the rear that is allowing water to flow in freely with each rainstorm.
To date both the city council and the administration of New Albany apparently have chosen to do nothing to preserve either of these from further damage by the elements, even though they are allegedly covered by the city’s insurance.
So, could this possibly explain the lack of building code enforcement in our community?
Is it possible that those elected and appointed officials fear declaring war on slumlords and abandoned property owners, as they may by default implicate themselves as such?
Is it possible that the historic preservationists, although quite willing to pursue private property owners who dare to ignore the rules in historic districts, are reluctant to bite the hands that feeds them in the public sector when they do so?
Is this really the image we want to present to the world, not only for New Albany’s upcoming bicentennial, but for potential future investment as well?
Didn't I hear somewhere that leadership by example was a good thing?
You have the floor.
Welcome to NAC, Lloyd!
ReplyDeleteYour posting here raises some interesting questions indeed. How can we expect mainstream NA to cooperate with keeping the city at least marginally acceptable when they themselves are failing to repair building code violations.
Of course the old standby should apply to the city as well, if you can not afford to properly maintain a building, you should sell it so it does fall in to more decay!
This may come off as defensive, but it’s not. I welcome dialogue about historic preservation, but do prefer to do it over a pint or two. Let’s make that happen soon.
ReplyDeleteMany in the community are passionate about protecting and reusing our architecturally worthy structures and celebrating our heritage. In that respect I guess we’re all “historic preservationists” right?
In terms of your post, I believe you are referring to members of the Preservation Commission when you reference those “quite willing to pursue private property owners who dare to ignore the rules in historic districts”. Ordinance requires property owners in our four local historic districts to submit a Certificate of Appropriateness before beginning exterior work. The HPC reviews the COA’s at monthly meetings.
In each case, the HPC reviews work for congruence with our historic neighborhoods. As is clearly spelled out in the Design Guidelines for the City of New Albany, it is strongly encouraged that the original fabric of structures be maintained. And yes, we are quite willing to request property owners (public or private) to comply with the ordinance by completing COA’s.
While I don’t know the details of two buildings you reference, I can assure you the HPC is concerned about their status. The HPC meets this Wednesday. At that meeting, I’ll request a status of the buildings from city officials. I’d be happy to post that update here and/or email directly to you.
I wish I could have a more lengthy discussion about preservation and the role of the HPC now, but I’m off to attend to some family business for the rest of the day.
Ted Fulmore
Chair, New Albany Historic Preservation Commission
Lloyd, I appreciate the effort to bring attention to these buildings, but I am disappointed that you chose to setup "the historic preservationists" as strawmen. You named the Preservation Commission in your post, so I am assuming you are referring to its members. I am no longer on the Commission, so I do not know the current status of those buildings, but I do know a few things about those straw men and women.
ReplyDelete"The historic preservationists" are some of the most competent, dedicated public servants this city has. They are all unpaid volunteers, most with demanding full-time professional jobs. They love this city and devote substantial amounts of their own time, money, and energy to revitalization efforts. I know that you know just about every single one of them. The insinuation that "the historic preservationists" are somehow out to get private property owners but are afraid to speakup because the city will cut off some imaginary benefit the members or the Commission itself receives is nonsense.
During my time on the Commission, the city was constantly trying to squelch (that's right, "squelch"...more on that word in the near future) our voices and initiatives out of fear of backlash from the City Council or Mayor's office. Simply obtaining basic information from the City was often a struggle.
You also have to understand that the Commission is an administrative arm of the city government that must, under the law, remain as neutral as possible because it hears Certificate of Appropriateness requests. In this case, most of what the City plans to do on these buildings will require COAs. The Commission members absolutely should NOT be engaged in contentious advocacy on these specific buildings because they will have to decide COAs on them. "The historic preservationists" take this role very seriously because the ability of their decisions to withstand a court challenge depends on it.
Honestly, our historic building stock is about the only thing New Albany has to distinguish itself in this region (beer is a close second). The bang for the buck the City receives from the paltry sum it spends on "the historic preservationists" is mirrored nowhere else in city government. Carelessly disparaging these people, whether intended or not, is irresponsible. Lloyd, we're friends and I'm glad that you are blogging here, but I expect higher standards from NAC, regardless of who is posting.
C'mon, Brandon -- you're veering into sacred cow territory here. The "higher standards" comment is egregious.
ReplyDeleteI edited the piece and saw no reason to temper the pot stirring, primarily because it the overall theme is one of questioning the status of the city's stewardship of two historic structures that it owns, and that need work before long.
Ted, I think it's an excellent idea for the HPC to ask city officials this question at Wednesday evening's meeting.
Brandon, I know full well the "squelching" of which you speak, and I believe Bluegill has a little something on that topic later in the week.
I've been told that the city got back from insurance roughly what it paid for the Tabernacle.
IMO, what should happen next is one of two things.
First, the city mints a viable plan for use of the Tabernacle and Schrader Stables and gets on with using them.
Barring that, it should unload them for a buck or two each to someone who can and will use them, and get them on the tax rolls. That's where it gets tricky.
Me? I'd like to see the Y's glass atrium atop the Tabernacle, or maybe a funky dome, and the facade of Schrader fronting a brand new structure.
My question to preservationists: If someone were to propose such avant garde reuses, would they be approved ... or would the new owners be bound to restore them as is?
But the first thing is for the city to be responsible for good stewardship, don't we all agree?
I, too, read this as a direct challenge to the city and the administration, not as a slap to volunteers managing the historic guidelines and COA process. To serve on an official board of the city, one becomes a city official, paid or unpaid. If that board is handcuffed or even thwarted, it does not relieve the city of responsibility for the program. In fact, it would call for even more pointed criticism.
ReplyDeleteWhich I think this was. Pointed criticism of the city's stewardship.
No sacred cows here. Criticism of the Commission and the City's preservation efforts is healthy, warranted, and should be expected. It's the straw man of "the preservationists" that is troubling, especially among this crowd, whom you would expect are all preservationists of one sort or another.
ReplyDeleteTo the point about creative reuses, I've posted at least three times on this blog about how the Commission would be receptive, and actually is craving, new design. In fact, the Commission approved the YMCA dome you referenced.
“If you can’t eat what you already have “on your plate”, you don’t go for seconds”. How does NA city government ever become functional unless it strips itself down to an organization that can accomplish a given set of policy objectives, not to mention basic support functions like police, fire, and streets. As a casual observer it seems conceived and run for years as little more than an employment agency for a certain socioeconomic group. Point being - historic preservation is a little over the heads of most of city hall. Their mindset does not support historic preservation. They support historic destruction; until “they” are all dead or replaced, that won’t change.
ReplyDeleteAlso, try and hire people to do work on historic buildings and you’ll find that our local labor pool only knows how to cover up trouble. The city will have to import a work force from Eastern Europe if they really hope to do historic preservation here. Maybe we could offer free visas to persons of foreign birth who possess historic building skills.
Finally I have to mention Fairview Cemetery. This is a place of priceless historical significance to the city and the city is just slowly destroying it. The significant reduction in native tree canopy over time has exposed the ground to storm erosion. It’s allowing the priceless old monuments to be craved right out of the ground where they lie toppled. I asked someone on the street department who was cutting a downed tree there one day why they weren’t replanting as trees died or were damaged. “Huh! They’d take a 100 years to grow up again!” he huffed at me like I’m so stupid.
Every 100 year old hardwood the city fells is a crime against history too...
To all of my (hopefully still) friends of the HPC.
ReplyDeleteI think most of you have noticed that I've held my counsel lately due to a growing frustration that threatens my good manners.
The primary source of which is the constant mantra of "These things take time!" or "We haven't the funds!" or better yet "I wasn't aware of...!"
I'm a 1950's kid who grew up working the trades along side craftsmen and listening to their war stories from the depression thur WW2.
In 1942 it took 13 months to build a destroyer from beginning to sea trials. By 1943 the time had been cut to 9 months.
During this same time period B24 Liberators were coming off of the converted auto assembly lines at the rate of one per hour.
By the time I was big enough to piot a wheel barrow in the 1960's we were building two story, 4BDRM/2BTH homes from foundation to certificate of occupancy in 90 to 120 days. And we were doing so without laser levels, air assist nail guns, backhoes, and computers.
My point is this.
How much "TIME" is enough? We've been talking these same issues to death for the going on four years that I've been involved in the discussions.
The "Lack of Funds" answer won't wash either.
We've allegedly received a settlement from the insurance company.
We've recently found the funds to purchase a new boat for the Fire Department (which I agree was a need not a perk), and we've mysteriously found $200K to buy out the EMC Storm Water contract!
Then my personal pet peeve of "It's the first I've heard of this!" is equally nonsensical.
I'll acquiese that the Tribune has not historically been the most dependaable reference for current events in our midst.
However their reports,along with the number of local daily blog posts and the hours that those who proclaim no knowledge spend in the hallowed halls of city hall & walking the downtown streets makes it impossible for me to believe that all of this is a mystery to so many.
As to the HPC members reluctance to speak out I kinda sorta understand. You'll note that I'm not on any such boards (save one) for that very reason.
But my question is this.
If your personal purpose for serving on such is to improve the existing conditions and yet you are restricted from speaking directly to the cause of those conditions, what's the point?
Again, leadership is the missing link and if those with access to the resources and responsibilities don't lead, where or where do we go?
Having said that, I'll gladly sit down & share a pint anytime.
Having said that, I'll gladly sit down & share a pint anytime.
ReplyDeleteMe! Me! I'll come!
One thing that has been touched upon only obliquely: The HPC and the work it does is the stuff of law. The ccity and the city council has aproved and accepted its authority. When (if) they grandtsand against the HPC, they're denying their own obligation to enforce the law.
Amen, brother.
ReplyDeleteAs B.W. said:
Honestly, our historic building stock is about the only thing New Albany has to distinguish itself in this region (beer is a close second). The bang for the buck the City receives from the paltry sum it spends on "the historic preservationists" is mirrored nowhere else in city government.
When one calculates the worth of that historic stock in the overall scheme and remembers that the City only budgets $7K and a few unsupported volunteers to contend with it, any notion of stewardship goes out the window pretty quickly.
From a governmental standpoint, there's no doubt that we've failed miserably with no real excuse other than ignorance and/or political cowardice.
We bought a boat?(grin)
ReplyDelete"When (if) they grandstand against the HPC, they're denying their own obligation to enforce the law."
ReplyDeleteAnd this would be other than SOP how?
No hard feelings - we're all on the same team.
ReplyDeleteThe HPC and the work it does is the stuff of law.
When the HPC decides COAs, that is the stuff of law. As you know, the HPC does much more than just hear COAs, promoting preservation and revitalization in numerous ways (think preservation month activities, home tour, historic newalbany.com, grants, national register designations, hosting conferences, facelift awards program, etc.).
It doesn't always do a good job of bragging on itself, which leads to a lot of misconceptions. The notion that they are sitting around doing nothing waiting for leadership is one of them.
The notion that they are sitting around doing nothing waiting for leadership is one of them.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. It's too bad there's so little support for that leadership from elected positions. In fact, it's downright stupid.
Since we have members of the HPC, some local business owners, and other gadflies hereabouts, I'd suggest that the first beer discussion involve some fund raising efforts to bolster the HPC's legal budget.
ReplyDeleteWe have numerous poster children. Now we need posters. And some money.
it should be noted that any resident of a NA historic district has standing to enforce violation of the historic preservation ordinance. The ordinance specifically covers neglect of a building, not only intentional alterations.
ReplyDeletebeing that there is very little case law on indiana preservation districts, one can argue that there is an unanswered question of law over whether the city must abide by the ordinance with respect to city owned property. one can argue that roger (for example), as a residence of the e. spring street district, has standing to sue the city for allowing the tabernacle and shrader stables to deteriorate. food for thought.
I don't know much law but there is a phrase that keeps buzzing around my head--pro bono.
ReplyDeleteCity-owned properties defintely require COAs like everyone else. Roger is, in fact, an "interested party" under the ordinance. So....it's a real option.
ReplyDeleteThis topic takes me back to my post of a week or so earlier about the debate between letting go (to some extent) of the need for everything to be truly "historic" in the face of the need for development.
ReplyDeleteI'm one of the handful of people who actually put their business dollars into downtown renovation projects. More than just those who keep a yard mowed & house painted, but rather, investing hundreds of thousands (putting it mildly) into a downtown property. It was very important to our firm to remain in the downtown area - for our own business reasons, as well as our desire to continue being contributors to the downtown area. However, let me tell you...its anything but easy trying to deal with the cross section of views about downtown development from the perspective of someone who has actually invested there.
There are a number of people who feel the need (or the right?) to tell you how to spend your own money. At one point, I recall throwing my hands into the air and wishing that we'd just bought a building on Charlestown Road where the headaches would inevitably have been less. However, in the end, I'm glad we weathered the storm and got it done. Our "new" building on Spring will hopefully be open in a month...water fountains and all. And no, its not "historic", but then again, we didnt build it - we just renovated it, which surely beats another empty building, right?
Which reminds me...Roger, how long until we can walk across the parking lot to your new joint after work?
Anyhow, my point is not that some oversight isn't warranted by those seeking to preserve the historical significance of our downtown. However, in my limited experience, its not exactly a warm and welcoming environment, and a better balance between preservation and development would help everyone involved.
BTW, Ted and the HPC board were actually rather easy to deal with (well, most of them...LOL).
Lawguy,
ReplyDeleteCan you be more specific? Who gave you problems? City officials? Citizens? What were the concerns?
approx. 93% of COA’s are approved. i believe lawguy’s spring street COA was approved after about 10-15 minutes of debate. i recall no negative comments from the commission, only some internal debate over how to phrase the COA’s approval.
ReplyDeletethere’s an easy way to answer the question of whether there is too much red tape, from preservation or anything else, preventing investing downtown. it’s easy to answer because people ARE investing downtown. between the two planned $35M projects against the flood wall, to the west end project, to smaller investments such as Toast on Market or Roger’s new place, a lot interest from the private sector exists. businesses wouldn’t looking at downtown NA if it wasn’t worth it. we certainly could develop downtown NA faster with less regulation but the end product would be indistinguishable from dixie highway.
back to lloyd’s original thesis….
ReplyDeleteTABERNACLE: the city has had the tabernacle for less than a year and hurricane ike was not foreseeable by anyone. the city is actively looking at ideas for the tabernacle so i’m willing to wait a little longer as its fate unfolds. last month i attended a session with several city officials and two architects to look at possible adaptive reuses for the tabernacle. be it slowly, that process currently is moving along..
SHRADER STABLES: the city has done little to preserve the building. the city has done little to get the building back into private hands.
shrader stables was owned by the same gentleman that owned much of the property under scribner place. the city didn’t want the stables but the stables and the ymca land came as a package deal. that was several years ago. an RFP was put out over a year ago with no takers….granted the RFP was minimally advertised.
i personally question the environmental condition of the property. it once was used as an oil changes establishment. no phase II has been performed. i don’t know if environmental mitigation is an issue.
the building faces significant structural issues. one estimate placed the cost of a complete rehabilitation at around $1.4M. i believe the private market currently would not support sufficient rents to justify that a $1.4M investment. the $1.4M figure assumes the purchaser acquired the building for free.
another proposal was to demolition the majority of the structure and leave the façade in place, incorporated restored facade into a new rear structure of similar scale, proportions, etc.
investors are *looking* at the building but so far most have looked and walked. that leaves the city with a choice.
as i see it, the city can:
1. mothball the building until an unknown date years in the future when, after more waterfront and west end development has occurred, the market rents for the restored building will justify the cost of a full rehabilitation by a private developer; or
2. allow demolition of the full building; or
3. allow demolition of the building *except* for the façade, assuming there is a legally binding commitment from the property owners to incorporate a restored façade into the new building, or
4. wait for an individual/organization to step forward who is motivated by non-market factors; or
5. the city can now make the investment itself and take a six (or seven) figure loss; or
6. city restore the façade to end the presence of a major eye sore, waiting for a private investor to restore or rebuild the rest of the building.
there are plenty of vacant lots downtown where new construction can go. therefore, i don’t see time as a major constraint pressuring from a “full demo” option. mother nature is taking down the building at a slower pace.
the ceiling needs new trusses, trusses which rest on walls in major need of tuck pointing. i’m curious what it would take to mothball the building, preventing further deterioration.
the 1880s façade is almost entirely intact. a true gem. while it’s hard to imagine given the existing, uniform coat of dark green paint, the façade would be as beautiful as any in NA.
what to do it a challenge, i will admit. however, we are not the first city to tackle downtown revitalization. when revitalization works, property values often multiple several fold in just a couple years. economics that don’t work today may work five years from now.
as one member of the historic preservation commission, given the realities of this building, i am willing to listen to proposals short of immediate full rehabilitation. but before full demolition is authorized, i want to make sure other options have been exhausted.
otherwise, i’m not sure what else the HPC *should* be doing right now to improve the site.
just to clarify, i agree with lloyd that the city should do something. what, i’m not so sure….
ReplyDeleteDan - you've eloquently described the challenge facing not a few historic buildings downtown. It still gives me chills thinking of the old Post Office and most of downtown, now gone 'cause the winning argument is always - "it's too gone to save". If half of what is left to us is "terminal", how do we whole-scale bring it all back to life?
ReplyDeleteBluegill -
ReplyDeleteI'm not wanting to shout out complaints against particular folks or entities here - its not my intent. But, I do want clarify that the folks at HPC were in fact easy to deal with - no complaints there. In fact, I recall their enthusiasm with our first concept on Main street with relatively few sticking points. Then again, we never got to the point of asking for permission for the blue metal roof and neon signage...(just kidding).
The motivation behind my earlier post was simply to point out that "investment" in our downtown community comes in all forms, from those wanting to live there and devote their own blood, sweat & tears into the community with their own hands, to those wanting to bring their businesses downtown and invest their dollars into the community, to those wanting to work preserve its historic integrity though educational and collaborative efforts. With those varying positions coming together, its not always easy for the differing positions to find common ground about what constitutes appropriate "progress". I still recall several posts and blog topics about "ugly" downtown offices by some, which to me shows a lack of appreciation for those willing to put their money where there mouth is and "invest" significant money in downtown. I know Gina and I feel very differently on the topic, which is apparent from her post just minutes ago.
I think there should be a real push for all investment in downtown property. Driving along State Street is very depressing each morning, as there are too many bleak and dilapidated properties along the corridor between the Dairy Queen and the BP station on Spring. Would the downtown be better served if some of those old properties were developed into new restaurants - albeit tastefully designed? I think so, but I'm not sure the majority of the folks following this issue would agree. But, until there are upscale restaurants downtown that make it easy, desireable and affordable to dine downtown, I dont see the progress coming that we'd all like to see - even I cant afford a $12 sandwich & coke every day at the Windsor as much as I want to patronize my fellow downtown businesses.
To keep moving forward, we need to understand that the 1950's "Leave it to Beaver" concept of Main Street USA might need a little adjustment into the 21st century. Honestly, the developers with bags of money to renovate all the old properties just arent beating the door to come to town, no matter how long we wait, nor how much we destain losing even the oldest of buildings. Now, dont mischaracterize that I think anything old & in need of work can be discarded. We tried very hard to buy the old building next to St. Mark's on Spring & Bank to renovate (before the chuch demolished it despite our offers), and we're presently renovating the NBD Bank Building now next to the Carnegie Building by adding windows and other external touches to make it more aesthetically pleasing. But, as a community, we simply cant save all the old buildings and must come to a balance between saving the old, while adding the new. Otherwise, downtown will remain a relative ghost town.
I'll reserve anthing more specific on the difficulties of this sort of progressive thinking until such time as we begin to move forward with the development of our lot on 3rd and Main where our first office plan was to sit. We have a few ideas being explored - I'll wait to see how the interplay of progressive thinking vs. historical preservation plays out then when the merits of a new development vs. an empty lot are debated.
I can only promise that it wont be a Hooters... :)
So let's review.
ReplyDeleteOption 1; Do nothing & hope someone with poketfulls of discretionary income drops out of the ethers to buy the building (s).
Option 2; Do nothing and let nature take it's course.
Option 3; Spend more tax dollars to do more studies to tell us (again) what our options are while nature takes it's course.
Option 4; Demolish them except for the facades (which we will prop up & hope they stand while nature takes it's course waiting on us to MAKE A DECISION!)
Option 5; Demolish one or both of them completely and plant grass seed or put down asphalt.
Or Option 6; (which was my whole point in the first place) Someone in this cities multiple layers of of decision making grow some balls and do the unimaginable.
Pick one of the above and DO IT!
Hedgeing our bets by letting nature take it's course will result only in prolonging the inevitable of mold, rodent infestation, and the risk of some innocent passer by getting crushed by falling debris when they do collapse in on themselves.
Now that sounds like an enticeing reason for downtown investment doesn't it?
Lloyd - there's a "bold" idea! We need a job training/workshop training program to put our underachieving/underprivileged inner city youth a chance to learn a trade involving historic preservation. Ala a Prosser inner city branch specifically for the historic building stuff. Seriously, to stabilize and structurally bring up to code half the buildings downtown does take $$$, as lawguy points out, but it also takes people with a skill set and leadership to accomplish it. We either set artists loose for super subsidized rents to work their magic, or we create some sort of public/private partnership to train a historic preservation workforce, or we get really good at grant-writing, or ...
ReplyDeleteI want to thank the participants in this discussion. I come to this blog to be entertained but mostly to learn.
ReplyDeleteI don't live or work downtown. I do recognize the need for a vibrant downtown New Albany. It's not much of an apple if the core is rotten.
My knowledge of HPC is limited but better now. My knowledge of some of the structures is limited but better now. I barely know which of a hammer to hold...wait, that remains the same!
My point being, I am basically limited to trying to support those ventures downtown with my patronage. My skill set does not allow me to buy and renovate by myself. My knowledge base is not enough to participate in finding solutions. The posters here are helping with my knowledge, so perhaps I can be of help later.
Thanks.
Darn, "which END of the hammer.."
ReplyDeleteMany of us on the preservation commission also work with other local groups to attract businesses and investment into downtown. New businesses and investments help make the community healthier in a number of respects. Just one of those is help with historic preservation. Improved property values, if done in a thoughtful way, helps everyone who wants to invest in buildings, whether new or old. We need new construction, but we’re not desperate for just any new building. But no one wants new construction that mimics and old building; faux Greek Revival is hardly the goal. But neither do we want to mimic suburban designs in the city.
ReplyDeleteMy personal ideal for new construction in a historic district uses clearly contemporary designs, traditional materials such as brick and stone possibly mixed with contemporary materials such as glass, metal and concrete. More important than the style of architecture or the materials is the proportions of the buildings, the scale, and the set backs. In my opinion, one of the downtown NA buildings most offensive to a historic district is, taken by itself, one of the most attractive. Monroe Shine’s building on Market is an attractive building, but with its single story and grassy front lawn, does not fit in with its non-suburban surroundings. The style is right; the materials are right; the placement and scale are wrong.
The half block between E. 3d and E. 4th along north Main is ideal for thoughtful infill building. A suburban style building with a green grassy lawn would not fit. People often think they want green grassy lawns in detached buildings. But when you ask people to name the most beautiful streets in the world, they usually pick streets in Rome or Paris where the multi-story buildings are attached and there’s not an expansive lawn in sight.
Again, my own personal opinion, but I’ve long thought that lawguy’s block is a logical place for infill made up of modern styles structures that mimic the scale and proportions of the Fifer’s “Three Sisters” across the street. Below are links that show examples that I believe would win quick approval from the preservation commission.
http://www.cnu.org/node/2216
http://www.cnu.org/node/1424
Dan, thank you for your architectural criticisms which second opinions I've expressed here in the past most recently when Lawguy was shopping his plans for a new office building on that lot on Main you note. Downtown is NOT where you put suburban buildings like Monroe Shine. Thank you as well for promoting real design in new buildings. The new Y is a fine example of modern architecture respecting it's historic context. The best way to show off what is left of our historic downtown is to mix them with modern designs. Faux, retro, suburban...we've tried those and they look stupid. Is New Albany ready for "design" cause you could run a competition for a free building to any architecture firm that wants to showcase design and adaptive re-use.
ReplyDeleteGina wrote:
ReplyDelete"Dan, thank you for your architectural criticisms which second opinions I've expressed here in the past most recently when Lawguy was shopping his plans for a new office building on that lot on Main you note. Downtown is NOT where you put suburban buildings like Monroe Shine."
And you wonder why there are so many dilapidated buildings, empty fireworks stores, car lots and vacant lots. If the Melhiser firm, Monroe Shine firm and Lorch & Naville firm hadnt moved downtown, it would be at least a hundred less people downtown to patronize the area. And it would be three more gravel lots growing high quality weeds.
This sort of thinking is archane and Gina illustrates my point precisely: rather than recognize and appreciate people who are willing to invest a million plus dollars, too many people want to grouse and tell investors how they can and cant spend their money.
It will take a blend of historical appreciation, along with progressive thinking, to grow the downtown community. Anything short of this will fail.
Architectural and planning ignorance isn't progressive thinking. It's the opposite.
ReplyDeleteWould I advocate against the construction of another Monroe Shine type suburban building downtown?
Yes, wholeheartedly, but I would do so whether or not there was any demolition of older buildings involved or not.
You still seem to be confusing that with historic preservation which, again, is an entirely different set of circumstances and leads to a false dichotomy.
Densely built urban grids, some of which we have left downtown, have proven themselves to be the most environmentally and fiscally responsible method of design for centuries.
It's simply the smartest way for communities to grow. The age of the buildings has little to do with it.
Cases like Monroe Shine hinder smart development. If the lot were empty, it could be purchased for about $100K, per the asking price for your lot. When an unattractive suburban building sits on the property, however, the price is much higher and precludes a developer from putting something better and more profitable in its place.
A hundred employees via a squat building on a parking lot might seem a good idea in the short term, but it does long-term damage.
Of all the new businesses opening up, which ones are taking over and renovating the suburban style buildings? None of them.
Investors who understand the urban aesthetic want the exact opposite, which is why there are several major rehab projects occurring in our downtown now even with the recession. If a majority of the streetscapes were formed by single story buildings on large lots, that wouldn't be the case.
i’m very thankful that monroe shine is downtown. we do need more businesses like them. i only wish that whoever designed their building better incorporated it into the existing neighborhood. simply moving the building forward a few feet, with no other design changes, would have made a big difference. all for no extra cost.
ReplyDeletemayor garner’s initial plan for the ymca was for a suburban style building. basically, a kroger/wal-mart style box backing again against the flood wall with a couple acres of parking lot immediately facing main street. what we have is much better. mayor garner saw the light. as you drive down main, you feel it. buildings new and old of similar height, scales and set back are on both sides. it creates cohesiveness. it’s a place where tourist or shoppers are more likely to leisurely stroll. as viewed from say the schmidt building sidewalk, the current ymca is more attractive, much more so than a parking lot with a building in the distance.
ReplyDelete"rather than recognize and appreciate people who are willing to invest a million plus dollars, too many people want to grouse and tell investors how they can and cant spend their money."
ReplyDeleteYou tell me, but I think in law it's called "zoning"
Actually, zoning has little to nothing to do with whether a propety meets one's architectural tastes - zoning has to do with the nature & usage of the property, and I would suspect all downtown property is zoned commercial, which encompasses all forms of business. This includes Dairy Queens, car lots, fireworks stores, u-haul rentals, banks, restaurants and all the other commercial businesses found downtown.
ReplyDeleteBut again, you illustrate my point. There is no question that it would be wonderful if the Monroe Shine building had all sorts of fantastic & unique architectural features. Would a copper roof be a better addition...? Sure, but who is to say they should spend the $85k to accomplish it. The point is that in the end, who bears the cost...? The business owner. And to suggest that you should have a right to tell them that they should have spend more of their own money to incorporate a more aesthetically pleasing facade is, in essence, telling them how to spend their money.
As an example, take the efforts of our friend Roger - should you laud his efforts to bring a new brewhouse downtown to an area that was previously starved for renovation, or should you cast your nose at the fact that he might have garage doors as part of the facade of his building that will swing open to allow a nice breeze and open atmosphere? Surely open air doors like that arent found in the 1927 photograph of his building. But the point is that he's investing in the downtown, thinking progressively in his efforts and all the while trying to seek an economic return from so doing.
If you want to encourance business development downtown, you simply cannot expect businesses to write carte blanche checks which price start-up expenses beyond their eventual profit margin - it just wont work if a business has to spend more than it can afford to renovate according to subjective taste. I do agree that certain standards are absolute neccesary to ensure people arent throwing up pole barns in the district...but to suggest that a building like Monroe Shine isnt a valuable addition because its not historical enough in its design is foolish as well.
Its amazing to me that many folks would rather have empty lots and falling down buildings while waiting on the "renovation fairy" to arrive than bear the thought of someone actually investing money and building something that doesnt suit your particular eye.
I dont know any of your homes, and I'm sure they are all quite tasteful and well maintained. But that aside, do I have the right to come to your home, tell you to add more shrubs, a copper roof, different colors of paint and to replace the shutters with custom milled replicas which are more historically appealing, or should I simply appreciate the fact that you do a nice job tastefully maintaining your property and by doing so, you are trying to contribute to the quality of the district? I guess it just depends on perspective - I tend not to think I have the right to tell you how to spend your money, even if I might have done something differently. In following that thought, why do you expect business owners to spend sums that make it impractical to operate downtown?
Again, it just depends on whether we want to wait, year after year, for these mythical "historical investors" to come to town. The last & best chance was 10 years ago when the casino industry came to town, but they were chased off. Lord knows what we could have done with the $300+ million Harrison county has collected, but i digress.
I recognize that slowly and surely, there are some very committed folks working hard on the downtown district along Pearl and Market Streets on renovation that looks wonderful. But, for all those lots where old things arent being torn down, woud you really have a vacant lot than another Monroe Shine? If so, I say you're crazy, as there are already a dozen lots - maybe two dozen, each dying for someone to do something. Hell, our prime lot is for sale on Main (and with the exception of the Million Dollar priced lot on Spring across from the Elsby Building- there isnt a better situated lot downtown), and we'd even take less than the $100k we paid. And yet, nobody is knocking at our door. Yet many folks would rather look at our collection of gravel and grassy weeds than ever ponder something new going in.
Until there is a progressive vision beyond the age old longing for Main Street USA to return once more, the downtown will never thrive. Random businesses will come and go (see "House of Bread", Speakeasy, among others), but continued and significant growth - as opposed to random projects - simply will not follow. And none of us want another 10 years to pass, waiting for something to happen downtown, do we?
As Bill Murray said in Stripes, "lighten up, Francis".
Lawguy,
ReplyDelete"Historical enough"? You're still confusing issues.
Your insistence that an understanding of good design is all just an arbitrary matter of taste (or related to historic preservation) is highly insulting to those professions who've spent centuries developing the skills to effectively deal with spatial relationships, the built environment, and how they affect our lives.
It's akin to suggesting that lawyers and our entire legal system are useless because everybody knows the difference between right and wrong.
Your example of the bread building is a case in point. You'll notice that no one here is complaining about the overhead doors there. They're understood as good design, better connecting what was once a nondescript industrial building with the street while giving it a more modernist flair to boot. The choice of door has a lot to do with the success of their addition as they, too, show an understanding of design within context. You'll also note the purposeful use of the term "modernist" here rather than the generic modern.
On the flip side, the Monroe Shine building could have been built more inexpensively AND better designed given the spatial context in which it resides. Your suggestion that additional ornamentation would be an obvious improvement is, quite frankly, a sign of design ignorance.
Money or lack thereof is not a plausible excuse in that case. A lack of design understanding, not financial impracticality, created the Monroe Shine situation.
The result is that the properties immediately around it and the entire downtown is less attractive to those who do understand the effectiveness of the urban grid and streetscape and would take knowing advantage of it.
It also helps set a precedent downtown that reflects a desire to be more suburban. As our society's suburban experimentation continues to prove unsustainable and more people across the country begin to realize the wisdom of urban living, that's not a good thing. It makes us appear less smart, therefore less attractive to those who are.
Ultimately, people across the country are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to replicate the urban setting we already have. What you're suggesting is that we destroy it.
As it pertains to fiscally and environmentally responsible development (which you didn't address at all), we ALL pay for the types of building we allow in our communities.
Lawguy - I'll give you $50,000 for that lot on Main. Or I'll trade you a nice peice of land out in the knobs for it.
ReplyDeletethe goal is not to save buildings. the goal is not to have expensive buildings. the goal is healthy neighborhoods, with healthy being broadly defined.
ReplyDeleteone good and not very expensive design element is to have sidewalks. to take healthy in its narrowest sense, i recall one study that showed residents of neighborhoods with sidewalks had 17% fewer heart attacks and their sidewalkless counterparts. now correlation is not causation; many other factors such as self selection are at work. but it’s not a stretch to say that people are healthier if they walk more, and they will walk more if you give them sidewalks and a non-hostile environment in which to walk. creating a walkable neighborhood requires many things, the distance between buildings being a factor. monroe shine’s building by itself will not destroy walkability in NA, but I personally would not want every new building downtown to have as much lawn.
charlestown road has had much development, but it is poorly designed. there is a sidewalk for part of the road, but people don’t leisurely stroll there or walk to meijer. when they walk, they walk by parking lots and busy, loud, polluted streets.
dan coffey is correct. if we only want to attract people downtown, the best way to do it is to add a KFC. but the goal is not additional people for the sole sake of having additional people in the short run. similarly, the goal is not additional businesses for the sole sake of having additional business in the short run.
my goals as a downtown resident and active member of the community are long term. i want a healthy neighborhood where cultural resources are valued. i want a neighborhood where walking is a way of life, where restaurants and bars attract patrons not with the convenience of a drive thru window but with quality food and ambiance. it’s not about buildings. it’s about how all the pieces fit together to make a neighborhood where people want to live, work and visit.
Well said, Dan.
ReplyDeleteA city's urban design success or failure isn't measured by individual buildings. It's measured by the interactions that occur in its streets and public spaces, the center of life in urban communities.
As Dan mentioned, suburban style building like MS and others are a deterrent to street level interaction, putting the automobile ahead of people in the planning process.
Slowly, our country as a whole is realizing that that's not feasible long-term. We should capitalize on that rather than reject it.
A couple of thoughts I'd add about expectations:
1. I'm sure some people, myself included on some days, feel like they've been waiting forever for something to happen downtown or that there's already been monumental effort made to revitalize.
While it may be true for individuals, it's not true on the whole.
The city (small "c" as in government, involved civic groups, and interested citizens combined) has never put together a coherent plan with specific desired outcomes, strategies for making them happen, and mechanisms for measurement and accountability as judged against those outcomes.
Until that happens, we're not really trying to revitalize in any sort of recognizable fashion nor has our "waiting" period begun.
2. (Echoing Dan again) Any number of professionals in the revitalization field will tell you that yes, it's measured in decades. While there are short-term goals, it's very much a long-term process.
i do not want my prior posts to in any way be interpreted as a criticism of monroe shine. monroe shine’s contribution to NA is unquestioned. i have no doubt that at the time their building was built, its design reflected the latest thought on urban land use. current urban land use thinking has changed. the goal of my posts was to help ensure that future construction in NA reflects new urbanist land use thinking.
ReplyDelete