Your opinions on historic preservation?

[eschaton]

So, I'm curious about the opinions of the peanut gallery here, so to speak, because historic preservation seems to be something which divides urbanists.

Personally, I used to be much more of a die-hard preservationist, but now I take a more nuanced view - wishing there was some way to take "higher and better use" into account when considering the replacement of historic structures.

I believe preservation is warranted largely because...well...we don't build em like we used to. If we could have (affordable) finely-grained new urban development in traditional materials like brick and stone, with varied designs which were not always somewhere between bland and postmodern...I would be much more sanguine about losing historic buildings and even neighborhoods. But by and large modern infill (even at higher densities) will never compare, which is why the old neighborhoods which remain largely intact are incomparable treasures.

On the other hand, the preservationist movement has shifted over time. Many of the projects which would have replaced historic structures 50)+ years ago would have been highways, parking lots, and single-story suburban-style structures, obliterating the urban form of cities with literally no upside. But as cities have come back, increasingly NIMBYs seek to use historic designation to block particular projects and to stop upzoning in their neighborhoods. Often this results in truly absurd outcomes, like the designation of completely undistinguished 1-story commercial structures "historic" in order to stop their replacement with new mixed-use buildings. This is also counterproductive, because demand has to go somewhere whenever NIMBYs intervene, and where it flows is to neighborhoods with less pull.

Another aspect of this relates to class. Historic districts don't always start out wealthy, but they typically end up that way. Only rich people have the resources to pay for historic restoration which meets the rigorous guidelines of these districts. Often when an individual blighted building is designated historic the only feasible way it could return to active use is if it became the home of a rich person. Thus we might protect one big historic home, which as a result might block 4-6 more affordable townhouses from being built in its stead.

So yeah, I'm now at a "it depends" state when it comes to this. Not sure where you all stand.

[Steely Dan]

if i was the Supreme Emperor of my city (and really, i should be), i would make it illegal to demolish any historic structure anywhere in the city, until every single last stupid fucking parking lot and strip mall are redeveloped first.

but i realize that's not how property rights work in the real world, which is precisely why i should be installed as Supreme Emperor.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if i was the Supreme Emperor of my city (and really, i should be), i would make it illegal to demolish any historic structure anywhere in the city, until every single last stupid fucking parking lot and strip mall are redeveloped first.

Yeah, this sounds about right.

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if i was the Supreme Emperor of my city (and really, i should be), i would make it illegal to demolish any historic structure anywhere in the city, until every single last stupid fucking parking lot and strip mall are redeveloped first.

but i realize that's not how property rights work in the real world, which is precisely why i should be installed as Supreme Emperor.

Same for me, in fact I would make it illegal to ever tear down anything built pre ww2. Maybe I would allow a facedectomy here or there if it respected the historic structure and it wasnt just plastered onto the new building like this unholy abomination.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4396...7i16384!8i8192

I hope in the future that 3-d printing on large industrial scales can be applied to modern buildings to make them look like classical designs and have beautiful ornamentation like we had in the past.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Same for me, in fact I would make it illegal to ever tear down anything built pre ww2.

nah, that's too extreme. there's a lot of mundane and ordinary pre-war stuff out there that wouldn't be a crime to lose, but the parking lots and strip malls have to go first!

[the urban politician]

There are buildings built before WWII that are pretty worthless, though. Like 1 story brick shacks that have no architectural value. Not everything old is worth saving either.

[mhays]

I support saving a lot of pre-WWII buildings, but very few post-war.

I agree with the highest and best use point, particularly in key locations like CBDs and near rail stations. That varies depending on the difference between existing and potential square footage, the quality of the building, the setting, the current use, etc.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if i was the Supreme Emperor of my city (and really, i should be), i would make it illegal to demolish any historic structure anywhere in the city, until every single last stupid fucking parking lot and strip mall are redeveloped first.

but i realize that's not how property rights work in the real world, which is precisely why i should be installed as Supreme Emperor.

[Steely Dan]

joking aside, it is an interesting thing to debate. and i go back and forth on it myself.

here's a perfect example from my neck of the woods on the northside of chicago.

this proposed 5 story infill building on N Lincoln in North Center with ground floor retail space and 68 residential units above recently won city council approval.





it is replacing a handful of 1 - 3 story old school fine-grained chicago buildings (of varying quality), and one empty lot.

these are the buildings that will be lost: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9532...7i16384!8i8192



so i'm personally torn on this one. the new building is a much higher-use, and it isn't god-awful, but i also lament the loss of nice old fine-grained development on an old neighborhood retail street.

[someone123]

I don't think we really have a heritage preservation problem, we have an ugly modern building problem. Most cities do a pretty good job of preserving the truly historic buildings of great significance and we feel we need to preserve a lot of other stuff because it's nicer for the public realm than what might replace it.

On a related note there's a problem with development where there is a public utility surplus to beautiful building exteriors that is not fully captured by the owners/tenants. Maybe we made up for this with culture in the past but that is gone now. So cities need to pay for this surplus if they want it. I think it's often quite cheap, but the coordination typically isn't there in North American or at least most Canadian cities. On the whole, Canadian cities are very ugly relative to their wealth. Maybe some of the worst in the world.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

joking aside, it is an interesting thing to debate. and i go back and forth on it myself.

here's a perfect example from my neck of the woods on the northside of chicago.

this proposed 5 story infill building on N Lincoln in North Center with ground floor retail space and 68 residential units above recently won city council approval.





it is replacing a handful of 1 - 3 story old school fine-grained chicago buildings (of varying quality), and one empty lot.

these are the buildings that will be lost: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9532...7i16384!8i8192



so i'm personally torn on this one. the new building is a much higher-use, and it isn't god-awful, but i also lament the loss of nice old fine-grained development on an old neighborhood retail street.

It's very funny you chose that building, as i'm friends the one of the Longford guys (the developer) - first off I think only 1 MAYBE 2 of those buildings are worth savings, but the replacement is much better in my opinion.

The thing is, the developer couldn't get 65+ units on those lots if they built each individual lot separate. Part of the issue is the hoops developers need to jump through to save a building.

That developer, Longford, renovated THIS building about 5 or 6 years ago, it took them 2 years, and was way over budget based on the city input (building was landmarked).

Preservation is not just about individual buildings, but also the cohesiveness of the buildings, my old house was fairly new, but built amongst homes that looked like THIS

There is no easy way to manage preservation, for me it's typically case by case with many considerations to factor in.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

It's very funny you chose that building, as i'm friends the one of the Longford guys (the developer) - first off I think only 1 MAYBE 2 of those buildings are worth savings, but the replacement is much better in my opinion.

that's why i used this example. it's not a slam dunk either way in my opinion.

the new building looks pretty nice, and it will be a MUCH higher use for the land.

and yet, we will be losing some old-school fine-grained development.

however, some of it won't be much of a loss at all. it's a mixed bag, for sure.


let's look at the buildings that will be lost, south to north:

1st building - no tears will ever be shed for this trainwreck of facade modernization.

2nd building - a gorgeous and classic old school chicago building, with a badly fucked-up ground floor that could (should) be restored. losing this one will sting.

the empty, gap-tooth lot - this obviously speaks for itself.

3rd building - nothing too special, fairly plain-jane, but nice enough from an old school fine-grained urbanism perspective. streets with lots of these kinds of medium buildings still become better than the sum of their parts.

4th building - a cute little old building with some fun detailing and terrible window signage that could easily be cleaned up. i'm not gonna chain myself to it or anything, but it still sucks to lose fun little old buildings like this.



so this one ain't 100% clear-cut to me.

[the urban politician]

My greater point is, just because it's old doesn't mean it needs to be saved.

Are these worth saving:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/37...!4d-87.6879445

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's why i used this example. it's not a slam dunk either way in my opinion.

the new building looks pretty nice, and it will be a MUCH higher use for the land.

and yet, we will be losing some old-school fine-grained development, however, some of it won't be much of a loss at all. it's a mixed bag.


let's look at the buildings that will be lost, south to north:

1st building - no tears will ever shed for this trainwreck of facade modernization.

2nd building - a gorgeous and classic old school chicago building, with a badly fucked-up ground floor that could (should) be restored). losing this one will sting.

the empty, gap-tooth lot - this obviously speaks for itself.

3rd building - nothing too special, fairly plain-jane, but nice enough from an old school fine-grained urbanism perspective. streets with lots of these kinds of medium buildings still become better than the sum of their parts.

4th building - a cute little old building with some fun detailing and terrible window signage that could easily be cleaned up. i'm not gonna chain myself to it or anything, but it still sucks to lose fun little old buildings like this.



so this one ain't 100% clear-cut to me.

Some of those are a bit of a loss, but luckily the Lincoln Bank building is not being torn down!

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's why i used this example. it's not a slam dunk either way in my opinion.

the new building looks pretty nice, and it will be a MUCH higher use for the land.

and yet, we will be losing some old-school fine-grained development.

however, some of it won't be much of a loss at all. it's a mixed bag, for sure.


let's look at the buildings that will be lost, south to north:

1st building - no tears will ever shed for this trainwreck of facade modernization.

2nd building - a gorgeous and classic old school chicago building, with a badly fucked-up ground floor that could (should) be restored). losing this one will sting.

the empty, gap-tooth lot - this obviously speaks for itself.

3rd building - nothing too special, fairly plain-jane, but nice enough from an old school fine-grained urbanism perspective. streets with lots of these kinds of medium buildings still become better than the sum of their parts.

4th building - a cute little old building with some fun detailing and terrible window signage that could easily be cleaned up. i'm not gonna chain myself to it or anything, but it still sucks to lose fun little old buildings like this.



so this one ain't 100% clear-cut to me.

We're in agreement of the buildings in question, 3922 is the only no-brainer, but to me it's pretty clear cut the new building will be an overall addition to the immediate area (assuming it turns out as nice as the renderings).

[Stan31]

I support all historic preservation efforts. If nothing else, time has proven that areas with any kind of historic housing stock are more interesting to look at and it draws people, stimulating shared space usage and business activity.

The only large scale construction that I wouldn't mind seeing demolished are the housing projects, those disgusting red commieblocks all over the city.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

We're in agreement of the buildings in question, 3922 is the only no-brainer, but to me it's pretty clear cut the new building will be an overall addition to the immediate area (assuming it turns out as nice as the renderings).

and the bolded is why it's less clear-cut to me.

beware, for here cometh the VE reaper.

how many thousands of of times have we been sliced and diced by that asshole in chicago?


if the replacement development is executed to the same exact aesthetic and quality standard as depicted in the rendering, it probably is a net gain, all things considered.

and yet, i still don't like losing old school fine-grained urbanism out in the neighborhoods. my maternal grandfather grew up in a 2-flat 3 blocks away from the site in question, and he no doubt walked past some of these buildings countless times as a young boy, perhaps he even went shopping in some of them with my great-grandfather/mother. once they're gone, they're gone.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if i was the Supreme Emperor of my city (and really, i should be), i would make it illegal to demolish any historic structure anywhere in the city, until every single last stupid fucking parking lot and strip mall are redeveloped first.

but i realize that's not how property rights work in the real world, which is precisely why i should be installed as Supreme Emperor.

Even if we ignore the issue of property rights, a lot of the stupid strip malls/parking lots are in areas which just will never be as prime, due to being further from mass transit, in bad neighborhoods, etc.

Hell, the argument taken to its logical extent would probably gentrify historically black neighborhoods in Chicago much more quickly than the status quo, since that's where the vacant lots are.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

There are buildings built before WWII that are pretty worthless, though. Like 1 story brick shacks that have no architectural value. Not everything old is worth saving either.

To be fair, most of the old undistinguished stuff - shanties and the like - has long since been lost.

I'd also argue that undistinguished things in large numbers can be more than the sum of their parts. Somewhere like German Village in Columbus has lots of unadorned 1.5 story brick worker's cottages, but the high concentration/limited setback provides a great neighborhood "vibe" even if the individual houses are nothing special.

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think we really have a heritage preservation problem, we have an ugly modern building problem. Most cities do a pretty good job of preserving the truly historic buildings of great significance and we feel we need to preserve a lot of other stuff because it's nicer for the public realm than what might replace it.

I tried to touch on this, but I indeed think this is much of the problem. We don't build like we used to, which makes historic buildings irreplaceable. This seems true for basically two reasons.

1. Materials and skilled labor are way more expensive than they were prior to 1930 (when almost all of the good stuff was built). This could possibly eventually be fixed through things like 3D printing, as was noted.

2. The cult of modernism/postmodernism in architecture. I don't know any other way to describe it other than mass indoctrination. I know plenty of architects who like old buildings, but except for some weirdos, they think it's wrong to build a new building which looks like an old one, and mumble something about how "all buildings should be reflective of the time they are built." I don't necessarily think we need like a Second Empire revival or something though - we just need the development of a new vernacular which is based upon the general principles of historic architecture, rather than continual new postmodern designs which 90% of people believe are inferior to things built more than a century ago.

[Obadno]

I would rather cities encode style and aesthetic over preservation.

I like preservation but I also live in a city without much to preserve, everything of value IS preserved and now you have preservation activists in search of buildings to save. Even if they are an old record/car dealership from 1960 or a liquor store (no im not kidding) that has now sat vacant for a decade or an unsalvageable warehouse sitting idle for 50+ years.

Just because something is old =/= worthy of preservation. People invoking the crime of Penn stations destruction to save a mid century Strip mall in Phoenix runs very hollow to me.

[daniel]

Cities are not museums or art galleries, and aesthetics shouldn't be the primary consideration when considering what to build. The main function of a city is to provide a place for people to live and work. Blocking people from doing that in the name historical preservation leads to the much worse problems of unaffordability and forced suburbanization.

If historic preservation would stop at a handful of buildings of particular importance then it would be ok, but the way it works in practice is that more and more buildings of increasingly lesser importance keep getting added until there is little room left to house new people.