How should cities balance historic preservation and new development?

[eschaton]

Riffing off of the discussion about Chicago, I wonder what people's opinions are about historic preservation more broadly. After all, while many "first-wave" urbanists lauded historic preservation in part because it helped to keep the fine-grained urbanism which Jane Jacobs lauded, in recent years it has often been used as one of many tools by NIMBYs to freeze neighborhoods in place at their current density levels.

My own feelings on the subject are somewhat mixed. I'll give you a local example to explain why.

A few years back, a developer wanted to knock down this church - which had been vacant for a few years - for a single-story, drive-through Starbucks. That corridor in Pittsburgh is sort of an odd place, in that it has many major apartment buildings (three 100-200 unit buildings have gone up in the last decade) but also a lot of autocentric businesses like fast food (the Wendy's just next to the church upgraded a few years back, there is a new Levin Mattress behind the church, etc). Regardless, the community rallied to save the church, and it is now a historic landmark. While I was certainly opposed to knocking down the church for a lame Starbucks, now even if a legitimately higher and better use comes along it will be very difficult for anything to be built there.

In general, it strikes me that we need a more nuanced discussion of when and where to preserve a historic structure. Knocking down a single-family home for a parking lot, or a bigger single family home does not result in a higher and better use for an area. Knocking down a single family home in part to clear land for a major multi-family development does. Indeed, sacrificing some homes for denser development may actually save others as single-family houses, stopping homes from being chopped up into apartments, or rented college-style by many roommates.

I think we also sometimes preserve historic structures when we do not need to, seeking to use the code for something other than was intended. For example, there was a (failed) effort to preserve this commercial area in Pittsburgh. The buildings obviously have no architectural merit - they are single-story warehouses with storefronts on the sidewalk. What the effort was really about is the area is seeing a lot of new development a few blocks away, with new office buildings and apartments being constructed which take up entire city blocks. Locals are worried that due to "gentrification" (not the right word, because the area had no residents) the old buildings will be bought out and replaced with new mixed-use buildings which don't have the same retail vitality on the first floor. The thing is, you could easily have a form-based zoning code which would require new taller buildings to subdivide the first floor retail. And preservation of the legacy small businesses could theoretically happen other ways.

Anyway, thoughts?

[JManc]

Churches are tough. Attendance is dropping and churches are either closing down or merging with other ones. Leaving behind a lot of empty buildings in their wake. Some are gems like that one in Pittsburgh, others are not. Problem is that a church building is kinda hard to reuse. Well, except for this option

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by JManc

Churches are tough. Attendance is dropping and churches are either closing down or merging with other ones. Leaving behind a lot of empty buildings in their wake. Some are gems like that one in Pittsburgh, others are not. Problem is that a church building is kinda hard to reuse. Well, except for this option

A lot of the churches in the South Side have been converted into small-scale multifamily. And one relatively close to our home was bought by a nonprofit and made into a community space. It's sort of odd though, because they keep trying to have to come up with ideas (ceramics classes, event rental, studio space available to artists, etc) in order to warrant continuing to exist.

Right now, there's a battle going on in Pittsburgh involving this church, which is in my old neighborhood. Years back a developer bought it with plans for adaptive reuse - apartment conversion for it and the nearby school and parish house. Local NIMBY's fought him on it for various reasons (racism because he was Nigerian, parking concerns, etc) and got the allowable unit count dropped to the point it was no longer feasible. He's now selling at a loss, but the new buyer wants him to demolish the church so they can build 40 or so new construction townhouses on site. It's a shame that the earlier adaptive reuse was foiled by the NIMBYs, but IMHO it's not really architecturally meritorious, and 40 (likely bland, unfortunately) new townhomes is a higher and better use now, so I don't support the last-ditch effort to get it declared a historic landmark.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by JManc

Problem is that a church building is kinda hard to reuse. Well, except for this option

Churches are pretty easy to convert to a number of new uses. Aside from the apartments & houses that have been mentioned (and which usually command a premium since they have a historic character that can't be replicated in an entirely new construction), they can - depending on their location - make for great spaces for nightclubs, restaurants, community centres, theatres, event spaces, shops, and even offices.

[mhays]

Drive-throughs should never be allowed in urban places.

I'd preserve a lot of the urban-format old stuff. But in a city with growth pressures, I'd say that outside key historic districts and the best buildings, it's generally ok to redevelop if the replacement is a lot larger than what was there.

As for mid-century buildings, I'd be very limited in what's worth saving. This is a fundamental disconnect between much of the public and preservationists...for many of us, preservation is about pre-war styles and well-executed urbanity, not about preserving "examples," and we don't have as much affinity for midcentury styles.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by mhays

As for mid-century buildings, I'd be very limited in what's worth saving. This is a fundamental disconnect between much of the public and preservationists...for many of us, preservation is about pre-war styles and well-executed urbanity, not about preserving "examples," and we don't have as much affinity for midcentury styles.

I agree. Honestly, to a large degree, I think preservation is important just because it's generally not economical to build structures which look "traditional" any longer. If it was affordable to build a more-or-less historically accurate "six-flat" style walkup to replace a family homes of the same vintage, I'd say clear out the dross right now.

[M II A II R II K]

Old churches are being converted into lofts.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Old churches are being converted into lofts.

yea some have also been turned into private homes. something of value is still lost, since the interior of these churches if often just as significant as the exterior. but given the choice, its still the best option. some of these are executed better than others

[JManc]

I'm not feeling the townhome craze. Disposable architecture that destroyed so many historic buildings and they themselves will probably be on their last legs in 40-50 years.

[eschaton]

I think the discussion of churches veered off a bit. Let me give you another local example.

This is a protected residential historic district here in Pittsburgh - Schenley Farms in Oakland. The houses are protected from zoning from subdivision. The houses are protected from demolition or remuddling via the historic district. The area has developed into a wealthy little enclave - the only house currently on the market is pending, and the asking price was $1.7 million, though smaller houses there can go more in the $600,000-$700,000 range (which is still very expensive for Pittsburgh).

The issue is, although it's uniquely remained a nice residential area in Oakland (which has otherwise turned into student slum) it's directly next to the University of Pittsburgh's upper campus. Some of the houses are directly across the street from a new midrise office building. Just two blocks away is a district occupied by mostly midrise apartment buildings.

Historically it was a popular area for professors (who could walk to work) but as real estate prices have escalated, it's become largely out of the reach of younger faculty. In effect the city is protecting the interests of about 150 rich families. The houses are handsome early 20th century architecture, but is that really the best use when the area is surrounded by a major university, office space, and multi-family housing?

[The North One]

Cities like Chicago have plenty of room to develop without destroying any historical buildings. Cities like San Francisco have a much harder time.

We need to be much more strict in preservation in this country and we need to offer more benefits to people who want to renovate and restore historical structures (which also proves to be very economically beneficial so it's a win-win).

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by The North One

Cities like Chicago have plenty of room to develop without destroying any historical buildings. Cities like San Francisco have a much harder time.

We need to be much more strict in preservation in this country and we need to offer more benefits to people who want to renovate and restore historical structures (which also proves to be very economically beneficial so it's a win-win).

Depends on your definition of historical, The North One. Yes, Chicago does have certain areas that can certainly be developed without impacting much, if any, historical areas. But in much of the Northside (ie: basically from The Loop north and from Lake Michigan west several miles), along with certain parts of the South Side such as Hyde Park, there's not too much development room without some teardowns other than a few specific large parcels of land.

Teardowns are going to happen. I agree with everyone that historically significant structures should, of course, be protected from demolition. But it's inevitable that 100 year old buildings will be demolished sometimes for newer, denser structures.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by The North One

Cities like Chicago have plenty of room to develop without destroying any historical buildings. Cities like San Francisco have a much harder time.

We need to be much more strict in preservation in this country and we need to offer more benefits to people who want to renovate and restore historical structures (which also proves to be very economically beneficial so it's a win-win).

Absolutely. Once them there beauties are gone, they're a goner.

[10023]

Originally Posted by The North One

Cities like Chicago have plenty of room to develop without destroying any historical buildings. Cities like San Francisco have a much harder time.

We need to be much more strict in preservation in this country and we need to offer more benefits to people who want to renovate and restore historical structures (which also proves to be very economically beneficial so it's a win-win).

San Francisco has plenty of space to redevelop without sacrificing anything historical too. It’s just that no one really wants to live in the western part of the peninsula due to the weather.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by 10023

San Francisco has plenty of space to redevelop without sacrificing anything historical too. It’s just that no one really wants to live in the western part of the peninsula due to the weather.

By "no one" do you mean no one white? It sure seems like a lot of Asians live there.

[JManc]

If land/ space is the issue and the houses are perceived as an obstacle. There is a massive parking lot that could be utilized. Plus more here

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by JManc

There is a massive parking lot that could be utilized before even looking at those houses or other nearby land.

Yeah. That was the location of an important concert venue that was demolished back in 1991 - the Syria Mosque. It was named that because the Shriners built it, not because it was a real mosque. It's demolition actually kicked the local preservation community into higher gear.

The lot was used as surface parking by a local hospital for decades. University of Pittsburgh bought it in 2016. I'm sure they plan to build something on it in the next decade.

[dubu]

oregon city still has two of its oldest houses from 1845. they get rid of tunnels, a huge mansion and a building. the city im in now theres nothing old. it kinda sucks, id rather live in a brand new city with new ideas. who knows if that will happen

if you were wondering why there were tunnels in oc its so they could get beer in the bar because alcohol was illegal. small things like that are neet. now its sorta a boring town. there were streetcars all over. now theres two buses.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by JManc

If land/ space is the issue and the houses are perceived as an obstacle. There is a massive parking lot that could be utilized. Plus more here

Space really isn't that big of an issue in Oakland. Those lots are classic examples of large institutional land-banking.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Space really isn't that big of an issue in Oakland. Those lots are classic examples of large institutional land-banking.

I get the impression that Pitt/ UMPC/ Carnegie owns a lot of real estate in the area.