Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
I think it's not so much that people have a problem with midrise projects here (except maybe Majin) as they're disappointed that they are midrise projects instead of highrise projects, based on the idea that we "deserve" them somehow. I suppose I'd rather see midrise projects that get built vs. high-rise projects that never get beyond the rendering phase, and a lot of analysis I've seen shows that neighborhoods of this sort of midrise construction (more the European style city) actually result in higher population densities than neighborhoods of high-rises, because the units are smaller and less expensive (if still not cheap), and more likely to be used for housing vs. corporate suites/investment properties or second homes that stay vacant. So it becomes a question of pragmatic economics vs. aesthetics: where we are as a city, midrises get done and get occupied, even if they're kinda blocky looking, while snazzy looking high-rises never get off the ground, because the money doesn't work.
Thanks for the kind words though, a lot of the folks who disagree with the definition of "historic" don't know that there are actual professional criteria for what makes a building historic or not, which is where some of the debate tends to occur (for starters, it isn't just its architecture that makes a place historic or not). I see preservation as a growth strategy and a housing strategy: we fix up old buildings because a vacant old building downtown next to a vacant lot isn't very appealing, but a vacant lot next to a rehabbed historic building is an opportunity to build something new on that lot. In this case, the rehab and reuse of the Bel-Vue Apartments, a historic building, preceded the next step in building new housing on the adjacent lots. And these days, we're seeing a lot more fixed-up historic buildings, and a lot fewer vacant lots, to the point where now we're moving on to building on parking lots. Another plus is that a lot of the historic rehab projects are frequently combined with affordable housing, due to the advantages of combining two different types of tax credits, which can apparently be a tougher sell with new construction.
I fight to save historic buildings so they will be used to serve contemporary needs, and what we're seeing in the central city is a fairly robust combination of new construction and preservation to get us back towards the central city population we had in 1950 (before redevelopment "modernized" half the population out of downtown.) But to do that, the "Missing Middle" type (middle density in between SFH and small apartments) will be even more important, not just in the central city (where they're already allowed) but citywide (where, for the most part, they are not.) But that's definitely outside the scope of a "skyscraper" forum--there just isn't a "MissingMiddleHousingPage" yet.
|
While wburg and I often disagree, he is dead-on with most of this and it is a development philosophy we share. Bringing new life to historic structures and positioning them to thrive for another 70 years is one of my great joys.
Where we disagree is when groups demand no change in use, as I believe was the case for the old SP train station. Forcing that beautiful structure to remain the main ticketing option, despite being hundreds of feet from the actual platforms, seems shortsighted. It would have made a spectacular hotel lobby or any number of other uses, but reasonable people can disagree on that kind of thing.
I've spent two years working to renovate an abandoned theater in the western United States. Part of our plan involved reducing capacity and mixing a few residential units into the theater itself. These units would have been entirely within the existing footprint and enjoyed their own, private view of the stage. Pretty cool...
The revenue from these units (and others) was to be leveraged as part of the debt service to renovate the existing theater.
Looks like we've lost this battle, part of it due to preservationists demanding no change at all in use and no reduction in existing capacity (about 20%). Without those units, the financing collapses. To be clear, that wasn't the only issue as the project presented many challenges, but it is an example of even well-meaning people getting to locked-in to a mindset that prevents achieving shared goals.
Bill and I also share a respect for, and an embrace of, the philosophy of Jane Jacobs, whose seminal work, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" should be required reading to anyone interested in not only planning and development, but in thriving lifestyles that encourage humans to blossom and prosper.
She had no formal training in planning, and this is probably why she advocated an organic, bottom-up approach to development and livability. It's also a reason some of today's planners are not her biggest fans...
The failure that Bill describes in post 1950s "redevelopment" in Sacramento that mowed-down thriving communities Robert Moses style was the result of an hubris among many in planning who think they know best for everyone and that they should determine how and where you live, how (or even if) you should drive, even down to such minutiae as what appliances you should be allowed to buy and when you should be allowed to operate them.
It's the antithesis of what Jane Jacobs advocated and the differences between what most would consider successful communities could not be more clear.
Midtown thrives and part of the reason is an organically-driven preservation of historic structures that while not the high-rises that some prefer (and typically are not burdened by fiscal reality), bring life, and nurture meaning and tradition to communities in a way that scrape-and-build projects just can't.
The key, as in all things, is finding balance between the two.
I appreciate your work Bill...
Prev
Linear Mode
