What's the Goal of Historic Preservation?

[JFman00]

Is a building historic simply because of it's age? Should we aim to preserve entire neighborhoods, frozen at a point in time? Or, should only places that are truly significant because of their history or architectural style get special treatment? At what point does preservation become just a way to justify an HOA?

With prevailing preservation headwinds nowadays (not just in Jacksonville), it seems like the approach of freezing an entire neighborhood at a previous point in time seems the most popular. Not only is every building built before a certain date historic, new construction has to "match the character" of its neighbors. That kind of approach would seem to discourage the kind of architecturally diverse, dynamic neighborhoods that make a city vibrant and exciting.

[Cheshire Cat]

Is a building historic simply because of it's age? Should we aim to preserve entire neighborhoods, frozen at a point in time? Or, should only places that are truly significant because of their history or architectural style get special treatment? At what point does preservation become just a way to justify an HOA?

With prevailing preservation headwinds nowadays (not just in Jacksonville), it seems like the approach of freezing an entire neighborhood at a previous point in time seems the most popular. Not only is every building built before a certain date historic, new construction has to "match the character" of its neighbors. That kind of approach would seem to discourage the kind of architecturally diverse, dynamic neighborhoods that make a city vibrant and exciting.

Actually these parameters as applied in Jacksonville have already been decided and can be gotten through the "Historic Preservation Commission" or via the City's planning department that deals with historic structure.http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/community-planning-division/default/forms-and-documents.aspx 

[thelakelander]

I believe you should try to preserve the historical character of unique neighborhoods.  Character isn't always defined by age and something like "pedestrian scale" isn't necessarily defined by building height.  I'm not a fan of freezing neighborhoods in time and attempting to use cheap mass produced 21 century materials to recreate 19th century architectural styles.  I think Jacksonville's preservation (lack of preservation) issue deals a lot with what replaces most of our demolished structures. Unfortunately, we're not getting better built replacements or valuing the cultural history of what we're taking out. We're settling for overgrown lots worth less than the structures being torn down.  That's not good for the city's tax base, history, neighborhood quality-of-life or a neighborhood's ability to build upon the special things that attracted people to live in it in the first place. 

Whatever someone's position is on historic preservation, I think most can agree that the scene below can't be the best answer:

[JFman00]

My biggest issue is that the historic preservation process prioritizes age or apparent age of the structure over all other considerations. Now, I understand the rationale for preserving whole swaths of neighborhoods based on certain characteristics (my hometown, a Chicago suburb, is home to one of the largest extant collection of Sears Roebuck catalog homes). However, in practice it seems the resulting protective structure means that development of empty lots, or redevelopment of buildings built outside the aegis of protected characteristics must conform with an overly strict interpretation of the neighborhood's "historic character".

In terms of New Orleans, modern development in or adjacent to historic neighborhoods has indeed been approved:
The Marigny and the Lofts
Developer wins city approval for design of Canal Street high-rise. On the other hand, I take issue with the FQ commission's draconian view of modern developments like solar panels (not allowed, even if not visible from the street).

When I first got to Jacksonville I explored the possibility of buying a vacant lot in Riverside and building on it, but the prospect of dealing RAP and city imposed restrictions on what could be built was just too daunting for me. Looking at many of Chicago's best neighborhoods (Lincoln Park, Lakeview, etc.) it's hard to imagine the diversity of architecture and uses that have arisen if a RAP or SPAR like structure had existed 50 years ago. In my opinion the city has done a great job of targeting many small preservation areas (Astor Street, Printing House row) compared to designating neighborhoods wholesale (Wicker Park).

[Tacachale]

I think there are two considerations we face in historic preservation. The original goal of the movement was to, well, preserve old buildings. There's an additional goal to preserve not just the buildings, but the use and format of the property. I think we've seen that that can be valuable in many cases.

Especially here in Jax, historic preservation really got big at a time that many historic/old/just pretty cool buildings had been demolished to an extent that it effected the neighborhood as a whole. Even where the buildings were later replaced, it was often done with what many people would consider an inferior and incongruous structure. So we had autocentric strip malls in 5 Points, drive-thrus set up all along 3rd street at the Beach, and closed off apartment buildings surrounded by parking lots erected all over town. I think the preservationists were right to want to avoid those kinds of developments. There have been some great successes in that regard; for instance I think the Riverside Publix is a much better layout than it would have been without RAP's input.

However, sometimes preservation groups focus too much on the "accidents" rather than the substance of historic preservation. JFman00, I think that may get at what you're complaining about. They want even new buildings to look "historic" to the point of mimicking a period style, and in some cases even make that a requirement for building.

Beyond just the aesthetics, this can create problems. I have a friend who owns a local business in a non-contributing building in one of our historic districts. He wants to add street front seating to his business, and he's had major trouble with the preservation society. As an alcohol-selling business, there are state and even federal regulations as to how the patio can be designed. But the preservation society has given him guidelines for the separators he has to meet to "maintain the character" of the street before they'll give it the seal of approval, some of which directly contradict the laws. He's been going back and forth for a year over this. It's stifling his business over the type of project that ought to be strongly encouraged. In cases like that I think the overly strict devotion to what "looks' historic can be harmful.

[sheclown]

Is a building historic simply because of it's age? Should we aim to preserve entire neighborhoods, frozen at a point in time? Or, should only places that are truly significant because of their history or architectural style get special treatment? At what point does preservation become just a way to justify an HOA?

With prevailing preservation headwinds nowadays (not just in Jacksonville), it seems like the approach of freezing an entire neighborhood at a previous point in time seems the most popular. Not only is every building built before a certain date historic, new construction has to "match the character" of its neighbors. That kind of approach would seem to discourage the kind of architecturally diverse, dynamic neighborhoods that make a city vibrant and exciting.

JF.  I can second some of what you say. 

Preservation as it stands now in Jacksonville (in spite of some really cool people involved) is off base.  All energy is focused on preserving two neighborhoods to the point of absurdity (hours upon hours of time spent on minutia) while Durkeville is being leveled one house at a time.

And new construction needs to be a reflection of the period in which it is built.  Period.

We get into tons of trouble when we spend our limited amount of energy and money ensuring that car washes and pizza joints don't open. 

There may be a turning from the old ways.  The commission last night heard three cases of potential landmark outside of the traditional neighborhoods.  This is a move in the right direction.

I believe our commissioners need to let the historic planners make many of the tiny detail decisions and let them be focused on saving the historic structures in this city.

Let's get macro.

[JFman00]

Thanks Tacachale. Pretty much everything I think. I think your assessment of how things got to be the way they are is pretty spot on as well as your more explicit phrasing of my criticism. I feel like adopting form-based zoning in place of specific architectural and design requirements based on use would better serve the public interest in balancing preserving "character" and economic/quality of life concerns.

This house is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of the focus on historic character. Is it better than an empty lot? Sure. Does it have building materials and an architectural style similar to others around? Yeah. Beyond that, I'd still consider it out of context with an urban/walkable neighborhood (prominent garage, front door not facing the street) and an eyesore (awful facade for a corner and painfully poor attempt at a Charleston imitation).

[sheclown]

And there is something about saving a structure just because it is old.  An old house was made from old growth wood (unfortunately for mother earth) but there you have it.  Wood like this will never be available again.  Therefore, houses will never be constructed like this again.

And when we truck the remains of these old houses to the landfill, we are being careless with our resources.

[thelakelander]

Thanks Tacachale. Pretty much everything I think. I think your assessment of how things got to be the way they are is pretty spot on as well as your more explicit phrasing of my criticism. I feel like adopting form-based zoning in place of specific architectural and design requirements based on use would better serve the public interest in balancing preserving "character" and economic/quality of life concerns.

I'd like to see a city wide adoption of a form-based zoning code. However, that's probably a separate issue from historical preservation. By the same token, neither is making every new structure look like something built from a certain past period a form of preservation. Form-based codes don't preserve existing building stock.  It only makes sure new development is designed to create a certain style of future environment.

And there is something about saving a structure just because it is old.  An old house was made from old growth wood (unfortunately for mother earth) but there you have it.  Wood like this will never be available again.  Therefore, houses will never be constructed like this again.

And when we truck the remains of these old houses to the landfill, we are being careless with our resources.

There's something to be said about preservation from the economic development standpoint.  All those little old architecturally bland commercial buildings that most preservationist place little value on are the exact things needed for innovative and creative market rate redevelopment.  King Street is a perfect example.  Half of those uses were originally envisioned for downtown but because it's so difficult to find something still standing that's affordable and easy to work with, all those pioneering small business found a replacement district.  Really, the worse thing we can do to our urban core is haphazard random demolitions that only result in overgrown abandoned lots of little value.

[sheclown]

And I love all those little commercial buildings too, like Springfield Plastic.

And Home Depot and Lowes have nothing on Carolina Lumber -- sure when it rains it becomes quite challenging.  But the warehouse is unique and smells like history.  And having a dog greet you when you enter is better than the orange customer service desk any day.

[JFman00]

I bring up form-based zoning as an alternative to neighborhood-wide application of the certificate of appropriateness process. For sure, specific buildings designated historic should undergo scrutiny when change is proposed. I'd argue, however, that applying the same standard to new construction is not conducive to cultivating/maintaining a neighborhood's character.

There's something to be said about preservation from the economic development standpoint.  All those little old architecturally bland commercial buildings that most preservationist place little value on are the exact things needed for innovative and creative market rate redevelopment.  King Street is a perfect example.  Half of those uses were originally envisioned for downtown but because it's so difficult to find something still standing that's affordable and easy to work with, all those pioneering small business found a replacement district.  Really, the worse thing we can do to our urban core is haphazard random demolitions that only result in overgrown abandoned lots of little value.

Wasn't King St. revitalized without any governmental assistance? I'm probably misunderstanding but are you arguing that the city should step in and prevent the demolition of all abandoned buildings?

[thelakelander]

I'm saying the city should step away and stop demolishing vacant buildings for the hell of it.  In the Durkeeville case, the property owner wants to keep their building.  However, they aren't being allowed too.  In Stephendare's case a few years back, he wanted his building on 8th & Hubbard too.  Yet, they took it out too.  In the 1990s, LaVilla's residents didn't want to leave or want their community knocked down.  Nevertheless, it was taken out anyway.

Using King Street as an example, it would not have turned into what it has become if the buildings were all demolished, LaVilla style.  There would be nothing for Kickback's, Loft, BCB, CoRK, Salty Fig, etc. to open in and building from the ground up would not have been financially feasible for most uses along this strip.  The fact that those commercial buildings were still standing, cheap and available, paved the way for that strip's infill and redevelopment.

[JFman00]

I agree that Jacksonville has strange penchant for leveling as much of itself as it can. We're stuck with the vacant lots we have, so why restrict development with such pointless standards.

[fieldafm]

I agree that Jacksonville has strange penchant for leveling as much of itself as it can. We're stuck with the vacant lots we have, so why restrict development with such pointless standards.

What is pointless about a form based code?  It would almost be impossible to build a neighborhood like R/A using today's zoning laws. 

[JFman00]

I'm saying I like form-based zoning. I don't like are the preservation guidelines set in place for Riverside Avondale that go from dictating architectural styles to the material and board size of siding.