 |
| Robinson Street in 2011 Photo: Peter Frank |
A couple of months ago when the Common Council was discussing the proposal to expand the existing historic district south and west to include the Kaz site and the waterfront, Alderman Eileen Halloran, who represents the Fifth Ward, told the Council her constituents were concerned that "historic preservation was coming to them." At last night's informal Common Council meeting, Halloran revealed that the HPC's desire to expand a historic district to have some oversight over new development in an adjacent area where in the next two years the Downtown Revitalization Initiative will invest tens of millions of dollars and could potentially change the character of the city is making her constituents, far away in the Fifth Ward, nervous. (To my knowledge, the HPC has never contemplated designating anything in the Fifth Ward, although Gossips has on a few occasions bemoaned what can happen to buildings that are not in historic districts.) Halloran told the Council last night that her constituents "are not comfortable with this" and quoted one constituent as saying, "I'm not going to go ask someone if I can put a screen door on my house." She then suggested that the preservation law be amended so that "people have to agree to having their house included in a historic district."
The Historic Preservation Commission has never opined on the installation of screen doors, but this kind of extreme statement is typical of the fears surrounding historic preservation. I recall that back when the law newly drafted was ready to be introduced to the Council, the city attorney at the time called all of the aldermen and warned them that if they passed the legislation as it was written people would have to get approval to put up a new mailbox. That was not true then, and it is not true now.
To require that building owners must agree to inclusion in a historic district defeats the purpose of the historic preservation law. The law recognizes "as a matter of public policy, that the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of landmarks and historic districts are necessary to promote the economic, cultural, educational, and general welfare of the public." The law exists to protect the architectural fabric and the character of neighborhoods, indeed of the entire city, and to prevent architectural transformations like the one shown below from happening.
 |
| Photo: Old House Journal |
To make inclusion in a historic district voluntary achieves nothing. The people who opt in will be the people who care about historic preservation and want to do the right thing with their houses. They are not the ones who need the guidance and oversight of the HPC. The people who opt out may be similarly committed to preserving the architectural integrity of their homes, but if they are, why do they feel so threatened by the remote possibility that their neighborhood might become a historic district? Besides, even if the HPC were to propose making some part of the Fifth Ward a historic district, the residents can always protest and squelch the initiative the way the folks on Robinson Street did back in 2011. It is not necessary to amend and dilute the preservation ordinance to make it powerless to preserve the historic architecture and character of the city.
COPYRIGHT 2018 CAROLE OSTERINK
As much as I agree that historic preservation is a legitimate subject of public policy -- just as noise ordinances are -- the HPC in recent years has ceded much of its credibility with inconsistent enforcement of existing rules and regulations. Your report, Carole, from the other day, about a Galvan-owned historic building in a designated historic district NOT having a Certificate of Appropriateness for major renovations, should be troubling. Just as the HPC cracking down on St. Mary's last year for putting in a garden was troubling. Or the bizarre preservation standard (which I heard enunciated at a HPC meeting several weeks ago) that HPC doesn't concern itself with historic preservation if you can't see the building in question from the street... Until the HPC starts acting like a credible governmental body, citizens of the 5th Ward -- and every ward -- have every right to worry about HPC.
ReplyDeleteI fear Eileen Halloran is channeling Doc.
ReplyDeleteThere is so much misunderstanding about historic preservation. Hudson's guidelines are much too loosey-goosey, IMHO. We are losing the character of Hudson at an astonishing and alarming rate. People simply don't understand the benefits of historic preservation. And HPC doesn't have nearly enough power to preserve our facades and structures from the onslaught of inappropriate and destructive changes. Very disheartening.
ReplyDelete