Ricky Burgess moves to gut city historic preservation... (Lawrenceville, Penn: tenants, move)

[aw_now_what]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

Were they on the historic register for the city or is this just a case of "I assume without historic preservation statues everything nice will be destroyed?" And what about the cost that it took to restore them vs replace with a new row home? Investments in old structures can sometimes exceed building new, hampering area redevelopment.

What is your point? The two houses in question were rehabbed by a developer with decades of experience who determined that he could make a profit by acquiring, working on, and reselling them rather than tearing down and starting new. There was no historic designation or anything else (such as public subsidy) to compel him to retain and restore the existing structures.

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

And having lived in a structure that others may have decided needed historic preservation, depending on the extent the city went to "preserve", it could have rendered the building uneconomic to redo because wooden period details are incredibly expensive to redo.

Historic designation doesn't require recreating period details. But anyway, it's not necessarily prohibitively expensive to do that.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by aw_now_what

What is your point? The two houses in question were rehabbed by a developer with decades of experience who determined that he could make a profit by acquiring, working on, and reselling them rather than tearing down and starting new. There was no historic designation or anything else (such as public subsidy) to compel him to retain and restore the existing structures.

Point is that the structure wouldn't necessarily have been lost if it wasn't designated historic and therefore there is no reason to declare it so in order to save it.

Historic designation doesn't require recreating period details. But anyway, it's not necessarily prohibitively expensive to do that.

These are assumptions without reference. Have you hired a master carpenter to restore arches on a period Victorian? There is a reason owners opt out of restoration and instead build new.

I'm not saying builders should just be given free reign to do what they want where they want, but if preservationists won't put up money to save structures, those structures aren't important enough to be saved. Developers don't go looking for historic elements to destroy, usually they're the only ones willing to put up the money to redevelop and to add more risk to them can hurt the city more than help. I'd love to save some structures in Mt. Oliver, but frankly I'd lose money I can't afford and no preservation society is going to pay me to save it.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

Point is that the structure wouldn't necessarily have been lost if it wasn't designated historic and therefore there is no reason to declare it so in order to save it.

It is important to declare it historic in order to save it, because many or even most developers do not care about restoring old buildings to quality standards. Certainly, some care, and would not need historic designation and regulations in order to compel them to restore a building well, but that is the exception, not the norm.

These are assumptions without reference. Have you hired a master carpenter to restore arches on a period Victorian?

I can guarantee that the person you are replying to has restored many, many old houses.

I'm not saying builders should just be given free reign to do what they want where they want, but if preservationists won't put up money to save structures, those structures aren't important enough to be saved.

I don't have the the money to personally fix our country's failing infrastructure. I don't have the money to clean up the water problems in Flint. I don't have the money to restore the downtown McKeesport or Mt. Oliver business districts.

Your logic seems to be that if someone doesn't have the money to fix a problem, it's not worth fixing.

Every preservationist I know spends their money on their own restoration projects (when they can), and advocates for buildings, and educates others to do the same.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by PreservationPioneer

I don't have the the money to personally fix our country's failing infrastructure. I don't have the money to clean up the water problems in Flint. I don't have the money to restore the downtown McKeesport or Mt. Oliver business districts.

Your logic seems to be that if someone doesn't have the money to fix a problem, it's not worth fixing.

Every preservationist I know spends their money on their own restoration projects (when they can), and advocates for buildings, and educates others to do the same.

While there are no absolutes, generally we elect officials and provide money through taxes to fund infrastructure repairs. I have no problem if government is willing to fund restoration projects that the city finds critical enough, but telling a developer "nope, you bought this but now we think this needs to be preserved so no dice on any tear down or non approved resto, but no we're not giving you any compensation" strikes me as tremendous overreach and economically stifling. If an individual or city buys a property and designates it historical, fair game. But changing rules on people and developers after the fact is atrociously unfair and unamerican.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

While there are no absolutes, generally we elect officials and provide money through taxes to fund infrastructure repairs. I have no problem if government is willing to fund restoration projects that the city finds critical enough, but telling a developer "nope, you bought this but now we think this needs to be preserved so no dice on any tear down or non approved resto, but no we're not giving you any compensation" strikes me as tremendous overreach and economically stifling. If an individual or city buys a property and designates it historical, fair game. But changing rules on people and developers after the fact is atrociously unfair and unamerican.

Exactly...and then if nobody buys it and it sits vacant until it's not at all worth restoring, it will be complained about after it falls down or has to be taken down.

Those that don't want to see it happen should buy it and fix it themselves.

[TechCom]

Originally Posted by RogersParkTransplant

I believe you, but I am curious to know which ones you are thinking about? Most of my experience with architectural preservation has to do with European cities, which is why I am always a little confused about American attitudes towards this topic.

Preserving architecture across generations has incredible cultural benefits for local populations, but it's not unusual to see a certain American disdain, or outright hostility towards a) measuring value in anything other than strictly financial terms, and b) being told what to do. Not all are like this, of course, but it's so much more prevalent in the US, which is interesting given that its cities are not nearly as old or fragile as the ones I work in over there.

My friend and I were driving on Penn Avenue and there was this section designated historical. Area was bad, so we both laughed.

We both agree that we hate historical buildings and want to see modern construction, especially for Pittsburgh where everything seems so old and new stuff takes forever to build.

[Merge]

^Cool story, bro!

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by TechCom

My friend and I were driving on Penn Avenue and there was this section designated historical. Area was bad, so we both laughed.

We both agree that we hate historical buildings and want to see modern construction, especially for Pittsburgh where everything seems so old and new stuff takes forever to build.

Do you mean the Penn-Liberty Historic District, the Cultural District and one of the most vibrant areas of the city?


It would seem easier to move to a modern city, if that's what you like, than tear an interesting old city down. Check out Charlotte.

[norcider]

Originally Posted by TechCom

My friend and I were driving on Penn Avenue and there was this section designated historical. Area was bad, so we both laughed.

We both agree that we hate historical buildings and want to see modern construction, especially for Pittsburgh where everything seems so old and new stuff takes forever to build.

"New stuff", like that Waterfront abomination.

[bradjl2009]

Originally Posted by TechCom

My friend and I were driving on Penn Avenue and there was this section designated historical. Area was bad, so we both laughed.

We both agree that we hate historical buildings and want to see modern construction, especially for Pittsburgh where everything seems so old and new stuff takes forever to build.

Fail at trolling. Move if you don't like historically built business districts. You should look up some history at what has happened with northern cities decided to just tear down swaths of older neighborhoods.