Ricky Burgess moves to gut city historic preservation... (Pittsburgh, McKeesport: wood floors, townhouse)

[SteelCityRising]

So, erieguy, assuming Cranberry Township wanted to tear down an 1800's-era one-room schoolhouse for a new CVS parking lot, you'd be okay with this because only private property owners should have the right to do whatever they want with their own properties?

My problem with the lack of foresight into historic preservation in this country is that we CAN'T replicate what we're tearing down. I may feel differently about tearing down the old Albright Church on Centre Avenue for a drive-through Starbucks if craftsmen still existed today who could hypothetically build such a gorgeous structure elsewhere at some point. They don't, though, as evidenced by the utter "cater to the masses" beige wall garbage that is being built these days all over East Liberty and Lawrenceville. Considering it's a case of "when it's gone, it's gone for good" I'm not at all thrilled that Ricky Burgess would have no qualms with some historic rowhouses being torn down in Homewood for a ubiquitous-looking Rite-Aid as "progress".

[Merge]

Originally Posted by UKyank

This is hardly an American phenomena. This describes nearly all of the world outside of a handful of European cities; in fact I'd say the US is a lot better at preserving historic architecture then most of the rest of the world does.

I hear ya, but what you meant to say was, "This is hardly an exclusively American phenomena". It is certainly a phenomenon that exists here, and being that I don't live in any other country I can neither dispute nor confirm your contention.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

So, erieguy, assuming Cranberry Township wanted to tear down an 1800's-era one-room schoolhouse for a new CVS parking lot, you'd be okay with this because only private property owners should have the right to do whatever they want with their own properties?

My problem with the lack of foresight into historic preservation in this country is that we CAN'T replicate what we're tearing down. I may feel differently about tearing down the old Albright Church on Centre Avenue for a drive-through Starbucks if craftsmen still existed today who could hypothetically build such a gorgeous structure elsewhere at some point. They don't, though, as evidenced by the utter "cater to the masses" beige wall garbage that is being built these days all over East Liberty and Lawrenceville. Considering it's a case of "when it's gone, it's gone for good" I'm not at all thrilled that Ricky Burgess would have no qualms with some historic rowhouses being torn down in Homewood for a ubiquitous-looking Rite-Aid as "progress".

Sure.

It's sitting there being unused and rotting away?

Does anyone else want to buy it?

The owner shouldn't have to maintain it, pay taxes on it, etc..., just because old is designated historic by those who have no stake in it.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Sure.

It's sitting there being unused and rotting away?

Does anyone else want to buy it?

The owner shouldn't have to maintain it, pay taxes on it, etc..., just because old is designated historic by those who have no stake in it.

Rehabilitating an old house in Homewood Brushton (or anywhere) is an expensive proposition, and once its done, if you can't expect to receive enough rent to justify the costs, you're not going to do it.


On the other hand, stores like Rite Aid provide a needed service as well as jobs for the community.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

Rehabilitating an old house in Homewood Brushton (or anywhere) is an expensive proposition, and once its done, if you can't expect to receive enough rent to justify the costs, you're not going to do it.


On the other hand, stores like Rite Aid provide a needed service as well as jobs for the community.

Agreed.

If there's such great concern over it, those concerned should buy it themselves and preserve it.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Joe Magarac

California-Kirkbride has been a historic district for 30 years. That hasn't encouraged development or preservation in any way.

I think the districts that PreservationPioneer listed were going to do well whether they were designated as historic districts or not.

California Kirkbride is on the National Register of Historic Places as the Old Allegheny Rows Historic District. However, it isn't a city historic district. The difference is important, because national recognition doesn't offer any legal protection from demolition or facade changes. All it does is provide for federal tax incentives to maintain/preserve the property.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by Joe Magarac

California-Kirkbride has been a historic district for 30 years. That hasn't encouraged development or preservation in any way.

I think the districts that PreservationPioneer listed were going to do well whether they were designated as historic districts or not.

The discussion here involves city-designated historic districts, which are regulated by the city. National Historic Districts (such as California-Kirkbride) have no city regulations or national regulations imposed on them, unless federal tax money is being spent. That is why California-Kirkbride was allowed to become 95% vacant lots.


Let me reiterate that National Historic Districts and City Historic Districts are NOT the same thing! National Historic Districts are largely an honor, with no obligations, while City Historic Districts impose regulations and demolition oversight.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by Joe Magarac

I think the districts that PreservationPioneer listed were going to do well whether they were designated as historic districts or not.

Ha! How little you know. In the 1960s, the War Streets, Deutschtown, Allegheny West, and the South Side were considered depressed urban slums, where nobody wanted to live. I can cite sources to prove my point, if you are interested. The progress of making these neighborhoods city-designed and protected historic districts, and of homeowners investing and restoring houses that did not have much value (simply because they appreciated the architecture and history), is what caused blighted and depressed neighborhoods to become among the most sought-after (and visited) in Pittsburgh!! Manchester is starting to turn the corner now, too. But would it have turned the corner if so many of the homes weren't saved from demolition, due to the city oversight of the historic district?


California-Kirkbride never became a city historic district. It was only recognized on a national level, which did not protect the homes from demolition. That is why the neighborhood did not survive. In the 1980s, it was still mostly intact, and if made a city historic district, certainly more of the neighborhood would still be standing. If anything, this is an argument in favor of city historic districts. Can anyone think of a city-designated historic district that has NOT fared well?

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

Rehabilitating an old house in Homewood Brushton (or anywhere) is an expensive proposition, and once its done, if you can't expect to receive enough rent to justify the costs, you're not going to do it.

It WAS done, over and over, in now-gentrifying neighborhoods like the War Streets, Manchester, Deutschtown, the South Side, and Lawrenceville, LONG BEFORE these neighborhoods progressed from despised urban slums to hipster enclaves.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by erieguy

The owner shouldn't have to maintain it, pay taxes on it, etc..., just because old is designated historic by those who have no stake in it.

If a property owner does not want to pay taxes or maintain a property, then he or she should sell to someone who will.


I'm thinking about all of the historic buildings that have been demolished for CVS and Rite Aid. Would it have been too much to ask that a drug store move into an existing historic building, as they have done in most large cities, such as downtown Pittsburgh, Philly, or even my own McKeesport?