As someone
who cherishes the feel and walkability of a historic downtown, it’s reasonable
to expect that I also embrace historic preservation. To a large extent, that expectation is correct. But there are times when I find that historic
preservation goes awry.
The Marina
Vista and Alder Grove public housing projects are near the west end of Broadway
in Sacramento. Totaling 750 units, they
retain a pleasant, almost pastoral exterior appearance. But with over seventy years of use, the
buildings are worn and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) is
facing the task of developing a plan for their future.
In addition
to building age, the location of the housing is unfortunate on at least two
levels. For one, shopping options aren’t
convenient, with most residents facing a walk of a half-mile or more. A population that, more than many, could benefit
from walkable urbanism is in a car-dependent location.
Second, and even
more distressing to me, the elementary school that serves the housing has a
boundary that is exactly the same as the housing. All of the school children from the public housing
are sitting in classrooms surrounded only by other children from public
housing.
I’m sure
there any many good people living in Marina Vista and Alder Grove who will rebuild
their lives to move onward to market housing elsewhere, raising happy and successful
children in the process. And I’m equally
sure that there are children in those classrooms who will progress to effective
and productive lives despite a challenged start. But children learn from examples. If all they experience on a daily basis is
other lives in public housing, they have a harder time learning of other
lifestyle possibilities. And their
chances for higher life trajectories, if not extinguished, are at least
reduced.
To me, the elementary
school that serves Marina Vista and Alder Grove is the 21st century version of
segregation. And it needs to be remedied
now.
Faced with
the situation at Marina Vista and Alder Grove, the SHRA has decided that demolition and complete redevelopment of the site was
the best solution. Their vision includes more residential units,
retaining the same number of public housing units plus adding market rate
housing into the mix. They also envision
retail elements in the new plan, moving the site closer to walkable urbanism.
I haven’t
seen conceptual site plans, but agree with the direction. I also wish luck to the SHRA. It’s always been difficult to assemble
funding for a project like this and the difficulty is increasing. SHRA will face a number of challenges.
But one of the challenges was completely
unexpected, at least to me. A citizens group
threatened to file suit, claiming that the housing is historic and should be
preserved. I find that offensive.
I’m neither
equipped nor motivated to argue the fine points of historic preservation
law. But, as much as I love older
buildings and the downtowns that they often anchor, I’m convinced that there
are times when they must be removed.
There are times when historical preservation just doesn’t make sense.
And this is
one of those times.
If we allow
the children of Marina Vista and Alder Grove to sit in their
demographically-segregated classrooms for even one day longer than necessary because
adults are arguing about whether 1940s housing is “historic”, then we have
failed the children and ourselves.
A Week of Being Grumpy
Looking over
my posts of this past week, I find an unexpected pattern. Early in the week, I questioned the civic worth of some suburban parks. Mid-week, I challenged a road design award that seemingly gave more value
to vegetated swales than walkability.
And above, I impugned a historic preservation stance that apparently ignored
a greater good.
It was as if
I was aiming for promotion from urbanist to Curmudgeon Laureate.
But there’s
a unifying theme between the posts. And
that theme is more hopeful than grumpy.
I’ll explain in my next post.
Schedule Note
This rumination
on historic preservation was triggered by an upcoming meeting of the Petaluma
Planning Commission. On Tuesday, March
25, the commission will consider demolition permits for a pair of sites that may
qualify as historic. (The initial agenda
for the meeting listed a third possible demolition permit, one that was likely
to be more controversial than the first two, but that project disappeared from
later versions of the agenda.)
The hearings
on Tuesday should offer insights into current historic preservation standards. I’ll attend and encourage others with an interest
in the subject to join me in City Hall at 7pm.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
I live in alder grove , demolition would save us all from here, buildings are old and cold winters. Would they consider just using an historical area like one building facing the front if you have to or a plaque
ReplyDelete