Three months
ago, I offered my thoughts about historic preservation in urban settings. I’m generally supportive of preservation as
long as the structures or places being preserved are consistent with a coherent
vision of urban vitality. Spending a few
days in Buffalo at CNU 22, surrounded by outstanding buildings from an earlier
age which are only now returning to gloriously full use, only reinforced that
opinion.
The earlier
post referenced a meeting, then upcoming, of the Petaluma Planning Commission
at which several demolition permits would be discussed. I’ve continued to monitor those applications. Each offers insights about the role of historic
preservation versus demolition in urban settings.
French
Laundry: Petaluma’s French Laundry (which is very different from the famed
Yountville restaurant) was a westside laundry that became an icon of an earlier
day, with the building eventually gaining historic recognition. (Forty years ago, a classmate at Cal was
married to the granddaughter of the former operator of the French Laundry, so I
knew about the French Laundry many years before finding myself in Petaluma.)
Even when
the building fell into disuse, rendered obsolete by changes in the laundry
industry including home washing machines, it remained an instantly recognizable
element of the westside, the subject of many photos
and watercolors.
But being instantly
recognizable didn’t pay the bills. The
building owners, unable to afford, or perhaps to justify, the expenses needed
to maintain the building, allowed it to lapse into dereliction. Storm damage also contributed to the
deterioration.
Eventually the
owners approached the City, arguing that the building couldn’t be saved and
should be removed from the historic list and demolished. The Planning Commission reluctantly
agreed.
But the
Planning Commission Chair, after the vote, opined that the loss of the French
Laundry was a loss for the entire Petaluma community and that if further losses
were to be avoided, the City would need to take a bigger stake in historic
preservation.
He was
correct in his assessment, although I rate the prospects of City action to be
low.
Having sat
in meetings with historic preservationists, I know that much weight is given to
the availability of tax credits to maintain historic structures. But someone I met at CNU, who had carefully
studied preservation in the Buffalo area and was looking about for a project, explained
the conundrum well. Tax credits may help
with the restoration of the building, but rent from effective post-restoration use
is needed to pay the mortgage, maintenance, and property taxes.
Unfortunately,
it’s hard to conceive of a tenant who could have made use of the French Laundry
building. It’s on a busy street, has little
parking, and is surrounded by low-density residential.
So City
funding would have likely been required to keep the building maintained. But for what use? A museum is a frequent suggestion, but most
cities already struggle to support the museums they have. And using City dollars to maintain the
building as a picturesque but empty space while lacking the funds for other
pressing city needs seems unlikely.
Consigning the
French Laundry to history was the apparent correct, although lamentable,
decision.
Beck House:
The Beck House was located in a parcel of land that Petaluma has
forgotten. Seven acres in size, a walkable
distance from downtown, and the site of much early Petaluma activity, including
the first trading post, hotel, and amusement park, the site is now surrounded
by development, a railroad track, and the Petaluma River, making future access expensive
and uncertain.
There were numerous
homes on the property including the Bloom-Tunstall House which had previously
been granted historical status, several more recent homes for which demolition
had been previously approved, and the Beck House, newer than Bloom-Tunstall,
but older than the other homes and on the cusp between the two.
Given the
uncertain historical status of the Beck House, the City had directed the owner to
secure it against unlawful trespassing, but he had failed to follow the
direction and was now requesting approval to demolish the house, in part
because of the damage of continued intrusions.
Two spirited
hearings were conducted, with preservation proponents arguing that the home was
older than the initial historical analysis indicated and that the house should be
preserved to provide services for the homeless on the site.
They won the
first argument, but the second argument was unwinnable given the private
ownership of the house and the absence of funding for the re-use they sought.
And so the
Planning Commission gave approval to the demolition. But they combined that decision with a
suggestion of sanctions against the owner for failing to secure the house
against intruders and a sense of frustration that they had been forced to make
the demolition decision now instead of when a development proposal for the land
was received, with the hope that the house can have been integrated into a future
land-use.
Scerri
House: The Scerri House (pictured) is yet a third set of circumstances. It’s an existing home in a fully-established residential
neighborhood within a walkable distance of downtown. However, previous owners had made awkward
additions, such the house didn’t meet the needs of the new owner, who proposed complete
demolition and replacement with new construction, which would be approved in a separate
process.
Several
Commissioners expressed discomfort with demolition of a livable home, but the Commission
approved the demolition regardless, noting that the lot would soon be reused.
But when the
owner then returned to the Community Development Department with construction
plans for the new home, it was found to exceed the height standard for the zone. The Planning Department couldn’t find
justification for a variance, nor was the owner able to reverse that denial at the
Planning Commission or City Council.
And so the
replacement home sits in limbo, while the owner ponders his options. Luckily, demolition of the existing home hadn’t
yet begun, so the unsightliness and risk of a gap in the neighborhood fabric
was avoided. But it was avoided by
chance, not design.
Lessons:
There are several lessons from these three case histories. First, wishing for historic preservation isn’t
enough. In these financially-constrained
times, there must also be a good future use for a preserved building. Failing that, demolition is probably the only
option.
Second, while
we shouldn’t force owner to undertake expensive preservation efforts if there
isn’t a good future use yet determined, it seems reasonable to require the
owner to secure the building so efforts can continue to find that use.
Third, although
the worst case was avoided on the Scerri House, there is a potential for
neighborhood disaster if demolition proceeds in advance of replacement. At a minimum, demolition approvals in
fully-developed settings should be conditioned such that demolition can’t
proceed until all approvals and financing are in place for the replacement.
In my next
post, I’ve previously written that urban development often requires committed city/developer
coordination. From my history, I’ll
offer a couple of examples where that didn’t happen.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment