I'm increasingly coming around to the take that if a society deems that a building is so historically important that it should be preserved, against all costs, then its government should acquire the building itself, and take on the burden of the additional costs itself, instead of offloading those costs onto unwilling private owners.
This is all correct and a strong post. I've always been under the impression that the "historical preservation" tool was implemented as a backlash to all of Robert Moses's work in New York (specifically, the destruction of the old Penn Station). And then as usual people realized they could use it as a NIMBY cudgel. Can't wait for the logical endpoint of this... when the BQE cantilever is protected under the historical preservation declaration.
I agree that historic preservation designation is being abused, and that cities should be far more restrictive about designating buildings and neighborhoods as historic. But I think Matt goes too far in wanting to more or less entirely do away with historic preservation, to the point that he is not even sure that central Paris should be preserved.
Personally, I feel that not only individual buildings, but also neighborhood "feel" is important, and sometimes worth preserving.
Could we find a compromise? A process that does take cost into account? But that at the same time helps preserving some older neighborhoods. The destruction of older cities in the 1960s was very bad, and some regulatory response was well motivated. If that response went too far, then let’s revisit and rewrite, rather than take another extreme turn.
I was truly prepared for the horrifying revelation that the Baskin Robbins where Barack and Michelle had their first kiss was heritage protected. Extremely glad to find out Chicago decided to be more sensible.
What's interesting about Sam's Stop & Shop is that it means Cleveland Park used to be on the forefront of design innovation - a place you could build something new and different like a strip mall.
By freezing everything in time in a historic district, they are destroying that spirit of innovation and new design.
The next iteration of Sam's Stop & Shop can't be innovated in this part of town, because it no longer welcomes or embraces new design or ways of doing things.
I agree very much with the idea of marking the history of locations within the city - big fan of London's Blue Plaque scheme, and the idea of a modern version with a QR code and a website with much more detail makes a lot of sense: most cities could commission the history department of their local universities to produce and update the history and identify the locations of the markers.
I certainly think that any building that is preserved for historical reasons should be required to have clear markers indicating why it has been preserved and assisting passers-by to appreciate the building's historical or architectural significance.
On European cities: what tends to happen when they have an architecturally-interesting and historically-significant central district that attracts tourists is that it gets designated as the Old Town, and then a modern central district gets built nearby. So in Paris, you have the Haussmann Boulevards in the traditional city and then La Défense with the modern towers.
Rome has been through this several times - it has the Republican centre around the Forum, the Imperial centre on the Palatine, the Papal centre around the Vatican and then the post-unification centre around the Via del Corso. There's a case for yet another centre being built for the 21st century.
Edinburgh's New Town is also historically preserved (it was built 1767-1850) as well as the Old Town (medieval). That city's development has been badly constrained in recent years by not designating a Newer Town where modern buildings could be built. I have no problem with the idea of not building modern glass towers in the UNESCO area - but why not in Leith or something?
It tells us that Harrison was named for the first President Harrison, William Henry.
The fact that this list isn’t an official government list but a private person’s research, and is pretty hard to find, totally supports your point.
(Other super minor point: I thought that the reason people landmarked the Park and Shop, and in fact created the entire Cleveland Park historic district, was opposition to larger buildings in that spot. Former long-time preservation board chair Tersh Bosberg once said that in a community meeting, but I can’t find any online documentation of that right now.)
I’ve long thought that the rules should say that the landmark protection should relate meaningfully to the thing being commemorated. So if the building is of genuine meaningful architectural distinction, maybe it should be preserved so people can appreciate it (covers the Eiffel Tower for sure), but if just someone famous once slept there, then a plaque probably does it or something else that maintains as much historicity about that as one can given the person won’t sleep there forever. But to just lock the whole building in time doesn’t do anything to help people remember that the famous person was once there. A statue would though.
This isn't history's greatest cruelty but Matt's article reminded me of why apartment is so drafty. I live in San Francisco in a long-term rent controlled studio. I'm saving up to leave like all my friends did due to housing.
But for the time being I am in my apartment and have Wood Windows. Wood windows are much more drafty than modern windows. So I spend a lot of money heating up what is essentially a drafty room
The justification for lowering my QOL can be found here:
"Wood windows were originally installed on the majority of residential buildings constructed up until World War II. In San Francisco, where most buildings are viewed at close range from the street, the differences between wood windows and substitute materials are almost always easily detectable. Particularly with older buildings, these alternate materials usually stand out visually, and rarely match the character of the neighborhood. They always look like what they are: plastic or aluminum – materials that are not architecturally compatible with the building."
What percentage of people on the street notice windows? Let's be generous and say 10%. And out of that 10% what percentage can discern the difference between wood windows and substitute materials? Again, let's be generous and say 10%. So this policy is about improving QOL for the top 1% of people with aesthetic preferences. Aren't progressives supposed to be skeptical about catering to the top 1%?
.
In our modern cities we've allowed people with extreme aesthetic preferences to strangle changes to the built environment unless it meets all their demands. It is madness. We would never allow the fashion industry to set standards for clothes as most of us don't care that much. And I'm sure for people who care about fashion all the ugly clothes most of us wear lower QOL. But thankfully we don't let them run the show.
With building, we've allowed the aesthetic crowd to control changes. And it is an afront. And I haven't even discussed the bad faith, preserve our parking crowd, who uses aesthetic challenges.
Step one in the perversion of historical designation preservation laws was when people opposed to any kind of change in the neighborhood, on idiosyncratic personal sentimental reasons such as aesthetic preference, realized that historical designation laws could be used as a kind of aesthetic super-zoning law or community review board. In Pennsylvania, at least, my understanding is it's against state law for a municipality to use its zoning code to enforce arbitrary aesthetic preference. But enforcing aesthetic preference is what historic designation laws are all about, assuming your preference aligns with the status quo that's being preserved.
From that realization it was a short distance to step two -- municipalities actually using historical designation laws on a pretextual basis, as de facto aesthetic zoning laws and a loophole to avoid the general ban on using public zoning laws to enforce arbitrary aesthetic preferences. I'm aware of at least one municipality in Pennsylvania that has taken this to the extreme of designating the *entire borough* as historic -- a particularly precious example, in the eyes of the boomers and older gen Xers who live there now, of ordinary 1920s to 1970s suburban development outside Philadelphia. What this means in practice is that the municipality now has a legal lever to make aesthetic demands as a condition of permitting new construction (even though that's illegal under state zoning laws), lest the new construction destroy the historical character of the neighborhood.
We have a similar situation in my neighborhood. A historic old art deco theater was demolished in the 70's to make way for a Safeway, and there was a huge outcry. It was justifiable -- it was a beautiful old theater -- so a very stringent "historical review" -- of every project within a certain radius of the old theater was instituted.
This historical review also applies to my neighborhood, which was developed in the early 1900's and consists primarily of old craftsman-style bungalows. The neighborhood is lovely, but the homes are small and modest -- the original footprint of the homes is around 1000 square feet, usually 2-3 bedrooms, 1 bath. As our family grew, (we have three boys) needed more space, so we decided to add two more bedrooms, a bath and family room -- about 1300 square feet.
I am a government employee on a modest income, so we wanted to economize wherever possible, such as using lap siding milled out of pine instead of redwood. But the local ordinance required we used "original materials," so we had to spend more on the redwood siding (not to mention wood-frame windows). Moreover, there was a preservationist busybody who lived on the other side of town and challenged EVERY remodel in our area with a design review hearing, which added an extra $3000 to the project. The changes he wanted were modest, but essentially aesthetic choices based on his interpretation of what would be "historically accurate". These changes would not have been visible from the street, but our architect wisely advised us not to fight it, as it would be cheaper to redraw the plans and add windows.
The process added several thousand dollars to our budget, which given our income, was a stretch. And what was gained? The house looks great, but not significantly different than if we had gone with a less expensive version. The preservationist got his way, but to what end? Our house is not particularly architecturally or historically significant. Moreover it is not a museum, it is a home where we chose to raise our family, and changing it should not have been a financial burden filled with obstacles thrown up by tangentially interested parties.
One problem you only hint at (since it's not our problem) is the difficulties faced in European cities. Rome doesn't just have the Colosseum; the whole damn city is fraught with uber-historical sites. The problem is perhaps more severe in Athens (each subway stop has a little window showing a small sample of archaeological recoveries made during excavation for that site). The old city of Jerusalem goes a step beyond this, and I imagine much of Iraq is even moreso, even after the war.
There’s actually a good model for dealing with Sam’s just a mile or so up Connecticut Avenue! There used to be a little yellow-brick art deco-ish strip mall there. Now there is a big yellow-brick vaguely art deco-ish apartment building there. It pays homage to the other building but with a much more productive land use. My husband and I rent a small apartment in this building; it’s expensive but super convenient.
For non-DC people, Connecticut Ave is a busy major street with multiple bus routes and stops for Metro’s Red Line. As MY said, people who live around here have access to great public schools as well as parks/rec centers, grocery stores, libraries, restaurants, etc.
"I saw that this strip mall actually has some historic significance: it’s the place where Barack and Michelle Obama shared their first kiss after their first date to a Baskin-Robbins"
Americans should stick to the things they are good at, like baseball and making military hardware, and leave history to the Europeans.
The idea here seems to be that the popularity of ‘historic’ designations is due to people’s love of history and that ‘pretextual’ use of these designations perverts their popular origins and yimbys should reclaim historic mantle with tiny signs.
My impression is that it is mainly the ‘pretextual’ use that is popular and people do not care about history. I would say the pretextual use as a local planning board combined with genuine preference for old buildings massively outweighs people who care to know more about Matthew Broderick’s character in that movie they had me watch in 9th grade.
So I don’t think this idea really does any political work. On the other hand I do personally like little info signs.
I think the strip center is way too easy a target. More interested in your take on legislation that protects entire neighborhoods like Beacon Hill and Back Bay in Boston which have an appeal beyond selfish neighbors' quality of life.
Thank you for doing the legwork on when the Baskin Robbins / Dunkin Donuts merger occurred so that we could have footnote 2. I enjoyed that.
I'm increasingly coming around to the take that if a society deems that a building is so historically important that it should be preserved, against all costs, then its government should acquire the building itself, and take on the burden of the additional costs itself, instead of offloading those costs onto unwilling private owners.
This is all correct and a strong post. I've always been under the impression that the "historical preservation" tool was implemented as a backlash to all of Robert Moses's work in New York (specifically, the destruction of the old Penn Station). And then as usual people realized they could use it as a NIMBY cudgel. Can't wait for the logical endpoint of this... when the BQE cantilever is protected under the historical preservation declaration.
I agree that historic preservation designation is being abused, and that cities should be far more restrictive about designating buildings and neighborhoods as historic. But I think Matt goes too far in wanting to more or less entirely do away with historic preservation, to the point that he is not even sure that central Paris should be preserved.
Personally, I feel that not only individual buildings, but also neighborhood "feel" is important, and sometimes worth preserving.
Could we find a compromise? A process that does take cost into account? But that at the same time helps preserving some older neighborhoods. The destruction of older cities in the 1960s was very bad, and some regulatory response was well motivated. If that response went too far, then let’s revisit and rewrite, rather than take another extreme turn.
I was truly prepared for the horrifying revelation that the Baskin Robbins where Barack and Michelle had their first kiss was heritage protected. Extremely glad to find out Chicago decided to be more sensible.
What's interesting about Sam's Stop & Shop is that it means Cleveland Park used to be on the forefront of design innovation - a place you could build something new and different like a strip mall.
By freezing everything in time in a historic district, they are destroying that spirit of innovation and new design.
The next iteration of Sam's Stop & Shop can't be innovated in this part of town, because it no longer welcomes or embraces new design or ways of doing things.
I agree very much with the idea of marking the history of locations within the city - big fan of London's Blue Plaque scheme, and the idea of a modern version with a QR code and a website with much more detail makes a lot of sense: most cities could commission the history department of their local universities to produce and update the history and identify the locations of the markers.
I certainly think that any building that is preserved for historical reasons should be required to have clear markers indicating why it has been preserved and assisting passers-by to appreciate the building's historical or architectural significance.
On European cities: what tends to happen when they have an architecturally-interesting and historically-significant central district that attracts tourists is that it gets designated as the Old Town, and then a modern central district gets built nearby. So in Paris, you have the Haussmann Boulevards in the traditional city and then La Défense with the modern towers.
Rome has been through this several times - it has the Republican centre around the Forum, the Imperial centre on the Palatine, the Papal centre around the Vatican and then the post-unification centre around the Via del Corso. There's a case for yet another centre being built for the 21st century.
Edinburgh's New Town is also historically preserved (it was built 1767-1850) as well as the Old Town (medieval). That city's development has been badly constrained in recent years by not designating a Newer Town where modern buildings could be built. I have no problem with the idea of not building modern glass towers in the UNESCO area - but why not in Leith or something?
Here is a great list of how DC schools got their names: https://nothingmorepowerful.blogspot.com/2017/08/who-dcs-schools-are-named-for.html
It tells us that Harrison was named for the first President Harrison, William Henry.
The fact that this list isn’t an official government list but a private person’s research, and is pretty hard to find, totally supports your point.
(Other super minor point: I thought that the reason people landmarked the Park and Shop, and in fact created the entire Cleveland Park historic district, was opposition to larger buildings in that spot. Former long-time preservation board chair Tersh Bosberg once said that in a community meeting, but I can’t find any online documentation of that right now.)
I’ve long thought that the rules should say that the landmark protection should relate meaningfully to the thing being commemorated. So if the building is of genuine meaningful architectural distinction, maybe it should be preserved so people can appreciate it (covers the Eiffel Tower for sure), but if just someone famous once slept there, then a plaque probably does it or something else that maintains as much historicity about that as one can given the person won’t sleep there forever. But to just lock the whole building in time doesn’t do anything to help people remember that the famous person was once there. A statue would though.
This isn't history's greatest cruelty but Matt's article reminded me of why apartment is so drafty. I live in San Francisco in a long-term rent controlled studio. I'm saving up to leave like all my friends did due to housing.
But for the time being I am in my apartment and have Wood Windows. Wood windows are much more drafty than modern windows. So I spend a lot of money heating up what is essentially a drafty room
The justification for lowering my QOL can be found here:
https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/Standards_Window_Replacement.pdf
"Wood windows were originally installed on the majority of residential buildings constructed up until World War II. In San Francisco, where most buildings are viewed at close range from the street, the differences between wood windows and substitute materials are almost always easily detectable. Particularly with older buildings, these alternate materials usually stand out visually, and rarely match the character of the neighborhood. They always look like what they are: plastic or aluminum – materials that are not architecturally compatible with the building."
What percentage of people on the street notice windows? Let's be generous and say 10%. And out of that 10% what percentage can discern the difference between wood windows and substitute materials? Again, let's be generous and say 10%. So this policy is about improving QOL for the top 1% of people with aesthetic preferences. Aren't progressives supposed to be skeptical about catering to the top 1%?
.
In our modern cities we've allowed people with extreme aesthetic preferences to strangle changes to the built environment unless it meets all their demands. It is madness. We would never allow the fashion industry to set standards for clothes as most of us don't care that much. And I'm sure for people who care about fashion all the ugly clothes most of us wear lower QOL. But thankfully we don't let them run the show.
With building, we've allowed the aesthetic crowd to control changes. And it is an afront. And I haven't even discussed the bad faith, preserve our parking crowd, who uses aesthetic challenges.
Step one in the perversion of historical designation preservation laws was when people opposed to any kind of change in the neighborhood, on idiosyncratic personal sentimental reasons such as aesthetic preference, realized that historical designation laws could be used as a kind of aesthetic super-zoning law or community review board. In Pennsylvania, at least, my understanding is it's against state law for a municipality to use its zoning code to enforce arbitrary aesthetic preference. But enforcing aesthetic preference is what historic designation laws are all about, assuming your preference aligns with the status quo that's being preserved.
From that realization it was a short distance to step two -- municipalities actually using historical designation laws on a pretextual basis, as de facto aesthetic zoning laws and a loophole to avoid the general ban on using public zoning laws to enforce arbitrary aesthetic preferences. I'm aware of at least one municipality in Pennsylvania that has taken this to the extreme of designating the *entire borough* as historic -- a particularly precious example, in the eyes of the boomers and older gen Xers who live there now, of ordinary 1920s to 1970s suburban development outside Philadelphia. What this means in practice is that the municipality now has a legal lever to make aesthetic demands as a condition of permitting new construction (even though that's illegal under state zoning laws), lest the new construction destroy the historical character of the neighborhood.
We have a similar situation in my neighborhood. A historic old art deco theater was demolished in the 70's to make way for a Safeway, and there was a huge outcry. It was justifiable -- it was a beautiful old theater -- so a very stringent "historical review" -- of every project within a certain radius of the old theater was instituted.
This historical review also applies to my neighborhood, which was developed in the early 1900's and consists primarily of old craftsman-style bungalows. The neighborhood is lovely, but the homes are small and modest -- the original footprint of the homes is around 1000 square feet, usually 2-3 bedrooms, 1 bath. As our family grew, (we have three boys) needed more space, so we decided to add two more bedrooms, a bath and family room -- about 1300 square feet.
I am a government employee on a modest income, so we wanted to economize wherever possible, such as using lap siding milled out of pine instead of redwood. But the local ordinance required we used "original materials," so we had to spend more on the redwood siding (not to mention wood-frame windows). Moreover, there was a preservationist busybody who lived on the other side of town and challenged EVERY remodel in our area with a design review hearing, which added an extra $3000 to the project. The changes he wanted were modest, but essentially aesthetic choices based on his interpretation of what would be "historically accurate". These changes would not have been visible from the street, but our architect wisely advised us not to fight it, as it would be cheaper to redraw the plans and add windows.
The process added several thousand dollars to our budget, which given our income, was a stretch. And what was gained? The house looks great, but not significantly different than if we had gone with a less expensive version. The preservationist got his way, but to what end? Our house is not particularly architecturally or historically significant. Moreover it is not a museum, it is a home where we chose to raise our family, and changing it should not have been a financial burden filled with obstacles thrown up by tangentially interested parties.
One problem you only hint at (since it's not our problem) is the difficulties faced in European cities. Rome doesn't just have the Colosseum; the whole damn city is fraught with uber-historical sites. The problem is perhaps more severe in Athens (each subway stop has a little window showing a small sample of archaeological recoveries made during excavation for that site). The old city of Jerusalem goes a step beyond this, and I imagine much of Iraq is even moreso, even after the war.
There’s actually a good model for dealing with Sam’s just a mile or so up Connecticut Avenue! There used to be a little yellow-brick art deco-ish strip mall there. Now there is a big yellow-brick vaguely art deco-ish apartment building there. It pays homage to the other building but with a much more productive land use. My husband and I rent a small apartment in this building; it’s expensive but super convenient.
For non-DC people, Connecticut Ave is a busy major street with multiple bus routes and stops for Metro’s Red Line. As MY said, people who live around here have access to great public schools as well as parks/rec centers, grocery stores, libraries, restaurants, etc.
"I saw that this strip mall actually has some historic significance: it’s the place where Barack and Michelle Obama shared their first kiss after their first date to a Baskin-Robbins"
Americans should stick to the things they are good at, like baseball and making military hardware, and leave history to the Europeans.
The idea here seems to be that the popularity of ‘historic’ designations is due to people’s love of history and that ‘pretextual’ use of these designations perverts their popular origins and yimbys should reclaim historic mantle with tiny signs.
My impression is that it is mainly the ‘pretextual’ use that is popular and people do not care about history. I would say the pretextual use as a local planning board combined with genuine preference for old buildings massively outweighs people who care to know more about Matthew Broderick’s character in that movie they had me watch in 9th grade.
So I don’t think this idea really does any political work. On the other hand I do personally like little info signs.
I think the strip center is way too easy a target. More interested in your take on legislation that protects entire neighborhoods like Beacon Hill and Back Bay in Boston which have an appeal beyond selfish neighbors' quality of life.