However, the paragraph reprinted below forms the crux of his argument, which extends past the specifics of the proposed fire museum. It is a lamentation of narrow-mindedness in the past, and an appeal for historic preservation in what strikes me as the narrowest sense of protecting and preserving buildings.
That's fine, and I'm for it. At the same time, as we've recently considered in this space, there are broader elements to historic preservation, and in order to make this point, I'll be blunt: How does the idea of spending more than $500,000 on restoring the Cardinal Ritter house appear to the residents of the transitional neighborhood surrounding it?
It's encouraging to see a dialogue under way with respect to this and other aspects of the urge to preserve. Speaking only for myself, preserving a building without context in a more pervasive societal sense strikes me as a less than conducive exercise. Should the North Annex building be adaptively reused? Yes, but not only because of what the building itself is, or perhaps symbolizes.
What will its reuse mean to the people of the area? Historic preservation pitched too narrowly can come to resemble dilettantism, especially when it comes to the perception of the clueless Philistines we typically elect to office -- like the ones who mechanically signed the demolition permits to facilitate the 1960's era destruction that Vic so effectively decries.
We all must do a better job of casting preservationism in a sense of how it will impact the day-to-day life of the individual, who is otherwise disposed to stand on the sidelines absent a sense of personal involvement with the principles being espoused.
But pleae feel free to disagree with me or to expand upon this brief digression. For more on historic preservation in Floyd County, see reporter Harold Adams's story in today's Courier-Journal. Here is Vic's excellent column.
MEGENITY: Antique fire equipment presents unparalleled opportunity for city
New Albany has a checkered past in preserving its most valuable assets — the history and heritage of the City. When I first moved to this community in the early 1960s to start my teaching career, I was amazed at the rich history that I found. Steamboat building, glass works, iron works, woolen mills, to name just a few important industries. The architecture was outstanding with scores of 19th century buildings, but then something terrible happened. During 1961-62, I observed the demolition of four historic buildings: (1) on the southeast corner of State and Spring Sts., the County Courthouse; (2) on the southwest corner of State and Spring Sts., the City Hall; (3) on the northeast corner of State and Spring Sts., the fortress like Jail, made famous by the hanging of the notorious Reno brothers; (4) on the corner of Spring and Pearl Sts., the magnificent Post Office.
11 comments:
After sitting through the first preservation group meeting without uttering a single word (a first, I think), I was asked via email by one of the organizers to offer some thoughts.
Though my response essentially mirrored this post, I'll throw it out there for the sake of discussion.
Preservation is certainly a worthy goal but is not revitalization in and of itself. I think the best long-term preservation solution for the local built environment is to create a viable, sustainable community and culture in and around it.
To the extent that preservation works as a component of a broader, more inclusive revitalization and community building movement, I intend to be as supportive as I can. To the extent that it seeks to be the primary concern, even if it's at the expense of others, I'll be less inclined.
From my perspective, the challenge the new group faces is the successful integration of preservation into other efforts rather than the subordination of those efforts in service (financial or otherwise) to preservation.
Resources are slim and should be prioritized by their impact on overall revitalization. Sometimes preservation will come first in that scheme but not always.
That doesn't mean we should suddenly start allowing worthy buildings to be knocked down in the name of "progress" but it does mean that sometimes we're collectively going to have to choose between spending time and money on rehabbing a particular building and making other activities possible. Sometimes those other activities will take precedence.
If there's acceptance of that, great. If not, a competitive rather than cooperative situation could arise that wouldn't really be good for any of us.
I think we've seen a few minor fissures/concerns along those lines already and it's my hope that a new group will help close instead of widen them.
Independently of bluegill, I, too, can report minor fissures...but I stress the word "minor," as would bluegill, I surmise.
Think heritage. Think sustainability. Those two words encompass preservation and include preservation. I like what I'm hearing from the Market Street quarter.
Roger - the Ritter House looks like hope and possibility to the folks living in your so called "transitional neighborhood."
You're giving credence to the folks who want to bulldoze and build new, saying it's cheaper.
After all, why did you buy the cinder block bread store and renovate the space instead of knocking it down and building new? Economic sense came into play, I'd imagine. Wasn't it cheaper for you that way?
The Ritter House hasn't cost $ 500,000 to rehabilitate. We're asking for $ 150,000 to finish the Community Center and Ritter Museum, $ 300,000 to create a perpetual endowment for ongoing maintenance.
And it's not a house in the sense most people think of houses. The Ritter Board has rebuilt the Cardinal's birthplace for a specific reason - for use as office space for non-profit agencies.
We have thousands of feet of CAT-5 and CAT-6 data cabling, telephone and video cabling. Many rooms are pre-plumbed in the walls, ready to be used for kitchenettes, sinks, etc., if that's what the tenants might need.
And we've accomplished this at a lower per square foot cost than new home construction.
The Ritter House is finished, and has been since this summer. The Ritter Community Center and Ritter Museum are up and are now moving toward completion.
I think you'd be hard pressed to name another group of private citizens who have achieved similar sized results here in New Albany.
Your question about "spending $ 500,000" is spurious. It wasn't city money, tax money or federal dollars. It hasn't come out of the police pension fund or the sewer board. Your comments may confuse people about the cost of the Ritter House renovation.
Does anyone question how much you have spent on your new store in the midst of a decayed but hopefully re-emerging downtown? No, because your effort was private, as is the Birthplace Foundation's.
We've worked hard to earn donations and in-kind help. Everyone has been and is working hard, and the suppliers, contractors and donors - of time, materials and monies, large and small, have all made it possible.
As for the "transitional neighborhood," I trust you mean in transition toward better.
Roger - the Ritter House was such a wretched building when we started. Cut into eight "apartments," most were single rooms with a bed, sink, hot plate and an open, exposed toilet.
Many were wired with extension cords. It was so full of filth and feces (human, bird and rodent) we couldn't allow volunteers to help us muck it out.
It was the all too often result of what landlords are able to do without city rental property inspection. Lack of maintenance, greed and no consequences allow landlords to prey on fellow human beings.
So when you say:
"I'll be blunt: How does the idea of spending more than $500,000 on restoring the Cardinal Ritter house appear to the residents of the transitional neighborhood surrounding it?"
The question I ask back - what does a child living in a poorly maintained rental house think when he sees a wretched building brought back as he walks to school?
Maybe he'll realize there's hope for his house and he deserves to live in a nice neighborhood where landlords treat people fairly.
Maybe a girl walks by the Ritter House and sees a child can grow up, work hard and be celebrated for their effort - and the child who became important grew up right there in her neighborhood.
Your "blunt" question begs so many questions in return. Since New Albany is a small city, should we then only think small thoughts?
If St. John's roof blew off, does the "transitional neighborhood" deserve it to be replaced? I bet St. John's roof and superstructure would cost a quarter of a million dollars or more. Should the neighborhood just let it sit without a roof and rot because some folks say the neighborhood is "too far gone?"
I was at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting when the city was petitioned to bulldoze the Ritter house and build five (five!) small bunker apartment houses on the two lots. Was that plan more fitting for the "transitional neighborhood"?
Does it hurt folks' self esteem when a neighbor fixes up their own house? Or does it silently and compellingly urge neighbors to make a neighborhood better?
If one child grows up thinking "I can be better, I can do something to better myself, I deserve to be treated fairly" then my small efforts on the Ritter Board will be worth my time.
By the way - tonight Board Chairman David Hock announced Board Member Ed Clere successfully secured the Ritter House's first tenant. The Home of the Innocents is establishing a Southern Indiana presence for the first time in the "transitional neighborhood."
Transition toward better, I feel. I hope folks agree.
Rog, the commenter may just have a point. An endowment is the kind of thing most people don't think about around here.
Today, the idea of earning 1.5% interest may seem dubious, but surely the banks can't keep the spread so large over time. Endowment is the key. I can think of a dozen non-profits who ought to be building endowments instead of living "campaign to campaign," or beer walk to beer walk.
I've no idea who w&la is...might be, but the points are well put and, arguably, valid.
I'm not Catholic, but I sure do know a lot of Catholics who'd pay to preserve a Cardinal's homeplace and who wouldn't know sustainability from an orangutan. How others spend their money is hard to figure anyway.
More later, but the $518,000 number was attributed to David Hock in the Tribune, with mention of another $160-175K being needed to finish the building. From that, I would assume that the numbers w&la mentions are in addition to rather than instead of the $500K Roger mentioned, unless there was a misunderstanding of some kind in the article.
People are welcome to donate their time and money to honor a Cardinal or whomever they choose but I don't see the expenditure question as spurious at all in the context of what's best for the neighborhood. I know many others in the neighborhood feel the same way, whether expressed by words, bricks through a window, or a message spray painted on the Ritter Park sign.
That's why it's important for this type of conversation to take place.
It is important to have discussion and conversation.
Saving a single abandoned structure does not revitalize a neighborhood. I think we can all agree on that. The Ritter House project, by itself, will not turn our neighborhood around. The Ritter House, occupied and in use, certainly can contribute to a revitalization process.
It is certainly a story worth telling and now that an occupant is on the way, it’s a story that has an ending that had been missing. And it is becoming a hub of activity as a meeting place for residents, which was a stated goal of the Ritter Foundation. Vacant, it was not an asset to the area and was actually a target.
Personally, the home and restoration project have been an inspiration. I’ve contributed (and will continue) financially and with sweat equity.
As I had stated in a previous post, preservation is about more than saving buildings. I think that point has been clearly made. I believe the success of the new preservation group will not be determined by how many buildings are saved, but how many buildings that didn’t have to be saved. Targeted education, partnerships/collaborations, outreach, and advocacy are critical.
I believe the success of the new preservation group will not be determined by how many buildings are saved, but how many buildings that didn’t have to be saved...because they are so valuable in use, which I think is Roger's point.
Bingo.
What constitutes valuable use and which actions create demand for those uses, not just for a single building but most of them, is then necessarily the center of the conversation with resources to be allocated accordingly.
“Valuable Use” is not the pertinent discussion. Bluegill have you forgotten the “new urbanists” principles? Appropriate and sustainable “use” were the original master plans. 60 years ago the gov’t decided to throw those in the trash and bulldoze. Preservationists have been on the defensive for at least that long. Every Culbertson Mansion, Cardinal Ritter house, hopefully County Hom, Fire Museum, etc., cost hard work and real resources. I know, I’ve been at this for 35 years and I’ve restored a few buildings. You are the only person who came away from that meeting thinking this was a conceptual discussion about whether given “scarce resources” we have to be so damn ornery about saving every last bit of history left. Are you speaking as a fellow resident investor or the NA redevelopment office? I hate having debates with people who wear masks.
“It's encouraging to see a dialogue under way with respect to this and other aspects of the urge to preserve.”
That’s insulting to the many people who’ve worked long years for the sake of the community. Are you saying you’re just engaging in the conversation?
“I think the best long-term preservation solution for the local built environment is to create a viable, sustainable community and culture in and around it.”
As an amateur sociologist I’d have to point out we already have a viable sustainable “culture” living in our historic structures. I think I’ll just leave it at that...
“That doesn't mean we should suddenly start allowing worthy buildings to be knocked down in the name of "progress" ...”
I think there is in fact a list somewhere, ever growing, of the actual buildings currently being “destroyed by neglect” and/or just got bulldozed.
That “means” we should *strike* “stop” allowing worthy buildings to be knocked down in the name of “progress””.
...that sounds better?
A little piece of my heart crumbles every time I see a historical structure lost.
You are the only person who came away from that meeting thinking this was a conceptual discussion about whether given “scarce resources” we have to be so damn ornery about saving every last bit of history left.
No, luckily, I'm not.
Post a Comment