BIKE: preserving historic structures?

[Richard Ryan]

Patrick Goetz <pgoetz> wrote:
True, this is a good point. Perhaps the culture clash we're 
experiencing in Austin now is between people like Morrison and Jack who 
still remember those dark times and new urbanists like myself who are 
impatient to get on with the process of recreating a sustainable, 
liveable, human-scale urban environment that lets people live without 
having to spend a couple of hours a day in a metal box on wheels. It's 
precisely because progress isn't always good that I've recently come 
around to the view that the ANC/OWANA curmudgeons are a useful and 
perhaps necessary part of the process in that they will help to insure 
that every step is thoroughly vetted and can only move forward if it 
stands on it's own merits. I suspect almost everyone nowadays would 
agree that ripping out huge swaths of urban centers in order to build 
highways through them was a truly bad idea, the full consequences of 
which have yet to be realized.

 
Dick Ryan responds -  I wish I had a movie to show you what it was like to be living in Roxbury Massachusetts in 1968 when "they" were clearing out beautiful two and three story victorian mansions for the Southeast Expressway (that never was built).  My friends and I would try and get into the houses as soon as they were vacated so "we" could "remove and save" the "historic" brass hardware, light fixtures, mantles, mirrors, etc.  We always tried to get in before the "lead goons" who were just into stripping everything out for the metal - they used sledgehammers to remove the lead pipe from claw-foot bathtubs etc. - we used screw drivers.  The houses were all demolished - but as I said, the highway never went in.  Eventually, the T built a line in the vacant corridor, but it certainly didn't need all that room.  Today, most of it is still a barren swath.
 
I suggest you read Jane Jacobs - The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
 
So, how about Austin during urban renewal?  Well, I didn't arrive until 1971, but my understanding is that besides I-35, which displaced hundreds, we now have that very dense area between I-35 and the capitol, you know, Red River north of 11th, Waterloo Park and where all those state parking garages are - You know, people used to actually live in that area.  The track record on affordable housing with urban renewal is pathetic.  
 
Why not look at the existing density in Austin.  I would imagine that discounting West Campus and maybe Riverside, that Hyde Park and OWANA are the densest residental areas in the city.  Why not develop in existing vacant lots?  If you don't think there are any, just look at an aerial photo or go up a tall building, like the new Hilton and take a look east down the railroad corridor.  If you're worried about taxes, plot and map the appraised value per square foot of land and I think you'll see that Hyde Park and OWANA bring in more than their fare share of taxes excepting of course the Hyde Park Baptist Church.
 
If you look at the roots of "New Urbanism" you will see that it encompasses Neo-traditional Planning".  IE, the traditional neighborhoods don't need to be replanned (if there is even such a word) they just need to be revitalized from time to time since they already are "sustainable".  Build your new sustainable stuff in vacant lots or in suburban planned (which will prove to be unsustainable) areas - preferably around transit nodes.
 
I would also remind you that some of those non-historic buildings like the Paramount Theatre and the Driscoll Hotel had to be saved from the wrecking ball by preservationists here in Austin.  All it takes is one stupid decision and a historic building is lost forever, you don't get a second chance.
 
Dick Ryan
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/private.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info/attachments/20050614/62c39ccd/attachment-0001.htm