The "Preservationists" are at it again...

...not to mention a 255 million dollar tunnel under an "Estate" with very little (if any) REAL historical value.

+1 Regarding the tunnel. Every time I drive by that construction site I find myself still wondering how in the heck someone justified spending all of that unnecessary money. I just cannot fathom that one.

And here's some "irony": Parking lots are a good thing when parking is in demand.

Which isn't the case in downtown Louisville, and hasn't been, probably, for decades. You can walk around downtown in the middle of any workday and find multiple lots and garages that are nowhere near capacity.

For reference, here's downtown Louisville. Red is surface parking lots; purple is parking structures. Between parking and the growing-as-we-speak elevated freeways, there's not much left, and even less that's historic.

I think you proved my point, which Im guessing you didnt understand. **IF** parking is in demand, then a parking lot is a good thing. If it isnt, and your map suggests it isnt, and my experience with downtown agrees with your map, then it isnt a good thing. But that is for the owner of the property to decide. It would be stupid to put in a parking lot if building would be better. And tearing down a historic building would be stupid if maintaining it is the best option.

But Im also in favor of allowing people to be stupid.

...not to mention a 255 million dollar tunnel under an "Estate" with very little (if any) REAL historical value.

+1 Regarding the tunnel. Every time I drive by that construction site I find myself still wondering how in the heck someone justified spending all of that unnecessary money. I just cannot fathom that one.

Speaking of stupid tunnels...can anyone explain the "historic" value of the 64 tunnel? The one that needs to be blowed up ASAP?

Just a thought on the idea of historical preservation. I do find it fascinating that we are talking about buildings that are under 200 years old, in a nation that is under 250 years old. What we consider of "historical import" is really odd by world standards. Now the Falls of the Ohio... that's historical.

Speaking of stupid tunnels...can anyone explain the "historic" value of the 64 tunnel? The one that needs to be blowed up ASAP?

I don't know all the details behind the Cochran tunnel, but in a few years any need to widen it, or expand other roads will be lessened if the computer driven car become a reality(which I think will happen, eventually). The New Yorker had a recent article about this. The quaint notion of possessing a personal car is tied a lot to our desire for control and interest in showing off to other people, but when true automobiles are the norm, we'll probably be less likely to care about what we step into for our travels. If that does become the case, then the idea is that more efficient vehicles will be on the road, reducing the need for widening expressways(which might tear down historic properties).

I think you proved my point, which Im guessing you didnt understand. **IF** parking is in demand, then a parking lot is a good thing. If it isnt, and your map suggests it isnt, and my experience with downtown agrees with your map, then it isnt a good thing. But that is for the owner of the property to decide. It would be stupid to put in a parking lot if building would be better. And tearing down a historic building would be stupid if maintaining it is the best option.

But Im also in favor of allowing people to be stupid.

Maybe I did misunderstand. Sorry about that.

Property rights are important. They do need to be protected. But history - the history of downtown buildings and of the neighborhood as a whole - is an asset, an economic asset that benefits the whole city and property owners within it. Look at how successful Historic West Main Street and NuLu have been, and the national attention we've been getting because of it. That would not have happened without the historic fabric of those areas still being relatively intact. The historic character of a place is at least the sum of its parts, if not more, so every time a property owner is allowed to needlessly tear down a historic building he owns, he's detracting from the overall historic value of the neighborhood and directly harming the value of his neighbors' property.

In a historic area like downtown Louisville, protecting historic properties is about protecting the economic interests of the city and the economic interests of everyone who owns property downtown. Even those who don't care about the warm-n-fuzzy concerns of preservationists ought to be able to get behind that. It's a direct application of the "your right to swing your fist freely ends where my nose begins" principle.

[Robin Garr]

In a historic area like downtown Louisville, protecting historic properties is about protecting the economic interests of the city and the economic interests of everyone who owns property downtown. Even those who don't care about the warm-n-fuzzy concerns of preservationists ought to be able to get behind that. It's a direct application of the "your right to swing your fist freely ends where my nose begins" principle.

This says it all. The "It's my property and I have an absolute right to use it as I see fit" is simple (word chosen advisedly) Milton Friedman neo-liberalism, and it's BS because it ignores the concept of the common good within a city, by definition a community. Property owner, meet your neighbor; fist, meet face.

There are certainly both sides to the argument but one thing really stands out to me regarding this building. If it truly is historical enough to require preservation why wasn't the preservation movement for it started earlier? It seems like people only got interested about preserving it when a plan was made to use the site differently. Preservation efforts should be focused on preserving what needs preserving, not preventing new development.

Ditto, way to post, you're a genius, etc.

[Robin Garr]

There are certainly both sides to the argument but one thing really stands out to me regarding this building. If it truly is historical enough to require preservation why wasn't the preservation movement for it started earlier? It seems like people only got interested about preserving it when a plan was made to use the site differently. Preservation efforts should be focused on preserving what needs preserving, not preventing new development.

Why should outsiders even have to be involved? Listen closely: If a property owner practices good stewardship and care for the urban environment, "Tear it down" won't be the first thought that comes into his mind. If there's a general consensus that preserving our unique character is a greater goal than getting to look just like Atlanta, then there'll be no need for finger-shaking preservationist nannies.

For what it's worth, and despite everything I said above, I have no particular attachment to this particular building. If the choice was preserve it or make it a parking lot, I'd be 100% on the side of saving it. But I am perfectly happy to admit there are cases where the proposed redevelopment may ultimately be better for the city in the long run than preservation, and this hotel may well be one of them. I'm excited about the hotel proposal. I just think the burden of proof should be on whoever wants to demolish it, and that there ought to be a fairly rigorous review process evaluating these cases.

Back when he was blogging, Branden Klayko of Broken Sidewalk gave a good description of how St. Louis handles these things. It's a model Louisville should follow:

Under St. Louis’ demolition review policy, if a building is listed or is eligible for listing on the National Register or sits in a National Register District, any demolition permit requested is put on hold for 45 days and the demolition permit applicant is required to photographically document the structure in question. During that time, the city’s Cultural Resources Office or Preservation Board can review the permit application and issue a written opinion to the Building Commissioner. The Preservation Board holds a public hearing and a panel of non-political experts decides to approve or deny the permit based upon preset criteria such as the condition of the building, the proposed redevelopment plans and urban design, the architectural quality of the structure, its potential for reuse, or the effect on the surrounding neighborhood. These hearings can be contentious, and it’s no guarantee that a historic building will be preserved. Like Louisville’s Landmarks Commission, St. Louis’ Preservation Board is a panel of experts, not a group of preservation zealots. This review opens up the demolition process to be more inclusive and transparent. If a permit is denied, there’s also an appeal process built into the system.

Right now, each Ward (like a Metro Council district) in St. Louis can opt in to the review program, and most do, but a recent demolition of an old theater in an area without review has sparked anger and calls for city-wide preservation review.

Sometimes what results in these cases is the Board will choose to deny the demolition permit until the time that a building permit is issued. That could avoid cases like what happened at the D&W Silks building across from Slugger Field that was demolished for a parking lot that is supposed to give way at some time to an office tower. With better preservation options, Metro Louisville could have conditionally approved the demolition of the structure once the developer was ready to build on the property. A demolition review process also helps cities prevent more surface level parking lots from being built downtown.

Could this type of demolition review work in Louisville? Absolutely. In fact, the Landmarks Commission has recommended and requested such a program for at least the last six years (the only annual reports available online). It’s time Louisville brings its preservation policy into the 21st century and joins the ranks of cities like St. Louis to preserve its built heritage. Until Louisville gets serious about preserving its history and building stronger, more sustainable communities, buildings like this townhouse and more significant buildings all across the city can be torn down without oversight and with impunity.

Why should outsiders even have to be involved? Listen closely: If a property owner practices good stewardship and care for the urban environment, "Tear it down" won't be the first thought that comes into his mind. If there's a general consensus that preserving our unique character is a greater goal than getting to look just like Atlanta, then there'll be no need for finger-shaking preservationist nannies.

Outsiders really need to get involved because property owners in most cases only care about the most money off their property when they want to get rid of it, that's basic business. Especially in cases like this where the original building order has moved on and subsequently gone out of business why would the present owner (I don't even know who that is) care about preserving a Marine Electric building or any other building they don't have a direct connection to its history?

[Robin Garr]

Outsiders really need to get involved because property owners in most cases only care about the most money off their property when they want to get rid of it, that's basic business.

No, it is basic post-Reagan Friedmanomics, void of community concern or a long tradition of morality.

Especially in cases like this where the original building order has moved on and subsequently gone out of business why would the present owner (I don't even know who that is) care about preserving a Marine Electric building or any other building they don't have a direct connection to its history?

Because they are a part of a community with a stake in preservation ... by which I don't mean preserving buildings, so much, as preserving its unique nature, community spirit and sense of shared destiny. The little things that make a city great, as opposed to a collection of suburbs.

I'm sorry. Some people won't get this. I have compassion for them, but I'm under no illusions that I can heal their broken spirit.

Here's another article about Marine Electric.

http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/p ... l?page=all

Honestly, I don't see what other use for this building could be to warrant someone trying to stop a 25 million dollar project. Would another contractor would spend $1.65 million on a downtown location that is hard to get to, in the middle of a major three year highway construction project? Doubtful when you can get three times the space for half the money and build to suit your needs out in the county somewhere. Other than being the home of a company for 100 years, are there really any other significant historical architectural features to the property? Heck, Mr. Poe was even going to save and use the facade of the original building .

I've stayed at the Aloft in Nashville and it is a really cool hotel. If we want to maintain our convention business, we really do need more rooms downtown. Now if we could only get some meaningful retail downtown. But that's another subject.

You can talk about a property owners civic responsibility and moral turpitude as it applies to building maintenance to the community at large until you're blue in the face, but I really don't think that it applies to this particular situation, considering what the end result will be. I mean really, to have the first big hotel with 175 rooms east of 2nd St. could only spur more development east and south of the E. Market District and to further connect to span between three distinct areas downtown that seem to have a huge gap between them. I totally think the possibility of the bigger picture is worth so much more than saving a really ugly green painted old warehouse.
Stepping down off soapbox.

[Robin Garr]

Honestly, I don't see what other use for this building could be to warrant someone trying to stop a 25 million dollar project.

Respectfully, Dan, I think you're missing the distinction between the forest and the trees.

Look: I don't think anyone in this discussion is really saying that the Aloft project should be held back or delayed.

But I know I'm saying - and I think others are, too - that it's unfortunate to see in our town the kind of Chamber of Commerce mentality in which "tear it down" is too often the default. I know Steve Poe isn't that kind of developer, but a lot of them are; and the mayor and city officials don't seem to have a lot of backbone to stand up to it. So I'm talking about the general: I want to see the climate of opinion change. If any developer wants to tear down any old building, let's take a look rather than just saying, "Yay, Stuff for Downtown!" That's a very different matter than saying "Let's lie down on the sidewalks and keep the bulldozers from coming in."

And as for the developers who do believe in a strict Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman metric and don't believe anybody has any right to tell them what to do with property that will serve us all? Well, maybe we can bring out the pitchforks and torches then.