I know the author can’t possibly include every cause of slowness but it seems disingenuous to not include the preservation movement, especially given the decision to talk about downtown San Francisco.
The 70s saw a change in how historic preservation was handled, I’d argue because of the success of Jane Jacobs. It became less about saving patriotic sites and more about saving the look and feel of the idealized early 1900s city. From the 70s to the 90s we stopped protecting battlefields and started protecting whole neighborhoods.
The big catalyst here was in 1972: State Legislation
The Advisory Council of Historic Preservation provides guidelines for State Historic Preservation Legislation. State Preservation Officers were established in 1966 as well, but each state had different legislation. While every state has its own priorities, the guidelines were meant to streamline the legislation.
Now, standards that were explicitly written to help preservationists maintain places like Mount Vernon apply to important chunks of our major cities. Sure Chicago and sfo have maybe 2-3% of parcels protected, but they are highly clustered in desirable areas. And blanket block or neighborhood designations cover parcels of dubious distinction. Additionally it seems like every time there’s a major project announced in major cities these days, someone is going to come out and try and protect the “landmark.”
In Milwaukee there’s a project proposed to tear down an early 1900s hospital on the college campus. The school doesn’t have funds to maintain it. It’s a minor project by a minor architect and is not particularly unique. The preservationists are trying to block the demolition and honest to god, the reason given is that some of them were born there. They’ll probably win.
I think the authors point on heavy handed but well meaning legislation from the 70s needs to be revisited is applicable here as well. I’m for preservation but the mechanisms seem to have gone completely out of whack with the realities of our cities and current needs.
The 70s saw a change in how historic preservation was handled, I’d argue because of the success of Jane Jacobs. It became less about saving patriotic sites and more about saving the look and feel of the idealized early 1900s city. From the 70s to the 90s we stopped protecting battlefields and started protecting whole neighborhoods.
The big catalyst here was in 1972: State Legislation The Advisory Council of Historic Preservation provides guidelines for State Historic Preservation Legislation. State Preservation Officers were established in 1966 as well, but each state had different legislation. While every state has its own priorities, the guidelines were meant to streamline the legislation.
Now, standards that were explicitly written to help preservationists maintain places like Mount Vernon apply to important chunks of our major cities. Sure Chicago and sfo have maybe 2-3% of parcels protected, but they are highly clustered in desirable areas. And blanket block or neighborhood designations cover parcels of dubious distinction. Additionally it seems like every time there’s a major project announced in major cities these days, someone is going to come out and try and protect the “landmark.”
In Milwaukee there’s a project proposed to tear down an early 1900s hospital on the college campus. The school doesn’t have funds to maintain it. It’s a minor project by a minor architect and is not particularly unique. The preservationists are trying to block the demolition and honest to god, the reason given is that some of them were born there. They’ll probably win.
I think the authors point on heavy handed but well meaning legislation from the 70s needs to be revisited is applicable here as well. I’m for preservation but the mechanisms seem to have gone completely out of whack with the realities of our cities and current needs.