06-29-2021, 02:57 PM
(06-29-2021, 02:31 PM)jeffster Wrote: So are we suggesting multi-million dollar property developers purchase buildings simply to spend millions to restore them?
I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t let this happen, but I am saying that if you add conditions like that, then properties simply don’t get redeveloped, and you have to hope that the current owner takes good care of the building.
But I did suggest private citizens COULD buy up building. As a collective unit. If you had 1,000 individuals willing to finance $100,000 a piece, that gives you $100,000,000 of buying power. That is what I mean by putting your money where your mouth is.
Always easy to spend others people money when you don’t have to put a penny of yours in.
It's definitely a tricky thing to balance. I think this is ultimately a problem of a capitalist system. In the end, profit and ownership is what dictates how we manage these things. How to balance it becomes a complex thing to figure out. If it's historically valuable, do we put the burden of protecting and preserving that on the public - i.e. designating it heritage, maybe turning it into something akin to a museum or public facility to share with the broader public, using tax dollars or donations? Or do we designate things as historically significant while permitting private developers to take ownership of that, but obligate them to preserve as much as possible?
In the lecture by Eric Haldenby I linked in a previous comment he argues something like "maybe we should place the burden on developers - if they want to develop a historically significant building, then they should pay the money to preserve it". And yeah, I would agree with that. It's our history and that's an important thing, though not everyone understands that because it's not necessarily a tangible thing (the building is, but the why is not). But then that gets you into the territory of developers that take ownership of something, who then neglect it for whatever reason and ultimately tear something down once it gets to a point it's no good (Forsyth Factory, Preston Springs Hotel).
I think, ultimately, we need to improve how we designate and legislate the use of old buildings. The rest of the world - Europe, for example - have fairly strong laws and rules that dictate the protection of historical buildings. It's why they still have so many old structures there that are in impeccable condition. They stand next to or are often incorporated into modern buildings and urban environments. You can have a beautiful glass office tower next to a 400 year old building. In North America, where we are much younger, we tend to view our tangible history a little differently...and that makes protecting old structures more complex if not ambiguous. You definitely see that all over the world when it comes to things like modernist architecture. Brutalism or post-modernism, for example, are not the most loved architectural movements but we still cannot neglect their importance. The same thing applies to this old building. It ought to be saved in its entirety, in my opinion.