Historic Districts are here to stay because the country is now old enough to actually have what we call historic buildings. However the creation of these districts seems to lean towards the dictatorial. The whole idea of "taking" private property rises up when a person owns a piece of property that can't be fully developed. The idea of property rights is called into question. Rather than simply dismiss it as so many preservationist wants to do, they should seek some sort of accommodation. Primarily is the idea that historic districts encompass every building in the area. Some kind of picking and choosing must be accommodated. Because the preservation of old buildings not only is not everyone's goal -- but there is no intrinsic moral duty to preserve old buildings. Is it a good idea, yes, most of the time. But every building for all time? Highly dubious.
 |
There should be provision that a supermajority of the people who own property in a district approve of the classification. Those who opt out should be given some sort of financial incentive to join in. The idea of tax breaks and loans have already been tried. But some owners are not capable of meeting these provisions. If the organization that wants to preserve the building really wants to -- then rather than just force the person into doing it they should be made to buy the building and preserve it themselves. xxx |
||
 |
There can be no doubt that the preservation of old buildings will cause a trade off in the construction of new buildings. The old one will not only cost more money to upkeep, given that they are older and in need of more repair. But the preservation of whole districts means that new development must be spread elsewhere. There is always need for new development because there are always more people. Land that lies at the fringes of cities should be given over to builders and developers. Parcels that are now underused for industrial or commerical spaces should be further developed. The lands that are marginally used with undistinguished smaller buildings should have larger structures put up. The idea that there is no trade off is not rational. XXX . |
||
 |
As much flexibility as can be thought up should be put into historic district zoning rules and regulations. Making the rules so strict that the developers are always driven to seek exceptions to the rules breeds dissension and lawsuits and bad blood between two groups of people who should in fact be cooperating. Wholesale creation of historic districts should be coupled with wholesale creation of new development zones -- so that those who want to preserve can do what they want, and those who want to build anew can do what they want. XXX . |
||
 |
Oddly, the more skyscrapers for housing and commerical space there are the more areas and structures can be put towards historic preservation. This is one thing that has become true in Europe, where the historic old centers are preserved, but the outskirts of the city therefore had to be developed with highrise apartments. The problem arises that the cities spend too much time and energy, and tax resources on the old parts, and don't plan the new parts with parks and transportation and other infrastructure. It is almost as if they are sweeping the problems under the rug so that they can claim on the one hand that they are doing this great stuff with historic buildings, and then blame the developers of new buildings with causing the problems that come about with the new development. XXX . |
||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | |
