|
1
<br /> July/August 2000
<br /> A w o.
<br /> �►.� , 'T ,
<br /> In Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania, the Fifth and pletely limit their rights as property owners , by requiring
<br /> nx Forbes downtown area is receiving a lot of them to restore their property to some period piece appear-
<br /> publicity due to the city ' s development ance . This is a common misconception of the designation
<br /> plans for an urban mall . The plan calls for the demolition of process that evidence of the contrary is setting straight . In
<br /> almost all the buildings along Fifth and Forbes Avenues and Denver, about 95 percent of the applications to the commis -
<br /> along Wood Street and Market Square between Fifth and sion are minor enough to be handled and decided at the staff
<br /> Forbes , a total of more than 60 historic buildings . The level. Here projects can get either outright or conditional
<br /> properties are to be sold to Urban Retail Properties , a approval. Almost none of the requests are flatly refused.
<br /> Chicago developer, who will then lease the entire area to
<br /> national retailers . Heavily subsidized department stores will Denver ' s Lower Downtown district was largely helped by
<br /> anchor the project together with national entertainment its historic designation. Many owners had, at one time,
<br /> restaurants , been holding onto historic buildings in hopes of selling
<br /> them for a high price to developers who would demolish
<br /> The project is considered by preservationists to be a major them for office buildings. When a demolition review
<br /> stepin the wrong direction. The vitality of this livable, process began in 1988 , they had to put the buildings to new
<br /> g Y
<br /> working historic downtown area, which encompasses the uses .
<br /> National Register- eligible Pittsburgh Downtown Retail
<br /> Historic District, is threatened by the plan . As a response , In Neillsville, Wisconsin , four members of
<br /> %% <
<br /> various alternative plans have been proposed which providers the Historic Preservation Commission
<br /> LLLLLLLL
<br /> for much less urban renewal-like approaches , one of which resigned after nearly 40 community members
<br /> PP -,n-Jt
<br /> incorporates the National Trust' s Main Street principles . To asked for changes in the Neillsville preserva-
<br /> date , none of the alternatives have been embraced by the tion ordinance . Mayor Bill Meier said the commission may
<br /> city. Meanwhile the issue of acquisition of the buildings have been moving too fast. He added that there is
<br /> through eminent domain has surfaced. Legally, eminent "absolutely" a place for the commission. "It ' s important to
<br /> domain can be used by a government to take property if it is have one ," he said. Property rights and lack of information
<br /> for a "public purpose . " The question in the Pittsburgh case: seem to have been the reasons for the protest. With the
<br /> Is it a public purpose for the city to take property so it can existing ordinance the commission can designate landmarks
<br /> be turned over to an out-of-state , private developer? The without owner approval .
<br /> plan promises to bring continuous opposition from national
<br /> and local preservationists for many months to come. r_ .` . r<; y:M Missouri may soon become the sixth
<br /> %k ? a
<br /> Ed. note : The National Trust for Historic Preservation state in the nation to ban new billboards .
<br /> recentlylisted Fifth and Forbes on its 11 Most Endangered As of this Spring , Scenic Missouri ' s
<br /> g
<br /> ' � . `t Save Our Scene campaign had ath-
<br /> Places List. For more information, contact the Trust' s � � �. Sceneryg
<br /> munication office at 202/588 - 6141 . ] ered 130 , 000 signatures , exceeding the
<br /> 72,000 required, to put an initiative on the November 2000
<br /> Some citizens of Denver, Colorado , that ballot. The initiative would ban new billboard construction,
<br /> have opposed historic designation of their prohibit tree cutting to improve billboard visibility; prohibit
<br /> > > + neighborhoods are having their fears put to the replacement, rebuilding, and relocation of existing bill-
<br /> :�:�� . ..�,: g g P P g
<br /> rest. Records of the Denver Landmarks boards ; and affirm the right of local governments to regulate
<br /> Preservation Commission, which rules changes to structures billboards .
<br /> within 34 Denver historic neighborhoods and districts , show
<br /> that of the 260 applications received last year, just three
<br /> were rejected. Among those that were rejected was a The preceding information was taken from the following
<br /> request for total demolition of a historic structure. publications: Preserving Pennsylvania, Volume 13, Number
<br /> However, demolition can be approved. It simply depends 4, various information releases from the Pittsburgh History
<br /> upon what the owner proposes to replace the structure with . & Landmarks Foundation, The Denver Post, June 30, 2000;
<br /> Wisconsin Landmarks Newsletter, July 2000, and Scenic
<br /> Foes of designation have claimed that such an act will com- America, March 2000.
<br /> 9
<br />
|