Open House: Better Doesn't Mean Good

On May 30th, the Historic Trust and Marathon Development unveiled their revised plans for the Academy site development.  The design they unveiled was a bit better; the changes have resulted in design details that are somewhat more respectful and responsive to the character of the Academy.

But those changes are also mostly superficial, and do not address the fundamental preservation issues with the proposal.  Arched awnings and black balconies cannot solve problems of incompatible scale, massing and siting.  The design is still one that cuts off important views to the Academy, cuts the Academy off from downtown, and cuts the Academy off from its history.

The Trust made a big show of community engagement, but in the end, the Trust addressed very few of the comments they DID receive and certainly did not address any of the more significant historic preservation issues.  More disappointingly, despite assertions that they would explain WHY other options were not feasible, the Trust just repeated the same assertions with no explanations.

During the presentation, the Historic Trust used their favorite jargon, “activate” again... so much so that even Stacey Graham, their board chair, commented on how much they use it.  But the interesting thing was that the part of the design that actually does the most to “activate” the site is the newly expanded plaza at the corner of Evergreen and C St.  It’s been interesting to hear the Trust constantly justify these buildings based on the idea that preserving the Academy requires “activating” the site, yet the part of the design that does the most to activate the site is an open space, the part of the proposal where there are no buildings.  Even if development WAS necessary to sustainably preserve the Academy site, THIS development would be detrimental to the historical and architectural significance of the Academy and doesn’t even accomplish one of the main goals used to justify it.

But perhaps the most interesting part of the night was getting a view into the various causes and effects that have lead to this “necessary” proposed development.

  • The Trust maintains that they “have” to sell part of the site to pay off A $5M loan to the Hidden family, and if they don’t, that part of the property goes back to them.  Why do they owe the Hidden family $5M?  Why, because they failed to raise even half of what they needed from their original capital campaign to buy the Academy.  The only reason that the Trust has that loan is because they failed at a capital campaign.
  • The Trust made a big deal about their $3M liability to improve the parking lot.  But why doe they have that $3M liability?  They said it was because the City has prohibited gravel parking lots in the downtown.  But they glossed right over the fact that the site doesn’t have to be a big parking lot requiring $3M in improvements.  The only reason that the Trust has to sink $3 into parking lot improvements is because the Trust has decided to continue to use one of the most historically significant sites in the region as a parking lot.
  • The Trust formed an advisory group to review the public’s input and the developer frequently said that they couldn’t do things suggested by the public because that advisory committee said no to those things.  But the advisory committee doesn’t have any  actual authority over the project, it’s a creation of the Trust.  So every time the developer or the Trust said that the advisory committee said they couldn’t or shouldn’t do something, it was really the Trust saying that. 
  • The Trust has stated that development on this part of the site is the only feasible option.  But the only reason that was given for why development had to go on this part of the site rather than another part that would be more respectful of the Academy was that developers need visibility for their projects.  And the Trust is the one that made the decision to sell land off to a developer instead of doing the development itself.  The only reason that the Trust finds itself needing to cow-tow to the priorities of a developer is that they decided to sell the land to a developer.  And since the Trust has decided to sell instead of develop itself, all the profit from these proposed buildings will be going into the pockets of the developer, not to preserving the Academy.
  • The Trust talked about how they had to invest an extra $1M in the roofing project due to unforeseen issues.  But the only reason that those issues were unforeseen is that the Trust made the decision to tackle the project without a preservationist on staff. The Trust made the decision to tackle a complex preservation project without the necessary expertise and that mistake led to a $1M unexpected expense.
  • The Trust stated that they didn’t pursue preservation tax credits for the roof project because the project scope was too small and they wanted to pursue tax credits on larger future projects.  But the Trust is the one that made the decision to spend the last three years looking for a developer and trying to make a real estate deal instead of putting together a comprehensive preservation plan.  A preservation plan would have allowed them to roll all the restoration projects into a single, larger project that would have maximized the value of those tax credits. 

And the last thing the presentation revealed:  after all this effort, after the damage that this development will do to the Academy’s historic and architectural significance, not one cent will go directly to actually preserving the Academy.  The Trust stayed that the money is all going to pay off the Hidden family and upgrade the parking lot.  Only then will they start a capital campaign to actually preserve the Academy.  That comes third.

The Trust has presented this proposed development as the only feasible solution to the difficult problem of preserving the Academy.  But at the open house, it became clear that the proposed development is really the direct consequence of a string of choices made by the Historic Trust.  This proposal is not the result of a careful preservation plan that leveraged development to foster development, it is the result of a string of decisions where development was always the primary goal and preservation secondary.

But that is not surprising.  The Trust has never called this its Academy Preservation Plan; the Trust has always called this the Academy Redevelopment Plan.  The Academy is one of the most significant historic buildings in the region.  It needs a preservation plan that might include development, not a development plan that might include preservation.

And don't forget to sign the Petition if you haven't already!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Preservation Issue #2: Scale

Other Preservation Funding #2: Current Use Property Taxes

Coming Soon! What isn't in the press releases and interviews