Greg Abbot asked:
This is the aspect of the DeLaSalle football field debate that has always
puzzled me: why does the status quo have such a privileged position?
If the arguments about the unique historical and ecological nature of
Nicollet Island are true, why aren't we trying to roll back existing
development -- why isn't there a program trying to get the residents
and/or the high school off the island?
Before that Wizard wrote:>>>
But you're only interested in 200 years . . . of a history that probably
spans thousands of years. You are talking about only the history of
industry on Nicollet Island. That does not encompass all the "we" we are
at this place with a history attached to Nicollet Island.
You both raise important issues.
I wasn't around for the original process that designated Nicollet Island and
the St. Anthony Falls as federal, state and local historic districts, but
I've read much of the supportive documentation.
It's available at the State Historic Preservation Office in St. Paul, as are
people who could certainly construct a better explanation of the basis than
I.
Am I and (real) historians only interested in the last 200 years? Why aren't
we trying to roll back existing development? No and no chance. [Harriet
Miers , you are my role model :) ]
Museum professionals have the job of interpreting history, often using
examples of material culture as their tools. -- YAWN -- Material culture,
whether that be spear points, mill stones or buildings, is a tool to teach
an appreciation and understanding of the past.
Nicollet Island and other historic districts are not museums, but they can
be incorporated and adapted into modern life in ways that allow appreciation
and, sometimes, even understanding. (-- IS THAT SNORING?)
The bulk of the historical survivors on the Island are residential, with
some of the oldest homes in the city located there. And, here's a bonus --
the owner's pay property tax like you and I.
The industrial south end's only remnants are the Inn and Pavilion.
Personally, I can't imagine that new construction would have the charm
that's part of these commercial buildings' draw.
There are struggles inherent in preservation. The A Mill complex has to
incorporate modern climate control and parking. Populations oppose new
construction that would tower over existing buildings. And certainly the
proposed De LaSalle Stadium is only one of many projects that set up
conflicting uses.
It's not often that development is, in essense, rolled back, although the
resurrection of the Stone Arch Bridge in its present reincarnation might
fall into that category.
Respecting history isn't an attempt to stop time, but neither should the
bulldozer be the tool of choice in charting the future.
For those who have no real appreciation for preserving "old buildings,"
(I'M SURE I HEAR SNORING!) I'd like to point out that the tourists like
them, and they seem to please many of the residents flooding to the core
city.
I guess there's no accounting for tastes.
Christine Viken
Stevens Square/Loring Heights
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
