[Winona Online Democracy]
While I agree with many of you who favor restoring the court house, I see
one issue which needs to be much more thoroughly addressed: public
perception of the well known analysis of cost vs. benefit. Many cities and
towns around the U.S. are addressing preservation issues just like ours, and
one of the key features in gathering support for restoration and renovation
is the belief that the building will continue to actively serve the needs of
the community.
Old buildings tend to be very expensive to operate. They are often poorly
insulated. They often develop electrical, plumbing and heating problems
which need to be repaired. They tend to have inefficient floorplans leading
to wasted space. Window and door openings are often of mixed and
nonstandard sizes so replacement is much more expensive. Plus, they
eventually need new roofs, tuckpointing, parking lot maintenance, etc. just
like any other building.
This expense is supported only in communities where the daily function of
the building is seen to justify it. Few people are willing to pay to
maintain a building with just sits there and looks pretty, or which people
find inconvenient to use (certainly a problem with our courthouse before the
recent water damage).
I would hazard a guess that a majority of people now living in Winona are
transplants like me, who have no psychological attachment to that building
and no memory of when it was highly used: almost all of my county business
since I moved here has been conducted in the annex, plaza building, or
somewhere else. The old building primarily housed the courts (to which few
people went unless they had to); commissions which few people even KNOW
about, much less do business with; and offices such as the county assessor
which most of us will never deal with in person.
I thoroughly understand the necessity of those commissions and offices, but
let's face it: that type of use just won't cut it in the world of public
opinion. Many other wonderful old buildings in Winona are gone because the
preservation efforts focussed on appearance rather than function.
So, here is our challenge if we wish to preserve that building: we must
swing the cost:benefit ratio strongly to the right, and THIS MUST BE OBVIOUS
TO THE PUBLIC. Unless we can come up with a design which eliminates
hard-to-find offices and gets hundreds or thousands of people (not counting
employees) back into that building every day, year round, for ROUTINE
business, we are doomed to fail because it will be seen as "not worth the
expense". So far, we haven't heard this type of analysis from the various
groups discussing this issue - most of what the public hears seems to focus
on restoring the building to the limited public flow it had before. That's
a big mistake.
Ed Thompson
Ed's witty saying for this week:
"Madness takes it's toll; please have exact change"
----------------
This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
