Anthony West wrote:
I haven't commented on this subject for six months. But I should point out some unhelpful muddles below, since they are widespread.
A "strong historical commission" plays NO role whatsoever in "preventing the decay of these old buildings." It didn't prevent the decay of that church and it won't save your house either. It just makes repairs more expensive, in ways that don't make the house work any better; that tends, if anything, to encourage decay.
Very true. Remember that house on 44th street, just north of Baltimore, that went unowned and unrepaired for seventeen years? I kept hearing people cite that place as an example of why we need an HD. But that would not have helped that house. (I recently met the new owners, whose efforts to repairs the place have been heroic.)
"Proper care" for University City's buildings has nothing to do with historic standards. A roof or a window is just as proper when it exploits the technology of 2004 as when it imitates the methods of 1904. Those of you who use modern construction methods in your houses: you have nothing to be ashamed of! You contribute just as much to University City by your good work as the hardcore preservationist next door does.
And people who contribute something new and original are keeping the spirit of innovation and personal expression alive. Take a look at those nifty nightspot-areas, like Manyunk, or the area around 2-3rd streets north of Market, or even what South Street was twenty years ago. Part of the joy doesn't come from their preservation, but from the presence of independent spirits.
Finally, all this landlord-bashing is bogus. The chief victims of HDs are ordinary middle-class homeowners -- we're the ones who get stuck with the bill. Most of the homeowners on my block don't like the HD and don't want it. We like our property rights exactly the way we bought them. If you don't like the way we keep them, you can always buy them from us and knock yourself out historically -- using your own family's money.
Not to indulge in landlord-bashing... but it helps to remember that many of the advocates of the HD are landlords themselves. They've tried to portray this as a matter of greedy landlords and cheap repairs. Yet many of the main activists behind the HD are landlords themselves, with several investment properties whose values they're clearly interested in protecting. The fact that the HD requirements hit homeowners hardest doesn't seem to matter to them.
Don't get me wrong. I delight in the works of my pure preservationist brethren and I'm most thankful that they live among us. But we don't all have to live like them! I don't force the preservationists to participate in *my* hobbies, or to pay for them for that matter. Participation should be voluntary. I'm a strong believer in voluntary community action.
And Tony's a good example of what I was describing in an earlier post. Anyone see his house? He's got these wonderfully funky iron gates over his windows that are actually _nice_ to look at. Wouldn't have been permitted under an HD, gang.
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
