;)
The cost of urban preservation
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 06:00AM I like a nice old sandstone Richardsonian Romanesque office building, with columns, cornices, and elaborate entryways. Like this one:
But I don't have to pay to maintain the thing, install modern fire-control equipment, remove asbestos, or try to rent to finicky commercial tenants who care more about the conformation of the space they lease than they do about architectural detail.
So I found the discussion about the Northwestern Guaranty Loan Building in Minneapolis, on one of my favorite sites, Shorpy, extremely enlightening. The building was torn down in 1961, in one of those fits of urban renewal that characterized the era. One hates the soul-sucking monstrosity that replaced it (as posted in a comment by bipto), while understanding the gigantic expense that would have been required to keep it operational, as pointed out by Minnie A. Politan and Anonymous Tipster. If you've ever done even minor work on your house, you know how much things like that can run.
So I am a bit chastened, after my rambling rant yesterday about the beauty of cities. No wonder city centers of older cities are somewhat theme-park-like. How else can you pay to maintain all those old facades, while removing dangerously obsolete wiring and keeping the roof from falling in? You have the pimp the buildings out to preserve them. No matter what structure you see, anywhere in the world, you have to reflect that the world is doing its best to destroy it. Keeping it standing takes vigilance, and money. A lot of money. The struggle is eternal.
As my friend James Patrick Kelly pointed out on our Boskone panel about cities, most science fiction writers don't know any economics. If you really want beauty, you have to be willing to pay for it.
Reader Comments (2)
You've been taken in by the fallacy that old buildings are somehow more expensive and difficult to maintain than newer ones. Not so.
Admittedly, some of the exterior ornamentation that makes 19th century public buildings so much fun is tough to keep up. But for the most part, old buildings were constructed with the expectation that they would be used by a family for generations. And properly maintained, those plaster walls and weighted windows will outlast--indeed, many have outlasted--the latest modern whiz-bang products intended to replace them.
Contrast that to houses built today, by builders interested only in making a profit and moving on. The spit and glue holding together flimsy sheetrock and plastic, the weaker modern wood, and the generally poor carpentry are disguised by shiny granite countertops. After 20 years, these kinds of houses start decomposing. All buildings require maintenance to keep them going--new or old.
Old buildings get a bad rep because they've been around long enough for someone to neglect the maintenance. But, intrinsically, pre-WWII buildings are more substantial and (in my humble opinion) very much worth the cost of upkeep. (But, then, oldhousegeek is my handle for a reason...)
oldhousegeek-
I wouldn't argue with someone with that handle, certainly! I was thinking more of large office buildings, and not single-family residences. My own dates from 1932 ("new" for this area), and what problems it has stem largely from ill-advised modifications (like someone cutting through studs to add a stack vent). Otherwise a tight little house.
The comments about leasable urban buildings were enlightening to me, though. In particular, if such a structure has been allowed to decay, and water has come in through the building envelope, and there is a demand for its preservation, money has to be found. My company does a lot of distressed real estate workouts, and it actually takes a surprisingly short time for a building to sustain expensive damage.