Sandbagged by the suburbs

Interesting that the two letters in today's Post, "Sandbagged by Historic Preservation," about the Mt. Pleasant historic preservation issue made out to be a gaffe by preservationists in Marc Fisher's column, "Putting Home's Appearance Ahead of Helping Frail Couple," are written by residents of Stafford and Falls Church, Virginia.

Still, I wish someone from the neighborhood preservation organization Historic Mount Pleasant would weigh in and write a letter to the Washington Post.

The group publishes the excellent neighborhood handbook Guidelines for the Application of Permits in the Mount Pleasant Historic District.
---------------------
"Preservation Frustration" -- a 1974 editorial from the Post, May 23, 1974, p. A22

Shortly, we fear, a nine-story office, shown in the architects' rendering at left below [not reproduced], will replace the turn-of-the-century townhouses at 1720 to 1730 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., shown at right [not reproduced]. The pictures, we fear, illustrate our urban frustrations, which often lead to de-vitalization rather than re-vitalization of our city.

Because of charming townhouses and mansions like these, the Joint Committee on Landmarks has declared Massachusetts Avenue from 17th Street to Observatory Circle a "Historic District." The Landmarks Committee, the Fine Arts Commission, the local chapter of the Amierican Institute of Architects, "Don't Tear It Down" (a historic preservation organization) and three citizens associations have therefore protested the demolition of the old buildings. But the city has no legal means to enforce the integrity of its historic districts* and the Board of Zoning Appeals has recently refused to hear the preservationists' testimony.

The old buildings, it is true, are in bad repair--largely because, unlike other cities, the District of Columbia does not require reasonable upkeep and maintenance of landmark buildings on the part of their owners. The buildings have been vacant for some time because they have been "assembled" by one owner, which has made it impossible for others to buy them individually for use as chanceries, association headquarters or other appropriate purposes. The profit to be derived from a high-rise office building is no doubt greater than from the sale of six small buildings in need of renovation. The city authorities, too, believe there is gain in higher tax returns. But the city will lose in the long run.

And it will lose more than charm. The big office building will bring more cars and require more services. The charm, furthermore, brings tourists and keeps residents and a good many desirable institutions downtown. We wouldn't have to worry quite so much about rehabilitating at least some parts of the center city if we could find a way to keep them habitable in the first place.

*This changed in 1979.

Index Keywords: historic-preservation