Revisiting the language of revitalization/blaming the building: May is National Historic Preservation

A colleague was involved in a Reddit discussion about historic preservation in Baltimore.  Basically, the person with the counter-argument was arguing that the building configurations are out of sorts with what people want today, there are too many vacant buildings already, etc.

The real issue is disinvestment. What people call "blight" is a result of disinvestment. Rather than blame the place (I call this "blaming the building"), focus on disinvestment and explain the process.

Too often people are lulled into believing that demolition, especially of historic buildings, is a solution to "blight" when merely it creates a different form of blight, a vacant lot, and that's even  harder and more expensive to correct--building a new building--especially in weak real estate markets where obtaining financing is extremely difficult.

This is about what I call the language of revitalization, making the point that the opposite of or solution to disinvestment isn't demolition -- which just exchanges one problem -- a vacant house -- for another -- a vacant lot -- it is investment.

"Blight" is a symptom of "disinvestment" not the cause of it. Too often the word blight is used to justify demolition when really the issue is one of investment, maintenance, and opportunity.

Blaming the building is an easy trap to fall into.

Buildings or neighborhoods called dilapidated, run-down, blight, eyesores, nuisances, decrepit, (etc.) are victims (and survivors) of disinvestment.

The solution is not demolition, but investment instead of disinvestment.  Maintenance and/or rehabilitation is the proper response to neglect or demolition-by-neglect, not demolition.

A related argument is "the building is full of rats" as a justification for demolition.  Why not just get rid of the rats?

Photo by Aaron Leitz.

E.g., there is a building by the NoMA Metrorail station. It had been an arena, a church, then a trash transfer facility in the years of the city's decline.

I led a successful campaign to get it designated (industrial heritage) to prevent Waste Management from tearing it down because they figured that would make the site easier to sell.

But the same reason WM wanted to clear the lot -- now 1/2 block from an infill Metrorail station -- made the location potentially incredibly valuable.

Today it is a brewpub (in the old ice manufacturing part), an REI flagship store, and offices.

I'm not totally happy with the result as the IMP firm (they run Meriweather) wanted to run it as a concert hall but the property owner wouldn't give them the time of day.

But the building is alive and vibrant.

But I argued with a young guy once about it. He said it's full of rats; tear it down. Again, investment vs. disinvestment. And in this case, the solution to rats isn't demolition, it's eradicating the rats.

I guess this reiterates the value of "young preservationists initiatives" I just wrote about.  Such initiatives educate people about the value of historic preservation and brings them together to work on projects that save buildings and improve neighborhoods.