Five years ago I wrote some pieces about battles over preserving historic buildings, as they shared similar characteristics: involving major companies; weak preservation laws; the ability to have influence on the companies or not; a community's desire for economic development; etc.
-- "Bel-Loc Diner in Baltimore County to be torn down for a Starbucks"
--"Preservation advocacy may be more successful when companies are vulnerable to public pressure: Baltimore County vs. Fairfax County, Virginia vs. Robbinsdale, Minnesota"
-- "https://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2016/12/a-night-before-christmas-holiday-poem.html"
Strong laws make the most difference. For the most part, cities are always going to roll over because they want "economic development" and they don't like to argue with developers.
One of the examples was the Bel Loc Diner in the Towson conurbation of Baltimore County. There Starbucks was a willing tenant for a developer who aimed to tear down the diner and build a box for Starbucks. Starbucks is indifferent to historic buildings. They will use them or not, depending on the circumstance, but they defer to the firms that they retain for retail store development, and most of the firms favor new construction, unless they are covering center city locations.
The diner was demolished.
But now, 5 years later, the Starbucks is closed "because of crime in the area."
I find it hard to believe that that part of Baltimore County is particularly crime ridden, even though there have been problems, which the Councilmember blames on proximity to Baltimore, which I'll write about separately ("Baltimore County Councilman says Starbucks closed (for now), partly due to crime," Fox45 Baltimore).
It does show the value of having an independent business over a chain, one that is more committed to maintaining business operations locally.
Definitely the trade off, losing a historic building and landing a chain lightly committed to the area, doesn't seem to have been worth it.
No comments:
Post a Comment