2003 Madison Mayors’ Race:
The Role of Historic Preservation
Sue Bauman
1 · Madison’s historic heritage
is very important to me and I am very concerned that, in the interests of progress,
some are willing to tear down all old structures and build new buildings. That
said, I do not believe that all of our old buildings must stay in order to retain
our history and heritage. Considerations must be made on a case-by-case basis,
but we must designate areas in which more stringent standards might be used than
in others.
For example, in the Mansion Hill District
development proposals must be watched very closely, as this district continues
to retain much of its original character. To this end, I am gratified that Capital
Neighborhoods is working on developing a Mansion Hill plan. In the Bassett District,
a number of streets have already lost their historic character, particularly West
Main Street.
I think it is easier to consider replacement
of some of the older structures there (and the "zero lot line" monstrosity in
the 400 block), with newer and denser structures, as long as they are designed
to fit with the massing and character of the neighboring streets. We must resist
attempts to change the character of West Washington Avenue, at least in the 400
to 600 blocks which are essentially (with some obvious exceptions) the original
buildings. These buildings should be restored, as should the buildings on West
Wilson Street and West Doty Streets.
Each development proposal needs to be looked
at on a case-by-case basis, against a background of a neighborhood or district
plan that has already reviewed the existing buildings, determined which are historic,
which are valuable merely as examples of architecture of a bygone era, and which
can be replaced, provided that the replacement continues the feeling of the area,
in the sense of massing, height, materials, colors, etc.
2 · Unfortunately, the assessments
are done in accordance with state law which generally looks at highest and best
use of particular pieces of land and does not attribute a great deal of value
to older buildings that have been allowed to deteriorate. Decades ago, many of
these structures were converted to two, three, or more flat buildings that are
leased out and generate significant rents for the owners.
The city has a stated policy of encouraging
owner-occupancy in the downtown, and has a number of loan (and grant) programs
that can assist owners to upgrade the buildings, if they become owner-occupied.
This does not require that there be no rental units in the building, but does
require that the owner occupy at least a part of the building.
The city needs to do a better job of letting
people know that this financial assistance is available to them, as well as to
make clearly known that downtown owner-occupancy is a value that we endorse. The
steps mentioned in response to question 1 would assist in this endeavor, as well
as working with interested purchasers to identify buildings that might be coming
on to the market and have them sold to become owner-occupied rather than rental.
Recent approvals of high-rise student apartment
buildings should have reduced the pressure on some of the older areas to provide
for student housing. This should make it somewhat easier for the buildings to
be converted back to owner-occupied housing.
3 · Poorly maintained rental property
must be addressed by aggressive, systematic building inspection. The City has
a policy that allows for inspection of all buildings on the Isthmus over a relatively
short period of time. We need to encourage tenants to contact building inspection
when there is, or they think there is, a violation of the building code. All of
us should call building inspection if we notice peeling paint, broken balconies,
steps, etc. The responsibility of enforcement lies, to some extent, on all of
us, though we should not approach the owners!
The City Council has struggled for years with
the background parking issue. Rather than outright banning of backyard parking
for non-tenants, we should develop, and enforce, a logical, uniform set of standards
for backyards. Encouraging owner-occupancy may result in families with children
who want to play in those yards!!! Permanent "for rent" signs are currently banned
by ordinance, I believe. The ordinance should be enforced. The boot signs should
be removed (if no ordinance currently exists that requires the removal of signs
regarding extinct services exists, one should be adopted).
Garbage is really only a big problem during
the August change-over and sometimes during the Thanksgiving period when folks
"forget" there is no pick-up on Thursday or Friday. During August, the City has
developed a program that gets the mess cleaned up fairly quickly, at significant
overtime cost to all city residents.
I am not sure that there is any better way
to address this than to encourage owner-occupancy and rentals to non-students
which would result in different turn-over dates. For garbage issues at other times,
the Streets Division, and Building Inspection, should be called whenever problems
are seen by anyone!
4 · There are a couple of possible
approaches to this: Require the owners of the landmark property to pay for the
plaque; Use some of the CitiArts funds for this purpose; Hold a fund raiser to
collect money for this. It would be easy to suggest that the City buy the plaques
and, in the overall scheme of the city budget, the amount involved is quite small.
However, against the competing needs of street
repairs, fire engines, police district building, etc., there is general resistance
to this expenditure. I suspect that partnering with the private sector, such as
a dollar-for-dollar match of city funds to private funds would be an acceptable
way to put plaques on all the buildings in question.
5 · As the question makes clear,
one of the things that makes State Street unique and special is its human scale.
There is no way that I would permit the demolition of the existing structures
in order to replace them with a high-rise building, no matter what was to be contained
in this facility!
The developer in question is paying significantly
more than the assessed values of the properties and will probably cause a sky-rocketing
of the assessed values in the area. Even though his plan for a high-rise will
be defeated, he will cause significant damage to the character of State Street.
A strong message has been sent by the Department of Planning and Development that
this scheme will not be approved. A loud community statement to that effect is
also necessary. The Mayor is one voice that has been/will be heard, but this is
a voice that must be loudly supported by the entire community.
A high-rise in the 100 block of State Street
would be detrimental to the entire street. Again, an adopted plan (which in this
case exists) needs to be the backdrop against which any development proposal is
evaluated. The Plan Commission and the City Council should either abide by the
plans, or modify them in the absence of particular development proposals. That
is, development should not drive the planning!!!
home |
news & information | events
photo gallery |
walking tours |
preservation awards
membership |
about the trust
| contact us
read responses from:
