2003 Madison Mayors’ Race:
The Role of Historic Preservation
Dave Cieslewicz
1 · I place great value on our
city’s historic heritage and I would fight to maintain it. The difficult thing
is to balance the historic integrity of the downtown with the desire for (at least,
my desire for) greater urban density. Density is good from a variety of standpoints.
It’s good for the environment because each of the roughly 2,500 new housing units
needed in Dane County each year that is produced in an urban environment is one
less in sprawling developments in the countryside.
It’s good from a social standpoint because density
and diversity go together. Diverse cultural experiences — restaurants, art,
music — and the understanding that goes with them are only possible where
there are sufficient concentrations of people of a particular background or taste
to create a market for them. But here’s the problem: density usually means taller
buildings and taller buildings that replace smaller ones often mean the loss of
historic buildings or context. (This is part of the reason that Jane Jacobs wrote
that advocating for greater density and greater net ground coverages, as she did,
was typically considered "lower than swimming with the man-eating shark.")
I would like to see greater density in an
historically sensitive context. Zane Williams’ excellent book, Double Take, demonstrates
how the vibrancy of the downtown has been reduced by larger and less diverse uses.
Just as simplification is a negative in the natural world and we work for biological
diversity, we should look to restore urban diversity on our streets. Here are
some examples of how we might create greater density while adding to the historic
vibrance of the downtown.
Take a look at Zane Williams’ photos of the
buildings on the north side of King Street (pp. 78–79). This was once a
beautiful four-story structure that covered the entire block and lent a much more
appealing streetscape than what is there presently. What if we recreated that
while preserving the existing structures? We would provide more housing, shops
and offices in a building that echoed the historic structure and provided a better
experience for those seeing the building from the street.
Another example is the surface parking lot
across from GEF 1. Surface parking lots are always bad for urban environments.
I would pursue development of the neighborhood’s vision for that block. One of
my favorite quotes about cities is from Donald Miller’s excellent history of early
Chicago, City of the Century. At the end of the book, Miller writes:
"A city’s greatness is the result of an uneasy balance between order and energy, planning and privatism, diversity and conformity, vice and reform, art and enterprise, high culture and low culture, the smart and the shabby, the permanent and the temporary. Interesting cities are places of stimulating disparity and moral conflict where crudity and commerce are often accompanied by memorable advances in the arts. And like Aristotle’s Athens, a city of filthy streets, chaotic markets, and scandalous sanitary facilities, they specialize in the making and remaking of interesting human beings."
The point is that this tension between new and old is what makes cities interesting. We shape our cityscape and the city shapes us. A good question to ask ourselves when we build something new is: a hundred years from now would anyone stand in front of a wrecking ball if they tried to tear it down? Places should inspire that kind of affection.
2 · Yes, the city should be encouraging
owner-occupancy downtown. As for the problem of owners of small structures being
driven out by high assessments based on "highest and best use," I have an idea.
Let’s borrow from natural area conservation and see if we can employ what I’ll
call "historic-urban conservation easements." Wisconsin law allows rural landowners
to place conservation easements on their land and this method of conservation
has picked up steam in recent years.
Essentially, the land owner sells or gives
away the development rights to his or her property, retaining all other rights
to use the land. For example, a farmer can continue to farm, but he can’t sell
it for a golf course or a subdivision or strip mall. Assessors are supposed to
take into account this permanent restriction when they value the property.
We could amend Wisconsin law to do the same
for historic-urban properties. Homeowners would donate the development rights
to their property to the city or a nonprofit set up for that purpose. The house
and land could then never be developed beyond what is currently there. The city
assessor would then have to recognize that the "highest and best use" is the current
use and value the property accordingly.
3 · I’m a strong proponent of eliminating backyard parking and I will support increased code enforcement. Also, the city of Milwaukee has started an interesting program designed to shame neglectful landlords by posting a notice on their properties identifying them by name and citing them for violations. It has worked to get landlords to better maintain their properties. It’s worth considering for Madison. Finally, I would initiate a review of the city’s minimum parking requirements with a view toward reducing them.
4 · These plaques are not that expensive and we can find funding in the context of a $178 million city budget to get us current on this within four years. I promise to do that.
5 · See my answer to question 2. Overture is not an unmitigated good for the downtown. It will add pressure to fundamentally change the nature and scale of the buildings in its immediate vicinity. An answer in addition to urban-historic conservation easements is to keep that block in a zoning category that will not allow development above three or four stories.
home |
news & information | events
photo gallery |
walking tours |
preservation awards
membership |
about the trust
| contact us
read responses from:
