2003 Madison Mayors’ Race:
The Role of Historic Preservation
Paul Soglin
1 · Madison’s historic heritage
is comprised of many closely held values. It is the sum of the buildings we occupy,
the open fields we treasure, and the growing diversity we encourage. It is our
demand for clean government. It is our clean air and water, the bicycle paths,
the orientation of the State Street Mall for people not automobiles.
It is the value we place on distinct communities
and the preservation of farmland and open spaces. It is the importance of economically
and racially integrated neighborhoods. We encourage and cherish heterogeneity
and differences.
All of this creates a conflict for us. Thirty
years ago we anguished over the loss of families in the downtown area as well
as the large department stores. Downtown Madison was becoming the exclusive domain
of the young and the elderly held together by a common bond: their low incomes.
Now as downtown prospers, responding first
to public investment in infrastructure and then private investment, we have a
new set of problems. This is compounded by our desire to provide an alternative
to suburban and rural sprawl.
The answer is found in our acceptance of higher
densities in parts of the central city. The University Avenue/Johnson Street corridor
can accommodate high-rise buildings. However, the height limits on State Street
should be kept at three and four stories. Similar heights and bulk are appropriate
in the Willy Street/Spaight Street corridor, but greater height and density is
tolerable in the East Washington Avenue railroad corridor. There are not exact
formulas. The important thing is that we will have to make judgments based on
the nature and character of the street, the historic content, the existing uses,
and the demand for greater density.
2 · In specific areas like the Broom-to-Bedford
corridor, portions of the Old Market Neighborhood and Gilman/Langdon, areas, to
name a few, we must look at the use of zoning to control development of the land.
The use of "overlays" on the zoning map which can deal more effectively
with these issues, finely tuning the zoning code to address preservation, density,
and historical issues.
We also need an effective downtown land use
plan which responds to the pressures for development and the need to preserve
our heritage. We must identify areas to be preserved with lower densities and
where we wish to preserve existing structures. With judicious use of zoning authority,
we can remove these properties from development pressures and lower their speculative
value. That will make these historic homes more attractive for purchase and owner
occupancy. At the same time we must encourage UW housing development to be located
in the near campus areas so as to further reduce market pressures on these properties.
In areas where there are debilitated buildings
that need replacement, we should encourage new construction compatible with the
area. These are situations where we should try to get greater densities.
There are some areas like West Mifflin Street,
which will probably undergo a combination of renovation and new construction.
Ordinances with design criteria intended to stop what I call "Early Madison
Menards" must be adopted. Rebuilt porches and entryways should be constructed
from period-appropriate milled pieces, not treated two-by-fours.
The question misstates assessment practices
in a very significant way. The land is assessed at its highest use in terms of
value, not "high-rise value." I am adamantly opposed to special assessment
practices that would change to a "use value" system. That would be regressive
and unfair; just witness the problems of the special use tax which now applies
to agriculture lands which is to the detriment of low-income and middle-income
people in cities as well as to the majority of farmers.
The solution lies in putting restrictions
on the use of the land so that nothing more than the existing density is allowable.
This means bringing the City Assessor and the Director of Planning and Development
to work out land use restrictions that satisfy the implied goal of the question
and meets the Assessor’s legal requirements.
3 · Building inspection services
for the downtown have suffered over the years as the need to focus on areas such
as Allied Drive, Vera Court, and Simpson Street have exhausted limited staff.
The small city staff is not able to keep up with the demands that range from parking
violations to dangerous structural housing problems through the Minimal Housing
Code Program.
We are probably at a point where it is necessary
to hire at least one additional building inspector and one additional neighborhood
planner to help with these problems. This action would help address the challenge
of correcting maintenance problems in general, particularly as it applies to unsafe
conditions, illegal side and front yard parking and litter.
The city ordinances were amended in the 1980s that allow the permanent "for
rent" signs. This should be changed as soon as possible. It seems that a
tasteful permanent sign that identifies the owner is appropriate. Some owners
have responded with 12-by-12 signs that are not gaudy or too colorful.
The use of unmilled two-by-fours in rebuilding
exteriors as I described above should be ended and design standards for exterior
work instituted.
We should continue to encourage the elimination
of backyard parking but practically speaking, that will only happen when sufficient
public off-street parking is provided for commuters as replacement. I am committed
to working toward that end.
4 · I hope that funding of the plaques could come as part of an educational program to celebrate the City’s landmarks. If a public-private partnership to do this fails, the city should place funding for the plaques in the next budget.
5 · First we have to look at the
history of State Street and the irony of our present dilemma. Until the mid-1970s,
State Street was in bad shape. When the demonstrations ended, there many vacancies
at the lower end of the Street. The merchants had little business from the non-student
community. The large department stores had fled the area.
Over the years, the studies on the future
of State Street had many recommendations but two stood out then and now. First,
do not try to compete with the malls for the large department stores or national
chains, but rather focus on the boutiques and specialty shops. Secondly, turn
the street into a pedestrian, transit-friendly mall without automobiles.
Those two recommendations were implemented
with the construction of the State Street Mall and the Capital Concourse. The
city’s economic policy focused on those goals over the last 25 years.
Now State Street is threatened by its own
success. The national chains are licking their chops to come into an area where
previously they had no interest. The value of area land is skyrocketing because
of market demands, which generate pressure for greater densities.
The solutions are rather simple. First, make
it clear through ordinances and comprehensive plans for the area that height limits
will be kept at four stories. Secondly, and this will be more controversial, control
the square footage of ground floor space. What gives State street its character
is the small, funky nature of the shops. What keeps out most of the national chains,
is the small funky nature of the space. If the space is kept small, the chains
will not bother.
I supported and pushed for the creation of
the State Street Mall in the 1970s. I supported and pushed for the rejuvenation
and maintenance of the Mall in the 1990s. I will always work to make State Street
a success and to preserve its charm and character. This should also be done by
reinforcing our commitment to using building materials compatible with the historic
character of the street. Wood, brick and period metal work are in, plastic is out.
home |
news & information | events
photo gallery |
walking tours |
preservation awards
membership |
about the trust
| contact us
read responses from:
