Chicago appears once again on the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s list of endangered places. This year it’s the South Michigan Avenue street wall that’s said to be in danger.
I have a habit of looking at charitable filings for these organizations. The most recent for the National Trust (2006) shows net assets of hundreds of millions of dollars, a net income for the year of more than $50 million, and an executive director who earned $377k plus generous fringes on the year. Ain’t charitable work wonderful?
So what’s preventing the National Trust from simply buying up some of these properties, or buying preservation easements rather than asking the property owners to bear the costs of preserving them?
I also seem to recall that our local organized “preservationists” make a nice buck also. Sometimes it pays very well to be the savior of our city.
I hate it when this site rails against historic preservation. It’s a big turn-off.
Kyle,
I was ranting against hypocrisy, not against historic preservation.
Why shouldn’t the people who value historic preservation pay for it rather than asking others to absorb the cost?
This is only one of many negative entries about historic preservation. it’s pretty obvious you’re not a fan.
don’t bother responding, i’m done with this site.
Great argument Joe. We could do the same thing with environmental regulations and building codes as well. Why should developers have to pay to make their buildings safe if they don’t value it? Why should companies who don’t care about pollution pay to clean up their emissions?
Historic preservation is something that is seen as a benefit to society, and government regulations are entirely appropriate. The only question is how much regulation… We can’t make the laws so strict that they eliminate development, but it’s perfectly fine with me if developers take a financial hit to avoid the destruction of our architectural heritage. And I say this as someone with a financial stake in this game. As an architect, historic regulations can be a real headache to deal with. But I also understand the societal benefits involved.
I think the answer for historic preservation is a definition of “reasonable”. Not every older building is worth saving. Sometimes because it is a very common type of building and sometimes because it is just not economically feasible.
One problem I have with “preservationists” as a group is they often focus on too many buildings. Preserving the Old Water Tower or the Michigan Avenue street wall(within reason and allowing for stuff like the Spertus to be built) are a social good.
Arguing that some pair of brownstones at say State and Huron should be saved because they are “cute” is nuts. Making up arguments to “save” the Lake Shore Athletic Club in Streeterville was nutz. Even Blair Kamin said it wasn’t that great a building.
Again reasonable is the word and in everyone’s best interest I should be paid to define reasonable. My consulting firm will be opening shortly and I will make the appropriate donations to various politicos to make sure I stay busy.
As for the Joe Zekas point about how organized preservationists heading groups are well paid……..I agree. No one working in that type of non profit should make that kind of money. In a real sense that part of it is a scam.
I can’t find the info, but I seem to recall two people in one of our local groups are making salaries of $300,000 plus. That is good cash for anyone.
Kyle,
If you got out a bit more and didn’t flee from differing viewpoints you might understand my viewpoint a bit better.
In California it’s common for various publicly supported trusts to spend many millions of dollars to purchase conservation easements on private property. See, for example, the recent $95 million deal protecting a portion of the Hearst Ranch.
UptownR,
Protecting public health through environmental regulation and public safety through building codes are very different things than historic preservation.
No one’s getting lung disease or dying in a fire because a building with questionable aesthetic or historic value is torn down.