It should come as no surprise that I am a staunch preservationist, so my positions relating to these issues will follow a "preach what you practice" philosophy. A quick read of my bio will tell you that I have an abiding commitment to historic preservation.
Having rehabbed two of my own residences, five of my own rental properties and contributed to the rehabilitation of dozens of other structures (some for pay, some not), I have strong opinions about preserving our history as told through architecture and I am not alone. There is a very strong, vocal and large group of people in this town who feel the same way.
Once an historic structure (or open space) is demolished it cannot be replaced. The same goes for stupid and insensitive “remodeling” of historic structures: when you remove or conceal the original “fabric” of a building it loses historical meaning.
I have lived in the Aycock Historic District (the finest neighborhood in the state) for 15 years and have witnessed the economic power of preservation. A recent study by UNCG professor Jo Leimenstoll of Greensboro’s three historic districts documented the fact that our property values are increasing at a much higher rate than any non-historic neighborhood in the City.
Another benefit of the restoration of our neighborhoods gives the rest of you a sightseeing destination on Sunday afternoons… “Let’s go see some old houses Marge” and off you roar... and we are glad to see you because we understand it. People enjoy seeing preserved homes and other buildings as they were originally constructed; it gives them a link to their past. But we get to live it… you only get to visit.
The Westerwood Neighborhood went through a very rough fight last year on whether or not they were going to become Greensboro’s 4th historic district. It was nasty! It was a neighbor vs. neighbor kind of fight that does neither side any good. Fisher Park’s 1982 struggle for designation was more contentious, but look at them now. None of the three current historic neighborhoods were born without some division in resident’s wishes, but those wounds have long healed and all three would rather fight than switch back to non-historic status. In the previous debates, the City Councils listened to the pro’s and con’s of historic designation and decided that it was in the City’s best interest to protect the structures and they were vindicated.
After a lengthy, and very public fight, a majority of the current City Council rejected Westerwood’s historic designation as reported by the N&R in 2002 here and here That was a mistake in my opinion.
Westerwood’s battle over itself was full of personality conflicts to be sure, and both sides were passionate with their arguments, but mainly the fight raged because some residents believed that they wouldn’t be able to do whatever they wanted to do to their house because of the Historic District Guidelines. Others protested because they perceived that some leaders of the Westerwood Neighborhood Association were trying to sneak the designation through. As for the latter argument, that can no longer be claimed. As for the previous argument they were right to some extent, but those opponents miss the point.
Opponents of Historic District status fail to grasp the concept that they don’t truly “own” the homes that they are currently living in; they are simply the current caretakers in a long line of people who have lived, and will continue to live in “their” home for generations to come.
Historic buildings are a finite resource and they should be protected and preserved like any other public resource.
11:18:38 AM 
|
