5 replies to this topic

[Austin55]

A great article by James Russell in the Fort Worth Weekly discussing race and architecture. 

https://www.fwweekly...ildings-matter/

[cjyoung]

This article touches are a subject that needs a much longer and larger discussion. 

 

I'm saddened daily as when I see Allen Chapel and Mt Gilead. They should be preserved as community jewels should be.

[John T Roberts]

Cjyoung, I agree with you 100%.

[johnfwd]

But if removing a historic designation is what it takes for long anticipated development, then that shows a historically Black neighborhood was not a priority and that historic preservation is truly a white man’s game. That’s the fault of a city, not a neighborhood. Funding the promotion of and preservation of Black spaces is one way of reimagining public safety budgets. As Fort Worth looks to reshape itself, the city must reckon with its past and how it determines whose history is worthy of preservation. That hopefully means also prioritizing our outdated, exclusionary approach to historic preservation and public safety.

 

Above is an excerpt from the James Russell article, the last paragraph.  Difficult to ponder:  Is gentrification or urban renewal in a predominantly black neighborhood (such as in Como) a "white man's game" if preserving old buildings for their historic value is not the true objective?  Is historic preservation exclusionary? (i.e. excluding minorities?).  Of late, Fort Worth's salient movement for historic preservation has been the Stockyards, a tribute mainly to preserving the way of life of the old-West cowboys. 

 

But is the architectural perspective of what is or is not historical targeted to the quality of the structure itself or to the people and period the structure served? Or both? 

 

Mixing civil rights with architecture, of late, has been less about historic preservation and more about historic cleansing--as in the case of removing Confederate monuments, etc.  That's for another thread, but it's food for additional thought in light of Russell's article.

[roverone]

It seems that over and above the quality of the structure is to find the needs that the building can meet in a restored state:  some buildings are preserved and restored for commercial reasons and therefore might be able to inspire commercial capital.  Others might be preserved purely as museum pieces (I think this is the hardest way to find funding), and then some could be repurposed for community uses, with perhaps a combination of city and private funds.  But I'm certain that there is an ever-present issue of balancing whether the needs of the community are best served with a restoration or new construction.  As important as history is, when the dollars are tight, today's needs move to the front of the line.  It probably takes more rare alignments for things to work out to save buildings, that is probably why we lose so many -- but I'm sure that this is something JTR comes across all the time and can speak to.

[renamerusk]

..... I'm certain that there is an ever-present issue of balancing whether the needs of the community are best served with a restoration or new construction.  As important as history is, when the dollars are tight, today's needs move to the front of the line.  It probably takes more rare alignments for things to work out to save buildings, that is probably why we lose so many --

 

 

You are advocating that the need to make a dollar is the ultimate decider.  I think it may be rarely the case if every possible alternative (land) has been exhausted; and even then, the matter can be debated.  I believe that these historic buildings are valuable to the fabric of Fort Worth.  New development is valuable too, but in a different way.

 

What I imagine is that the low property valuation is what is tempting to a developer.  Acquiring inexpensive land and developing it will increase the site's valuation by multiples.

 

Almost every historical structure in a city has a lower valuation than new property.  When they are located mainly in areas that have been devalued by the real estate industry (redlining, skipping)  these structures can become opportunities for making enormous returns on investment.

 

I am so far not convinced that developing a property because it is near something such as a hospital district is justifiable when there is acres and acres of surface parking that could just as easily be developed and therefore avoiding the need to tear down a historical building.