Why little old buildings matter

[PonderInc]

In the past month I've had a couple different people say terribly uninformed things about small historic buildings in and around downtown.  "Nobody's going to tear down any more buildings that matter." (Emphasis mine.)  And, "They're just nondescript brick buildings.  Who cares?  Tear 'em down and build something new!"

So, I'd like to open the floor to a discussion about why these little old brick buildings matter.

Some reasons off the top of my head:  

They provide spaces for artists, dreamers and entrepreneurs to make a start.  As Jane Jacobs said: "Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."

They're cool in a way that modern buildings can't replicate.  (See McNellies for an example of why "nondescript" brick buildings aren't so nondescript after all.)

"The greenest building is the one already built."  There are now several websites that can help calculate "imbodied energy" as well as the energy it takes to tear down a structure and rebuild a new one.  Quick and easy tools can be found at http://www.thegreenestbuilding.org  When you start thinking about energy in these terms, it's obvious why even the greenest building will take years to offset the waste of demolishing an existing building!

They create the "urban fabric" that connects places to each other.  In downtown Tulsa, we have some terrific Islands of Interest.  Imagine if they were still linked together by the historic buildings that used to exist.

Older buildings are human-scaled and pedestrian friendly.  They are not separated from the street by surface parking lots. And they add variety and interest to the street, rather than monolithic boredom.

Older materials and craftsmanship are irreplaceable.  Few can afford to build things this well anymore.

[TheArtist]

Notice where all the new restaurants and businesses are downtown.... in the little old buildings. NOT where the vacant lots are.

The most likely places for the rebirth of an urban core are its little old buildings, not the vacant lots. This isnt suburbia.

Funky, unique, different, identity, sense of place,,, you find that in spades in the "little old buildings". They are the one thing that should distinguish us from bland suburban developments. IF we have them that is. Its often the forced creativity of fitting in a restaurant, store, or business into these older buildings that ends up creating spaces that are special and one of a kind. Not to mention the character of the spaces and materials that really cant be replicated. They are real places.

[carltonplace]

If downtown still had the small buildings that were once there we would see much more entrepreneurial activity. Not everyone has the money to build new but lots of people are willing to roll up their sleeves and fix up something that already exists to meet their purposes.

[polly.karim6]

People also dont like old buildings to be demoslished as they usually are much more spacious, and inexpensive then new ones. And is shifting is something not everyone like

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc
They're cool in a way that modern buildings can't replicate.  (See McNellies for an example of why "nondescript" brick buildings aren't so nondescript after all.)

If someone wanted to replicate something like McNellies, admittedly at a huge cost, would the city building codes allow it?

Older buildings are human-scaled and pedestrian friendly.  They are not separated from the street by surface parking lots. And they add variety and interest to the street, rather than monolithic boredom.

These buildings were once new. Pedestrian friendly is a matter of city ordinances and building codes. Human-scaled is a matter of architecture.

Older materials and craftsmanship are irreplaceable.  Few can afford to build things this well anymore.

Cost is the BIG factor. I believe most of the rest could be copied. There are still people like Artist to do interiors. There are still stone and brick masons. There are still people that can do fancy woodwork. Just be prepared to pay big time.  I was going to say duplicated but it is probably not a correct term as it implies having the years of "character" built-in.

Please do not misunderstand this post. I am not in favor of tearing down old buildings just to make way for new.  Some, unfortunately, may need to be completely rebuilt from the cornerstone up.

[Ed W]

I think we'd all agree that historic structures should be preserved, but as always the devil is in the details.  How do you balance the public interest in preservation against the private economic interest of the property owner?  If he can make more money by razing an old structure and building a new one, shouldn't he have the right to do so?

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

I think we'd all agree that historic structures should be preserved, but as always the devil is in the details.  How do you balance the public interest in preservation against the private economic interest of the property owner?  If he can make more money by razing an old structure and building a new one, shouldn't he have the right to do so?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to build on a parking lot than to tear down an existing building. The building probably has asbestos and a lot of other things to cause great expense in a teardown. (Also a rebuild.) The problem would be in getting a parking lot owner to sell for an acceptable price.