History repeating

MI posted a link to this article a few weeks back and I think it’s interesting in light of the historic preservation community in Alameda and its weight when it comes to issue of development in Alameda.   The article is about the preservation community in San Francisco and the backlash around a proposed preservation ordinance, highlights:

After more than a decade in which San Francisco politics was partly defined by antidevelopment and historic preservation forces, a backlash has begun. Many are surprised, however, that Beckstead’s neighborhood of 90 Victorian homes, whose owners share a passion for preserving old houses, has become the rebel stronghold against the city’s ambitious plans to preserve large swathes of San Francisco in a patchwork of historic preservation zones.

…

But even compatible plans can be frustrated by burdensome regulations, some property owners said.

“I consider myself a preservationist, and I encourage preservation,” said Robin Levitt, an architect who lives in an 1890s false-front Victorian house in the Hayes Valley neighborhood. Levitt said he abandoned plans to replace rotted staircases on the front of his house because historic preservation requirements were too expensive and time-consuming.

“When regulations make it prohibitive economically to make improvements on your property,” Levitt said, “it’s over the top for me.”

This goes back to the whole issue of the Habanas request to remodel its front, when the perception becomes that these historic regulations and rules make it harder for people to make improvements or make it economically unfeasible for a business to stay in business, it becomes much harder for the average person to be in support of wholesale preservation for preservation’s sake alone.

One of the issues that came up in the comments section was about the historic significance because the Habanas building is on the National Register of Historic Places, actually a significant swath of Park Street is on that National Register as well.   I tried to look up what the specifics of the Business District was, but apparently that record has not been digitized yet.     But as another commenter uncovered, being listed on the National Register of Historic Places doesn’t obligate a private homeowner or property owner to do anything:

From the Federal perspective (the National Register of Historic Places is part of the National Park Service), a property owner can do whatever they want with their property as long as there are no Federal monies attached to the property…

And:

National Register listing places no obligations on private property owners. There are no restrictions on the use, treatment, transfer, or disposition of private property.

While it’s true that the whole of the Park Street Business District has been designated a “Historic Monument” in the City of Alameda and therefore requires a Certificate of Approval from the Historic Advisory Board before any construction is allowed, it’s the lack of consistency that I think is super troublesome for me.   For example, while I was listening to the HAB meeting again, I ran across the public comment that really annoyed me the first time I listened to it.   This was the statement from the Alameda who scoffed at the stacking door system proposed by Habanas and said that while Habanas said they were trying to evoke a European feel he said he never saw anything like that in photos of Paris or Germany.   Personally, I found several photos — mostly from Paris — but a few in Belgium of stacking door systems, but whatever.   He also mentioned that he had never seen anything like that in Alameda either.  But we all know that one exists, right, and not too far away from Habanas:

Here’s another photo to see the doors closed:

So all this talk about historic stuff made me wonder what Pappos looked like before its current iteration, Alamedainfo.com had this photo of when it was the Skylight Cafe:

As you can see it is vastly different. While the structure is the same, the original door: gone. Original windows: gone. Addition of the outdoor seating area has largely changed the appearance of the entrance as a whole. I can’t tell if the window next to the door way was added or if there was always a window there, but I don’t remember Pappos having difficulty changing up the look and modernizing the front of their historic building.    After all, according to the letter that AAPS sent to the HAB:

AAPS considers elements of the corner entry; polychrome tile, wood paneled ceiling, early 20th century bronze-plated steel storefront window system, presumed marble bulkheads, and the wood entry door to be historic materials contributing to the historic character of the property and should be retained. If the paint were removed from the bulkheads and storefront sash, the corner bay would be one of the best preserved historic storefronts in the district.

It’s unclear as to why the Skylight Cafe’s wood entry door and storefront windows were okay to remove from Pappos but not okay when it comes to Habanas.   I don’t think that anyone will argue that the new Pappos is not 100% better than the old Skylight Cafe and certainly the more modern touches made did not compromise the historic integrity of the building.    I think when it comes to preservation in Alameda the larger question should be asked, what is significant about a particular building or structure as opposed to attempting to find something within the structure to save for the sake of preservation alone.

Advertisement