Out with the old, in with the new

Madison has lately been taken of a need to tear down and build up, slowly altering its picturesque skyline so that it's gone a little less sleek and low and a little more big and tall. I'm not of a mind that all change and development is bad. Sometimes, to really revitalize a neighborhood and/or a city, fresh ideas and modern amenities are needed. But I believe in balance, including when it comes to development. Progress, after all, shouldn't be measured only by our ability to tear down old things and replace them with something entirely new and different.

Yet our city's historic neighborhoods face this exact mentality. The most recent example can be found in the area surrounding James Madison Park, where Apex Enterprises is working to construct new apartment/condo buildings. At a meeting with the neighborhood last weekend, their architect unveiled several different proposals for what might be done. One has a giant glass behemoth seemingly enveloping the historic Lamp House. Another splits the building in two, on either side of the house. A third proposes that the home be moved all together to make room for a narrower tower.

As Brenda Konkel laid out in her blog, these proposals also call for the demolition of several (eight at last count) other historic homes in the neighborhood.

I recognize that not every old home in the city can be saved once it reaches a certain level of disrepair. It's a shame, but it happens. But I also recognize that, here in the US, we are often far too quick to decide that, simply because a structure is over 50 years old, it should be razed to make way for something new. New isn't always better, though, especially when it fails to take into account the very attributes that make a particular neighborhood unique.

The James Madison Park area is what it is because of the large grouping of older houses it contains, access to and views of the lake, and its residential feel. Plunking a giant apartment or condo building into the middle of that would be like wedging an oversize foot into a tiny glass slipper.

Plus, do we really need more condo towers right now when so many of the recently built ones are still somewhat, if not mostly, vacant? And can Apex truly afford another private development when they're already working on several other large projects? These are honest questions that deserve serious consideration, I think.

I have to believe there are developers and architects out there with a better idea of how to integrate new ideas/buildings into older neighborhoods and landscapes. The notion of infill is important if we want to keep outlying land available for farming and plain old greenspace and avoid sprawl. But infill at the cost of the destruction of our city's history, aesthetic, and soul? Count me out.

A surprise victory

Good news!

In a surprise move, a city committee Monday night reversed course and decided to recommend not selling the land under the former Lincoln School to generate an estimated $600,000 or more that could then be used to improve James Madison Park.

I've written about my opinion on this matter before, and it's good to see that serious thought and consideration was given to the issue by the committee in charge of recommendations. Their reasoning:

...supporters of the decision in the 4-1 vote said it would be wiser to wait until the real estate market improves before making any decisions. They noted the city's current lease of the land to building owner Urban Land Interests expires in 2034, at which point the building, now being used for apartment rentals, could revert back to the city.

Ald. Brenda Konkel apparently even surprised herself by voting not to sell the land:

I was also kicking myself for not thinking of the rental housing as an asset to the neighborhood as it is one of the few places you can rent that is not trashed over-rented housing.

And, we had heard that many of the people in the rentals would not be able to live in the new condos because they could not afford them.

For once, it would seem, testimony from the people most directly affected by a potential land sale made enough of a difference to change some minds.

Solving the budget shortfall is a serious and important issue, and one without any easy fixes. But pawning off our public lands wasn't and isn't going to do more than provide a very small and very temporary boost to that effort. I'm happy to see that cooler heads prevailed.

Preserving our history and our parks

James Madison Park, located on Madison's near east side and running along the lovely shores of Lake Mendota, has long been a green gathering space for students playing frisbee or football, families with young children who enjoy the playground equipment, people reading on benches, and folks wishing to rent canoes at the boathouse. It used to be the site of WSUM's Party in the Park, and usually hosts a few other festivals and gatherings throughout the year. It's a great resource, and one example of city ownership of lakeshore land in the interest of keeping it publicly accessible.

The state of the park and the various historic buildings that lie in and around it, however, is somewhat up in the air these days. Mayor Dave and certain development interests appear keen on moving those historic buildings, selling some of the land, and re-purposing sections of the park.

From my admittedly recent browsing (this issue has come up, off-and-on, for decades really), it's hard to really gauge the facts of the matter: why move the houses? how much would that cost the city? is it ever a good idea to sell off publicly held property, especially lakefront land? do the current residents want this?

Currently, a committee of alders and citizens, appointed by the mayor, exists to "report back to the Board of Park Commissioners on a proposal for the properties at 646, 640 and 704 East Gorham and the land under Lincoln School." This ad hoc committee has been mostly favorable to the idea of selling off the land under the Lincoln School, whereas the Madison Parks Commission has voted unanimously, on several occasions apparently, not to do so.

The ultimate decision may end up being left to referendum. According to a recent Capital Times article:

The decision to sell the houses, including the land under the Lincoln School Apartments, would likely be considered a change in the legal status of the park, assistant city attorney Anne Zellhoefer told the James Madison Park Property Planning Committee Thursday night. According to a 1992 city ordinance, changes in legal status as well major construction projects on parks bordering lakes and navigable waters require a referendum.

This seems reasonable to me, especially in light of the many passionate testimonials from residents regarding their feelings about the park and the historic buildings. You can read several of them in the meeting minutes from a public hearing held back in June. The overwhelming consensus, with which I pretty much agree, is that selling the historic houses is a good idea, but moving them is not. As for whether or not to sell the land under the Lincoln School, opinion seems fairly split down the middle--and for how little information I can find regarding what a sale like this would actually mean, I can understand why that is.

Selling the historic homes appears to be a good idea because the city has done a sub par job of maintaining them up to this point, and having private parties interested in historical preservation and good use would mean both preserving these places and saving the city a lot of money. In fact, the city would likely take in revenue from the sale of the homes and leasing of the land under them. You can read the original draft proposal relating to this here (click on "Conditions for JMP" link).

However, moving the homes would cost the city a great deal of money, and, in my opinion (and that of many others) take away from the historic character of the neighborhood. All designed by the same architects, they provide a great, cohesive corridor through a historic area of town that would be lost if jumbled around to different locations. Mayor Dave and his committee seem to be arguing that moving them would make for a better sight line between E. Gorham and the lake, but at present, I don't find anything aesthetically displeasing about their location. In fact, I would contend that it adds to the beauty of the park and the area, and encourages people to actually get out of their cars and walk around.

As for the Lincoln School plans, things get a bit more complicated. The current landlord of the building, ULI, has proposed buying the land under the school for a minimum of $600,000 or, if the number is higher, the appraised value (which we don't yet seem to have). Their designs for the site, though restricted from changing the exterior of the building, include turning the apartments into condominiums - something that (rightfully, I think) irks current residents and advocates of affordable housing like the area's alder, Brenda Konkel. The argument is that most of the folks now living in the building would not be able to afford the condos, and installing yet more of the buggers would only contribute to a growing income disparity on the isthmus.

ULI, it's worth noting, are apparently the same folks that wanted to demolish historic capitol square buildings (like L'Etoile and the Old Fashioned) in order to put in a nearly block-sized new development.

Plus, there's the issue of whether or not it's a good idea to sell off public, lakefront land at all. Currently, ULI holds a long-term lease on the land which, I can only assume, limits their ability to alter the use of the building. As far as I can tell, buying the land would allow them to make whatever changes they so wished to the interior, and certain city officials would then plan to use money made from the sale to, depending on what you read, plug holes in the operating budget or improve/expand the park.

But really, I have no idea what pro-selling advocates want to do with the park. That's never been made particularly clear, and that's what has most caught my attention.

It's important to balance historic and parkland preservation with responsible economic development. Finding private parties to maintain the homes seems like a sound choice, all around - but moving them, or selling the land underneath them, strikes me as a poor decision that would likely come back to haunt those who make it in the future.

I think the mayor, the committee, the alders, and the developers owe it to the community--especially the residents who actually live in the neighborhood--to be as open and honest about their plans as possible. We need to make an informed decision about these proposals, and it's understandably difficult to do so when there's so much stalling and lack of details.

The fight for James Madison Park

Thanks to Fearful Symmetries for pointing out this interesting little fight:

What happened to Jay Rath's rant that he posted this weekend up at POST? In it he was critical of this editorial by the WSJ regarding the use of land around James Madison Park. By "critical" I mean he basically told the WSJ editorial folks to go fuck themselves and to let downtown residents determine their own fate.

I went ahead and dug up the cached version of Rath's post to Post, which you can read in its entirety here. Basically, he strongly chastises the editorial for misrepresenting facts (for instance, that "the public can't access" certain parts of the park, which they can, in fact, do) and for basically arguing on behalf of the one lone voice that wants this sale to go ahead:

So far as I can tell, there's only one voice arguing for the sale of the property and nearby homes: the developer, Urban Land Interests. This is the same company that demands that the last portion of historic buildings on the Capitol Square be demolished (The Old Fashioned, L'Etoile and such), so it can put in a nearly block-sized development. This is the same developer that wants to demolish the oldest commercial building on the Square, the American Exchange Bank. This is the same developer that agreed to sell the Bartell Theatre property to the Bartell trust and Overture, and then reneged (because it wanted to demolish and put in a massive development), until forced by courts to comply with its own earlier written agreements; I reported all that, for Isthmus.

Yeah, I trust Urban Land. About as far as I can throw them.

Ald. Brenda Konkel has also weighed in on this bit of controversy.

It's strange that Rath's post on the subject appears to have since been removed from the website. I'm not sure if we should read some greater conspiracy into it, or if Rath himself decided to take it down for one reason or another.

Beyond that, however, those arguing against the WSJ article are all making good points. I, too, can't help but wonder why on Earth anyone would think the construction of yet more new condo developments would be good for Madison? Several current projects are already stalled due to the ever-tanking housing market, and that coupled with the general economic downturn doesn't exactly scream "Build more condos!" to me.

Why are we so intent on moving and/or demolishing the few historic structures we have in this town and this (relatively young) country anyway? And furthermore, why must every last scrap of undeveloped land go under the knife of "progress"? There's a major societal benefit in having more green spaces, parks, and just plain empty land. So how about instead of tearing stuff down and putting in yet more condos, we revitalize the existing downtown houses? There has been a plan floated in the city to create a fund to encourage families, etc., to buy older homes in the downtown area, so that if the current trend of students moving into newer housing and out of the old apartments continue, we won't be left with a slum. That's the kind of thing we should be encouraging. Leave the park alone.