The “core” of the South End,
between Morton and the Second Avenue area, was designated a federal historic
district in 1984, with the best of intentions. The neighborhood has a rich
history and its residents have had key roles in Albany for more than four
centuries.. The idea behind the federal designation was first to build a sense
of pride in a declining neighborhood, and second to open the possibility of state and federal preservation funding.
But 35 years later, the South
End’s historic status has done virtually nothing to help the neighborhood.
Instead, twe are in a sea of Red X buildings and vacant lots. “Emergency”
demolitions have demoralized residents further. Investment of any sort is a
rarity, and the neighborhood’s historic status just makes it more difficult and
expensive to get work done.
Time has done the work that good
intentions could not. The economics of restoring buildings that have been left vacant
and exposed to the elements for decades or more gets more and more difficult as
time moves on.
Residents are fed up with the
vacant buildings, and beginning to feel the power of their own advocacy. At the
June 19 meeting of the city’s Historic Resource Commission a dozen residents
showed up in support of the Albany County Land Bank’s petition to demolish 62
Alexander Street. Residents had collected petition signatures of practically
everyone within a block of the eyesore building. Many residents knew the
history of the building — the families who had lived there — and the extent of
the deterioration. One resident said he knows for a fact that the building has
been empty for 17 years.
I was told later that members of the HRC was unaccustomed to this
sort of turnout. Still, they managed to take a good half hour discussing the
pros and cons of this demolition. They should be ready for many more, and
hopefully won’t agonize so long over each one.
62 Alexander is being slowly taken
apart, as the land bank seems to have learned how to do responsible demolitions
that eliminate the clouds of toxic dust that have plagued residents in the
past. We can hope that the city will follow their lead.
I do not believe that most
neighborhood residents would advocate tearing down every old building in the
South End. There are indeed many buildings that could be saved, restored and
made into good dwelling places that give their street the character and beauty
that we all appreciate.
But people are no longer willing
to wait for something good to happen. The city has initiated yet another study
of its historic preservation profile, but the emphasis is clearly on the Center
Square, Ten Brock type districts. If historic preservation advocates want to save
South End-Groesbeckville as an historic district, they need to do better than
stalling tactics to preserve some buildings for some hypothetical future. They
need to find a credible, realistic way to match plans with actual money, and
development that is feasible in the immediate future.
The good news is that some new
tools make decision-making much less painful. The new city ordinance that gives
the building department the power to enter buildings on the Vacant Building
Registry is a potential game-changer. Building inspectors can now make informed
decisions on which buildings are beyond saving and which could be stabilized
and then restored to use. It is even possible for the city, with neighborhood
input, to set a goal of eliminating all vacant buildings within a three-year
period. This would not only improve the health and well-being of residents, but
also open the way for responsible development that includes both new
construction on vacant land and restoration of the remaining viable historic
buildings.
-- Tom McPheeters
No comments:
Post a Comment