 
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 1938
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 4.229.6.16
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:15 pm: |    |
In one of the other posts on this forum someone mentioned that the National Trust is out to "get Detroit", by making it look bad in the national spotlight, in regards to recent demolitions.
That is absurd. The National Trust for Historic Preservation calls out any political entity that goes against historic preservation. There are NO sacred cows according to the National Trust. Any government or private entity is fair game when it comes to historic preservation.
In recent National Trust magazines they have derided Detroit, that is true. But if those who have criticized the National Trust actually did their homework, and checked out their magazine, people will realize that the National Trust is beholden to no political entitiy.
The National Trust has in recent articles....
... decried that the Army Corps of Engineers has been breaking the law in South Dakota in regards to Indian Burial remains along the Missouri River...
... criticized the federal government for the ugly cement barricades (known as "Jersey Barriers") that have been put around federal government buildings since Oklahoma and 9/11. The National Trust has asked the government to remove these in favor of less obtrusive (and yet safe) alternatives, such as planters, stout trees, and other architecturally sensitive barriers.
... and yes, they have made Detroit the whipping boy for their sleazy way to sideswipe the preservation process.
God bless them, and I hope they keep up the heat on Detroit and all other units of government and other private entities that "DON'T GET IT" when it comes to thoughtful historic preservation! |
Bvos
Member
Username: Bvos
Post Number: 1356
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.238.170.32
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:21 pm: | |
Here comes Skulker! |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 7134
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.20
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:22 pm: | |
The question was more about them stretching the truth or taking the words of local preservation groups as fact.
Show me the list of 100 buildings slated to be demo'ed. |
The_aram
Member
Username: The_aram
Post Number: 4744
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 141.213.175.233
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:28 pm: | |
Jesus, here we go with the "show me the list" shit.
If I'm not mistaken, there has already been a press release refuting that statement.
And, besides, as has been argued ad nauseum... It was one sentence in a 20+ page document.
Cue Skulker to show up with guns drawn. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 7135
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.20
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:34 pm: | |
So calling out someone for lying is 'shit'
If they acknowledged they misreported the facts it makes sense to state it in a thread claiming that people should not question the integrity of an organization.
Sorry if there is another opinion on the organization. I think they do some good but they also engage in some serious sensationalism. |
Darwinism
Member
Username: Darwinism
Post Number: 451
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 69.215.30.34
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:36 pm: | |
Skulker ! Skulker ! Go ..... Skulker ! (repeat cheer) |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1378
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:37 pm: | |
1. Motown Headquarters
2. Statler-Hilton
3. Madison-Lenox
4. Tiger Stadium
Interestingly enough, Detroit is the home of the only member of the "Eleven Most Endangered List" to ever see demolition. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 1939
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 4.229.6.16
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:37 pm: | |
There was never a list of 100 buildings to be demo'ed (that argument is about as stale as the ILD/MDG hatefest).
They (city or Superbowl Committee, can't remember which?) stated that 100 buildings were to be fixed or razed. And then the shit hit the proverbial fan on this forum when the National Trust misquoted that statement. And then people on this forum went on ad nauseum about "where's the list?"
Yeah, the National Trust got it wrong in that article. I don't know (nor do I care) who gave them that information. But if that misstep changes peoples whole perception of the National Trust, then so be it.
But I would be more trusting of the National Trust than Detroit's city government any day. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 7136
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.20
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:40 pm: | |
That is perfectly fair Gistok.
I will say the comments about Skulker on these threads get comical. i have overheard more on real developments that came to fruition while sitting next to Skulker in a bar than I have heard from most on this forum combined.
Nothing like chasing away one of the best resources on this forum due ot differences on this issue. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1381
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:58 pm: | |
Yeah, the Trust made a boner with that "100 buildings to be demo'd" quote. I don't think that destroys the credibility of their argument.
I think the Trust hit the nail on the head, though, regarding the negligence (sometimes bordering on contempt) that has become official city and state policy regarding preservation. The efforts of Skulker and others like him aside, there is no movement on behalf of the local or state government to preserve anything. It's the apathy that the Trust is concerned about--much more than the 100 buildings. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 7138
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.20
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 5:00 pm: | |
Also a very fair response. I think that the trust should work with the city to start an 'embarass the Detroit landlords' campaign.
That may have more effects in the long run. The city needs to enforce code better but they have worked hard to broker deals that can be made and do not get the credit for that. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 1940
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 4.229.6.16
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 5:11 pm: | |
I like that idea Jt1!
We should get home addresses for some of these slumlords, make picket signs, picket their homes and embarass them amongst their neighbors....
It may or may not get results, but it will get the point across. |
Bvos
Member
Username: Bvos
Post Number: 1357
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.238.170.31
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 5:40 pm: | |
Daindc,
The only buildings on your list that were on the 11 Endangered list are Tiger Stadium and the Madison-Lennox. The M-L is the only one to be demoed in Detroit so far and only 1 of 2 11 Endangered buildings to be demoed. |
Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline
Post Number: 432
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 205.188.116.137
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 1:50 am: | |
Jt1 stated,
quote:Nothing like chasing away one of the best resources on this forum due ot differences on this issue.
Is this a reference to Skulker? True, he has not posted here in quite some time, but certainly not because he got chased off. No, his absence is the result of something else. |
The_aram
Member
Username: The_aram
Post Number: 4748
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 141.213.175.233
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 1:57 am: | |
quote:No, his absence is the result of something else.
he's off single-handedly demolishing buildings. because he hates them. i personally saw him out there carrying a sledgehammer, poised to tear some schitt down. |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 563
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.242.214.106
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 3:33 am: | |
The backlash against the National Trust is in response to their one-sided slamming of Detroit.
The infamous "100 buildings" list is only part of the story. As a preservationist myself, I was very unhappy with the ML and Motown demos. I think the city should get some heat for the way these buildings were handled.
However, the city should also get some credit for the efforts to save the BC, Vinton, Kales, Detroit Life, Madison, and numerous other buildings on lower Woodward.
Any fair story about downtown preservation would celebrate the dozens of renovations, and also point out the handful of failures. The National Trust chose to ignore the 90% positive, and sensationalize the 10% negative. The National Trust did nothing to help preservation in Detroit with their slanted stories.
BTW, Detroit has scored another preservation victory with the rehab of the former Monroe Bakery/Grocery building in Greektown. The renovations to this late 1800s building include a new basement and rear addition. The entire facade is being preserved, with a completely renovated and expanded space inside.
In recent years, Detroit has been slammed by many preservationists for not doing rehabs in this fashion. I would expect preservationists to be celebrating this project (along with dozens of other recently saved buildings) as a major victory and another milestone in the effort to preserve Detroit's buildings, but I haven't heard a thing about it.
Detroit is well deserving of criticism for many things, but it is only fair for us to also get some credit when it is due. |
Aarne_frobom
Member
Username: Aarne_frobom
Post Number: 13
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 162.108.2.222
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 10:25 am: | |
I let my National Trust membership lapse years ago when I decided they were interested only in quaintness and not history. They were nuts for old houses, but paid no attention to the factories and industrial and transportation hardware that I was interested in. This approach is typified by the old-house brigade who thinks "historic preservation" is restoring gingerbread trim on the biggest mansion in town, while ignoring the factories that generated the wealth to build the mansion and the houses of the workers who made the factory go.
Since then, things have gotten worse at the National Trust, and I now hang up nastily when their fund-raisers call for a handout. The National Trust has morphed into another anti-growth, anti-property-rights, anti-corporate, anti-technology environmental organization that is against change of any kind. Detroit's history is all about technology and change, and growth is what will pay for reinvesting in surviving historic properties. The National Trust no longer has anything to contribute to historic preservation. |
Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline
Post Number: 434
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 172.168.9.80
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:47 pm: | |
Aarne, with all due respect, you have got that read all wrong. |
Aarne_frobom
Member
Username: Aarne_frobom
Post Number: 14
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 162.108.2.222
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 4:35 pm: | |
Overstated maybe, but not all wrong. Certainly the National Trust calls attention to sites and institutions that are endangered and worthy of preservation. This extends to communities and cultural resources that embody parts of our culture even more than buildings do.
But I invite you to pick up any issue of Historic Preservation, paying especial attention to the writings of their president and staff, and see if you don't find evidence of the point I'm trying to make: that they've gone beyond advocating for valuable parts of American culture, and are advocating a political agenda that doesn't have much to do with preservation but has much to do with enforcing a particular set of tastes on other people.
To my mind the goal of historic preservation is to save for future use the things and places we can learn and profit from - or simply enjoy (a quaint house or romantic ruin is a perfectly fine thing to keep around so long as it doesn't get in the way). The goal is to build on the past, and incorporate it into a better future. We can profit from seeing the physical record of human accomplishment. But when the National Trust advocates quashing Wal-mart so that an entire New England town can be stuffed and mounted as a monument, or when it denounces all suburban development so that farmland can be turned into a giant museum for people to view through their car windows, then it risks curtailing future growth under the guise of memorializing the accomplishments of the past. It's this reactionary war on opportunity that I object to.
At the risk of oversimplification, I think the National Trust exemplifies what Sylvia Postrel calls the stasist view of the world, which favors regulation and in which all change is suspect. In her book "The Future and Its Enemies," she contrasts this with the dynamist approach which values knowledge, choice and experimentation. The value of historic preservation to a dynamic world is that it expands the range of options that can be learned from and expanded on. You don't have to curtail someone's options in order to keep a historic building standing in order to save the option of re-using it. But to the National Trust, "rural preservation" is a code word for curtailing options. |
The_aram
Member
Username: The_aram
Post Number: 4752
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 141.213.175.233
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 5:06 pm: | |
You seem to have a certain love for factories and industrial sites.
So, you tell me. What's an adaptive reuse for a factory site chock full of industrial waste, which has seeped into the ground around it and permeated every floor of the structure? Take the Uniroyal site, for example. Presuming the buildings were still there, what would be your suggestion?
Preservation is worthy to a point. When it's an absolute impossibility, as is the case for many technologically obsolete and environmentally unsafe factories from America's industrial past, it's not worth spending resources on it. You can reasonably abate a residential or commercial structure of things like asbestos. But there's no way you can save every factory and assembly plant when the very cleanup of those structures would not only include the building itself, but the ground directly underneath it. Houses and commercial buildings likely never contained the kind of delightfully disgusting things factories did in the past.
Seems to me you're a little misguided with the premise of what the National Trust and other groups are trying to do. |
Aarne_frobom
Member
Username: Aarne_frobom
Post Number: 15
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 162.108.2.222
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 5:48 pm: | |
Unless there's a resurgence of demand for cast-iron stoves, 1918 Dodges, or coal gas, nothing can be done with these old sites. Flatten `em and move on. This is my point: we mustn't hold society hostage to a reluctance to change and blind worship of the past. The past is only valuable to the extent that we can learn from it. Or unless it makes money or it's really fun. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 1942
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 4.229.81.105
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 7:04 pm: | |
Aarne, I also have to respectfully disagree with you. They have done small town America a world of good. Their placing "the corner of Main & Main" on the 11 most endangered list a few years back did a great service to this country. And that was the fact that Walgreens, CVS and RiteAid were destroying the most important commercial buildings in towns across America, just so they could build a big box pharmacy on the site. The National Trust prevailed, and I suppose America is the loser, because you can never have too many big box pharmacy.
And I wouldn't call saving our historic past "blind worship of the past". You may equate the Trust's mentality to socialism, but I would call it "for the common good".
In 1810, after the upheavals of the French Revolution and secularization of church propert in France, a man (a businessman) wantonly destroyed the largest enclosed space of the entire middle ages.... the 650 ft. long Abbey Church at Cluny in Burgundy... just so he could sell the stone blocks as building materials.... Yet he had purchased the monastery property, and deemed it his right to do as he pleased. So today the world has lost a treasure that cannot be duplicated, but hey at least the owner made some bucks off of it.
It is that kind of mentality that explains why we have the National Trust to begin with. |
Motorcitymayor2026
Member
Username: Motorcitymayor2026
Post Number: 644
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 24.231.189.137
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 7:08 pm: | |
hmm, where is skulker??
he heasnt posted in a while |