 |
| The cover of the new Historic Preservation Plan features Grant Neighborhood |
But there is still a partial NIMBY sentiment, something a little coded, and with the Historic Preservation Plan at Council on Monday, which features a cover with the Grant Neighborhood, our whole framework of what we deem worth preserving, and how we think about it, in both formally designated historic districts and in other neighborhoods needs a more searching analysis. The way we talk about protecting historic resources is a little screwed up. By focusing too much on incumbency privilege, too often we subordinate preservation as a means to exclusionary ends.
"Economic, social, and demographic characteristics have not meaningfully changed"
In the letter from the Grant Neighborhood Association objecting to the German Baptist Church proposal was something that we have seen elsewhere and we will see in the future again.** It is a common appeal and style of defense. The ease with which we resort to this should probably make us a little uncomfortable.
 |
| We have not grappled with the exclusionary intent: "properties whose economic, social, and demographic characteristics have not meaningfully changed" - and should not change, by implication |
What is the character that needs protection? One ingredient is clearly exclusionary: "Properties whose economic, social, and demographic characteristics have not meaningfully changed [and do not warrant change]." And should not change, is clearly implied.
Even without malignant intent, as an ostensibly neutral observation about unchanged "economic, social, and demographic characteristics" it should set off alarm bells. This is not about personal attitudes of individuals; people would say they welcome diversity. It is instead a more subtle structural bias against change that happens to have as a welcome feature an exclusionary impact. It is about protecting the interests of incumbents and creating barriers to entry. Appeals to unchanged "economic, social, and demographic characteristics" should be subject to heightened scrutiny. Too often this kind of appeal hampers our efforts for more housing, hampers our anti-racisim, and hampers our climate action.
We Celebrate only a Partial Reading of History
The history itself here is also ambiguous. There is a history of exclusion, in fact. The "rich history" Grant celebrates is also a little rich in an ironic sense.
You might remember the history and housing types pamphlet, "The Houses of Grant Neighborhood" (2015).
 |
| The H-alleys of Oaks Addition |
 |
| Ads for "building restrictions" Main ad: April 13th, 1912 Inset detail: May 11th, 1912 |
In the pamphlet they didn't talk about this part.
The German Baptist Church is just a block away from the Oaks Addition, and this is what is being protected against "inferior dwellings" or other "chipping away."
 |
| Oaks Addition and the Church site on corner of Cottage and D (December 16th, 1911) |
Moreover, there's a circularity here. If the Neighborhood Association always mobilizes against change, then the fact that change hasn't happened in the past isn't a good argument against this new proposed change.
The observation about the neighborhood not having changed is descriptive only, and should not be regarded as prescriptive. It is merely a sign the Neighborhood Association consistently opposes change.
Problems with the Plan
Returning to the Historic Preservation Plan, we should note ancillary values and goals that are not in fact related to preserving and telling better history, but in some ways represent the real subtext and reason for "historic preservation."
 |
| Explicit benefits: Increasing property values, reducing sprawl, also on reducing carbon |
There's also a little bit of greenwash. One of the benefits is also "reduction in carbon dioxide," and now there is a formal Goal 5 to "Encourage sustainable practices."
 |
| New Goal 5 on sustainability |
 |
| Primarily around rehab and redevelopment |
There are times when demolishing an old house and replacing it with a multi-plex is in fact greener. It is also sometimes fairer, giving more people and a greater mix of people, the opportunity to enjoy urban amenities and to travel shorter distances. And when there is no demolition involved, the green benefits can be even greater.
In our Historic Preservation framework, we do not account for the way its benefits often accrue disproportionately to incumbents and are not distributed more widely.
The objections of the Grant Neighborhood to a redevelopment project are not at all unique. They are pervasive, broader even than any context of Historic Preservation, and even without being attached to a particular project, we see them in resistance to change as we consider amendments to zoning and to the Comprehensive Plan in the Our Salem process.
But if we are serious about more housing and more affordable housing, if we are serious about anti-racism, and if we are serious about climate, we have to look very closely at objections, especially when they arrive in the form of unchanging (or little changed) "economic, social, and demographic characteristics." It is in the nature of neighborhoods to evolve and change, and trying to preserve a mythic Neighborhood Character too often serves exclusionary ends.
* At the last Council meeting, Council knee-capped a proposal for affordable housing and adaptive reuse of the 1928 German Baptist Church. Even with a couple of analyses, the whole thing is still a little hard to understand.
- "'Progressive' Council Snuffs Affordable Hsg Project" at CANDO
- "Why Salem City Council nixed an affordable housing development over an office space" at Salem Reporter
- And here previously at an earlier stage, "Grant Neighborhood to Discuss Conversion of 1928 German Baptist Church"
** See here previously:
4 comments:
Much needed definitions in Salem Development codes are "character" and "vicinity." I been saying this for decades and no one gets my point. Unless you have good definitions of these two terms we will continue to have NYMBYism. I say that because people want things to look like they fit, but that does not mean that something new could not qualify IF we were to define what elements of a structure we feel must be included. We do have height and setback or facing the street elements of the codes, but is it enough? A good discussion of this might be very helpful as we move towards replacing single family houses with small multi-family houses or if we want to actually promote 'hubs' into residential areas.
Vicinity is a bit different, but is connected. When you say, you want to see commercial opportunities in your vicinity, do you mean next door, or down the block, or within 20 minutes walks?
Viz "There is still a path forward on the adaptive reuse of the 1928 German Baptist Church in the Grant Neighborhood." After an announcement that the July meeting was canceled, Grant held a hastily-called meeting on July 9 to hear about the developer's Plan B for the church property, which eliminates the office but calls for higher density housing (21 total units, up from 14). Turns out, Grant doesn't like Plan B either.
Your excellent observation about the board's objection to Plan A bears repeating: "Even without malignant intent, as an ostensibly neutral observation about unchanged "economic, social, and demographic characteristics" it should set off alarm bells. This is not about personal attitudes of individuals; people would say they welcome diversity. It is instead a more subtle structural bias against change that happens to have as a welcome feature an exclusionary impact. It is about protecting the interests of incumbents and creating barriers to entry. Appeals to unchanged "economic, social, and demographic characteristics" should be subject to heightened scrutiny. Too often this kind of appeal hampers our efforts for more housing, hampers our anti-racisim, and hampers our climate action."
The board's objections to Plan B suggest the same bias is operating. Surely, even if you think the board didn't deserve criticism before, you must agree its continued opposition to the Evergreen project -- despite the developer's abandoning the rezone to CO as requested -- now leaves it open to and deserving of "the full weight of censure"? Realizing you must take my word for it that Grant NA opposes Plan B, as there is no documentary evidence of this published yet.
Well, that's discouraging. (But as you surmise, we'll wait on a formal comment before developing the argument or criticism further.)
Listening to the 8/6/20 Grant NA meeting. Board is unequivocally against the RH zoning. A motion was made to support rezone to RM2 so that Grant NA would not appear to be NIMBY and to "posture middle ground." Co-chair Skillern said "it might sound like we're a 'no' group", but the project doesn't fit the City's plan for the neighborhood. "We're not bad guys, we're not no guys", he said, adding, "We are a 'yes' neighborhood." Board member Lola Hackett added, "I'm just not interested in apartments there...trying to cram so many people into that spot...[or] anything that's not regular in there." Land Use Chair Paul Tigan said that RM2 would allow 9 units on the Evergreen property, and that DevNW has said it intends to spend between $2-5M on the project. He acknowledged that "you can't get grant money for a project like that [limited to 9-units]." The board ultimately voted to support the motion 6-2.
Post a Comment