"Where Olmsted County News Comes First"

29

How will you keep your kids busy this summer vacation?

 Swimming lessons

 Park & Rec activities

 Summer camp

 Daycare


View Results

Comments(2)

In a recent editorial, a local media member stated that it is behind the preservation of worthy historical structures in our city. Either they have a unique opinion on what constitutes an historic structure, or Rochester has not lost any. I cannot recall any stories decrying the demolition of any of the structures that once occupied the sites of the present 28 surface parking lots owned by the Mayo Clinic. Of course, not all of these structures were “worthy of preservation,” but is an expanse of bare asphalt, used at most 10 hours per day 5 days a week, really an improvement over a vibrant neighborhood? At least there was a little consolation when we lost all of our downtown churches, the Masonic Temple building, and the original 1914 Mayo Clinic building. They were replaced by new, albeit inferior buildings, so their sites were not left as lifeless, barren, polluting surface parking lots.

It does seem odd and irrational to me that progress and preservation have to be mutually exclusive in Rochester. Without the past, you have nothing to build a future on, nor any way of measuring any accomplishments. Without progress we are doomed to continually make past mistakes. It is the outlet for dreams, ideas and positive change, and is based on the past. Old and new can coexist -- they must only respect and complement each other. We must find a practical and instructive use for the old and a thoughtful and fitting design for the new.

I suppose, in a way, it should be somewhat reassuring to find that the Post Bulletin has remained consistent over a period of at least 40 years in at least one area of their editorial and reporting practices. In 1970, the Post Bulletin published an article on the demolition of the Graham home at 813 3rd Avenue Southeast for replacement by KMart. Included in the article were photos of the home as it had been for many years along with photos of its demolition. The article describes the 114-year-old home as being in such deplorable condition that more than $50,000 would have to be invested in the home just to stabilize it, and that the old house just wasn’t worth it. A KMart was progress. In that case, as in the current controversy with the D.H. Williams house, the figures for restoration and the reason for demolition came from the developers benefiting from the demolition and not from any reputable architectural contractor. It appears that obtaining information from both sides of an issue is not a priority in Rochester any more than is the preservation of our history.

There are two completely separate subjects/problems associated with the Williams house, and they should be considered and dealt with on an individual basis. The zoning of the Williams and the adjoining Suddendorf properties is R2 -- low density housing. That has been the zoning for years. It was the zoning when Mr. Hamilton purchased or signed an agreement for the properties, and R2 remains the zoning to this day. Apparently Mr. Hamilton expected to have no problem obtaining a zoning change for the properties and is now upset at being turned down. If he had actually met with the neighbors before signing a purchase agreement, he would have realized how strong their objections were. Thankfully, the council members who are elected to represent the residents of the city’s neighborhoods heeded the concerns of those residents and upheld the zoning commission’s denial of a variance. This may not save the Williams house -- that decision lies with Mr. Hamilton. But it may save a neighborhood where, as in every other quadrant of the city, people have spent their time and money in working to fulfill their dreams of home ownership in a welcome, comfortable, friendly neighborhood. These residents did not invest in their homes only to lie in the shadow of a four or five story behemoth totally out of scale and out of design for the area. As an attempt at a final insult, Mr. Hamilton closes all argument stating that failure to allow his project will result in a bare lot for the neighbors to look at.

The preservation of the Williams house is a separate issue from the zoning change request. The Williams house is unique in Rochester both for the age of the house and for the history of the people who built and lived in it. Not only is it one of the few remaining brick houses from the 19th century, but it is also one of the very few homes that retains its carpenter Gothic trim. The family who built it are part of the historic fabric of this ceity. Their legacy of service and benevolence deserve more than a bare lot or a historic footnote.

The condition of the house is at worst fair and more likely “fairly good.” The brick does need some tuckpointing, foundation walls need reparging, the plumbing and electrical systems need work, and some windows and doors need repair. The roof needs shingles and some structural attention. Houses that are 40 or 50 years old need this work done. Is it really surprising that a house that is 120+ years old needs work? Consider Charter House and the U.S. Bank building, both less than 20 years old. In 2011 construction crews spent the entire summer tuckpointing and replacing masonry on these two marvels of late 20th century construction. What will be the condition of these two buildings in 100 years?

The developer states that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to restore the Williams house. Has anyone verified anything near this amount? By throwing around exaggerated figures like this, those who wish to raze this building have fewer people opposing them. Everyone has an opinion and agenda regarding this subject. If honesty and openess prevails, it’s a much better chance that everyone will be more accepting of the outcome.