October 2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Whatever side of this issue that you favor; the HPC appreciated the opportunity to hear all views and positions. Democracy invites conflict. We must never forget that even for bitter disagreements the greater virtues of peaceful, public discourse may be celebrated. I wish to thank Mayor Pete Buttigieg and his staff for their diligent efforts in looking for solutions with shared benefit. The Avon Theater Building has certainly attracted its share of public support and attention. And from the beginning, I can say that the Historic Preservation Commission has given this case its undivided attention. I have no response for why the Avon didn't already have the honor of local landmark designation. Nevertheless, it is our agency's duty to seek that status for structures that are worthy of the title — buildings that are indeed part of our local identity. But I will proudly say, that after a thorough, objective investigation by our staff, this board concluded that a formal recognition of the Avon was warranted. I am proud of my personal decision to make that recommendation to the Common Council. It was easy. I would do it again. Not everyone is touched or impacted by architectural style. Not everyone likes historic buildings. I get that. I accept it. But what bothers me is that there seems to be a careless regard or disdain, for some things with great community value. The same individuals that are so quick to criticize South Bend's lack of downtown infrastructure are often the same folks who cheer on the next wrecking ball. Not every promising business or art venue has the capital to invest in a brand new building. Yet, we keep leveling our incubators and coaxing new prospects toward other places - one building at a time. Some are even fooled into thinking that PROGRESS is the thoughtless destruction of workable structures and the re -building of what we already had. Of all the lectures, presentations, workshops, advice and strategy sessions, that I've had the pleasure to attend — not one has ever concluded that modern planning should mirror the demolition process of urban renewal enthusiasts from the 1960s. We've learned that was a bad idea. We know that `You can't demolish your way to prosperity.' But for some ridiculous reason, we keep trying. Costs favor saving. This proposal intends to use $70K to catalogue the facade elements asks for our blessing to spend $100K and bury the rest of the building in the landfill. I'm having a difficult time with that. Why does spending $170K to get rid of the building make more sense than spending that same money to repair its terra cotta? With the building's acquisition cost of $135K some eagerly lobby to burn $305K for 17 spaces of temporary parking, another $43-63 million for a rebuilt library. Is maintaining the Avon really such a big financial problem? Is it really better to use $235K in tax funding to vaporize a building worth considerably more and leave nothing to show for it? Other communities pursue sustainable solutions, feature their history and architecture, preserve and develop these assets for common interest and public appeal. Those communities enjoy the rewards of diversity, economic vitality and perpetuity. I want that for South Bend.