10-22-12 Common Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2012 solutions over burial in the landfill. We must be proactive in promoting our historic resources and the opportunities for repurposing that they offer. We must give the Avon this distinction as a Local Historic Landmark. Of all the lectures, presentations, workshops, advice and strategy sessions, that I’ve had the pleasure to attend here – none ever professed or concluded that modern planning should continue to mirror urban renewal. Been there, done that. We must shift from repeating our mistakes into recovery mode. The word on the street is that as long as the Avon stands, the library will have difficulty realizing its new facility. While this is a popular argument, it is not exactly accurate. I feel that both buildings can prosper independently of one another or mutually coexist. Most importantly, there should not be anyone who believes that the Avon cannot be designed into any future library expansion. I was informed that the Notre Dame School of Architecture is now considering this design project – if wrecking balls don’t beat them to it. For Me, it’s unrealistic (and a little silly) to think that the library’s 2007 design proposal must be accepted as is, and without changes. But just for the sake of argument, let’s talk about that design for a minute. Within the one proposal that we do have, the building plan provides a brand new audio-visual center. All we have to do is flip the blue print, and the new A-V center will be in the same spot that the Avon now occupies. It’s a workable plan. Imagine a library with an Avon or Strand auditorium. What a novel idea. How did the library and its team of architects miss that? In the same way that the Historic Preservation Commission struggled over setting a bad precedent – given the choice between artifacts and values, our city must also guard itself against the temptation of double standards. Isn’t it true that South Bend was recognized as Indiana’s Green Community of the Year? Outstanding! A brochure on the City’s website advertises the qualifications. Buzz words like “Recycling,” “Reclamation,” “Smart Growth and New Urbanism,” “Future Vision,” I applaud this Council, our Public Works Department and the Administration and others for this achievement. We save enormous amounts of money with innovative control systems for traffic, and our CSOs, water management, we heat the very Botanical Conservatories (nearly) demolished a few years ago) with wasted heat from computer servers, we host discussions on urban planning and recycle vast amounts of materials from paper to aluminum cans. Commendable. So let’s crush the Avon. Let’s forfeit the embodied energy within the building roughly equivalent to the community’s effort in recycling 6 million aluminum cans and negate that effort completely. Stack ‘em up and that tower reaches nearly 20 miles high (half way into the Stratosphere). Poof! Given that we must also manage our landfills, in this Green city, I would be very interested in studies that measure debris from our buildings. The national average suggests that construction material is responsible for between 25% and 40% of landfill waste. With the booming demolition business here in South Bend, I wonder how big our pie chart slices might be? Everything about sustainability relates to economy as much as ecology. I am frustrated that the library rejected suggestions to maintain the Avon and apply its demolition money toward façade repairs. Too expensive they say. But given that the library planned to spend (and still plans to spend), somewhere between a $235,000 and $305,000 dollars for the privilege to demolish the building there is no tax savings offered by their plan. I think our tax dollars should be applied toward repair efforts since it also preserves the value and the potential of an asset worth considerably more. The library’s facility expansion is also proposing a demolition of the current building at Main and Wayne Sts. These combined costs for demolition and reconstruction of a building that was recently renovated is $4 million dollars (a 2007 estimate that continues to escalate), I still maintain that if the library chooses to incorporate the Avon into its new design, the construction costs for rehabbing the existing Avon are a trade- off for building a brand new space. Because when qualified architects are consulted, adaptive reuse can be cost-effective alternative over new construction. And for any community that prizes it history, it’s worth doing anyway. For a number of years, we’ve confronted the problem of slumlords in our community. Property hounds take advantage of devaluation or foreclosures, then stuff the houses full of renters, and extract excessive revenues for profit. Neighborhood houses suffer from gradual decline despite the diligent efforts of Code Enforcement. By the end of this cycle many houses – too many houses – are so upside down that they fail the market for new investment. Then we pay to knock ‘em down and maintain vacant lots. I wonder how this Council would respond, if just one of these so-called investors purchased a prominent building in our downtown, avoided the usual expectation of maintenance (say for terra cotta facing) until he could make a demolition by neglect case? Would this be allowed to continue for years? Is that our policy? If this happened in a residential district, what would Code’s response be? I’m sure that a great number of vulture capitalists are waiting to see just what happens with the Avon. What’s good for the goose they say… I grew up here in South Bend. I’m a taxpayer. At the start of our great love affair with urban renewal, I remember shopping downtown with my 10