Report a Comment

Enforced preservation of parking lots as part of the context of a building should be explicitly forbidden. I see it as pure NIMBYism, an effort to prevent the creation of an urban streetscape.

Take a look at the preserved parking lot in Silver Spring at Colesville & Georgia Ave. The excuse was that this was necessary to preserve the integrity of the art deco strip mall behind it. However, a big sign saying "downtown Silver Spring" has been erected in front of the parking lot, with as far as I know no complaint from the preservation authorities. It seems entirely inconsistent to preserve the parking lot as part of the visual context of the building, and then allow a big sign to change the view of the building from the street.

Of course, it's not inconsistent if what you're trying to preserve is the suburban anti-pedestrian feeling of Silver Spring. In fact, the sign, by walling off the buildings from the street, enhances that feeling. But that's a misuse of historic preservation as a substitute for zoning - in this case, an effort to get through the back door what you lost when the decision was made out in the open to develop an urban downtown around the Metro.

Vistas are important. (I wouldn't support putting up condos in front of the Washington Monument!) But they are a matter of urban planning, not of preservation. Nobody advocates preserving historic context when it blocks a view. (Does anyone think that the plaza in front of Notre Dame in Paris should be filled up with tenements to restore the original historic context?) Historic preservation should be about buildings and entire districts, not about the context of individual buildings.

by tt on Aug 17, 2008 1:45 pm • link • report