Letter to Editor (Submitted to New York Times, but not published)
Posted January 15, 2010 | Contact pr@nthp.org or 202-588-6141
By Richard Moe | December 2009
Paul O'Neill's suggestion that we should combat unemployment by loosing a "demolition army" on the nation's stock of abandoned properties is alarmingly reminiscent of an effort that left lasting scars on America's communities a few decades ago.
In the mid-20th century, policy makers adopted an approach labeled (with unintended irony) Urban Renewal, which reduced thousands of historic buildings to rubble. As the buildings came crashing down, proponents crowed that the demolition itself represented progress – a notion that O'Neill echoes when he says that his program "would give clear evidence that the taxpayers' (borrowed) dollars are producing a tangible public benefit."
O'Neill's proposition ignores the central, trenchant lesson of Urban Renewal: When newly cleared land failed to attract the promised investment, cities were left with ugly, useless expanses of empty lots. Many cities are still struggling to fill the massive gaps in their built environment that are Urban Renewal's legacy. Factor in today's troubled credit market, and it's clear that few of the buildings O'Neill wants to tear down would be replaced soon, if ever.
Viewing old buildings as a tool for putting people to work makes sense, but we ought to do it in a way that provides lasting positive benefit to the community and allows the workers to something they can be proud of. Instead of demolition crews with temp jobs, what if we had a national corps of workers learning specialized skills to weatherize homes? President Obama has acknowledged that weatherization of America's residential properties is a key priority, and an effort like this would put thousands of people to work on the critical task of making our housing stock more sustainable and energy-efficient.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation believes there is no easy or quick 'fix' for abandoned housing– but cities that are doing it well aren't just smashing every vacant old building and hauling it off to the landfill. With good planning and careful management, elements of our heritage can – and should – survive as meaningful links with the past and foundations for renewed growth in the future.
Richard Moe is the president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
*This letter was written in response to an Op/Ed by Paul O'Neill that appeared in the New York Times.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a non-profit membership organization bringing people together to protect, enhance and enjoy the places that matter to them. By saving the places where great moments from history – and the important moments of everyday life – took place, the National Trust for Historic Preservation helps revitalize neighborhoods and communities, spark economic development and promote environmental sustainability. With headquarters in Washington, DC, nine regional and field offices, 29 historic sites, and partner organizations in all 50 states, the National Trust for Historic Preservation provides leadership, education, advocacy and resources to a national network of people, organizations and local communities committed to saving places, connecting us to our history and collectively shaping the future of America’s stories. For more information visit www.PreservationNation.org.
