CentrePointe: Ignoring past won’t move us forward
The Webb Companies’ motto is ”Developing Tomorrow’s Landmarks.“
A more appropriate one might be ”Stuck in the 1980s.“
The company’s handling of the CentrePointe hotel-condo-retail project has reeked of 1980s development strategy: Plan in secret, avoid public input, cut back-room deals with key city leaders, bulldoze citizen opposition and bulldoze the site.
As a Herald-Leader editorial pointed out Wednesday, the whole fiasco has been a failure of civic leadership and public process.
It also has been a failure of imagination by developers Dudley and Woodford Webb and by Joe Rosenberg, who owns much of the block.
The wrecking machine has torn down several buildings and may soon come for the one truly historic building on the block, which has for years housed Rosenberg’s jewelry and pawnshop.
Built in 1826 as part of ”Morton’s Row,“ it is downtown’s second-oldest commercial building. If it looks dilapidated, you can blame Rosenberg’s neglect of the building.
Dudley Webb has said that none of the buildings on the block is truly historic. ”It’s not like Lincoln ever shopped there,“ he once said. (Actually, Abraham Lincoln may have shopped there. It was a store when he visited his in-laws in Lexington.)
Until the past couple of decades, buildings weren’t considered worthy of preservation unless they were associated with a famous person or event, or unless they remained architecturally intact and in their historic context.
Since the 1980s, though, preservationists and urban planners have seen another value for old urban buildings of character, even if they weren’t ”historic“ by the traditional definition. They don’t want to preserve them as relics, or save them as museums. They want to incorporate them, or their façades, into contemporary buildings with new uses.
If you’ve listened to Webb’s critics — from Vice Mayor Jim Gray to the Blue Grass Trust for Historic Preservation to the citizens’ group Preserve Lexington — that’s what they’ve argued for all along.
Why? Such ”historic fabric“ reflects a city’s history and unique sense of place. And when old and new are woven together in creative ways, it makes for a more interesting — and valuable — development.
If that weren’t the case, you wouldn’t see that kind of project being done all over the country — and all over the world. The old buildings are those developments’ prime space for restaurants, bars and shops. That’s because they are unique and inviting, and they give a project a human scale.
I just came back from a few days in New York City and was amazed at the transformation of the SoHo neighborhood, where formerly dilapidated old industrial buildings with cast-iron façades have been turned into ritzy shops and some of the city’s most expensive loft apartments. Streets that were deserted in the 1980s are now filled with people.
By contrast, CentrePointe’s massive, monolithic design looks like what developers were building in Atlanta in the late 1980s when I was living there. Granted, many Lexingtonians would prefer that to some cutting-edge modern architecture. And it’s certainly better than all of the ugly 1970s-style buildings Lexington is saddled with downtown, on the UK campus and at schoolyards and office parks around town.
But as many architects, developers and construction executives have told me, CentrePointe could be so much better than the renderings Dudley Webb unveiled in March. And it would be a more successful project if he had engaged the public and gotten more creative professional advice.
That’s sad, because CentrePointe could define downtown Lexington for a century.
A development that could creatively blend Lexington’s colorful past with architecture that looks toward the future would be much more inspiring, especially to the bright young people Lexington needs to attract and retain. Those people may have been born in the 1980s, but they won’t stay long in a city that looks like it’s stuck there.
*******
Here are several examples of historic buildings and architecture mixed into contemporary redevelopment. Do you know of other good examples? Send me an email with a photo or link.
RSS Feed
July 25th, 2008 at 10:10 am
After having been a resident of Lexington from 1984 thru 2008, I have come to appreciate the measures that Lexington businesses have gone to preserve some of the history and heritage. I agree, in some cases, some buildings should have been preserved in the downtown area, especially, if they have a history to preserve. What I don’t agree with, is leaving these ‘precious buildings’ rot and decay for decades while business owners neglect their upkeep and ‘concerned citizens and government leaders’ fail to show any interest until these properties are threatened by a development. So, in light of that, I say, let the buildings come down. Lexington has had ample enough time to make use or upgrade these structures.
As far as ‘historic’ preservation goes, Lexington does itself a disservice in wanting to preserve various neighborhoods in and around the Downtown/Chevy Chase area. It overprices commercial buildings and residential homes, way out of the buyer’s market.
Check the houses near the Cassidy Elementary School. Your typical 3 bedroom house
ranges 1/2 mil……..
Because it sits in a historic area, does it warrant such a high ticket?
I would hope that an organization gets assembled to put the rest of the ancient buildings on an endangered list, then ante up some of that FLOW money and save a piece of history for yourselves. There are plenty of rich fools in the Bluegrass, ask the Webb Brothers.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Tom just can’t accept the fact that for all the negative media exposure he and the H-L have heaped on the project, the Webbs and now Joe Rosenberg, CentrePointe is going forward. He attempts to cast a pall on the project by showing some “examples” of supposedly historic buildings being incorporated into new construction. These examples include concepts which are not yet built, crazy architecture from the likes of Romania (very similar to Lexington?) and the Netherlands (again…very similar to Lexington). Also, the projects shown for the most part are not remotely similar to the functionality that is proposed for CentrePointe. They incorporated a fire station for an Opera House…..great for the purpose of creating a operahouse, but if they were to build a project like CentrePointe, the fire station would be razed. Those types of examples exemplify the lengths Tom and the H-L will go to continue their assault on the project and the originators. The only thing Stuck in the 80’s is Tom’s hair. Tom…greatest American Hero called and wants his hair back.
July 25th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
As someone who works downtown and almost every day drives and walks past the CentrePoint site, I agree that the renderings produced so far by the Webbs are not very inspiring. They just don’t look good enough to be smack in the middle of Lexington. I agree that incorporating the present Rosenberg’s building into the project would make it more interesting looking. The rest of the buildings that have or are coming down do not seem much a loss, especially if replaced by something that really looks good and serves our town. I can’t say that having a more public process would have yielded a better design. But I do agree that our Mayor and Council should have made this process more transparent; that is their duty.
July 25th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Doug, you are incorrect about the areas around Chevy Chase being made historic by the city of Lexington (I can only assume you think they are H-1 districts). Chevy Chase and Ashland Park are NOT local historic districts overseen by the city. The only reason real estate is overpriced there is because it is a desirable neighborhood close to downtown and homebuyers have created the demand for $500,000 homes. There are plenty of similar historic homes around Lexington that go for much less.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I agree with Doug regarding the historic issue. As Chevy Chase is a very notable neighborhood, many people I know incorporate the areas around that particular neighborhood district by generally saying “Chevy Chase”. There are Bluegrass Trust houses in the area and historic status given to many residences that support Doug’s view. I know two people that lived in houses that were initially appealing because of the area, but were sold because the upkeep became too expensive. They found that replacing things like gutters became a hassle because they had to be a particular type of gutter made from particular materials. This was on Clay Street next to Woodland Park. On Ashland, I know of a family that became embroiled with the historic group when they tried to replace the windows in their house with more energy efficient, “green” windows. The windows looked almost exactly the same, so character really wasn’t a problem. Only after spending about $100K did the historic stormtroopers descend upon them wagging fingers and threatening lawsuits. There was a recent battle in the Hollywood District (which again I say would not fall out of the Chevy Chase area in common usuage of that term) about designating the district as “historic”. Luckily for the homeowners there, that measure has not been put into place. Those opposing my view would say that people who purchase “historic” homes should know what they are getting into before purchasing them. A valid point to some extent, but I can’t fault people who don’t anticipate that non structural changes that don’t involve radical material changes are going to cause WWIII. Don’t worry Doug, A will make sure the likes of us don’t get any wild notions about living in those “desirable” neighborhoods.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Tim, and anyone else, there are maps available that show you the local H-1 districts. It’s public info. Yes, South Ashland Ave. is a local H-1. So are other areas near Chevy Chase. The area around Cassidy School is not and probably will never be because many of the residents oppose it. The Bluegrass Trust plaque has NO bearing on a home’s value and there are plenty of these plaques on homes you will probably never see. The Trust also has no control over what you do to the properties with that plaque. Listing on the National Register does nothing to prevent an owner from making changes. Only local designation requires design review. You and others spread misinformation based on what you believe to be true about historic areas when you don’t have your facts straight. I am not arguing for or against local designation of historic districts and design review. I personally think sometimes they go too far. That is not what this is about. Blaming historic designation for inflated property values is just plain misguided. There are plenty of historic structures in so-called “poor” areas of town, places you probably don’t like to go. What has a BGT plaque done for them as far as value? And why do the same people that think historic districts are so oppressive not have a problem with the deed convenants in many new neighborhoods, which are often more restrictive than local H-1’s? After all, it’s private property, right? Argue with me all you want about this, Tim. I have confidence that I know a great deal more about it than you. I hope you love your condo at Centrepointe.
July 27th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
To argue one would have to concede a reasonable counterpoint. I am not arguing because I now I’m right. I’ve got two examples to prove it. By the way, you and your preservationist buddies lose.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Do a google image search on Alley 24 Seattle. I was just there last week.
Tim, please explain, what exactly do I and my buddies lose?
By the way, I own a house in Ashland Park with an Historic Preservation marker sign in front of it. I have just removed crappy aluminum siding that a previous owner had installed over woodwork at the porch and windows and replaced them with wood trim, not at much expense at all really.
There is no review board telling me what I can and can not do, but I do what is right anyway, and so I win.
Others can do what is wrong (headed), and I can even suggest to them they do it right instead. They can ignore me and claim they “win”. But really they lose and I win, because I’m right, and I speak up for what I believe, which is mostly just common sense.
Others prefer mulish obstinance and their head in the sand (or elsewhere). Boy do they win, big time!
July 28th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Doug King, you’ve got it backwards:
“Because it sits in a historic area, does it warrant such a high ticket?”
Because its such a high ticket, it warrants a protection to keep it that way.
Why is it such a high ticket?
Many reasons.
High on the list are that we do not sit in traffic getting most places we need to go, because we’re already there (downtown, UK).
Another big reason is the fact that we can walk to school, church, restaurants, bars, stores . . . http://www.walkscore.com Enter any house address in Chevy Chase and check the high walkscore. This is why we live here and why demand exceeds supply.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Wow Tim, two examples. Good for you. Very juvenile response, by the way. I get it. We lose. We are a bunch of losers. We’re not winners like you and your friends. We’re losers because we appreciate historic things and see their value beyond their mere age. I realize I am sinking to your level by even posting this, especially after two nice responses by Rob, but I just can’t resist feeding a troll.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Tom et al.,
At the end of this comment is a link to an image of the Schneider building in Austin Texas—I wonder if anyone among the Lexington delegation noticed it on their recent trip?—that similarly illustrates how to incorporate the old & historic and new into one. So, Tim (wow, you’ve earned the attention of nearly response!), you’re right that one needn’t go around the world to find an example of what Lexington could do with its existing historic architecture. One only need go to Austin, everyone’s favorite city to love! That said, I’d like to approach this topic from one that I haven’t seen discussed here or in the media: the value of what can’t be seen.
As a former archeologist for the company that had the contract to do the historic and archeological mitigation of the block (and adjacent blocks) on which the Schneider Building sits, I saw firsthand the wealth of data and knowledge gained as a result of that project. It contributed volumes (literally, I helped write them) to the history of Austin. And, believe me, when the decision was made to preserve the Schneider building, it was in far worse shape than any of the buildings now reduced to rubble in Lexington. The rest of the block was little better. As far as the rest of the Morton’s Row block, I’ve never even seen a used needle or a crack pipe on it, and my colleagues and I cleared dozens of them out of our way before we could begin work around the Schneider building (Yes, Virginia, awesome Austin has a drug problem). CSC (it is one of their new buildings in the background of the image), if my memory serves me right, wanted no part of the preservation of this building or the mitigation of the surrounding block.
The most important discovery made during the CSC project was made by me and isn’t even visible today. My coworker and I discovered, by chance, Schneider’s beer vaults across the street from the building. That discovery, which was made while we were making drawings of another historic building that the Texas Historical Commission had agreed to allow to be torn down, led to a trove of information far greater than the preserved building could yield. The beer vaults, which have been preserved in situ, are here:
http://www.hicksenv.com/services/archeology/gallery/atct_album_image?b_start:int=6
The discovery warranted international news coverage, and Michael Jackson, the now deceased, international authority on beer, flew from London to Austin for a personal tour. I mention this only as a way to illustrate the potential importance of the block that can’t now be seen. By the time it is seen, by the time the trackhoe digs through it, it is too late.
The “winners” and “losers” may have been decided as far as the Morton’s Row block is concerned, but all of Lexington and its posterity will lose when an equivalent or greater amount of local (pre)history is lost in the teeth of the excavators. The buildings are gone, but they held only a fraction of the recoverable history that sits on that block. If that block were properly mitigated, Lexington would learn new and wonderful things about itself that it will now never know. It is sad, in my opinion, that we seem to care so little about where we came from. It is even sadder that our ignorance will continue to wreak our understanding of ourselves so long into the future.
The Schneider Building is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:J_P_Schneider_building_2005-01-22.jpg
More about the Guytown project is here:
http://www.hicksenv.com/services/archeology/guytown
August 9th, 2008 at 2:21 am
Andrew,
You missed the point. You weren’t building a Centrepointe building on that site. And by the way, the hypocrites keep pointing to Austin to argue out of the both sides of their mouth. Oooohhhh, look at Austin, what a great entertainment venue, what great use of pre-existing buildings. Then, yikes!, Centrepointe looks just like a building in Austin, why do we want a look a like in Lexington. Get over yourselves.
“A”, I knew you couldn’t resist. Show me some respect…please call me Mr. Troll okay honey?
August 12th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
It might be interesting to promote a modern tower coming out of Victorian Square. Maybe it could be a Sheraton Hotel? Thornton Tomasetti could engineer it.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Folks,
It’s common knowledge to any of us that post here, that Tim is juvenile. That’s what makes him such a welcome force for the Webb’s and their “Slurp Slurp”, lapdog JJNewberry. These guys have never cared about any opinion other than their own.
It’s known as “doing business” in Newberry RFD.