Urban Renewal vs. Historic Preservation: The Sioux City, Iowa Story

VI. The Sioux City, Iowa Story

        Sioux City, Iowa was no exception to urban renewal of the past or present. In the mid 1960’s funding was granted to renew various areas of downtown and on the west side of Sioux City. Three of these areas are where the present day Mid-American Energy Building and the adjacent parking ramp stand, where the Sioux CIty Public Museum and Sioux City Public School District office building now stand and where a large public housing apartment now stand. These buildings were constructed in the late 1960’s to the late 1970’s. All of these areas are equal to three large square blocks of the downtown and westside areas. Some of the buildings razed were the Sioux City Journal building, the T.S. Martin Department Store Building, the Capitol Theater building historic homes along with a park being relocated. The site of the parking ramp was where the Sioux City Journal building stood. On the site of the T.S. Martin Department Store building a new JC Penney building was constructed. This building is now the Sioux City Public Museum and Research Center. A newer building was attached later which today houses the public school district offices. On the west-side the current apartment building is the former site of a city park, which has been relocated a block away. The site of the both the current park and public housing building stood the former park plus historic homes. Sioux City was granted over $4 million dollars of urban renewal funding to which the city had to contribute over $2 million. The city had an urban renewal department with a director who worked on the funding grants and helped with the relocation of people out of the so called blighted areas designated as an urban renewal area. There was even an urban renewal newsletter called The Phoenix. It had articles that included a grievance process for those who felt they were wronged when they had to relocate. The Phoenix also included up to date information on the urban renewal areas of Sioux City. It provided information on urban renewal efforts happening from Washington D.C., especially when it came to the funding. There are several newspaper articles of the 1960’s informing about the urban renewal plans, funding and updates of the section of the city most affected by it. In the early 1970’s before the urban renewal program was defunded by President Nixon an area today called the Historic Fourth Street District was slated to be demolished in favor of new buildings planned for the area. It was the defunding which saved these buildings, many of which were built in the late 1800’s. In the 1990’s the Historic Fourth Street restoration project was started and today it is a booming area of the city with private retailers and restaurants. This historic district plays host to some major events throughout the year. In the mid to late 1970’s, after the JC Penney building was completed, the Sioux City city council thought it would be a good idea to allow two competing shopping center developers via for a location within Sioux City to construct and open their new shopping center. One was planning on building downtown on a then empty lot, the other in the Morningside area of town on an empty hillside. There are several letters from private residents and downtown business owners to a former Sioux City mayor and councilman opposing and supporting the idea. His was the swing vote on the issue. He voted in favor of the shopping mall now standing in Morningside. This helped save the further destruction of several historic buildings in downtown Sioux City.  more recent example of local historic preservation involved the Williges Building which was designed by William L. Steele. The former owner of he building, Security National Bank, wanted to tear it down for a new parking lot. They would have used their own funds to do so which would have been their legal right. When it was discovered what they were intending on doing public outcry started to prevent the destruction of the building. It worked. From the general public to the state historical society and the local public museum the building was spared the wrecking ball. The Williges building was sold and today the a local law firm uses the building for their offices. Since then the Williges has been put on the National Register of Historic Places. The Sioux City Historic Preservation Commission and the city council are working on creating, adopting and passing a historic preservation plan and ordinances to help preserve the remaining historic buildings in the city. Both sides in Sioux CIty have worked together to preserve the city’s history and revitalize the city and make it more sustainable for everyone. If this effort and process continues historic buildings will continue to be saved and re-purposed for new use, old buildings with no historic value and buildings that may have historic value that cannot and should not be saved will be torn down and new development will be built upon the empty lots. Both sides have picked their battles wisely and have worked together as each side has learned the lessons of past mistakes.

Previous articles in the series:

Urban Renewal vs. Historic Preservation: Information
Urban Renewal vs. Historic Preservation: Title, Thesis, Introduction and Brief History
Urban Renewal vs. Historic Preservation: Urban Renewal, Historic Preservation, TIF and Urban Renewal Redefined

Urban Renewal vs. Historic Preservation: Urban Renewal, Historic Preservation, TIF and Urban Renewal Redefined

III. Urban Renewal

          Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines urban renewal as “a process by which old buildings or buildings that are in bad condition in part of a city are replaced or repaired”. The Housing Act of 1949 and its update in 1954 opened the door to modern urban renewal. It allowed for federal funds to be used for slum clearance and public housing. This meant if there was an area that was determined to be suffering from blight, which is defined by Webster’s as: “something that is in damaged condition and can cause harm or damage like a disease”, the people residing in the area could be forced to relocate and the old buildings could be torn down, even if they were historically valuable. City governments simply had to determine if an area was in need of urban renewal, apply for the federal funding if they thought it was, contribute a portion of the funds from their own coffers and once the money was granted use it to force the relocation of the people residing in the area, tear down the old buildings and build new structures in their place. The problem with this was a lot of the old buildings were historically significant and could have been and should have been repaired, restored, renovated and re-purposed into public housing and businesses. Proponents of urban renewal are not in favor of historic preservation. Though one proponent, Edward L. Glaeser, states in a City Journal article titled Preservation Follies: “It is wise and good to protect the most cherished parts of a city’s architectural history. But New York’s vast historic districts, which include thousands of utterly undistinguished structures, don’t accomplish that goal. Worse, they impede new construction, keeping real estate in New York City enormously expensive (despite a housing crash), especially in its most desirable, historically protected areas. It’s time to ask whether New York’s big historic districts make sense.” In the J. Peter Byrne’s George Mason Law Review article, Historic Preservation and its cultured Despisers: Reflections on the Contemporary Role of Preservation Law in Urban Development Glaeser is described as one who thinks historic preservation restricts too much development, raises prices and undermines the vitality of cities. This is an an extremist view in favor of urban renewal and is not conducive to working well with historic preservation. There are extremist views on the historic preservation side of this argument as well. 

         
IV. Historic Preservation

           Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines preserve as: “to keep something in its original state or in good condition, and safe from harm or loss.”  After the loss of New York’s Penn Station in 1962 New York City decided to enact and adopt historic preservation plans and ordinances to protect their remaining structures and buildings. This is one of the first known preservation plans and laws in the United States. In the mid 1960’s the National Register of Historic Places was created. Any historic building or district on the register was protected from demolition with the use of government or public funds. But it does not protect the building from being destroyed by whomever owns it with private money. New York City’s historic preservation plan and ordinances and the creation of the National Register of Historic Places was the start of modern historic preservation in the United States. The next part came when President Nixon defunded much of the money available for urban renewal in the early 1970’s. There were areas all over the United States that were slated to have their historic buildings destroyed that were left standing because of this. Even though the intention of reducing the funds was not meant to preserve the historic structures it was the positive side effect of it. Another example of unintentional historic preservation is the push to build shopping centers and business districts on the outer areas of cities where nothing but empty land existed before. Because the business was relocated to the outer areas of a city it actually helped prevent the demolition of historic buildings. As with urban renewal there are extreme views with historic preservation. In the article Historic Preservation goes Awry it is explained when preservation is not a good idea. The article describes the Georgetown Municipal Incinerator building. It went through a transformation called facadism. This is where all but the exterior is completely altered for the sole benefit of keeping the facade, or outside of the building intact. This does not necessarily preserve the historic value of the building. Just because a building is old does not mean it is historically significant and should be saved. Since the 1960’s other cities across the United States have adopted historic preservation plans and legislation to preserve their historic structures and sites. Though urban renewal and the destruction of historic structures still occurred in the 1980’s it had slowed down because of the limited funding available. The 1990’s saw a large push to restore, renovate, and re purpose historic buildings more than what had occurred in the past. By the year 2000 businesses and the people were starting to return to these once abandoned areas of the urban centers. A lot of these areas have rent controlled housing for qualified individuals on the upper levels of the buildings while the ground floor is used for restaurants, retail shops and even micro breweries.

V. TIF and Urban Renewal Redefined

          The urban renewal of the past is no longer funded in the same way and is no longer called urban renewal. Today the terms used are urban redevelopment, revitalization and sustainability. It is thought this changed because of the stigma attached to the term urban renewal. The funding for such measures is now called Tax Incremental Financing or TIF. While TIF can be used similar to how urban renewal money was it has not been. It has been used to help preserve an area’s historic assets. This has lead to and caused redevelopment, revitalization and sustainability in cities. Two very good examples of revitalization and sustainability is St. Louis, Missouri and the Bronx in New York City. In St. Louis work is being done to revitalize and sustain areas hit hard by former urban renewal efforts. The existing structures are being restored and reused and what are now vacant lots are being cleaned up and having new buildings constructed upon them with materials such as reclaimed bricks from buildings in such decay they cannot be saved. TIF is being used to help fund these efforts. In the Bronx neighborhood of New York City modern urban redevelopment has taken place. With the use of private and local development money was used to restore, renovate and re-purpose historic structures in the West Haven area. The St. Louis and Bronx examples show how proponents on both sides can and should work together to accomplish their goals. Two cities in Iowa are known to have historic preservation plans. They are Iowa City and Dubuque, Iowa. Both cities have these plans to help preserve their history and advise the residents and property owners what is an is not allowed when it comes to owning a historic structure.

Previous articles in the series:

Urban Renewal vs. Historic Preservation: Information
Urban Renewal vs. Historic Preservation: Title, Thesis, Introduction and Brief History

Urban Renewal vs. Historic Preservation: Title, Thesis, Introduction and Brief History

Urban Renewal vs. Historic Preservation

John Vodochodsky

March 26, 2015

I. Thesis and Introduction

         When it comes to urban redevelopment and historic preservation there can be and shall be a balance between the two, not all old buildings have historic value and therefore can be or shall be saved and not all new buildings should be built in place of historic or old buildings.

          Urban renewal and historic preservation is not a new concept. Mankind has been tearing down old buildings for new construction and re-purposing old structures since the first building was built. Mankind has also been forcing the relocation of people when it was thought necessary to make room for progress. The Roman’s did so during the rule of their empire, the white man did so when they settled the north american continent and the Nazi’s did so during WWII. It came to be realized there is a more civilized way of urban redevelopment and historic preservation but the road to the two working well together has not been an easy one. Even in the 21st Century there are extremists on both sides of the argument when it comes to urban development and historic preservation.

II. Brief History

          Four years after World War II, in 1949 the Housing Act was passed as part of President Harry Truman’s program of domestic legislation.  The new housing act opened the door for urban expansion, urban renewal and the construction of public housing projects all across the United States. The 1949 legislation was updated in 1954. What was not known at the time is how detrimental this was going to be for the historic urban centers of America. This act won the support of city officials, professional urban planners, downtown retailers, bankers, corporations, realtors and other businessmen who had an interest in the real estate and economic growth of the urban centers.The act intervened in the reform movement and used public subsidies along with private capital to clear the slums and rehouse the poor in public housing. The advocates of the housing act legally used what became known as eminent domain to take over an area and property. The housing act was not fast moving. While the intentions were good because it cleared the urban centers of blight, created improvements and gave less fortunate people a place to live it opened the door to the destruction of buildings and structures designed and created by architects such as Louis Sullivan, Frank Lloyd Wright and William L. Steele. Many of these buildings and structures could have been restored, renovated and re-purposed into another function, such as public housing. While it started in 1949, much of the redevelopment occurred from the 1960’s into the early to mid 1970’s. In 1966 one of the first, if not the first historic preservation plan and ordinance in a major city was adopted to protect the historic landmarks from destruction. The 1960’s also saw the creation of the National Register of Historic Places. In the 1970’s President Nixon defunded much of the federal money available for urban renewal. He thought it should be left up to the individual cities to pay for and govern themselves in their own urban renewal efforts. This had a positive side effect on slowing down urban renewal and helping to prevent historic buildings from being razed with public funds. Around this same time is when Tax Incremental Financing was adopted. In a way it too the place of urban renewal funding. By the 1980’s it was realizes sustainability was important and to help sustain the urban centers of the United States a lot of cities started a strong effort of saving the historic buildings, renovating and re-purposing them. In the 1990’s more and more communities adopted historic preservation plans and ordinances to protect the historic structures. In the 21st Century preservationists and urban developers have realized they need to work together to achieve their goals.

Previous articles in the series:

Urban Renewal vs. Historic Preservation: Information

Urban Renewal vs. Historic Preservation: Information

The next series of articles are from a research paper the blog author wrote for his online English Composition II class. There are differences from the paper turned in and what is posted in this series. One is the title page will not have the name of the class or the name of the instructor. The series will include all of the sources researched and used for the paper. The text will be copied and pasted into the blog articles this series and will not include headers or page numbers. The end of each blog article in the series will include links to the previous articles. The actual text of the research paper has not been altered or modified in any way.