Why is St. Pete considering breaching another building that has been around for almost 100 years? |Column

In writing about the tower of the 21-storey apartment, 446 Fourth St. S. and the pending demolition of a 1920s commercial building on the site, The Times ‘Graham Brink’ is proposed to be resident’. 」はかないます。 English: “Handling about development and “anxiety” about sewage and traffic.” His column also dismissed concerns about protecting blonde brick buildings from demolition, almost 100 years ago. “It’s not coming out that much.”

Downtowns across the United States have actually been hollowed out in interstate construction, redlines and suburban sprawls, but it’s stretch that denies downtown buildings for their own negligence.

In fact, one point that doesn’t appear very often is the key role it plays in the downtown St. Petersburg revival. Just look at Vinoy Hotel or Crislip Arcade (aka the block of Central Avenue in the 600 block), the historic districts of Kenwood and Rother Park, the 99-year-old station that houses the Clay Moraan Center, or a converted train station. The 501 Central department store, which Florida Craft Art relocated in 1995, is charming and revitalizing to identify the reuse of these old characters rich in buildings and neighbourhoods that played a major role in downtown. People often skip this important chapter of the downtown story, suggesting that these special places are hampering the success of the city.

Even at the Tampa Bay Times headquarters, it is the result of adaptive reuse of historical structures. The Times Building, built in 1924, was changed in 1968, and was changed in 1988 after the construction crane landed again in 1988.

There is no doubt that downtown St. Petersburg is experiencing an intergenerational construction boom. A new residential tower that looks like a new residential tower like FourthStreet S has been announced every week.

But it may be helpful to look back at why all these towers rise in the first place.

Last year, Burg’s Preserve published “Continue to Live the Atmosphere: The Impact of Historical Preservation in St. Petersburg,” which examined the qualitative and quantitative values ​​of urban historic resources.

A report conducted by Washington, D.C.-based planning company Place Economics found that almost 80% of St. Pete residents visit Central Avenue at least once or twice a month.

Could all of the local businesses lined up on this “historic main street,” where 60% of the low-rise buildings were built before 1960, be one of the reasons people are obsessed with downtown? ?

Vibe’s research also found that older buildings along Central had lower vacancy rates and were more likely to house locally owned businesses than new counterparts. These small old buildings seem to pull some economic weight.

Conservators often point out that “the most eco-friendly buildings already exist,” and the study also provides strong community support (73%) for adaptive reuse of historic buildings as a sustainability strategy. It was discovered.

New skyscrapers are important to accommodate growing downtowns, and it is not in vain to destroy functional, almost 100-year-old structures without considering how they will be incorporated into new developments. , it’s a missed opportunity to create something unique.

Focusing on affordable housing, Brink cites research suggesting that new high-rise construction is the “best way” to solve countless housing challenges.

Replacing the one-storey commercial structure on Fourth Street with apartments will increase housing supply, but the key solutions of density and affordability are too narrow, so we will focus on high-rise construction. Not only does our historic region offer a wider variety of housing types and densities than the rest of St. Petersburg (Vibe Study, pg. 6), but cities benefit from a multifaceted approach to housing. You can do it. , protecting and storing existing housing stock. Certainly, the idea that people with lesser means will only move to older homes vacant by wealthy people moving into luxury skyscrapers if existing, more affordable housing stocks are not bulldozed There is.

Ambient surveys show that about 19% of residents living in residential units built before 1960 are less than 30% of the local median income (4 people), compared to about 15% of the citywide total. It shows that there was about $31,000 for the family. A similar study in Columbia, South Carolina found that nearly 20% of households living in pre-1970s homes had less than 30% of the local median income. This “naturally occurring” affordable housing is a key component of any city’s housing strategy and is worth more attention.

The city’s land development regulations provide ample downtown development, and perhaps another 21-storey building with a five-storey car park next to the highway’s on-ramp is a charming st Pete It will not undermine. Perhaps the historic commercial building on Forth Street S, built by the former mayor of St. Petersburg, has been continuously occupied since 1927 and is not a locally designated landmark, but is not a city’s own unique property of historical resources. It does not meet the definition. It’s worth saving.

However, if St. Petersburg does not stock the remaining downtown historical resources and decides the best way to promote reuse, downtown will have many new tall buildings, but the historic space And places can lose the benefits of being creative, sustainable and affordable. provide.

Manny Leto is the executive director of Preserve the Berg. Read the Vibe report at Preservetheburg.org.