   The historic El Cortez building Downtown.
|
We travel the world to witness history, and adore and admire historic buildings. Even buildings that aren’t so distinctly historical, but within which somebody accomplished something of great importance or an accomplished person lived or worked, can be historic. All of these buildings, or sometimes neighborhoods, deserve special recognition because they give us perspective, insight and a tie to the past over the generations.
However, is the city of San Diego overbearing in its application of historic preservation?
We own a condominium in the historic El Cortez building Downtown. Developers Anthony Block and Peter Janopaul lovingly restored the El Cortez, arguably San Diego’s most prominent structure for much of the 20th century, at considerable risk, but with a successful result.
Yet few know that the site of the El Cortez was once the Victorian-era home of Ulysses S. Grant Jr., who watched from the hill the construction of the U.S. Grant Hotel (named in honor of his father, the Civil War general and U.S. president). Had today’s rules of historic preservation, as perpetuated by the city and various historical constituents, prevailed in 1927, in all likelihood the El Cortez wouldn’t have been allowed to be built.
For his part, Grant Jr. bought the biggest hotel in San Diego, the Horton House in 1895. Ten years later, it was demolished to build the U.S. Grant Hotel. At the demolition ceremony, the builder of the Horton House, Alonzo E. Horton, said he was not sorry to see his old hotel go, for in its place would be erected an even finer edifice.
The city has a Historical Resources list which designates a building as “historically significant” when it:
- Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s, a community’s or a neighborhood’s historical, archaeological, cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, landscaping or architectural development.
- Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history.
- Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship.
- Is representative of the notable work of a master builder, designer, architect, engineer, landscape architect, interior designer, artist or craftsman.
- Is listed or has been determined eligible by the National Park Service for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or is listed or has been determined eligible by the California State Office of Historic Preservation for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.
- Is a finite group of resources related to one another in a clearly distinguishable way or is a geographically definable area or neighborhood containing improvements that have a special character, historical interest or aesthetic value or represent one or more architectural periods or styles in the history and development of the city.
These all-encompassing, overbearing guidelines have been subject to broad interpretation, which easily can be adjusted to almost any cause, however illegitimate.
Downtown San Diego has 303 buildings that fit this classification; Uptown has 214. More than 800 buildings can be found throughout the city; many more throughout San Diego County.
Nimbyism Cloaked
Are all these buildings worthy of protection?
They are not. Further, a case can be made that many of the nuevo historic preservation groups have formed an urban no growth constituency reminiscent of the NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard) who thwarted suburban development by using environmentalism as a “front” for an agenda to prevent no new neighbors, no new poor neighbors or no change of character or density.
Sincere efforts over environmental causes were trashed by neighborhood groups who really wanted big policy walls of no growth. They succeeded much of the time in only causing delays, higher housing costs, mediocre architecture and sprawl.
Now San Diego has become an urban society, where the focus for future growth must be on older communities, whether it is the edge neighborhoods surrounding Downtown or the older suburbs. Planners call it “smart growth.”
Just because buildings are old does not make them historic. The draft Uptown Area Historic Survey under review by the planning department identifies thousands of structures as potentially historically significant. This is a long range planning tool. If a property is identified, than it likely will be flagged in the city’s system. If discretionary development permits are ever pulled, then a historical resource review would be required according to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act and the city’s regulations.
This places in-fill projects into a maze of restrictions that border on the absurd. We are a relatively new city, at least structurally. San Diego simply cannot contain this many buildings of historical significance.
What we are is a community that has endured poor architecture because we have good weather. Developers had no particular reason to create great buildings (read: expensive) in a marketplace that attracts good weather buyers and tenants. As a result we don’t have much of significance. Yet this is changing: recent buildings in an increasingly competitive market feature significant architecture that will become historically important in 50 years.
Historical Camouflage
We seem to be grasping at historical straws. Our research found that even a coin-operated laundry can be deemed historical; there are five on the city’s registry. One, in southeastern San Diego, was built for Nelson Spencer Snyder, of IXL Laundry Co., who was nationally known in the laundry industry.
This is not rational historic preservation. By this test, many buildings containing old businesses would be off limits.
It is certainly legitimate to argue over a large infill project. It is OK to question whether the services and infrastructure are in place, or will be built within a reasonable time period. It is even legitimate to acknowledge the community-changing character of such a project: big projects do change communities. We have to change the communities to grow and prosper. But let the argument be over the merits, and not be a matter of historical camouflage.
But to charge that there is some historical character in just being old is hogwash. If city policymakers allow this process to go unchecked, the result will be mediocrity. It is nothing more that historical nimbyism.
Gary H. London is president of The London Group Realty Advisors Inc., providing real estate consulting and economic analysis. Check him out on the Web at www.londongroup.com or e-mail him at glondon@sandiegometro.com.