I’m sure the people involved will dispute the headline but make no mistake this is what’s really going on when it comes to the National Trust for Historic Preservation sticking their nose into the redevelopment of the square in downtown Springfield. The Springfield News-Leader reported on Friday that this group wants to insert itself into the process and in doing so possibly take away the federal funding and delay the project to the point that Blue Urban, owner of the Heer’s tower, could force the city to buy the building back. We all know the fiasco that will come if the city has to step in and buy the tower back and the blow it would be to redevelopment in the center city.
From the N-L story: “The first question that needs to be answered is if the park is eligible for listing on the National Register for Historic Places,” said Elizabeth Merritt, an attorney representing the National Trust for Historic Preservation. “That has not been determined, and a lot of preservation advocates believe it should be.”
No, the first question is which part of the very vocal minority in Springfield who didn’t want to see the square changed contacted these folks to have them step in and interfere with the process. Let’s be real here…they didn’t just one day wake up and say “let’s go to a town we’ve never been in and try to stop redevelopment on a square that the majority of the town doesn’t like, doesn’t visit and doesn’t bring visitors to come and see.” The majority of this group are people who have never been to Springfield, will likely never come to Springfield (and if they do it will be a one time trip so they can say they came here) and who do not care at all if they place an undue burden on the taxpayers of Springfield by forcing the city to pay millions of dollars to buy back a dilapidated building that is a danger to the downtown area.
I knew something like this would happen when the changes were about to be approved by the city council and a very small group of citizens pitched a hissy fit about the changes. We live in a day and age where if less than 1% of a community doesn’t like something the local government is going to do they can run to a judge or to a federal agency to have them come in and block the process. It doesn’t matter if it’s good for the community, it doesn’t matter if the majority of the community doesn’t agree with this small group. Even if in the end that small group loses it still costs the city and the taxpayers thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs and man hours. And…of course…this small group could care less the impact on the community despite what will be typical denials in local media that they don’t care about how it would hurt the town.
Let’s be clear on this as well…the square is not a drawing card for the city of Springfield. The overwhelming super majority of Springfield doesn’t care that it was designed by Lawrence Halprin. If you surveyed 100 Springfield residents and asked them who Halprin was you would be lucky to get 10% who could even identify the guy. The square is an area of town that could become a destination with redevelopment and changes to the structure. Leaving it as is does nothing to help the city and could in fact hurt the city by stifling development that in turn brings increased cost to the city in buying buildings and paying mortgage payments (and we all know how well that works out most times) and the losses of tax revenues going forward from not only the buildings and businesses but other business that may spring up as a result of increased traffic to the square area.
I’m not against historic preservation at all. I love old buildings and places as you can see from other posts in this blog. I love to explore the old buildings of Springfield and the history of the town. Still, there’s a time and place for everything and right now is not the place for this group to come swooping in to try and save an eyesore that does little to help the community. The redesign of the square is going to keep Halprin’s fountain (which I happen to think is not only cool but the best part of the square.) That’s MORE than enough to pay homage to Halprin.
I’m sure we’ll never find out who went crying to the National Trust for Historic Preservation to step in and derail this process. They won’t want to come out and have to deal with the fallout should their actions result in millions of dollars in cost to the city at a time our budget crisis is very real. How deep do you think the cuts will have to be if they have to purchase back the Heer’s tower?
I know I’m being a little more blunt here than usual and I’m not really giving a whole lot of credit to the other side of the issue but that’s because in this case there isn’t a lot of merit on the other side of the issue. The fountain was saved to pay homage to Halprin. That’s not enough for some folks who didn’t get their way to keep the square as it is now. They are, in essence, flipping the middle finger to the super majority of the community to try and force their will on everyone regardless of the damage it can cause to the city. That is not a position that should be held up as honorable or respected in this case.
Now, if this group wants to come out and bring an economic development plan with real, practical and quickly implementable ideas that will keep the square as is and still bring in the revenue that will happen from the Heer’s redevelopment then I might look at this situation differently. However, I’m sure all we’ll get is the stereotypical “other cities have revitalized while keeping their square historic” lines. No real ideas will be presented and no ways to avoid costing the city millions of dollars will be brought to the table. Again, it’s all about what they want and no regard for damaging the community in question.
This is a time for both the city (who approved the deal) and the critics of the city (who do not want the city to own the Heer’s tower again) to join forces and tell this federal group (and the local people who ran to them) to keep their nose out of our town. A part of Halprin’s design will live on in the fountain being in the square. That is more than enough.
Edit: More info, including the letter in question, is available at CityConnect.
I couldn’t have said it better, Jason. As for never finding out who went crying to the National Trust to derail all this, look no further than the only local name that was copied on the National Trust’s letter : Mr. Festive Tie himself, Dan Chiles.
I’m of two minds on this subject and it doesn’t pertain to the redevelopment of the square, but how the city obligated itself to this endeavor. It appears that the square is not in the condition that Halprin designed it, but in a manner that has his original intent with add-ons. Thus one would think this would decrease the interest or value in the structure.
I seem to recall a certain building belonging to the railroad being destroyed and the certain people of Springfield just got outraged that such a historic building such as the Frisco Station got leveled that the “Landmarks Board” was created to stop this type abuse of historic structures in this area.
This is exactly what the people wanted when they didn’t think about the consequences in the future of their action in the past.
Jason perhaps the question you should be asking is why did the people get all upset when the railroad company tore down a building in which it owned and the city tried to force itself into making preservation the way in which historic structures would be dealt with here in Springfield. My how the pendulum does swing the opposite direction.
NO !!!! This is exactly what was going to happen and it is being done by the very same like minded people that couldn’t adhere to the philosophy of private property. The city made the bed and this organization is taking advantage of it.
Had the city actually not prevented the first developer of the Heer’s Tower from going ahead with the project we the taxpayers wouldn’t be in this position. The facts of the first developer are well known and the individual had all the backing financially that he needed to start on the project. It was city council that decided to squash the deal because there quite possibly was something happening behind the scenes. The first developer didn’t demand a city square do over from what I can recall, and since there is federal money involved you can bet federal groups are going to get INVOLVED. Sometimes you get what you ask for.
One might ask why should the federal taxpayers have to pay to redevelop a square in Springfield, MO ?? The prince of earmark “pork barrel spending” has once again succeeded showing why he constantly gets re-elected to the HoR.
No Jason your blaming once more the wrong people for this problem. The problem occurred when the city council made agreements on behalf of the people which were going to cost the people quite a bit of money and some people revolted using the very same tactic that the city created. Either way the taxpayers are on the hook and it is refreshing to be able to laugh when these back room deals fall apart due to politics.
Politics are quite compelling and to watch what transpires from the outside makes it quite interesting to watch especially when people can portray the events in a truthful manner.
This is what happens when you accept federal money.
When the federal government gives you money, it can also tell you how to spend it.
It is amazing how the majority really hates to be defeated by the minority, but that is the benefit of our representative republic. Everyone has their say. It truly does suck when the minority uses government to do it bidding.
ROFL !!!!!
Here is another perspective on this subject:
http://www.tclf.org/landslide/Park_Central_Square/index.htm
Yeah, I linked to that in a previous blog entry about the time the vote was happening on the project. The letter says “Concurrently, we contacted Mrs. Kelley and asked her to tell us more about Park Central and its meaning to the citizenry of Springfield, Missouri” but it really just reflects the opinions of Mrs. Kelley. The “citizenry” of Springfield, Missouri isn’t crying out for that square to be left as it is because they think it’s some great piece of architecture that draws people to center city.
The citizenry isn’t screaming out for the Jordan Valley Gateway Project either and yet were are going to spend 2.9 million federal dollars to make it so.
Tom, I agree that the amount of money that the fed’l govt. spends on earmarks and pork barrel projects is way too much. In fact, that amount should be $0 and everyone’s tax bill would be the better for it. With that said, however, why should we be critical of Springfield (or any other community) for receiving some of this funding? It’s not as if the fed’l govt. is going to return that $2.9 million to our personal pocketbooks if the city turned it away. It would just go to some other community (and looking at where a majority of the earmarks have gone lately, probably to Alaska). Yeah, I know it sounds double standard-ish: “Stop pork barrel spending now! But meanwhile we want ours!” I’m not saying we as taxpayers need to be cheerleaders for money grabbing on the part of area communities. Maybe we shouldn’t be so critical of these communities that are the recipients of these funds. In other words, I don’t blame the city for asking, but I do blame the feds for saying ok.
Or, maybe I’m just full of beans….
CC,
Were in agreement, however the buck needs to stop somewhere and someone needs to stand up to say the first NO. As long as communities request these funds our Prince of earmarks Roy Blunt, and others just like him are going to see that we get the funds.
Perhaps on the local level people need to stop asking, if you can’t afford to do it with local tax revenue then it doesn’t need to be done.