Demolition of historic houses will have an adverse impact. Here's why | Opinion
Justin Savage lives on Providence's East Side.
There are three historic properties, sited on 209-217 Angell St., on the East Side of Providence that are slated to be demolished within the coming days. Edward Bishop, the owner of the properties, recently transferred them to an anonymous LLC, has taken no ownership of the project, and has no plan to replace the properties after they are demolished. Each is unique, and 217 Angell in particular has been well maintained and includes ornate carving dating to its construction in 1892.
I’m writing to clarify to Mr. Bishop, along with any others contemplating similar action on their own properties, that the rapid destruction of historic homes has not gone unnoticed by those of us who have spent millions of dollars restoring historic buildings throughout the East Side — projects that would have been cheaper, faster, and less stressful had we disregarded our responsibility as property developers to be stewards of architectural history for the next generation. To see properties destroyed without a plan to replace them is spit in the face for many of us who live, work, and develop property on the East Side.
More: McCoy Stadium moves closer to demolition as school proposal advances. Is rescue plan dead?
I am named after my great uncle, Justin Herman, a man who was passionate about urban development. I share this passion. In my family lore, he was kind, genuine, and very smart. Yet, as the head of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, he coordinated the mass demolition of over 1,000 historic Victorian homes, the displacement of over 10,000 residents and the clearing of 60 city blocks of real estate — much of which lay vacant for 25 years after the clearing. This is what he is remembered for, and this is his place in history. Nothing can wash that history away. It was wrong then and it is wrong now, and San Francisco is still suffering the consequences.
Mr. Bishop, destroying these buildings is well within your legal right. The economic need for additional housing and hotel rooms within our state is well documented, and those factors may very well outweigh the interest in keeping the homes intact. There is a right way and a wrong way to proceed with your project.
If you’re uncomfortable putting your name on the project, you’re probably going about it the wrong way.
More: RI man and his drone are documenting the state's abandoned mills – before it's too late
Talk to any urban geographer and they will tell you that the approach you are taking rarely works. The population has a long memory, and nothing is treated with more contempt than the destruction of a historic property without something to replace it. Cities throughout the country are littered with vacant lots owned by developers who thought they could “crack the code” of popular support by knocking down buildings in the hope that the opposition to new construction would then disappear. It doesn’t disappear, it intensifies. Fifty people showed up for the “vigil” for your buildings. That’s a lot of voters.
I implore you to delay the demolition, put your name on the project, state your intentions and timeline clearly, and show the people of the East Side that you take your responsibility to improve the neighborhood seriously, even if you ultimately decide to exercise your right to knock the homes down.
It’s not a lot to ask.
This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Nothing is treated with more contempt than the destruction of a historic property without something to replace it.
