Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Until this year, San Francisco was one of the few cities in the nation without a Historic Preservation Commission. A clear majority of San Franciscans voted to establish a new Historic Preservation Commission this past November.
So let's take a deep breath and let the new commission do its work. Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius' April 30 column, "Historic preservation may hamstring S.F.'s future," might have benefited by conversations with few more folk. Historic preservation is a useful planning tool that every city uses to enhance livability and to sustain and adaptively reuse underutilized buildings and places such as San Francisco's Ferry Building and Plaza, now transformed into an international tourist destination and Farmers Market.
The regulations and restrictions in place with the new commission are really not much different than with the former and outdated Landmarks Advisory Board. The legislation does not "make it easier to declare a neighborhood a historic district." It offers different avenues to start the nomination process (allowing citizens to get signatures on a petition, for example). All nominations must be vetted as before: approved by the new commission, then go to the Board of Supervisors.
Previously, they had to be approved by the Planning Commission and then go to the Board of Supervisors. The level of review and analysis is no less. Additionally, historic districts are not "declared" if the majority of property owners in the proposed district do not agree with it.
It is absolutely incorrect that contributing buildings to historic districts will be "nearly impossible to change, tear down or renovate." They will have to get approval from the Historical Preservation Commission instead of the Planning Commission. Property owners will not have to visit both commissions, and applications for permits to alter contributing buildings will not automatically be rejected.
The Historic Preservation Commission's decisions are based on nationally accepted Standards for Rehabilitation as outlined by the National Park Service.
As in every other town and city in the United States, historic districts are based upon professionally compiled surveys, done both by the planning department and expert historians. Contributing buildings are not determined solely by date, but are analyzed in terms of context.
Oftentimes, the very buildings preservationists aim to save are ones important to broad cultural communities (history, locations where turning-point events took place in minority history, places of worship or community centers important to cultural groups, neighborhoods with a long history as a densely populated area for a specific culture or ethnicity). To imply that preservationists aim to preserve structures and places only important to a white middle class is offensive and narrow-minded.
SOURCE : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/05/ED0K17F81B.DTL
So let's take a deep breath and let the new commission do its work. Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius' April 30 column, "Historic preservation may hamstring S.F.'s future," might have benefited by conversations with few more folk. Historic preservation is a useful planning tool that every city uses to enhance livability and to sustain and adaptively reuse underutilized buildings and places such as San Francisco's Ferry Building and Plaza, now transformed into an international tourist destination and Farmers Market.
The regulations and restrictions in place with the new commission are really not much different than with the former and outdated Landmarks Advisory Board. The legislation does not "make it easier to declare a neighborhood a historic district." It offers different avenues to start the nomination process (allowing citizens to get signatures on a petition, for example). All nominations must be vetted as before: approved by the new commission, then go to the Board of Supervisors.
Previously, they had to be approved by the Planning Commission and then go to the Board of Supervisors. The level of review and analysis is no less. Additionally, historic districts are not "declared" if the majority of property owners in the proposed district do not agree with it.
It is absolutely incorrect that contributing buildings to historic districts will be "nearly impossible to change, tear down or renovate." They will have to get approval from the Historical Preservation Commission instead of the Planning Commission. Property owners will not have to visit both commissions, and applications for permits to alter contributing buildings will not automatically be rejected.
The Historic Preservation Commission's decisions are based on nationally accepted Standards for Rehabilitation as outlined by the National Park Service.
As in every other town and city in the United States, historic districts are based upon professionally compiled surveys, done both by the planning department and expert historians. Contributing buildings are not determined solely by date, but are analyzed in terms of context.
Oftentimes, the very buildings preservationists aim to save are ones important to broad cultural communities (history, locations where turning-point events took place in minority history, places of worship or community centers important to cultural groups, neighborhoods with a long history as a densely populated area for a specific culture or ethnicity). To imply that preservationists aim to preserve structures and places only important to a white middle class is offensive and narrow-minded.
SOURCE : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/05/ED0K17F81B.DTL
Labels: san fran shuttle tours, San Francisco bus tour, san francisco shuttle tours, san francisco sightseeing, San Francisco sightseeing tour, san francisco tours, sf shuttle tours, shuttle tours
posted by wilson @ 10:53 PM
permanent link | Post a Comment |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home