I spent last week in New Orleans, and was reinvigorated by the city’s ability to blend history, architecture, culture and development. At the same time, Next City published a fantastic piece by Michael Allen showing how preservation and development can work together. My question, what can preservation do for Camden? 

My research in New Orleans is littered with neighborhood activists who believe the key to keeping value in their neighborhood was to create a historic version. It gave them a way to compete with new developments; they had something different. It let them batten down the hatches and weather the car-fueled, make-cities-like-suburbs movement in New Orleans. 

That’s a tough sell in Camden, especially with blight being such a brutal problem. Kevin Shelly has been doing a yeoman’s job bringing coverage to this important issue, including the recent collapse of two buildings. He writes

The city has estimated it may have as many as 3,200 abandoned buildings, though a better inventory is expected to also be announced soon.

The city initially thought about 500 buildings would be taken down this year, but spokesman Robert Corrales said late last week that additional dangerous buildings had been identified by the city.

The demolitions will be supported by an $8 million bond issue that will be paid for via a tax on parking lots in the city.

In a world where buildings are literally falling down, is there room for preservationists? Michael Allen makes the case for yes

When preservationists work to prevent disruptive development, they can succeed even when they fail. In the last year, Cleveland activists led by Jeon Francis of Neighbors in Action had battled to spare the long-vacant, city-owned Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist(1926) from demolition. Architect Jonathan Sandvick worked with developers Chick Holtkamp and Niki Zmij to formulate a $10 million rehabilitation plan that would have transformed the Christian Science church into a rock climbing gym and yoga center.

While the rehabilitation plan sounded good, it was less financially feasible than the proposal by Brickhaus Partners to replace the church entirely with 11 townhouses and a grocery store. In Cleveland, a city dealing with a staggering number of vacant buildings, the plan for new construction was welcomed even by those sympathetic to the preservationist campaign. Cleveland Landmarks Commission member Allan Dreyer told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that the commission rarely saw plans for replacing historic buildings as detailed as what Brickhaus presented.

This is the crux of the preservationist issue. Preservationist, and their focus on connecting to history and architecture, can hold developers accountable to a long-term standard, as opposed to a short-term money grab. That’s particularly important here in Camden; the poorly constructed 76ers practice facility deal shows that the city and state have little interest in holding developers accountable long-term. 

There is also demand for preservation here, although there are challenges as well. Over at the I Am Camden Facebook page, there is often serious nostalgia for old buildings, and long-held businesses. There just doesn’t seem to be the expendable cash in the Camden community to support them. 

Image from My Red Rooster.

In New Orleans, I had drinks with a developer and former Camden resident who is now involved in the redevelopment of the Iberville housing projects in Nola. He said almost all of his work involves a coalition between affordable housing advocates and preservationists; his job is mostly to combine the financing that comes from those two sources. 

That same strategy could be pursued in Camden, at both a macro and micro level. Funding sources, tax credits, and other forms of affordable housing and preservation funding should be pursued. But, there is also interest from preservationists in historic structures and businesses here. Events targeted at both local communities and regional preservationists could help fuel the interest (and dollars) needed to hold this same value here in Camden. 

Tags:

Comments

  • Kevin – I completely agree regarding the Real Estate market being the large impediment to preservation. A big question I have, is whether a larger preservation movement here would help preserve value in the housing stock (or the city more widely). Still trying to wrap my head around that.

    • It is a chicken-and-egg thing, agreed. But with places like Parkside giving away money for referrals of someone who buys a house there, I don’t see there being market demand without big incentives.

  • Hi, I just read about your blog in Kevin Riordan’s column. I plan to come back and read more of your posts, but when I saw the title of this one, I wanted to ask you about something. I’m a Camden resident, and I’m trying to get a fence permit. I don’t want anything fancy, just a regular, within the ordinance, 6-foot perimeter fence. So far it has taken 2 months and about $100, and I’m not even close. Right now I’m stymied by the Historic Preservation Commission (so you can see why I was intrigued by the title of your blog post). (I live in Lanning Square.) Apparently, I have to get their okay before I can erect the fence, but they only meet once a month, so it’ll be the end of July before I’ll know about the permit, and that’s only if they have a quorum at the meeting.

    Does this kind of thing happen in other cities, too? I grew up in Westampton Township, and have lived in Camden for 16 years, but this is the first time I’ve tried to get a fence permit. This whole process seems crazy to me, but maybe it’s typical and I just don’t know.

    Looking forward to reading the rest of your posts!

  • Thanks for the shout out, Stephen.

    Preservation can make sense.

    But, the biggest impediment to preservation is the complete lack of demand in the real estate market for Camden property without *HUGE* governmental support.

    Rehabbing a single Camden row home, which *might* sell on the open market for say $30,000, can run $90,000 to $110,000.

    That’s a tough equation to solve.

    Just look at Radio Lofts, which had support money attached to it, sitting a block away from the Victor Lofts.

    Kevin Shelly of the Courier-Post

  • Camden and Philadelphia have little to no regard for their historic buildings and landmarks. They love their history, though. And why not? It doesn’t cost anything to love history. But they rarely put their money on the table to save and repurpose historic structures. This attitude is a stark contrast to other cities, such as Charleston, SC or San Francsico, CA. It’s devastating to see beautiful buildings demolished, only to be replaced with cheap, poorly-designed, poorly-contructed spaces.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *