Our future is tied to the past

Left:  The Richard Martin House, Lake Oswego, Designed by James Van Evera Bailey

Status:  Gone


Below are excerpts of the comment on Open City Hall left by Mary Lou Colver, President of the Lake Oswego Preservation Society.  The subject is compelling and should be of interest to anyone who fell in love with Lake Oswego and chose to make it their home.  Bigger isn't necessarily better.  When parts of our city are systematically being torn apart, the character and soul of the city changes.  To some degree this is natural, but the best cities have older residential districts with historic homes still intact, and cities with a variety of ages and styles of buildings are the most interesting and vital.  Not every building is worthy of preservation, but for various reasons (see below), all older buildings need to get a second look before the bulldozer does its thing.  Affordable housing?  Mid-century gems?  Neighborhood character?  All are part of our present and past, and worth a chance to be part of our future.

Open City Hall 

Comments solicited for the 

City Council 2015 Goal-Setting Retreat  

In the last 12 months, a demolition permit has been issued approximately every 8 days. According to a Permit Technician, the cost is $95 plus $320 for erosion control. But what is the cost to our history, our neighborhoods, the environment, our sense of place, and our local economy?

Like pieces suddenly ripped out of a patchwork quilt, it can take a few hours for a backhoe to destroy the decades-old, sometimes century-old, fabric of our neighborhoods. Without a sign posted, a notice to neighbors, or photo documentation of these buildings, they truly disappear without warning and without a trace.

It’s time for new ideas and a fresh approach to the demolition of single-family residences in Lake Oswego. There are many persuasive reasons why we should not continue to throw away our buildings. The Society has come up with the following “S.A.N.E.” approach to emphasize the most pertinent reasons:

S is for sustainability. Reusing an existing building is the most sustainable choice that can be made. It’s ironic that citizens dutifully recycle cans and bottles while landfills are mounded to capacity with the rubble of what once were perfectly habitable homes.

A is for affordable housing. When we lose our older housing stock we are eliminating affordable housing and this choice is changing the demographics of our city and making it less diverse.

N is for neighborhood character. The fabric of our neighborhoods is being torn asunder and the charm that attracted homebuyers in the first place is being gradually replaced by homes that shout: Anywhere, USA.

E is for economic development. Rehabilitation of older buildings contributes more, in the long term, to the local economy than new construction. Donovan Rypkema is a leading expert on the economics of preservation. His report entitled Measuring Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation may be found online at: http://www.placeeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/economic-impacts-of-hp.pdf 

Read the remainder of Colvers comments at Peak Democracy (link above).