I will again draft Miggy as a guest poster by republishing this excellent comment on my Warehouse District post (lightly edited):
[I]n the argument with strict market dogmatism it is easy to quantify only one side of the equation on which one hopes to determine a course of action thus making it an unfair comparison. In other words, if each parcel in the proposed warehouse district were to be developed into just its current zoning allowance it would be X million square feet of rentable space with Y monetary value to the city in annual tax revenue. That has a value you can hang a hat on vs. a straw man argument of only ‘psychological’ or ‘community’ value. Alas many more things could be subject to this treatment than people would rightly be comfortable with. If the trail at Lady Bird Lake were to be developed into similar buildings the same quantifiable side would arise with nothing comparable on the opposite side of the equation. The second most visited site in our city - the capitol - could likewise be monetized – but why would you want to? For starters, neither even makes economic sense compared to the net loss to the city. Allow me to explain…
A couple of years ago, New York Magazine famously estimated the value of Central Park at $529 Billion or $627 Million an acre using the same sort of calculations (http://matrix.millersamuel.com/wp-content/cpval.jpg). The problem is that it didn’t account for the net overall loss of value to the city in losing Central Park. The Upper East Side maisonettes or the Upper West side pied-a-terres would all drop significantly in real and taxable value as would the isle of Manhattan and New York in general as a tourist destination and magnet for permanent talent and business relocation. That kind of value, and its subsequent tragedy of the commons, is far more subjective and far less convincingly quantified. Here in humble Austin we are subject to that same debate… but over just two small blocks in a city where many other parcels remain significantly underdeveloped with surface parking and drive through banks.
I’m very pro-density, much like yourself, but let us also remember that the trade-off we are being asked to make right now is not between a 1-2 story historical structure and a premiere high rise development. The most likely fate/threat for buildings in the foreseeable future is as surface parking lots – just like the last three that were torn down in the area.
I would also argue with your contention that the district has no historical significance. Your assertation was a relative statement to make just as it is for me to argue with it. For my case I would suggest that besides its industrial beginnings it also has a great history as Austin’s original red light district, Guytown (see also the April 1983 issue of Southwestern Historical Quarterly; “Prostitution and Public Policy in Austin, Texas, 1870-1915,” by David C. Humphrey). While most structures are not individually architecturally notable, and nor is warehousing as an activity culturally significant – the buildings as a cluster do represent a unique and authentic value that residents and visitors alike respond to and are attracted to in a city with sparingly few such touchstones – one of the reasons that this is the best case of adaptive re-use in the city today.
In short – there may be a day that the warehouse district, small as it is, becomes an anachronism or petting zoo of architecture – but for right now I see a great deal of value – economic and otherwise – for this city in preserving it. As this symposium you attended was a CNU event, it should also be pointed out that this position falls in line with general CNU guidelines (http://www.cnu.org/charter).
I very much encourage ROMA to explore the policy mechanisms in the DAP that would allow us as a city to preserve the Warehouse District.
I'll put my thoughts in a separate post.
