Preservationist William J. Murtagh dies at 93

Bauhaus architect turned historic preservationist William J. Murtagh, the first “keeper” of the National Register of Historic Places, died on October 28 at the age of 93.

An excerpt from his obituary in the Washington Post:

[H]e immersed himself in the field of historic preservation, taking up the banner of a budding campaign to save the country’s colonial farmhouses, Civil War battlefields, Victorian mansions and Old West saloons from the crush of development. 

As entire city blocks were razed in urban renewal projects, interstate highways were paved across the countryside and architectural marvels such as New York’s original Penn Station were demolished to make way for bigger, newer structures, Dr. Murtagh helped lead a growing resistance effort that culminated in the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

More about Dr. Murtagh: https://www.google.com/search?q=william+j+murtagh

Savannah Historic District Downgraded

After a comprehensive review earlier this year, the National Park Service has downgraded the status of Savannah’s National Historic Landmark District to “threatened” from “satisfactory.” According to the Savannah Morning News,

The park service based the status change on the impact of new construction on the Oglethorpe plan; the vulnerability of archeological resources, historic pavement, and cultural landscapes; threats from natural disasters; and a series of intangible threats like noise and traffic.

A specific example cited by the Parks Service was failure to restore part of the historic street pattern as part of the construction of a new cultural arts center downtown.

A department memo regarding the district’s downgrade from a “satisfactory” status notes that instead of restoring the historic downtown street pattern by opening up West Oglethorpe Lane, the city’s arts center is being built over the former roadway.

The city is already taking steps to address some of the problems that resulted in the downgrade.

Mayor Eddie DeLoach said Tuesday that the city agreed with many of the park service’s recommendations, while citing some of the steps the city is taking to protect the district’s integrity. Those actions include the pending adoption of ordinances to protect archaeological resources and historical infrastructure. In addition, DeLoach said the city intends to reach out to create a panel of partners to study the recommendations and develop an action plan for upgrading the district’s status.

“The report itself states no single entity can care for a historic district alone,” he said.

Daniel Carey, the president of the Historic Savannah Foundation, is quoted by WSAV News 3:

“Well, I think it’s a fire bell in the night. I think it's time for us to pay close attention to what we’re doing to this resource that is fragile and that's important and that is kind of the backbone of our identity, so we really need to take much better care of it than we are. ... Right now, I still think it’s a warning that things are not as peachy keen as everybody would like to think they are and we have a lot of work to do to protect this resource. It’s very fragile and we can’t take it for granted. ... I think it puts a lot of pressure on the community to sound off and to speak up about those things and not just leave it to the Historic District Board of Review or the Metropolitan Planning Commission or even to the city council.”

Jim Morekis, editor of the local alt-weekly Connect Savannah, describes the view of many of Savannah’s downtown residents:

The public response was quick and angry, much along the lines of “We tried to warn you about all those new hotels.”

While the report neither focuses only on hotels nor does it revoke the District status, it’s remarkable how quickly the report tapped into what is obviously a preexisting vein of serious public angst over new development downtown.

Morekis continues in a follow-up piece:

[T]he same week the National Park Service officially put the Savannah National Historic Landmark District on their "Threatened" list, an iconic historic building next to City Hall was sold to condo developers from Florida. ...

[T]he City of Savannah is continuing to sell off key historic assets in the name of development — even as our symbolically and economically crucial National Historic Landmark District status is threatened.

The latest example is the purchase of the historic Gamble Building next to City Hall by The Foram Group, a longtime South Florida firm which recently relocated its headquarters to Savannah.

If that name sounds familiar, it should: Foram is the same company involved in the deeply controversial and divisive Starland Village project, which seems to enjoy a hefty amount of political support from the City.

The City of Madison would do well to take notice. It can happen here.

Savannah’s Historic District Recommended for “Threatened” List

From the Savannah Morning News:

The National Park Service recently released an Integrity and Condition Assessment of the Savannah National Historic Landmark District, conducted at the request of Historic Savannah Foundation. The report recommends Savannah’s district be placed on the “Threatened (Priority 1 List),” meaning the city’s National Historic Landmark District has suffered, or is in imminent danger of, a severe loss of integrity. … A district is moved to Priority 1 status before becoming in danger of losing its National Historic Landmark listing.

According to Ellen Harris, Director of Urban Planning and Historic Preservation for the Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission,

“The take-away of this assessment is that every decision we make regarding the Savannah National Historic Landmark District — no matter how small — has a cumulative effect. The most important question we, as a community, must now ask ourselves is, what do we do with this information going forward?”

[The preceding excerpt and quote from the Savannah Morning News are from the original version of the article. The article was later modified extensively.]

Georgia Public Broadcasting has picked up the story. Their lede is

Savannah could lose its National Historic Landmark District status. That loss could threaten grants, tax incentives and professional help with historic buildings.

They also quote Ellen Harris:

Ellen Harris with Savannah’s Metropolitan Planning Commission said it’s important the community stay vigilant about every project or development in the historic district. “Quite often it’s not that one particular project,” Harris said. “It’s the cumulative effect on the district, and we really need to be thinking about it in the long term and not the short-term solutions.”

Given the multiple down-zoning density-increasing actions recently taken by the city council, Madison’s Historic District could well be next on the threatened list if our city leadership continues to side with developers at every opportunity, no matter the cost to the district.

MMC to Purchase Foster-Thomason-Miller House

Out of the blue, we’ve learned that The Madison-Morgan Conservancy has contracted to purchase the Foster-Thomason-Miller house as well the adjacent empty lot (1.8 acres total facing South Main Street). This news comes just one week after the Madison City Council voted to rezone ten acres of the twelve-acre property to R-4, allowing four lots per acre.

According to Executive Director Christine McCauley Watts, “The Conservancy’s wish is to own the entire twelve-acre parcel in order to protect the openspace associated with this landmark property, but being able to protect the house is a pressing need we can fulfill immediately.”

The Foster-Thomason-Miller house was recently placed on the Georgia Trust’s 2018 list of Places in Peril.

Click on this image to open a full-size pdf version in a new tab.

Regarding the Foster Street Development

As the Foster Street developers, adjacent property owners, and presumably city officials continue to evaluate proposals, the Historic Madison Coalition – not wanting to interfere – awaits like everyone else in town the outcome of the negotiations.

That does not mean that the Coalition has changed its opinion regarding the Foster Street development, or any other area in Madison’s Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, that is threatened by housing density. The Historic Madison Coalition believes that the current R-2 zoning of the Foster Street property should determine the number of housing starts allowed by the developer and therefore continues to oppose any requests for rezoning to higher density (such as R-4) or the introduction of Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) in this 200-year old neighborhood. (Despite the fact that the ordinance has not been updated, PRDs were eliminated as a tool for developers in the residential areas of the Historic District over a year ago.)

If the number of houses that could be built in accordance with current R-2 zoning is to be increased to reach a reasonable compromise, it is incumbent on city planners and officials to work hard with the neighbors and developers to ensure that any necessary variances carry with them the conditions required to protect the integrity of the property, the neighborhood, the Historic District, and the zoning ordinance, both as to these owners and any subsequent owners. If the city chooses to compromise to resolve the future of this property, frustration that PRDs – a modern urban planning tool – are not available in the  residential areas of the Historic District should not prevent or excuse the planning department or city officials from working with neighbors and developers using traditional, recognized zoning tools.

If an appropriate compromise cannot be accomplished, the answer is not to give this owner a rezoning to R-4 or absurdly proffer that only PRDs can protect this property. The answer is and always has been that the owner should – for the first time since owning the property – bring forward a plan that comports with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Not once have they shown why that cannot be done, as is required.

The rezoning decisions by mayor and council last year were among the most damaging ever made to Madison’s famed Historic District. Ignoring the requests of homeowners and the standards imposed by law, and with no input from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), elected officials voted to rezone R-1 property at the northern gateway into the Historic District, making it R-2 to increase housing density for two individuals. Then, ignoring the recommendations of the HPC and Madison’s Planning and Zoning Commission, the city council voted to erode the R-1 boundary along Third Street by approving one family’s request for R-2 zoning in this fragile open area to the west. Unless stopped, such steady encroachment of housing density portends the slow decline of Madison’s Historic District. One need only visit the old neighborhoods in Covington, Athens, and Marietta to see how infill kills.

Over his many years of service, recently retired District 2 Councilman Bobby Crawford recognized and staunchly protected the precious resource of this city that is the Historic District, and for that we thank him. Many other elected officials, too, have seen the importance of – and voted to protect – the Historic District over the years. It is hoped that this council will do likewise. Whether a member represents this old neighborhood directly or not, all must recognize its value to Madison and work to protect the integrity of our highly prized National Register Historic District.

This matter will be heard at the next meeting of the Mayor and Council, February 12, 2018, at 5:30 pm, Meeting Hall, 160 N Main St., Madison.

Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit in Jeopardy

Alexia Ridley of WUGA draws our attention to the possible elimination of the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit, which will affect Madison as well as Athens:

Congress is in the process of coming up with revisions to the tax code and the Athens-Clarke Heritage Foundation says that could have an unexpected impact in our area. 

There are concerns those revisions to the tax code could result in the elimination of the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit. The measure allows for those involved in rehabbing historic structures to receive a 20% tax credit on their projects. Executive Director Amy Kissane says the ACHF and the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation urge area residents and others to let their voices be heard on the matter. ... She says those concerned about the tax credit should contact Senator Isakson’s office during the next few days.

Amy Kissane:

“Simply calling, writing a letter, emailing Senator Johnny Isakson’s office and saying that as Congress goes through the process of looking at his new tax package to please preserve the Federal Rehabilitation Tax credits as they currently are. They are hugely important to the economics of local communities where they take place. ... [T]he fact is that the investment when people are spending millions of dollars on the rehab of these historic buildings; that money is going so often to local contractors, local suppliers. You are creating jobs, those people might be coming to town and staying for months. So it’s a multiplier effect.”

So please take time to write or call our U.S. Representative (Jody Hice) and Senators Perdue and Isakson.

Congressman Hice: https://hice.house.gov/contact/
Senators Isakson and Perdue: https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/senators_cfm.cfm?State=GA