Mejor pedir perdón que permiso

December 21, 2020 Blog, Texas, Vision and Style, Window Replacement Comments (1) 862

“It is better to seek forgiveness than permission.”

Unless you believe in justice and the rule of law. Or have an economist’s need for certainty and market stability. If you are just trying to get away with stuff, perdón beats permiso for sure. Yay criminality!

So, the porch was damaged and we got permission to repair it AS IS. So why not remove brick arches, enclose the porch in new walls and add windows that match nothing?

This is an attitude you come across in historic preservation – indeed, urban development in general – all the time. People just go ahead and whack away at their building without permits and hope they can get away with stuff.

These jokers destroyed the original clapboard siding and schmeared the whole house with “I Don’t Know What I Am Doing” stucco. They also kept working despite a stop work order. Oddly, the double munched roof survives but the threat of oversized ridge caps remains.

Often they do. In San Antonio, violating a permit (or not having one) does not have a financial penalty. In some cases, the building owner can be required to put things back the way they were, although absent clear and malicious intent, that rarely happens. In other places, you can be fined up to $500 a day until you put it right.

You were bad! You get a red sign.
Usually its windows, so comically shimmed in they have already cancelled out any purported energy efficiency!

Usually it is windows, because a generation of shilling has left the average building owner believing that replacement windows are normal and helpful. You can read all about that here and here.

They have 3 giant smokers inside to the right. I mean giant.

Now take a gander at the above photo. What is it? It is a kiosk, I say. That is what the permit that was approved in 2018 said. A park with some trails and benches and a small retail kiosk.

How it looked a month ago when the kiosk had just emerged from its chrysalis and began its transformation into a beautiful 8,000 square foot restaurant.

So, the developers got an approval for a kiosk, which quietly morphed into a 5,000 square foot restaurant, plus 3,000 square feet of outdoor seating. Let’s hear it for open space!

This case is not the malicious building owner as much as the misdirecting one, and often it is the city facilitating the sleight-of-hand. We (Conservation Society) called it “bait-and-switch” in our statement, which recalled the drawings from 2018 which included no restaurant at all.

We do see this from the development community, especially between the “conceptual approval” of a development and “final approval.” “Conceptual approval” will often feature nicely finished new buildings, which then get dumbed down into cereal boxes by value engineers prior to “final approval.” Or, the old building they promised to save has deteriorated so much (often by active undermining) that they can no longer save it, it costs too much cry cry cry.

Oh yeah, we will totally save this house while we build 23 around it! Pay to move it out of the way? Yessiree! Oh wait, now the units are selling too slowly. I guess we can’t save it anymore. Or move it. It seems to be deteriorating ALL BY ITSELF!

I think it would be better if we got back to a level playing field where ALL building owners played by the same rules, and promises made one year were still valid the next. Here’s hoping that an era of sneaking and cheating comes to an end.

JULY 2021 UPDATE

I noticed that the Louisiana legislature is considering a bill that would allow New Orleans to double the fines for violating building permits to $1,000 a day to “deter bad actors”. That would be good here as well.

Continue Reading

Conserving Culture and Conserving Nature: Assets and Liabilities

October 27, 2012 Economics, Global Heritage, History Comments (20) 2154

The World Heritage Convention is nearing the end of its 40th anniversary, and since what we do here at Global Heritage Fund is help preserve World Heritage Sites in developing countries, I have been fielding a lot of inquiries on the status of the World Heritage Convention. As in so many aspects of heritage conservation/historic preservation, I have seen evolution in the field. In terms of sites inscribed on the World Heritage list, I would venture that we have seen some of the same shifts we have seen in “historic preservation” as a whole. Continue Reading

Continue Reading

The crux of the problem

March 18, 2009 Economics, Vision and Style Comments (0) 831

During times of economic recession it is good for preservation because people can’t afford to build as many new structures or do questionable alterations to historic ones.

During times of economic recession it is bad for preservation because people can’t afford to rehabilitate historic buildings. Continue Reading

Continue Reading

Oak Park settles down a bit

February 9, 2007 Chicago Buildings, Economics, Historic Districts Comments (0) 1031

Well, from the tenor of the panel discussion in Oak Park this morning, the Fox News-style polarization of preservation has died down a bit. This is a good thing. A developer, a village president/architect, a local architect and two preservationists made up a panel that was distinguished more by how much they agreed than by the false “Preservation or Development” dichotomy that was set up.

The biggest laughs came to Jonathan Fine of Preservation Chicago who said the title “Historic Preservation: Too Much of a Good Thing?” reminded him of “Women’s Suffrage: Too Much of a Good Thing?” or “Child Labor Laws: Too Much of a Good Thing?”. He is right that preservation has to keep justifying itself. Continue Reading

Continue Reading