Preservation of Historic Structures Versus New Development

¶ … preservation of historic properties in urban centers and smaller communities alike has become a political issue. On the one hand, preservation potentially stymies new developments that might be beneficial to the future growth and health of the community. New development can offer greater diversity of housing options and possibly also enable urban growth by replacing older, smaller, and outmoded structures with larger, more efficient, and more flexible live/work spaces.

On the other hand, demolishing historic structures frequently results in what Allen (2014) calls "Shanghaization," or the loss of valuable cultural material in favor of quick profit draws. Overly eager development that ignores any appeal to historicity destroys irreplaceable character, aesthetics, and culture. Ideally, cities strike balances between preservation and new development. The most successful cities are those that adapt to change while recognizing the of preservation. Selective preservation can take place when visionary teams replace tendentious bickering with progressive ideals based on what has worked in other cities.

Because it is impossible to please all voices, there will be some casualties to new development and also some new development casualties. Using the Miami area as an example, it is obvious that some neighborhoods have struck a fine balance between historic preservation and new development. The Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board has for years overseen the development of its city, with a keen eye on the structures that set the community apart from others.

By carefully renovating low-rise hotels throughout Miami Beach, while also welcoming new developments throughout the city, Miami Beach has emerged as an exemplar in how to please both preservationists and developers who would have opted to tear down all old structures. Because the Art Deco architecture is one of the primary draws of Miami Beach, preserving historic structures takes on an importance rarely seen in the United States.

Tourism money is no small consideration, especially on Miami Beach, which depends almost exclusively on money coming in from short-term and long-term visitors drawn to the unique environment. Other areas of Miami-Dade County are not faring as well in terms of balancing new development with historic preservation. Heated debates about the Bay Harbor Islands historic structures seem overwrought, with no visionary voices emerging from the fray.

Many of the low-rise Miami Modern (MiMo) structures have been slated for demolition to make way for new high-rises, something that many view as inevitable as well as essential. Yet to demolish MiMo structures irreverently would be to miss out on turning Bay Harbor Islands into a draw for tourists. As it stands, the Bay Harbor area remains dull in comparison to other areas of the county.

If city planners were to embrace the notion of creating some preservation zones, while also demanding a high caliber development scheme for the erection of new high-rises, then the city might be able to compete on a global scale. Paris, for instance, has always struggled to appease those who oppose all new development and those who decry random clinging to the past. For the debate to become saner, it would be wise to invite historians, and especially historians of art.