Bull(dozer) Durham

This post was originally published as an op-ed column in the Durham Herald-Sun

Those of us who are concerned with preservation and historic architecture should be very, very concerned about the state of things in Durham. While the American Tobacco redevelopment and the upcoming Liggett redevelopment would seem to indicate a healthy embrace of Durham’s history and irreplaceable architecture, another story is unfolding outside of the ‘big project’ spotlight. People with the long view of Durham will recognize that Durham has never been hesitant to tear down beautiful or historic architecture; however, we have entered a period of accelerated demolition, the likes of which we have not seen in many years.

East Durham is one of Durham’s most well-preserved historic neighborhoods. It escaped most of the demolition inflicted upon Durham during the 1960s and 1970s while large swaths of ‘in-town’ Durham were destroyed - from downtown to Hayti, from Golden Belt to West End. East Durham’s compact, walkable neighborhoods with magnificent street trees, unmodified Victorian architecture, and a well-preserved neighborhood commercial district at Angier and Driver have been a treasure unknown to most Durham residents. But at present, East Durham is losing both modest and grand historic structures to demolition at a dizzying rate.

Meanwhile, within the loop, 120 West Main St./117 West Parrish St. has come under assault by the city as “unsafe”, a dubious designation for this fire-damaged brick structure. Those with the long view will also recognize the numerous empty, non-historic commercial structures in the city that have sat (and continue to sit) vacant for far longer than this structure has. They will also remember several years ago, when the director of Downtown Durham, Inc. boldly proposed that the entire 100 block of West Main St. should be demolished. That proposal left people aghast, but it now seems that it is simply being played out slowly, one building at a time. The city previously demolished the Woolworth's Building at the end of the 100 block. Now, the city is moving very aggressively to destroy the structure at 120 West Main, which goes through the entire block to Parrish St. If it is demolished, 122 West Main St. ("Mr. Shoe") will be left alone, surrounded by a horseshoe of vacant and/or city-owned land. This structure, owned by a local developer yet persistently unimproved, would seem to be next logical contestant in the demolition derby. City officials and DDI seem, in public statements, to equate the demolition of the 120 West Main St. building with economic development. However, one would hope they had learned from various taxpayer-funded field trips to other cities and existing research that historic preservation is a driver for economic development; vacant land is not.

What would be even more concerning would be if the city were engaged in what would be essentially a ‘back-door’ taking of private property for private development. By demolishing the property and placing a lien on the (then vacant) property for the cost of demolition, the city can reduce the value of the property considerably, and create a substantial debt for the owners owed to the city. If the property owner is unable or unwilling to pay his or her debts to the city, the city can foreclose on the property to recoup its debt.

The ongoing threat of economic hardship in East Durham, and the relatively new threat of economic success in downtown have reached a confluence with an increasingly aggressive Housing Department. For reasons unknown, the Housing Department of Durham seems to see its primary mission as demolition, and it seems increasingly insular and single-minded in completing this mission. One principal in the department repeatedly describes this as "serving the public".

However, history and the neighborhood environment are public goods. The reason that downtown and East Durham were designated National Register Historic Districts was to protect those public goods. The Housing Department's power to ‘serve the public’ by destroying private property comes from police power granted to the government by the public to protect health. But the Housing Department seems to demonstrate little knowledge of the myriad ways that the health of the public is either hurt or bolstered. Nor do they seem to understand that destroying the architectural history of the city diminishes the value of the entire city by damaging those public goods.

We have so little left of what historic architecture this city once possessed; I hope that there are people who will join the fight to save these structures. We need to work towards more creative solutions that alleviate safety issues without destroying public goods. Those solutions can be pursued if city officials are willing to turn off their bulldozers and think outside the box.