When it comes to preservation, the federal and local governments have a lot to offer in terms of benefits, protection, and funding. For example, the National Register is both a state and local program where the government listens and responds to what people want preserved. Once the people have been heard, the government protects the site through the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Murtagh 58). By listening and responding to the needs of the people, the government is showing that they take preservation and the issues associated with it very seriously.
After World War II, the private sector and the government came together to enhance preservation (47). At this time, programs were being created to generate more jobs, and old buildings were being demolished. This sense of “renewal” was not popular with preservationists because many old buildings were being demolished to make way for new ones or roads. To prevent this continued destruction from happening in the future, one step taken was the creation of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was created. This Act “guided the Department of the Interiors towards a responsibility for planning and rehabilitation in historic districts” (52). This basically means that design, architecture, esthetics, historic and cultural values, and a landmark’s overall meaning to the community must be considered when preserving a building or district (50-51). This is a good thing because it controls what is worthy of preservation and what is not. Without these guidelines, everything would end up being preserved because everyone has his or her own idea of what is important.
Two sections of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 that stood out to me were Sections 1 and 2. In Section 1 (b4) it states: “The preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans” (achp.gov 1). This statement captures the essence of what preservation means and should be, and how both people and the government should approach it. In Section 2, the idea was that the federal government should protect and provide leadership and support for preservation projects and efforts, and work on expanding preservation efforts throughout the country (2). I found many of these same leadership characteristics in Section 106.
Section 106 focuses on getting federal government involved with the public with deciding what is worthy of being preserved. This is important because it allows the community to communicate, and to have everyone’s ideas and opinions heard. The preceding to this stage in preservation includes an initial proposal, and the proposal being revised and evaluated. The federal government’s impact on this process includes the ability to introduce more funds to a project, or protect a worthy landmark from harm. In addition, having one organization in charge of records makes it easier to find all the information one may need about historic buildings because it eliminates a lot of confusion and false information. However, the downside is that the government can take over the project, which may hurt people’s plans for a building, or slow down the preservation process. The most important aspect of this section is that the government must take responsibility for their actions and answer to the people, which is also the case in Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. This Act ensures that roadway construction must respect the locations of historic places and buildings, and cannot interfere with what has already been deemed as historic (nps.gov 1).
Another positive contribution to preservation from the government was the 1976 Tax Reform Act. There is an incentive for building owners to keep old buildings looking fresh so that they can compete with modern construction. In turn, the government offers the building owners “tax credits for rehabilitation” (Murtagh 58). Since money is many people’s focus, this Act might appeal to people who are interested in preservation, or could even bring more people to the preservation movement. This is also a great way to boost preservation within the local government, which is important because it results in more people becoming involved in the community.
The building I chose to report on is the Avalon Theater, which is located in Bay View at 2473 S. Kinnickinnic Avenue. This building became historic on March 2, 2004. Its construction started in 1926 and ended in 1929, and was designed by Russell Barr Williamson. Williamson designed the building to have a Mediterranean Revival appearance, which is one reason why it became historic (city.milwaukee.gov 1). Its unique appearance makes it stand out from the other buildings, which are primarily apartments and shops, surrounding it (3). According to the Avalon Theater’s Designated Report, “The Avalon Theater is architecturally significant as a distinctive example of the Mediterranean Revival style…[and] as the city’s best remaining example of an atmospheric theater and the first theater in Wisconsin to be built for the new ‘talking’ and ‘sound’ pictures” (4). The Avalon is Milwaukee’s only surviving atmospheric theater that is still intact, which adds to its (4). In addition, the Avalon marks the commercial and social importance of Kinnickinnic Avenue’s past as a flourishing area (8).
I do agree with the decision to make the Avalon Theater a historic building. Besides its unique architecture, and the fact that it has most of its original components intact, the theater represents a time and way of life in Milwaukee’s history. Theaters on their own are such unique structures, and to have one that has not been radically changed into something else or demolished is worthy of being preserved. This building also offers a look into the past, and an idea of what our ancestors did for fun in their day. Learning about the past and those who lived in it, as we have been studying, is one of the most important reasons to preserve a building.
Works Cited:
"Avalon Theater." GoMilwaukee. City of Milwaukee, 2011. Web. 11 Sept. 2011.
"Department of Transportation Act." National Park Service. Nps.gov, 8 Dec. 2009. Web. 11 Sept. 2011.
Murtagh, William J. Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America. 3rd ed. Pittstown, NJ: Main Street., 2006. Print.
"National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, As Amended through 2006." Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation. USA.gov, 2011. Web. 11 Sept. 2011.
Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/creativepd/2560376436/
Outstanding response to the questions posed. I think that one of the hardest things to address is what to do once a building is not functioning within a community. The Avalon which is in essence a dated theater has struggled with its placement within the community. Can it compete with the Ipic? What role should it have?
ReplyDeleteTo see the progress on what the plan is for the theatre, I found this following posting from Alderman Zielinski's website referencing the rehabilitation of the Avalon. Apparently it is still in the works.
http://city.milwaukee.gov/AvalonTheatreUpdate22981.htm
As someone who has witnessed the Avalon Theater I strongly agree that it should be placed on the historic list. It has a strong eclectic style that as you say does represent a time and way of life in Milwaukee's history. I imagine what the women and men were dressed like when the building was first built and thriving as a local theater where the community came to be entertained and social.
ReplyDeleteI too agree that this building should be preserved. Having passed this building recently I believe the old solution to the property would be to have it renovated. The outside, although a lot of redeeming designs are still intact, there is quite a large amount of maintenance to be done. I can't even imagine what the inside would be like. I would love to see if they could restore it to how it was originally built. It gives you a sense of old school milwaukee
ReplyDelete