Now and Then...and the Interlude

Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act provides a system of checks and balances on the federal, state, and local level. Section 106 is essentially a protective mediator between the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the public. Section 106 has checkpoints that insist on public involvement at every step of the decision making process, in order to ensure that the Council is being effective and fair. 106 also ensures that the government cannot set up projects to make money that will endanger the preservation of America, and holds the government accountable to its people. 4F, or Section 4F of the Department of Transportation Act, outlines the responsibilities of the Secretary of transportation as pertaining to preservation. 4F is also ensuring a check and balance system, ensuring that the Department of Transportation and their projects cannot interfere with the preservation of America.

I believe that the changes made in the designation of historic places have been positive. By having national and local designations, there are multiple checkpoints for interested parties, as well as information, such as blueprints, photographs, drawings, and surveys available for those parties as well. The government should be involved at a national level in these matters to set precedence, but local designation is necessary because the national government could not possibly handle that flow of information and work effectively. I think the delineations made by the Secretary in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 are reasonable, and those made in years after even more so. Taking preservation from a national level to a local level can lead to more effectiveness and action. I think that people are more inclined to take an interest in the preservation of their own community versus national preservation at times. This is where the Tax Reform Acts come in. While I think it is necessary and responsible of the government to award grants to people for the preservation of those things designated by the Register of Historic Places, I do think that a more structured system for allotment of monies should be made. The erratic disbursement of monies throughout the years could lead or may have lead to shoddy reconstruction/rehabilitations, and the further damage of historic places. The amounts of monies to be disbursed should be more well-outlined by a government agency, and maintained as consistent, pending national budget. There will also be less people taking advantage of these grants if they are made consistent.

The building I chose is the August Haberer Saloon at 3937 West Vliet Street, Milwauke, Wisconsin, built in 1907-08 by architect Theodore F. Schuetz. It was used as a saloon, though during Prohibition as a soda shop. The building changed owners three times, the current owner being Cecil Sutphen, President of the Westside Community Development Corporation. The building is currently unused and bears the name of the last tavern it was used as, the Interlude. This building is architecturally interesting as a distinctive example of a German Renaissance Revival inspired corner tavern in a modest, turn-of-the-century, residential area of Late Victorian single-family and duplex houses. “The storefront is covered entirely in a modern artificial boulder-stone veneer. The gabled upper façade, however, is unchanged and features elaborate brick and terra cotta banding and paneling, varied fenestration with keystones, sheet metal copings and pinnacles. The building’s most distinctive feature is the engaged, round, corner turret with its classically ornamented sheet metal cladding and domed roof terminating in a bulbous pinnacle. The west elevation is massed around the gabled central pavilion, but is otherwise fairly informal and utilitarian in character. The east and south elevations are function in design and lack architectural articulation” (Historic).

This building should remain on the list of historic places because it does merit a staff recommendation for meeting five of the criteria to be on the register in the study. I chose this building because it is in my neighborhood and I have an interest in learning the history geographically closest to me. According to Appendix B in Murtagh's text, this building embodies “distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction” and also may yield “information important in prehistory or history (Murtagh).” I have driven past this building countless times in my life and never gven it a second glance. Upon closer inspection, I do note the remarkable architecture of the original design. I think the use of this building's lower level as a business is appropriate., and the preservation of the upper facade important to the history of the area.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION STUDY REPORT. Rep. Web. 11 Sept. 2011. <http://www.city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityHPC/DesignatedReports/vticnf/Haberer.pdf>.

Murtagh, William J. "Appendix B." Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2006. Print.