By: Joe Lawniczak, Wisconsin Main Street
June, 2022

Triangle Market in downtown Madison.

The other day I was watching the classic movie, Scarface. There’s one part of the movie where Al Pacino goes to a run-down hotel room in South Beach, Miami. This is the same South Beach that today is known for its iconic, historic, art deco hotels, its glitzy nightlife, and its high-end restaurants and boutiques. This run-down hotel in the movie was one of those now-famous art deco hotels, but when filmed in 1983, the entire district was deteriorated and in desperate need of preservation. It struck me that this wasn’t filmed back in the 1950s or 60s. This was during my teen years, just 39 years ago as of this writing.

I’ve also seen recent photos of CBGBs, the legendary New York night club where nearly every punk musician across the globe has played at least once. It was a run-down dive with filthy bathrooms in a rough part of town, but it was iconic. Today it’s a high-end fashion store and is now next door to an upscale franchise retailer. Many of the old musicians and patrons wouldn’t recognize it today if they walked right by.

I was also in Staunton, Virginia last month for a tour of this stunningly preserved and vibrant historic gem. This city has been on my bucket list for decades because of their amazing downtown nestled in the mountains. It looks today like an area that no one would ever question saving. So I was surprised to learn of the almost constant struggles that advocates had from the 1950s through the 1990s trying to convince local leaders not to demolish entire swaths of downtown. And it reminded me of similar stories in Savannah, GA, Providence, RI, St. Augustine, FL, South Beach and countless other historic cities that are now world-famous tourist destinations, but only because citizen groups decades ago rallied and fought to save them from the wrecking ball.

Broadway District in Green Bay in 1995 (top) and after revitalization efforts began (bottom)

And closer to home, I vividly remember the Broadway district in Green Bay, Wisconsin as recently as the mid-1990s. This area suffered for decades from massive disinvestment, deterioration, crime, poverty, and neglect. It was known for its pawn shops, adult bookstores, and dive bars. No events were held on Broadway. Few parents even let their kids go there alone. But in the mid-1990s, a group of Broadway businesses banded together to create On Broadway, Inc. and the area became a designated Main Street district. Slowly, they worked to build confidence in the area from the private sector, the City began investing in streetscape improvements, and building by building, the area slowly became one of Green Bay’s top downtown destination. It is now home to breweries, boutiques, public art, restaurants, housing, events, and one of the state’s most successful farmers markets. This would have been unthinkable in 1995.

Today across Wisconsin, we see tiny rural villages, small quaint towns, and larger cities all with thriving downtowns. Even the smallest of our communities have murals, public art, farmers markets, outdoor concerts, breweries, wineries, boutiques, B&Bs and more. Old factories, warehouses, gas stations and schools are being converted into downtown housing, retail, commercial or entertainment spaces. No longer do we need to preach about the importance of downtowns or historic buildings. People seem to get it…finally. It truly seems to be a heyday for our communities.

But with all this success comes challenges. And there are several key ones that need to be addressed now, before it’s too late. First and foremost is that we need to remind people of the tremendous amounts of work it took to get to this point. We can’t allow anyone to believe that it’s always been like this, because it will lose its value. Even those of us who lived through the struggles are prone to forget how hard it was. We get so used to the way things are now, we rarely stop to think back.

It is also my opinion that we need to reign in much of the over-building occurring in many cities today. I am extremely proud of the 35 years that Wisconsin Main Street has worked in historic commercial districts, and of the millions of hours of dedication from local staff and volunteers. Together we’ve made downtowns a place where people want to be instead of places only for the less fortunate. But with that, we’ve also made many of them unaffordable to a large segment of the population. And while I will always believe that places like Broadway in Green Bay desperately needed to be revitalized, I still have friends from the area who long for it’s more gritty days.

We’ve admittedly lost a lot of the dents and dings and rust that made downtowns unique. As mentioned earlier, small and large communities alike are thriving today in Wisconsin. But in some aspects, a lot of them are beginning to look the same. Many of them seem as safe and tidy as a suburban shopping center, and we’ve cleaned away most of the patina and character. While some of that cleaning was needed, have we gone too far in that effort?

Furthermore, the pandemic has forced us to learn to function remotely. This means most people can live almost anywhere and are not tied down to an office. Our downtowns are reaping the benefits of that, because they have so many of the attributes people are looking for today (culture, convenience, recreation). But at the same time, some negative side effects are happening:

In many communities, there is an enormous lack of housing, especially affordable workforce housing. But in most cases, cities automatically race to develop new single-family suburban or large-scale multi-family developments. They often forget about the vacant or underutilized upper floors of most downtown buildings that are prime for this type of development.

In many larger cities, huge numbers of new housing units are being built to meet the demand but it’s important to realize that living downtown is hip and trendy now. While this new development boom may satisfy current demand, I fear that once this trend subsides, many of our cities are going to be stuck with a glut of empty residential buildings littering downtown. Renovating existing upper floor spaces is far more sustainable because it doesn’t require new construction or new land, and it is already served by utilities.

Large scale housing developments like this may be filling the current need for downtown residential, but many of them are replacing the Main Street-scale buildings that made downtown desirable in the first place. And if this current market for downtown housing wanes, will our downtowns be filled with vacant condo and apartment towers?

Plus, far too many of these new housing developments require the demolition of smaller “Main Street-scale” buildings. But it is these smaller buildings that give downtowns their pedestrian scale and friendliness. They are what make downtowns desirable in the first place. And ground floor spaces in these existing buildings are often more affordable to local businesses than similar spaces in new developments. They also tend to have more character.

Both the lack of housing and the over-building of new upper-rate developments are driving housing prices skyward, forcing many of the people who work in the downtown restaurants and retail businesses to look outside of the downtown area just to find affordable housing. This then taxes our public transit or transportation infrastructure greatly, and the extra commute times (and additional gas)  needed by workers can negate any other green or sustainability efforts a community might undertake.

And for those who decide to live downtown, especially in upper class residential, the convenience of living downtown can be offset by the additional noise from events, concert venues, outdoor dining, etc. These are all things that make our downtowns desirable and some even give them a bit of that positive urban character, but many new residents begin to complain about the noise, which creates friction.

Another trend that is having an impact on downtowns is the popularity of home improvements shows on television. As a design specialist working with property owners on their façade renovation designs, I see the influence of these shows regularly. On the surface, that’s a good thing because it gets people thinking about design, and most renovations they feature are vast improvements over what was there. But in some cases they show things that would be inappropriate from a preservation aspect (demolition of original windows, painting exterior brick), or they do things that are trendy at the moment (ship lap, bold colors).

I am both a designer and a preservationist, so I don’t shy away from introducing bold or modern elements when it’s appropriate. In most cases, I consider the character of the building, the business, and the district when determining what is right or wrong for a particular renovation. But I’ve noticed that a lot of property owners are now asking for the same or similar features over and over again, regardless of the building, because they saw them on television.

But it’s important to realize that by nature, trends change, and things that are in style now will look outdated in a few years. A perfect example is in a community that I won’t name. They are doing a lot of great things downtown, and a lot of property owners are making building improvements. But many of them have asked me to design their renovation using black paint on the brick. In many cases, they want this even on previously-unpainted brick, which in this climate is not appropriate. But the ironic thing is in this same community, back in the 1970’s, almost an entire block of buildings was painted black, and it was an eyesore for decades until the paint was finally stripped off less than ten years ago. Just ten years ago, yet no one seems to remember it. Which reinforces my earlier point that we need to continually remind people of what our downtowns were like before this most recent revitalization boom. That way we can appreciate how far it’s come, and we can avoid making the same mistakes twice.

An entire block of black paint, applied during the 1970’s when it was trendy, is being removed after decades of it looking dated and deteriorated. We need to resist the urge to follow similar current trends that will also be outdated soon.

Energy efficiency initiatives have also had an impact of preservation recently. Energy efficiency and sustainability are vitally important for countless reasons, but often, initiatives can have unintended consequences. For example, I recently read of a new federal grant that will help to fund replacement of windows in low-income households if the windows are five years or older. Five years. That is the threshold for replacement. All that is doing is contributing to the throw-away mentality of our society. And the fact is, throwing five-year old windows in a landfill and replacing them with new ones that require all new materials and energy to manufacture, is likely worse for the environment than any air infiltration that might occur in the existing windows. Chances are the existing windows, especially if older wood ones, can be repaired and/or have storm windows added, which can create just as energy efficient of a window as most replacements.  The International Energy Conservation Code even rewards owners for replacement over and above window repair or restoration. This needs to change. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even addresses this contradiction here https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-and-preservation-existing-and-historic-buildings

In many cases, it might actually be the lack of insulation that is causing energy efficiency issues, not the windows. The problem is, installing insulation improperly can harm historic buildings. Many energy codes also go too far in my opinion in making buildings too air-tight. Buildings need to be able to breathe. If they’re too air-tight, or too insulated, not only do they require more artificial ventilation through the HVAC system, which requires more energy to run, but the lack of any natural airflow in our walls can aid in the formation of mold and mildew in damp areas.

But in some cases, it is the preservation advocates themselves who create problems for preservation. While it is absolutely important for a local design review board to protect the historic integrity of structures, they can often become overzealous and unwilling to compromise. Solar panels are a good example. In many cities, local ordinances allow such things as long as they are not visible from the primary facades, and as long as they don’t damage or obstruct important architectural elements. But some review boards don’t allow them on historic structures at all. Compromises need to be reached in cases such as these, because items such as solar panels can have a positive impact on our reliance on non-renewable resources. If it can be done in a less-visibly way, then by all means they should be allowed. If preservationists lose the support of energy-conscious citizen, they will be losing a natural ally, which will make preservation advocacy that much harder. Plus, most historic buildings have had to embrace new technologies in the past, such as electricity and plumbing. Things like solar panels should be no different.

Building codes and the code officials who review them have an enormous effect on historic buildings and preservation, especially in mixed-use commercial buildings. Despite the fact that there are hundreds of existing buildings for every new one built, most training for code officials focusses solely on new construction. Even many architects are unaware of all the options and code paths that exist for renovations to existing buildings. Because of that, far too many local building inspectors or even state code reviewers force new building standards on building renovations. This can make projects with already-tight budgets become financially infeasible and result in vacant buildings, storefronts, or upper floors. Such vacancies are not only detrimental to the vibrancy of downtown, they also pose a safety concern for fire and police departments.

For this reason, the Association for Preservation Technology (APT) has created a technical codes committee and a specific task force focused on codes related to Main Street. Among other things, this task force has developed a three-day virtual code workshop for existing Main Street buildings. It will be held August 2-4, 2022, from 10 AM to 3 PM CST each day. The three days will include a series of 45-minute sessions and one 2.5-hour deep dive segment. It is open to anyone from code officials, architects, contractors, property owners, developers, and Main Street practitioners across the country. More information and registration for the workshop can be found here https://tinyurl.com/58fybxzt

A 1930s gas station in Gordon, Wisconsin was simply repainted to show locals its potential for reuse. Images by Brian Finstad

But despite everything written above, I’ll be the first to admit that sometimes we can overthink historic preservation. When faced with a threat to historic buildings, we tend to panic or make it far too complicated. But in tiny Gordon, Wisconsin (pop. 600) a 1930’s catalogue-order gas station that was the last of its kind was deteriorating. The only solution from local citizens and leaders seemed to be demolition. But a small group of citizens banded together to simply repaint the exterior. The roof, structure, site and interior still needed a lot of work, but the fresh coat of paint allowed people to see its potential. Immediately, people began to talk about how to save it rather than how long before its demolished.

So that is a summary of the key issues facing historic preservation today, as I see it. Hopefully it was thought-provoking and provided some ideas and resources that you can take away as a village or city leader, preservationist, property owner, planner, code official, or advocate. Ideally this downtown revitalization trend we’ve been on the past few decades will continue for the foreseeable future, and some of the unintended consequences will be addressed at all levels to make it more sustainable and accessible for all.