Update on Rosewood Courts in Austin! Here’s a little background on the Courts:
Here’s a snippet of last night’s (follow link) City Historic Landmark Commission meeting on the matter of it being designated a local landmark. See Item 7A 5
Some thoughts…
I am longer on the commission, but its nice to see this matter advancing to the exploration or “initiating” of historic zoning phase. I feel strongly, that for this matter to advance, a myth central to this ongoing public debate be dismantled: That those in favor of a historic designation are against upgrades in public housing or a better quality of life for residents.
One of my problems with historic preservation as a field and regulatory regime (on all levels of government) is the inability for us to have holistic conversations about the relationship between historic conservation and the preservation of quality, affordable housing. As you will see during the debate, so often we can only discuss preservation matters in a Landmark meeting and planning and development matters in another meeting. While it often works in the favor of preservation matters, it causes us (residents) to have what I feel are performative, intellectually dishonest, short sighted conversations about development.
I hope that activists will continue to hold space for conversations about how historic preservation is also about how conservation of truly affordable housing. Too often redevelopment equals the elimination of truly affordable units (for extremely low income) that are replaced with semi affordable housing units (for those at median to above median income). These two issues (preserving units’ history and affordability) are deeply intertwined and not opposed to one another. The federal trend toward declining investment in maintenance and increasing utility costs at public housing complexes are far more threatening to affordable housing stock in Austin than a historic designation, which amounts to a process of accountability, not prohibition of rehabilitation. In other words, a designation doesn’t automatically mean air conditioning doesn’t get fixed, or that children don’t have safe places to play. It means we determine what aspects of the building and landscape need to be preserved in order to integrate it into the public history of Austin while we refurbish or retrofit existing structures.
Here’s why this matters. Demolition is too often undertaken in this town after the fact. And once historic buildings are gone, they are gone. Once affordable units are gone, they are gone. You’d be surprised at how cities have tried to get around the one for one replacement rule. An extra layer of accountability to extremely low-income residents can only help, not hinder access to affordable housing, slow gentrification, and preserve the community’s cultural fabric. It slows down a process enough to shine a light on government-led (though often public-private) development. With the history of low income residents’ relationship with HUD or federal projects, I would hope we would want local government to stand up for ALL residents and increase the visibility of Austin’s local history. I encourage Austinites to continue to watch and speak out on this issue as it advances through Commissions and City Council.