Published on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 19:25
The Avalon Theater is a complicated story. Quite often, a building is demolished and its fate has little to do with the building itself. This is frequently lost in the discussion regarding preservation and the effort to preserve a sense of place. People often think buildings that work are saved and unsafe, ugly, or otherwise unusable buildings are demolished. Not so. The building, its architectural merit, its structural soundness, plays a part - if a building isn't architecturally significant, or is damaged, why should it be saved? The proverbial market plays a part - if no one buys the building and rehabs it, why should it be preserved? Politics, city ordinances and owners play a part - if no ordinance stands in the way of a building's demolition, why should it be saved? In retrospect, it's easy (and wrong) to conclude that a "saved" building met some list of objective criteria and that one no longer standing simply did not. All of which should and will be the subject of future articles.Michael focuses on the once city-wide preservation ordinance that changed in 1999, allowing alderman to remove their ward from review, further elevating individuals often elected with 500 or fewer votes to the role of planner and developer for some of the region's greatest built assets. If still in effect, the merits and possibilities of the Avalon would have been publicly discussed. It's an important story, but the issue here appears to be an arbitrary deadline set by an inexperienced Alderperson, who chose to ignore investor interest and failed to understand the National Register of Historic Places timeline and process. By our account, the Avalon's owner didn't want to demolish the building (he had recently dropped the asking price from more than $900K to $250K, sparking investor interest), but under threat of emergency demolition and the resulting bill, was left with no choice. To be clear, this is what happens when an Alderperson is allowed to play planner and developer. If the city's Land Reutilization Authority had been able to acquire the property, the result would have been different. How many times can one say that? What to expect next? The photo below with Jack in the Box and Applebee's signs behind the fading Avalon say it all.
Here's the take on the Avalon from Michael Allen at the Preservation Research Office:
Tucked away in the recent Preservation Board agenda, easily overlooked amongst both 