In the "briefs" Rob has taken some positive steps to inform the developer of alternative development ideas. It would be help if these efforts were backed up by more letters from the area. One idea I would like everyone to consider is the "temporary" nature of retail establishments.

I don't know about your area but here in Northern Ohio you can drive by some pretty big empty sites that because of competition or development have been rendered useless. One advantage of adapting the historic buildings on site is that you are left with the historic buildings when the retailer moves on to better things. These can either be utilized by a new retailer or revert to the locals for community development.

The biggest hurdle to overcome is the corporate identity syndrome. You can be dropped into any parking lot on the USA and immediately recognize a Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot, Kmart etc. This is all well and good (gag) but when they are empty they still retain their identity and demolition is often the answer to reuse. Help me on this one, there gotta be a better way.

lamontdc@adelphia.net

> The biggest hurdle to overcome is the
> corporate identity syndrome. You can be
> dropped into any parking lot on the USA and
> immediately recognize a Walmart, Lowes, Home
> Depot, Kmart etc. This is all well and good
> (gag) but when they are empty they still
> retain their identity and demolition is
> often the answer to reuse. Help me on this
> one, there gotta be a better way.

In Vermont, where they fought pretty hard to keep Walmart out, I believe the company eventually yielded to local pressure in at least one case and not only downsized, but redesigned with a more asthetically pleasing structure.

In the (north) northeast I'm only aware of one re-use of a roundhouse and that is in Keene, NH.

Rob, I applaud the style of your "open letter". You managed to get your point across without sounding foamy, and you included linked examples for the developer to see, a very good use of the web. Hopefully it will open some eyes to the possibilities.



SJHussar@aol.com

Thanks, guys...

I have some very strong feelings about off-shore business, mega retailers and other social/labor issues (as some of you know - I don't always keep an appropriate lid on it).

However, fighting things on the top level doesn't always work. If Wal*Mart goes into Pen Argyl, and it includes preservation of the site, then the market can dictate what the anchor store will be in the plaza long-term. It might always be Wal*Mart, it might not...

I think the trick with preservation of threatened sites is to look for the near term goal and see how all interested parties can benefit.

With Pen Argyl, it doesn't have to be a "fight" to save the shops, it could be a cooperative venture. Let's hope!

Rob

Haven't seen the roundhouse in Keene, but there's one in Dover, NH as well, now a pottery shop if I remember correctly. Roundhouses aside, I can think of plenty of other historic industrial buildings that have been adaptively re-used here in New England, many as office space, but some retail as well. I certainly hope that the developers at Pen Argyl will see the wisdom of this approach as well.

rjenkins@railfan.net

It took roughly seven years to get the first Wal-Mart into Vermont. The company adamantly insisted on new construction, which was strongly opposed by Governor Howard Dean (a champion of historic preservation and downtown revival -presently a presidential candidate) and many allied anti-sprawl groups. Eventually, Wal-Mart agreed to move into an empty K-Mart in Rutland and similar extant shopping centers in Bennington and Berlin. The only new big box Wal-Mart in Vermont was built a few years later in Williston. The tough little state of Vermont does not welcome greedy developers openly. This is not necessarily an old Vermont trait, as most natives could care less about such things; the opposition actually comes from savvy "city people" who have moved up and wish to keep their new home from becoming like where they came from. Though the locals greatly resent them, the state is a better place for their efforts.

While I applaud Rob's last-ditch effort, I doubt it will happen without the kind of government involvement there is in Vermont. Having seen the Keene roundhouse, I can't say such yuppification is much better. To me, it is too bad one or more of the anthracite RR groups couldn't have given this site more consideration before embarking on plans for other sites. In Keene's case, virtually no one ever considered the roundhouse and shop building for a rail museum, even though Nelson Blount operated steam trains right in front of it for a short time. If there is any fault in these cases, it lies within our own ranks for failing to see potential.



Nelson Blount story
ryarger@rypn.org

At least Keene is still standing. Yuppification is better than demolition. Can't have every engine facility continue in the future as an engine facility.

Here in Omaha, Walmart and Lowes were going to build new centers next to each other on undeveloped land. People living nearby weren't pleased about the typical architecture. As a result of the ground swell, both changed their buildings to make them more acceptable. Omaha may adopted ordinances to encourage such changes.
Change is possible, though tough.

Gerald W. Kopiasz
> It took roughly seven years to get the first
> Wal-Mart into Vermont. The company adamantly
> insisted on new construction, which was
> strongly opposed by Governor Howard Dean (a
> champion of historic preservation and
> downtown revival -presently a presidential
> candidate) and many allied anti-sprawl
> groups. Eventually, Wal-Mart agreed to move
> into an empty K-Mart in Rutland and similar
> extant shopping centers in Bennington and
> Berlin. The only new big box Wal-Mart in
> Vermont was built a few years later in
> Williston. The tough little state of Vermont
> does not welcome greedy developers openly.
> This is not necessarily an old Vermont
> trait, as most natives could care less about
> such things; the opposition actually comes
> from savvy "city people" who have
> moved up and wish to keep their new home
> from becoming like where they came from.
> Though the locals greatly resent them, the
> state is a better place for their efforts.

> While I applaud Rob's last-ditch effort, I
> doubt it will happen without the kind of
> government involvement there is in Vermont.
> Having seen the Keene roundhouse, I can't
> say such yuppification is much better. To
> me, it is too bad one or more of the
> anthracite RR groups couldn't have given
> this site more consideration before
> embarking on plans for other sites. In
> Keene's case, virtually no one ever
> considered the roundhouse and shop building
> for a rail museum, even though Nelson Blount
> operated steam trains right in front of it
> for a short time. If there is any fault in
> these cases, it lies within our own ranks
> for failing to see potential.


hrrhs@aol.com

> I have some very strong feelings about
> off-shore business, mega retailers and other
> social/labor issues (as some of you know - I
> don't always keep an appropriate lid on it).

> However, fighting things on the top level
> doesn't always work. If Wal*Mart goes into
> Pen Argyl, and it includes preservation of
> the site, then the market can dictate what
> the anchor store will be in the plaza
> long-term. It might always be Wal*Mart, it
> might not...

> I think the trick with preservation of
> threatened sites is to look for the near
> term goal and see how all interested parties
> can benefit.

> With Pen Argyl, it doesn't have to be a
> "fight" to save the shops, it
> could be a cooperative venture. Let's hope!

Rob, as much as your letter was well-constructed and positive, its unlikely to have an effect- sorry to say. Unfortunately,its likely that the ink is already dry on the contracts. However, if it does you can be the protagonist in a tear-jerker movie, perhaps "Saving Pen Argyl"?

That having been said, I think its necessary to avoid singling out Wal-Mart (not necessarily in this post but I've seen this story a bunch of places) in these matters. It only serves to make an enemy and over-simplify the matter. Having "strong feelings" is fine- but they need to be tempered with reason-and over ruled by the other side of the brain when necessary (i never remember that right/left thing).

Transparently negative and indefinite labels such as "mega retailer" also don't add much clarity either. In the "good old days", the local shop keepers that we seem to yearn for now- were often thought of as badly then as Walmart is now. They were accused (sometimes rightly though usually not) of all sorts of things-collusion,price gouging, over-influence, employment blacklisting, etc. Today, you hear so much stuff about Walmart- you'd think it was the devil incarnate-and Walmart doesn't blacklist anybody.

So lets put this in perspective-Not to far from Pen Argyl is Wilkes Barre, where the modern version of that local shopkeeper still exists in the person of Thom Greco. Greco's visible businesses are pretty much stateside. He's not even the biggest fish in the local night club and concert industry-so he's not "mega" anything. He was even a vocal supporter of the labor endorsed governor Rendell (of course, that was before AFSCME got spanked in the new contract). Given the opportunity to preserve the CNJ station, he's created something that looks like a Warhol on LSD collage-but its still standing. Last year, after the former Reading passenger car hotel fell into such disrepair that vagrants lit fires and caused an issue with the city, the cars were scrapped on site.

But the question remains, who's really at fault? We expect our investments to earn money,but somehow expect others to leave properties sit idle. The Greco cars were offered FOR FREE, no takers. Pen Argyl has been idle since IKE. Across the river in Kinston, the DLW roundhouse still stands- with no interest-but wait until somebody rents a bulldozer!

The ultimate reality is that had rail preservationists been organized and cohesive, WE would've created a foundation or non-profit and saved these properties and places like Lima, LaGrange and any of the scores of roundhouses, stations and towers that have fallen in the last decade.

Instead, we have account after account of internicine warfare, groups splitting up, fighting, etc.

So does the bell toll for Walmart and Greco or Us? We would do well to remember what Adam Smith said over 200 years ago-that we don't get what we want from other because of charity-but because of their self interest.

In that vein, I like how you pointed out the potential economic advantages of an alternate course. Money doesn't talk, IT SCREAMS. You are to be applauded for trying something other than the same old stuff.

Now can I recommend Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt?



superheater@rrmail.com

The tough little state of Vermont
> does not welcome greedy developers openly.
>

Who among us doesn't seek the best price we can get for our time, services or goods? We are all greedy.

By the way, some of our regulars on here could be calleds "developers" as well.

There is a potentially interesting history lesson here, and I apologize in advance for this, but I thought it was worth sharing

Railroads began the process of "annihilating space and time" by bringing industrialized standardization to everything they touched on a (inter?)national scale. Standard gauge, standard locomotives, standard stations, standard roundhouses, standard products. The militaristic efficiency of the railroads started the transformation of our culture that has led us to Wal*mart.

Wal*mart, and every other national retailer, depend upon standardized store layouts. They are not all the same because they lack imagination (although you may argue that they do) they are identical because it is more efficient for them. Column spacing and ceiling heights have been "optimized" for the purposes of selling things. Form follows function to an extreme. The outsides may vary slightly to acknowledge "context," but it is a thin veneer that cruelly mocks local character.

Since much of this standardization is in common amongst the "big box" retailers, it is possible to squeeze the Wal*mart program into a former K-mart. However, it is unlikely that Wal*mart would ever consider locating a store into an existing building that did not meet their standards.

These comments aside, I thought Mr. Davis' letter was as good as it could be. Adaptive reuse is a great way to preserve industrial buildings that have lost their original purpose. Certainly other uses including retail and entertainment would (and have) fit into preserved industrial buildings. Unfortunately, developers are too attached to their standardized ways of doing things. If the NR&DC is the kind of company that only does big box retail, then it is unlikely that they will be interested in "risking" something new.

If I may make a suggestion, there are developers that specialize in (or at least have experience with) adaptive reuse projects. It may be worthwhile to bring historically (and economically) valuable sites to their attention.

An additional point I would like to make is that some of us do consider more than the short-term economic benefits of a purchase decision. There are many factors that influence such a decision such as quality and even politics. I buy books from a store near wear I live instead of online or at Barnes and Noble, because the bookstore provides more than access to cheap books. I wish all economic decisions were made with a wider awareness of the true "costs" involved.

Thanks


rrrarch@yahoo.com

Hi,

> Railroads began the process of
> "annihilating space and time"...

On a national scale, some of this is true, but things like roundhouses, stations and other itmes have never been nationally standardized.

The one great standard railroads gave us is Stanard Time, and then gov't went and mucked that up.

> Since much of this standardization is in
> common amongst the "big box"
> retailers, it is possible to squeeze the
> Wal*mart program into a former K-mart.
> However, it is unlikely that Wal*mart would
> ever consider locating a store into an
> existing building that did not meet their
> standards.

This is an excellent point.

> If I may make a suggestion, there are
> developers that specialize in (or at least
> have experience with) adaptive reuse
> projects. It may be worthwhile to bring
> historically (and economically) valuable
> sites to their attention.

That is also an excellent idea.

> An additional point I would like to make is
> that some of us do consider more than the
> short-term economic benefits of a purchase
> decision.

Hear ye, hear ye! I hardly ever shop just on "cheap" alone.

One of the interesting things about corporate standards of architecture is that local zoning can trump the standard. There are several New England Mc Donalds and some pad stores that fall into this category.

To your point, I can't think of a mega "box store" that is housed in an historic building, though there are a bunch of non-standard Target stores in NJ.

It takes a lot of vision. Heck, part of my dissapointment with Scranton, PA is the demolition of an intact downtown retail infrastructure to build a new downtown retail infrastructure. ;-)

Our community needs to become a little more proactive abour reuse, because we can't make a museum out of everything.

Look at the Reading locomotive shops. That's a huge space waiting for something... probably won't be a museum sicne that probably would have happened already, but what will it be? Adaptive re-use? Warehouse? Wrecking ball? A locomotive shop again?

Rob

rdavis@rypn.org

These retailers feed on themselves, business wise and site wise. In the last six months I watched eight big stores come dowm to be replaced by bigger stores. The frustrating part was that the materials, ie; steel and roof trusses could have been recycled into the storage facilities we all dream of, nope that would have taken too much time and money.

CAD programs make it soooo easy and cheap to plug your standard design into just about any site and change a few things for connections ...don't bother me with redesign I have too much money already invested (BS answer for I can't be bothered). CAD also makes it easy to modify existing designs so it ain't like you are starting from scratch (Ask the guys from Stone Consulting, how many turnpike interchanges they designed at the drop of a hat). Takes a little prodding from the Community, like Rite-Aid suddenly becoming interested in moving historic structures from their chosen sites rather then tearing them down.

lamontdc@adelphia.net

Hello

I have to agree with Superheater on many points. Especially that preservationists (not just railroad) tend to be re-active rather than pro-active. Look at the pre-mall Scranton for instance. In the 30 or so years before the mall was constructed there was little or no organized attempt to even stabilize these buildings, let alone acquire or restore one or two. I've heard of some of these buildings being purchased for under $30 thousand in the early 1980's. It wasn't until the mall project got under way in full scale that preservationists in the community came out of the woodwork, but it was far too little, far too late.

Another trend I see in the railroad preservation community is the tendency to shun the concept of adaptive re-use. A yuppified roundhouse is better then no roundhouse in my opinion. I'd rather buy cheap sneakers in the reading shops then park my car on the FORMER site of the Reading shops.

Furthermore, even without considering our negative attitude towards adaptive re-use, there isn't really a cohesive effort to market "our" structures to the outside world. Many developers see only an old building, not the wide open interiors, clearances ( i.e. doorways that you could, well drive a train through), the insulating properties of the brickwork, the cost reduction in lighting when you factor in the sky lights, saw tooth roofs and chlerstory ceilings of many a former railroad structure. I could fill a notebook on this if I wanted to. We as a community need to get past the idea of "everything has to be a museum" and accept that these buildings can see new life in other functions.

Dave Crosby


bing@epix.net

Hi Dave,

It was great to meet you last Saturday at Steamtown!

The Scranton mall fight came in two parts. The first was a pre-mall pro-active plan to save the entire Lackawanna strip and restore the retail space. This was 1987 or so. The plan called for streetcars and a full integration with Steamtown. Artists renderings appear in full color in the Sunday Scranton Times. It was a tremendous proposal and one of the most progressive plans I have evern seen for a "main street" type of project.

That plan morphed into the idea of a facadism plan, whereby the fronts of the old buildings would cover the new mall built behind them. That was pretty unworkable.

In the end, there were plenty of objectors to the final all-new mall. Even if you had purchased a building for $30K, it would have been taken from you. A condemnation process was used to acquire some of the land for the mall.

There was a very tight-knit relationship between some parties in city hall, some landowners and others involved. By 1990 it became apparent that nothing was going to stop them.

The thing that saddenend me was not just the loss of Lackawanna Ave, but the ongoing demolition in the years since. The University tore down more siginificant structures, the Casey fell and so much more... with more planned.

I grew up between two Jersey shore cities (Long Branch and Asbury Park) that answered thier declining fates and racial tensions with large-scale demolition of landmarks and entire neighborhoods, all on the promise of a new economy.

It hasn't worked yet, and it began 30 years ago. Scranton would have done well to learn from the example. All we can hope for now is that the new direction works.

Of course, the dramatic reworkings of downtown Reading, Wilkes-Barre and Allentown (by some of the smae faces as Scranton) all proved to be disastrous.

When I look at eastern PA towns that had historic structures that were bargains in the 1980's and are now golden, I would say Jim Thorpe is the one I wish my cousin and I had followed-through on getting some real estate in. Row houses in the historic district sold for under $15K. Now, they are worth 20x that!

Rob

> I have to agree with Superheater on many
> points. Especially that preservationists
> (not just railroad) tend to be re-active
> rather than pro-active. Look at the pre-mall
> Scranton for instance. In the 30 or so years
> before the mall was constructed there was
> little or no organized attempt to even
> stabilize these buildings, let alone acquire
> or restore one or two. I've heard of some of
> these buildings being purchased for under
> $30 thousand in the early 1980's. It wasn't
> until the mall project got under way in full
> scale that preservationists in the community
> came out of the woodwork, but it was far too
> little, far too late.


rdavis@rypn.org

Hello Rob

Yes, it was nice to finally meet you Saturday!

In the end I'm afraid you're right about Scranton. One of the biggest problems with this town is that each project is viewed as a panacea for whatever ails the area at the moment. The Mall was supposed to fix the downtown, it didn't. I'm not sure if the whole downtown is better off now or not. Sure there are more jobs, but how can one afford to raise a family on $6 dollars an hour. The mall is one of the worst I've seen, a whole 25 % of it has been empty at times. Steamtown was supposed to bring in 500K visitors a year (according to the NPS in 1995) and today struggles to get a third of that.

The worst offense is that the groups one would consider more likely to preserve the historic fabric of the down town are the biggest offenders.

Steamtown demolished the Dickson Locomotive Works to make way for the parking lot. This building was more intact and retained more of its original fabric than the roundhouse itself. It had enough indoor storage space to cover more than half of the rolling stock displayed outdoors, but the NPS needed a parking lot.

The City of Scranton let the INTACT Scranton Transit Car Barns decay beyond the point of salvage and then tore them down.

The University of Scranton tore down more historic buildings than I can count.

More recent losses include the Haddon Carftsmen book binders building, an immaculate, intact industrial structure with nearby rail service. It was sold for a song to the Scranton Preparitory School due to fears that it might be turned into housing for the elderly.

Just a few miles away the ineptitude of the City of Olyphant lead to the destruction of the former D&H frieght house, a building wich was to be donated to them if they could move it some 1500 feet... Infighting among the town prevented the neccessary property aquisitions.

I guess you could say that around here, the bulldozers fire up quicker then brains. Then there is the other side of the coin...

You have the Iron furnaces which are in effect the birthplace of the city. A decent coal mine tour and museum. Other buildings have been impecably maintained, such as the Masonic Temple Concert Hall, 100+ year old courthouse, the fantastic art deco Everhart Museum.

In the railroad catagory, you have the reasonably intact DL&W Erecting shops (now Chamberlain Mfg.), the DL&W Scranton Division HQ and Station (hotel now), Steamtown Yard and the REA building all making for a relatively intact physical plant.

I guess one could say this area is one of extremes, good and bad.

Dave Crosby

bing@epix.net