Historic Debate
Board Hears Plans to Re-create Two Landmark Buildings

“We can consider ourselves experts in this field, and what you’re doing is not preserving the building.”

By Omar Sommereyns

The concept of historic preservation generally implies the conservation of structures that significantly contribute to the history of a particular place or region.

To wit, the city of Miami’s historic preservation ordinance states that its intent is to “preserve and protect the heritage of the city through the identification, evaluation, rehabilitation, adaptive use, restoration, and public awareness of [its] historic, architectural, and archeological resources.”

However, there are cases where a building has to be, in one way or another, reconstructed, usually because it hasn’t been properly maintained, an issue that often leads to an ethical quagmire for preservationists.

At their last meeting on Nov. 7, the city’s Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) discussed two structures, one of which has been reconstructed and another that is poised to be. The outcome for each building differed.

The first involved the city-owned Ward Rooming House at 249-51-53-55 NW Ninth St. in Overtown. A two-story stuccoed masonry building built in 1925, the structure was originally home to laborers who rebuilt Overtown and an area of Miami that was then called “White Town,” following the devastating 1926 hurricane that swept through Miami. Moreover, the building’s location is smack in the middle of what used to be the epicenter of the business district and social hub of what was then known as “Colored Town.”

In the past few decades, the Ward Rooming House had fallen into disrepair, yet it went through a reconstruction process in 2005. Now the city has brought the building before the HEPB to request historic designation. Initially, board members were slightly puzzled, positing notions of integrity, authenticity and genuine historic value. They also asked: Is the building a valid historic structure even if it has been reconstructed?

Board member Lourdes Solera questioned the preservation staff on how to go about designating a reconstructed building. Ellen Uguccioni, a city preservation planner, suggested that the word “Reconstructed” be added parenthetically to the designation.

A staff report from the planning department recommended approval of the Rooming House’s historic designation, writing in its designation report, “This is one of the few times that the board has reviewed a request to designate a reconstructed building. As such, there are great concerns for the authenticity of its reconstruction. Although there has been some substitution made in the fabrication of the windows in order that they meet code-mandated wind-loads, based on its prior review and the enormous cultural importance of the building, the staff finds that it is eligible for local historic designation.”

The board agreed and unanimously approved the Rooming House’s designation.

Added the city report, “The Ward Rooming House reflects the historical, cultural, and social development trends of Miami’s early African and Caribbean American population located in ‘Colored Town,’ know today as Overtown. This building is one of the few that illustrates the prosperous and united community that once thrived along and around NW 9th Street. As such, the building plays a larger role in sustaining the sense of place of Overtown’s flourishing past. The Ward Rooming House is a remnant with enormous potential for the revitalization of the community that remains.”

What the Ward Rooming House will be used for is undetermined. Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones has said she wants to create an art gallery in there. Dorothy Fields, historian and founder of the Black Archives, said she wants to eventually move the Archives’ headquarters into the building.

Discussion surrounding another item on the HEPB agenda was much more contentious. The owner of the East Coast Fisheries building at 40 SW North River Drive had gone before the board to request a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition and partial reconstruction of the building as well as the construction of a new seven-story complex next door, which would house a restaurant on each floor.

Also built in the early 1920s, the Fisheries building, located along the Miami River, had been both a fish market and restaurant, but was, over the years, left to decay and is now severely deteriorated.

Patricia Baloyra, the attorney representing Peter Swartz, the project’s developer and building owner, argued tirelessly that the historic structure had to go down because it has become unsafe and completely unsalvageable.

“The building simply cannot be maintained,” she said.

Furthermore, Baloyra had even brought in a “concrete expert” from Chicago to prove her claims.

“After seeing more than 1,000 buildings in my life, I’ve felt most uncomfortable in the [Fisheries building],” asserted Boris Dragunsky, a principal with Universal Construction Testing, during the public hearing. He then went on about a problem of “concrete and reinforcement,” explaining that the original concrete wasn’t consolidated well enough, creating pores that gave way to moisture, which eventually created corrosion on the steel structures.

“The building is basically doomed because of the original construction,” he said.

Therefore, Swartz and architect Gabriel Salazar of Salazar Architectural Group want to demolish the building and partially reconstruct it while preserving some of the decorative elements and creating only two of the original façades. The wall facing the river would be made out of glass to provide open views on the water.

Board members, however, weren’t too pleased.

“We can consider ourselves experts in this field, and what you’re doing is not preserving the building,” member Gary Appel said. Similarly, member Jane Caporelli told the applicant to refrain from using the word “preservation” since the proposed reconstruction, along with the seven-story complex attached to it, are incompatible with the concept of historic preservation.

The board’s chair, Andy Parrish, called the façades a “travesty” and all the members agreed to have the city staff look over Dragunsky’s report before voting on the demolition.

“I don’t want the city to [just] tell me it’s an unsafe structure,” said board member Solera. “I want to know whether or not [Dragunsky’s] report is actually [valid].”

Contrasting it with the Ward Rooming House reconstruction, Parrish said, “…And here we just have a couple façades…and some window-dressing…This is not good preservation…This building went from a place where I used to have dinner [12 years ago] to one that’s come before this board so that it can go down.”

Following some talk about simply having a plaque there instead of going through with a mediocre reconstruction, Kathleen Slesnick Kauffman, the city’s preservation officer, cautioned otherwise.

“It’s a very modern proposal and there’ll be a lot activity [along the Miami River area in the future],” she said. “So if there’s only a plaque, people will hardly pay attention, but if there’s at least something that bears a semblance, then [people will be made aware of the history].”

After an extended debate, the board members finally decided to proffer advice on how to improve the reconstruction and mitigate the juxtaposition of the old fisheries design with the ultra-modern restaurant complex next to it, suggesting that the architect separate the buildings so that they become two distinct structures.

The item was then deferred and is expected to come back before the board at an upcoming meeting.

“Any building can be restored, but it takes time, money and perseverance,” said board member Caporelli. “…But when it’s lost it’s lost. I remember [preservationist] Barbara Capitman saying, ‘When you take out a historic building, it’s like an old woman losing a tooth – you can’t replace it.’”

Comments? E-mail omar@miamisunpost.com.