It's Our City is a project that uses TV, Radio and Web
to promote civic engagement in the Philadelphia region.Why can't historic preservation be more proactive?
Monday, August 17th, 2009 at 2:52 pm - by Guest Commentator. Filed under: Community.
The new owner of this Bryn Mawr home plans to demolish it / Image credit: Carla Zambelli
By Carla Zambelli
I have lived out here on the Main Line since I was 11. I remember, even as a child, several times when La Ronda was in play.
Lower Merion has had more than 30 years at least to save La Ronda if we all want to be honest about it. (And note that Narberth seems like they will be allowing Spanish House to come down, which is of a similar era and style on a much smaller scale.)
Do we believe structures like La Ronda should be saved? Yes. But why is historic preservation always Reactive and not more Proactive?
Lower Merion (government) says they are FOR historic preservation, yet they tried to take a block in Ardmore’s Historic Business District via eminent domain for private gain five years ago, didn’t they? And some of those same commissioners still sit on the board, don’t they? It makes you wonder if historic preservation is a bit of a selective business doesn’t it? Or if an issue like this is also somewhat politically expedient for some in office?
Lower Merion has a historic preservation ordinance yes, but it is not strong enough, and situations like this were almost predicted by the original enactors. Former Commissioner Charlie Bloom in particular expressed concern.
As a child of Society Hill (yes my parents were among the urban pioneers who came to Society Hill in the early to mid 60s), I know what IS possible with regard to historic preservation, but I know how much work it takes. And if you do not have laws on a local a state level that back up preservation efforts, we will forever be playing catch up. Did you know the last time Lower Merion Township enacted a comprehensive plan it was 1979? And that the Municipalities Planning Code says this should be done every 10 years?
Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. Third Edition, November 2007
In too many communities we hear the political mantra ”Oh we wish there was more we could do. Oh, it’s a by-right plan. Oh, the Municipalities Planning Code of PA says we have to do it this way”.
The truth is, local governments in PA could lobby the Commonwealth of PA to re-do the Municipalities Planning Code and to strengthen historic preservation laws. The truth is that once in a while municipalities should stand up and say “no” to destruction of communities, destruction of old and historic structures. But they don’t. And on the Main Line it always seems developers come before communities, and that private property rights are selective. They talk about private property rights in context of the person or group who own a property being discussed (like LaRonda), but they seem to leave out the private property rights of the people in an area surrounding a controversial property. Or the rights of the community as a whole. Because there is a relationship there, like it or not - look at another Main Line issue this summer - the issue over billboards. Whose rights are valued more? That always makes for an interesting conversation.
La Ronda is a clear example of what is wrong in our communities, and oh my what a learning curve. We hope this Mr. Benjamin Wohl will be able to come to a satisfactory arrangement with La Ronda’s mysterious owners. La Ronda might not be everyone’s architectural cup of tea, but we believe La Ronda to be important. I am only sorry it has taken until the 11th hour for people to realize this.
Carla Zambelli is Vice President of the Save Ardmore Coalition. She is an occaissional contributor to the Main Line Times. You can see more photos of LaRonda here.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I believe very strongly in both historic preservation and private property rights.
It’s a shame to see La Ronda go. I wish it were to be preserved, or the owners wouldn’t be so greedy about not selling the structure for a reasonable amount. (They really are being exceptionally greedy about that.)
But the fact is, the author is right: if people cared so much, they had 30 years to protect it. The time to care was BEFORE it was sold.
I would have supported historic status before the sale, but once it’s off the market and in private hands, with no historic status, the community has no say whatsoever, and they shouldn’t expect it. I’m glad people are still lobbying the owners to save it; they have every right to ask, but it’s just a request. Private property rights have to be respected.
August 17th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
It is a shame that La Ronda will not be preserved, but as the author and others have mentioned 30 years have gone by and it is now in private hands. People should have stepped up a long time ago, and trying to reverse someone’s right to own property (no matter how greedy) would certainly open a whole new can of worms.
It sounds like some new — and more independent blood — is needed in Lower Merion to decide preservation issues.
Finally, as much as I agree with the author, I think comparing La Ronda to the “success story” of the 1960’s Society Hill is like comparing apples and oranges. First of all, look at the pain, suffering and displacement the Society Hill caused many in Philadelphia at the time — as well as the racial and ethnic makeup of the displaced communities. La Ronda will not have the same impact in terms of community and place, and while Society Hill could certainly be looked at now, after the passing of significant time as well as the passing of some who were displaced, as a success, it was not immediately one.
La Ronda should be saved as a part of the history of Lower Merion and architectural history as well. I agree wholeheartedly with the author that preservation should be proactive and not reactive and hope that Lower Merion learns from this process. I also hope that we can stick to appropriate comparisons, in time, place, and in intentions.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Hi Deb,
Thank you very much for taking the time to comment on my post here even if I do not agree 100%.
With all due respect, while La Ronda and Society Hill are not the same sort of place, the point was about historic preservation. And how the impossible can indeed become possible.
I was born in Society Hill and I do not recall Society Hill being like West Philadelphia when Penn, etc expanded. I do not recall people being displaced, and those of us whose parents moved there in the 1960s and 1970s still talk about it…What I do recall, quite vividly in fact, were all the abandoned houses and storefronts. I remember buildings so badly deteriorated that they could not be repaired or restored. I also remember a melting pot of people of all ethnic and racial backgrounds, as well as socio economic levels.
La Ronda would have a different impact, but I stick by what I wrote.
I often remark about Society Hill because I know it as I lived it a bit & THAT was an uphill battle for Historic Preservation but because of the teancity and force of will of people like the late Charlie Peterson and even Ed Bacon (and if I recall my Philadelphia trivia I do not know that those two were friends, I seem to recall they were almost rivals), it happened.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
right on! yikes. that is all I have to say but apparently I can’t submit if that is all I say? Ok well I agree with the author of this post.
August 19th, 2009 at 9:18 am
An online petition exists that asks the owner(s) of La Ronda to forego their right to demolish it and accept Mr. Wohl’s offer (which apparently is the only viable alternative that has been presented so far).
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/laronda/index.html
For more information on La Ronda, http://www.site.savelarondanow.com
August 19th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Just point of order… I think Deb is correct about the Society Hill displacement. In fact, it’s one of the darker legacies of the Dilworth administration. A quick Google search will turn up some accounts of that but it was most likely before the time you are remembering in the mid to late 60s.