By Jacob Simmering, Iowa City
I read Thomas Argan’s letter with interest. I agree completely that the Slezak-Holub-Skarda building is an attractive building that survived the era of urban renewal that took away many similarly attractive buildings. The parking lot across the street and next to the building were once the home to more interesting land uses, namely housing and stores. The loss of those buildings cannot be undone and so preserving what survived that era is important.
But what is more important is an actual use of the space. Agran mentions the historic UU church building downtown. The building is also old, attractive, and survived the era of urban renewal. However, there is a reason the UU congregation left that building. It lacks AC making it unpleasant in the summer and is not even remotely handicap accessible. To make the building accessible and improve the HVAC was either not practical or not possible. A deal was struck to preserve the building when the construction occurred around it; however, no one wants the building for the same reason the UU congregation left. They want or require AC, they want or require spaces easily accessible to people with different mobility needs, and so on. They do not have the money to make the required improvements, even when those improvements are possible.
And so the building sits empty. And will sit empty. But it has been “saved.” However, is an empty building that no one wants or can use actually what we want? An empty space of valuable real estate that could offer a store or multiple apartments is not a good use of land, whether it is an empty lot or a building without practical uses that sits empty. What have we actually saved? And is it worth the cost of losing that land?
There is unfortunately a trade-off with preservation. The story of the UU church building is an example of a misguided and failed effort at preservation which actively harms our community by preventing a vibrant use of an important piece of land. While the Slezak-Holub-Skarda building appears better positioned with respect to commercial and residential use of the existing building, preservation efforts must be balanced with the effects of preservation. Keeping the Slezak-Holub-Skarda building as a functional piece of property is preferable to tearing it down, but both are preferable to a world where the Slezak-Holub-Skarda building, like the UU church, sits empty forever after it is “saved.”
