Trotwood-Madison vs. Winton Woods
.jpg)
2009-10 UD men's basketball
Pyramid Hill lights up
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2007 > November > 09 > Entry
Visions for Bldg. 26 & other historic sites
This is a rendering by Dayton architect Jeff Wray of a concept for Building 26 and how it might be adapted as part of the University of Dayton’s redevelopment of the old NCR property.
For a bigger image, click here: View image.
He says, “This view from the corner of Patterson and Stewart shows an uncovered and restored Building 26 (on the right) as part of a gateway and commercial redevelopment concept for the south side of Stewart Street. Use as an Alumni Center is suggested here as one of many possibilities for the 42,000 square foot two-story building.”
What do you think of this — bearing in mind that there is no financial feasibility study behind it?
What other possibilities do you imagine?
Check out Sunday’s editorial, and help think through some bigger questions:
Building 26 is not the only endangered historic site in the Dayton region, and there are not enough resources to save everything worth saving.
With that in mind, what other properties should make the “A List” for preservation or reuse?
By what process and criteria should this community select the vital few?
How might they be preserved or adapted?
Comments
By William Kennedy
November 10, 2007 6:04 PM | Link to this
I think it is fitting as we approach Veteran’s Day that we continue to seek adaptive reuse of Building 26. This building is a powerful symbol of how the spirit of innovation and patriotism continue in our community. Saving Building 26 will be a fitting tribute to the University of Dayton, our veterans, and the incredible accomplishments of volunteers and citizens during WWII who have often been unrecognized. An alumni center would be an excellent reuse. UD, please reconsider. What could possibly take the place of this building that will ever have as much meaning?By Jefferey
November 11, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this
I think, at this point, Building 26 is water under the bridge. But the edtiorial was excellent. I really apprecated seeing that the DDN is putting historic preservation.. the big picture of historic preservation… on the agenda. Everyone is going to have their pet builsing priority. Mine would be on how a building contributes to the visual impression of the city, and if it’s distinctive or unique in some way, or has some sort of historic signifigance. This could also be groups of buildings. My pet list would be a. The Arcade (all of it) b. Front Street factories c. W 3rd Street car barn (3rd & McGee) d. Davis factory (& Linden/Huffman industrial district) e. Kuhns mansion f. Commercial districts 1. Xenia Avenue 2. Tals Corner 3. Troy & Valley 4. Santa Clara 1 priority would be the Arcade as it is somwhat unique in the USA as it combines a market rotunda with arcade. This is pretty rare.By jimmie
November 11, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
Let’s assume for a minute that UD preserves Bldg 26 in the manner shown in the graphic. Then what? Will there be daily tours to see the code-breaking site? NO. Will it be a stop on the aviation trail? NO. Will there be people that visit the renovated building just because of what took place there. Well, maybe Belcher and Roth on their lunch hour (it is a short walk for them) - few others. And if they do - what will they see? A nice lobby display? Put an appropriate display at Carillon Park where lots of folks will see and appreciate it. That is one place Dayton should be spending its historical capital. These myopic DDN editorial folks would do much better to promote the development plans for Carillon Park - which could really be special- than to beat this dead horse to death. Get over it already, already,already, ……By Eddie Roth
November 11, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this
The Wray rendering really is offered as just one vision for how Bldg 26 could be adapted — hopefully sparking other imaginations and starting a bigger conversation. My sense is that local preservationists are not pushing to recreate the site in some pristine form identical to what existed during its history making era. Indeed, they seem to understand that the best chance to preserve Bldg. 26’s sublime sense of place is through some commercial adaptation. More than one person has proposed the facade be adapted as a home and lasting symbol for the University of Dayton Research Institute. That powerful imagery seems right on point. The missing piece is: If not historic adaptation then what? A chain resaurant? A mini mart? Another, newer, non-descript glass box? Given the millions in public money being put to this project, don’t we have a right to have some sense of what’s next before the structure is pulled down? I’d be interested to read how proponents of demolition weigh these questions.By Mary Ann Olding, architectural historian, Cincinnati,OH
November 11, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this
Thanks to the DDN editorial board for Sunday’s stand on Building 26. My question to Jeffrey and Jimmie is: “What has been your contribution to historic presevation in Dayton or the state of Ohio during the past 30 years? Can it match up to the credentials and hard work of members of the Building 26 Defense Council? Or do you represent those bystanders who have not searched for the facts and now think expressing opposition and exasperation is a brave move?By jimmie
November 11, 2007 6:55 PM | Link to this
Eddie and Mary Ann, you asked the questions - let me respond. For Eddie - get real - mini-mart, chain restaurant, glass box? Just look at your picture on the op/ed page today. What a gorgeous spot - except for the ugly building in the foreground. You have the river, you have the green space, you have Carillon Park. To make that area really vibrant, one needs people - and not just from 8-5. I would put some type of residential condos - something that draws permanent residents. Perfect for empty nesters - of which there are many. They did something similar at the Schuster. You have almost an ideal spot for that type of use. Medical is close by at MVH and its neighborhood. Sports are just across the river - or up the road at Fifth Third or on the UD campus. Many restaurants on Brown Street. Retail and grocery is just down the road at Patterson and Dorothy. Life-long learning can be enjoyed over at UD. The arts are just a few blocks away at the Schuster and Victoria. Heck, sign me up for a fifth floor condo with a river view. Mary Ann - I cannot speak for what the Bldg 26 defense council has done. I can tell you that if it is anything like the letter that Eddie quoted from the “National Trust” folks, then I got them beat. All they said is that we will help you find someone else’s money to help fix up the place. If they - and the Bldg 26 Defense Council - are really serious, put a few mill of your own money on the table. Then we will know you are a real player. I am not impressed by folks that want to spend someone else’s funds - rather than their own. I will repeat my suggestion - put your efforts toward the Carillon Park development- it is a real treasure and a place to be enjoyed by many many people. And the next thnig that should go is the fairgrounds. Can someone explain the logic behind reserving many acres for a seldom used harness race track right in the middle of the city? Don’t you just love the smell of those horse barns on a warm summer evening!By Eddie Roth
November 11, 2007 7:25 PM | Link to this
Hey Jimmie, there already is a few mill of other people’s money on the table for the project, including the funds that would be used to demolish Bldg. 26. Those “people” are taxpayers — THE people. And your high end condo idea — why exactly should a fifth floor codo with a river view be supported by public money? So we can feel “vibrant” about empty nesters walking around? Sorry, I am not impressed by folks who want to spend taxpayers’ money to subsidize luxury housing. So back to my questions: What’s going in next at the Bldg. 26 site? And since UD is using public money don’t we have a right to know before the old building is torn down?By jimmie
November 11, 2007 9:45 PM | Link to this
Eddie, Eddie, Eddie - I know full well that taxpayer money is going into that property - I am one of those taxpayers. However, most of the money going into that spot is to clean up the mess NCR left behind - not to fund the development itself. By your logic, the Schuster would never have been built - as it was Arts Fund money that financed a lot of that building and the “luxury condos” built above it. So, your suggestion is for UDRI to have its headquarters there? With a big parking lot in back for all of its employees who drive in from Oakwood and Beavercreek and Centerville? And have a dark building there at night? You asked for my opinion and then pan it when you don’t like it. Surely, you can do better than that. I guess you want all the empty nesters to stay in the burbs. It is people that make a community Eddie, not buildings. And heaven knows Dayton has been losing people. Bring the people back and the rest will follow.By leslie
November 12, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this
Apparently, no matter how many facts have been presented, no matter how many studies, the DDN continues to beat the preservation at all costs drum. I believe this continues to be the case because the DDN has been so adversarial, so opinionated, and so biased, that they cannot find a way to bow out gracefully. The business of a responsible newspaper is not to generate or fabricate news. It is to report the news and allow the good readers to make their own judgments. It is my sincere hope the DDN discards the “Bat Boy” mentality of the National Enquirer, and returns to the realm of journalistic integrity.By Move On
November 12, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
You three in the Editorial Department really need to move on to other topics. Building 26 is “history” which will be remembered at Carillon Park. The School Board election is over and the world will not end just because DAYTON VOTERS decided not to elect ONE person you endorsed. Can we PLEASE move on to topics that matter?By Dennis Wolf
November 12, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this
Everyone that has an interest in the history of the Dayton area hopes that the plans for Building 26, or the saved architectural items that may end up in Carillon Park, will work out for the best. There have been so many historical buildings lost in the Dayton area in the past few decades. Obviously we are slow learners. Think of the great old homes lost along Robert Drive, the many downtown movie theaters, and Steele High School. Many structures relating to the Wright Brothers during the time of the development of early aircraft have slipped away over the years, too. The Wright bicycle shop at 22 S. Williams Street was saved due mainly to the efforts of Dr. Jerry Meyer and Aviation Trail, not the City of Dayton. What about the NCR Auditorium? That should have never been allowed to go away either. I suspect that despite the attention given Building 26, bits and pieces of history will continue to be allowed to dissolve before our very eyes. How sad.By Jefferey
November 12, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this
One of the good points in the editorial was the observations on Dayton History. The absence of this organization perhaps reflects some of the problems here with the concept of local history, historical interpretation, and historical preservation. The focus on Carillon Park means other ways of “doing history” are neglected. But Dennis is correct about the weak support for the concept of historical preservation in the community. How does one turn this around?By Mark
November 13, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this
One of the perception problems I’ve noted in the above responses is that history should be limited to museums and not be an integral part of the community fabric. This isn’t limited to Dayton; it’s an American perception to throw out “old” things and build something new that’s often tasteless and has no character whatsoever. This is not the case in Europe, where you see adaptive reuse of older buildings that give their town centers color and distinctiveness. Concerning the DDN editorial, Preservation Dayton provides a valuable service by listing historic structures in our community that are in danger of going away, either through neglect or by the wrecking ball. PDI recognizes that our history, embodied not only in museums but also in our structures, provides our uniqueness, what makes Dayton Dayton. History also is the foundation of who we are today and what we can be tomorrow. If our community, especially the “movers and shakers”—those who determine city development and policies—have no sense of or think history is irrelevant in their decision-making, then that community has no direction and loses its distinctiveness. The problem with PDI’s list is that it has little, if any, community buy-in. There needs to be an inclusive process where civic, business, and preservationist groups reach a consensus that a particular structure is indeed worth saving. It doesn’t necessarily have to be eligible for inclusion as a National Historic Landmark. If the process comes to the conclusion that a particular structure is an important part of our city’s history, then adaptive reuse is an option. If this process were in place today, I have no doubt Building 26 would be a candidate for adaptive reuse; because UD’s decision would be in concert with community interests. I encourage Preservation Dayton to lead the effort to involve the entire community in its list of endangered structures.By jimmie
November 19, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this
Hey Eddie - Looks like someone else wants to build luxury condos on the river - this one over by DAI. Imagine that.