Late Call to Preserve Decatur High Stadium
Decatur Metro | November 5, 2007Decatur Presbyterian Minister and Decatur High graduate A. Coile Estes makes a late call to preserve the Decatur High School Stadium in today’s AJC, attacking Decatur and Atlanta for poor preservation practices.
“Atlanta and Decatur do not have a good track record in preservation. Atlanta has lost many historic buildings that would be a wonderful contribution to our soulless downtown today. The Terminal Station and the Peachtree Arcade come to mind. We almost lost the Fox Theatre until a courageous group of people decided to fight for its preservation. It is a jewel of our city today.
Decatur lost half of its court square in the early 1970s; courageous citizens stood up to make sure the remaining square was preserved.
Today, the part of the square that makes Decatur successful is the side with the preserved historic buildings, not the side with the office tower. Unfortunately, it appears we haven’t learned from that mistake.”
Click here to read the entire letter.
As another Decatur High alum, David over at InDecatur also has a soft spot for the historic stadium. He’s been calling for more transparency on this issue for a while and has even proposed alternatives that would have saved the old field. But as David points out this morning, this call by Estes is too little, too late. The last game has already been played and demolition is imminent.
Perhaps if those who supported preserving the old stadium made more noise earlier this year, like those on the other side of the Oakhurst Historic District issue, then maybe the stadium could have stood a chance. (Where was the Decatur Preservation Alliance?) But now it’s probably too late to stop the bulldozer, especially with local elections slated for tomorrow. (Notice that it was Baskett who motioned to prevent city staff from participating in the Oakhurst LHD process).
As you morn the loss of this unique historic landmark remember how you feel, so that the next time developers and local residents bad mouth local historic districts and “loss of property rights” you may entertain the possibility that sometimes conceding a few more restrictions on your property can save the landmarks that make your community unique.
Where has Ms. Estes been for the past several years (obviously she hasn’t gone to have a new photo made in the past 25 years or so)? The School System has been talking for years about a master plan for the high school, including upgrading its outdated athletic facilities, including the football stadium and the old gym (currently the boys and girls basketball teams cannot even play in the “home” gym because it is inadequate).
The replacement of the old football stadium was also anticipated in the city’s bond referendum which passed a year ago. At least a year of planning and meetings went into that. But a few days before the wrecking ball, she writes an oped? Also, neither you or Ms. Estes, in her oped, mention that one of the main reasons that the old Decatur High Stadium is inadequate is because when it was built, the school system did not conceive that females would actually play sports on the field some day. There are no restroom or changing facilities for females at the old stadium. The new stadium will incorporate facilities for both male and female athletics, in conformance with laws requiring equal access.
Lastly, you normally try to conceal your pro-Oakhurst historic district bent with the aura of neutrality, but not so much with this one. Maybe the old stadium should have been saved. The Decatur Historic Preservation Code allows individual buildings and structures to be preserved under the ordinance without having to include large areas of the city that do not include historic buildings. This was done with the Old Courthouse, The Scottish Rite Hospital, and others. The old stadium (and other landmarks deemed worth protecting) could be protected under this provision. What saving the old stadium (or other public structurs) has to do with in individual property rights, I have no idea. But you couldn’t resist throwing a punch at people who were opposed to the ill-conceived Oakhurst Historic District, could you?
But I do agree with you on this point: Where was Ms. Estes when her opinion could have mattered?
So glad you’re an avid reader One! Two responses in one day! Keep the hits coming!
As I’ve responded before, I don’t think I qualify as “pro-Oakhurst historic district” because I don’t ultimately believe that protecting the whole neighborhood was either prudent or physically possible. Also, I don’t think that residents in favor of the district went about things in the right way because, whether its true or not, many residents believed this district was sprung and forced upon them. That’s no way to approach ANY issue.
However, in general when conditions call for it, I do lean toward supporting preservation. In this case, my “punches” weren’t directed specifically at those that oppose the Oakhurst LHD, but at those that have it in for preservation across the whole city. I don’t live in Oakhurst, haven’t followed the day-to-day drama, and don’t claim to by any sort of authority on that neighborhood. It really ain’t really a concern to me from a NIMBY standpoint.
My rather snide remarks therefore are directed at those that have begun the assault on preservation throughout the city. The argument is no longer just about Oakhurst. Whatever you guys wanna do, peace be with you and maybe one day you’ll be on speaking terms again. But when you talk about revising the ordinance, and laughing at the HPC, now you’re dealing with the whole city. This movement DOES affect me. So, I believe its only fair to try and give preservation a fair shake. You’ve got 8 months of postings arguing against it. You shouldn’t feel threatened by a few punches sent from a new, random and poorly-focused blog!
Finally, I want to point out that when it comes to “aura of neutrality” we both seem to be pretty good at it. Your blog states “ONE Oakhurst is a place where we can openly debate the proposal to create an Oakhurst Historic District. Designating a portion of Oakhurst as a historic district impacts all Oakhurst and Decatur residents and all voices need to heard. Comments on this blog are unmoderated.”
While your blog is unmoderated (and that should be applauded) it is obvious from your entries (jail time for the elderly residents that can’t build their own craftsman style handicap ramps! – this is obvious exaggeration but should get the point across) that not all voices are being heard or supported equally on it.
Thanks for the dialogue Decaturite. One thing I want to clear up though. Many, if not most, people who are opposed to the Oakhurst Historic District are not opposed to preservation. I not only live in a well preserved, nearly 100 year old home myself, but am also a member of the Decatur Preservation Alliance, support the preservation of our landmark buildings, and would support historic districts where warranted and there is sufficient communty support. I also think that voluntary programs and incentives are a great idea.
The reason most of have fought this proposal is not because we are opposed to historic preservation. The reason we have fought it is because we are opposed to the misuse of the Historic Preservation Code to regulate infill and believe that the process of attempting to create the Oakhurst Historic District was heavy handed, secretive and not well thought out.
Ultimately, we believe that the misuse of the Historic Preservation Code hurts the cause of preserving truly historic buildings in Decatur. And it has in the case of the Oakhurst Historic District proposal. Not only has it made people distrust the system, but in the nearly one year of debating this proposal, we could have unified around trying to protect truly historic buildings such as our many historic schools, churches, and other structures (yes, including the football stadium) that remain unprotected. We could have unified around creating voluntary programs and incentives to renovate older homes rather than build new and create incentives for homeowners and builders to build new houses that are compatible with their surroundings.
But instead, because of the efforts of 2 or 3 neighborhood activists trying to impose their will on an unwilling neighborhood, and unwilling to compromise, time has passed and we will certainly lose the football stadium. Many other truly historic buildings in Decatur remain unprotected and deserve to be so.
I agree with most everything you’ve said in the above post One. I guess I just take issue with some of your past tactics, even if they were effective.