Interesting Debate in the University of Minnesota
 

University, fraternity. . .history?

Terry Collins, Star Tribune

The Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission will take a tough test next month: whether to designate 33 properties near the University of Minnesota, including century-old fraternity and sorority houses, as historic landmarks.

The question is being considered despite overwhelming vocal objection from many of the Greek organizations on campus. Members say historic designation would make upkeep more expensive than renovation.

"We didn't ask for this," Lynn Swan, a member of the Coalition for Nonprofit Student Housing, said at a public hearing conducted by the Preservation Commission on Tuesday evening at City Hall.

"Designating the past jeopardizes the future," said Swan, whose group represents concerns from the Greek-letter organizations.

The commission delayed its decision on whether the properties, mostly fraternity and sorority houses located either on or near University Avenue SE. between Oak Street and Interstate Hwy. 35W, are historic landmarks.

The debate began last year after the Delta Tau Delta fraternity approached the city with plans to rebuild. The fraternity said it decided to rebuild its house, at 1717 University Av. SE., after conducting a yearlong study, said Brett Hildreth, a coalition board member and Delta Tau Delta alumnus. Its decision came after it had spent $500,000 on renovations, he said.

This prompted the commission, which recommends buildings or sections of the city to the City Council for historic designation, to conduct its own six-month study on other fraternity and sorority houses that might meet its criteria.

Most of the Greek-letter houses were built in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Tuesday, Carole Zellie, a landscape researcher who conducted the commission's study, called the various Georgian, Neoclassical Greek and Tudor-style houses "substantial," and "impressive."

Zellie told the commission that the historical integrity of the homes, "once the political epicenter of the city," was worth saving.

She was supported by Florence Littman, who argued that as a resident near Fraternity Row for more than 40 years, she had some claim to the houses as well.

"I am appalled you think that those buildings don't belong to me as much as those who live in them," she said. "They belong to the neighborhood, because we are all dependent upon each other."

Littman went on to dispute claims by some that the organizations must improve their houses to attract new members and remain competitive with newer housing sites on campus.

Speaking on behalf of students, John Kokkinen, president of the university's Inter Fraternity Council and a member of Beta Theta Phi, said that a majority of his peers are against the designation.

He called it an "unnecessary burden," saying that maintaining a designated historical site as required can cripple most community-service organizations, which also are nonprofits.

"We're well aware of the historic significance of these buildings," Kokkinen said. "Why is there sudden doubt that we don't know?"

Commissioner Kelly Lindquist said that he was impressed with how the students spoke with "passion and soul" and that the commission will take everything into consideration.

"It's going to be a hard decision," he said.

Terry Collins is at tcollins@startribune.com.

Re: Interesting Debate in the University of Minnesota
 

As a Pittsburgher I am LMAO at this :D.

I'm confused though - if the buildings are designated "historic" wouldn't the state or local historic foundation be the ones to pay for any upkeep? also, I thought historic only applied to certain things like the exterior and general plan of the house (i.e. you don't have to have a circa 1900 bathroom).

Re: Re: Interesting Debate in the University of Minnesota
 

Not necessarily, some money for renovations and such can be provided by grants but usual upkeep is kept by the owner. Basically, designating the properties as historic landmarks prohibits people from just destroying the properties or changing them to the point that they dare no longer historically accurate.

In theory, designating something as a landmark should only affect the facade or certain crucial interior features (like the fireplace in a Frank Lloyd Wright house).

In practice, it's a gigantic headache. Chances are, no, the commission won't force you to keep a 1900-style bathroom. But usually you have to write up an extensive proposal and wait for the board to approve it before you can do ANYTHING to the structure of the house. This can mean huge delays when all you want to do is rip out the bathrooms. It also means that anything which disturbs the historic look of the house WON'T be approved. For example, a central air conditioning unit which sticks out through the roof; an addition which doesn't change the existing house but which is visible from the street; etc. etc.

My law school is totally crippled by this. A huge part of the property it owns is occupied by an enormous housing complex that is hideous, unlivable, convinces a lot of fantastic applicants to go elsewhere -- and is the largest surviving work of an "important" 20th-century architect. The alumni are there with donations to build new and better dorms -- the school would be thrilled to tear it down -- and it looks like we will be stuck with this monstrosity FOREVER because some architecture historians who don't have to live there want to come by once a year and admire the low ceilings, rat-cage rooms, and cement walls.

I have the greatest sympathy for the affected organizations. At least their houses are apparently habitable now; ours never were.

Ivy

I have a totally different point of view, since historical preservation is a major part of my masters degree, but I do understand the downfalls.

Well then, here's my next question. Does anyone know what the land situation is like at UM? Is there any way they could designate them historical and use them for something else and build new fraternity houses elsewhere?

Interesting idea, but the cost of new construction is probably prohibitive, as we've recently learned at a couple of our local chapters.

sugar and spice would know better than me, although she's probably getting ready for rush right now...but I doubt there's a lot of land. UM is in the middle of the Twin Cities, from my recollection, and it's a BIG campus.

That's correct. Our campus is the middle of the city, and we don't have enough land for things like parking or a football stadium, so new housing for greeks is out of the question, unless they build on our St. Paul campus, and no one would go for that, because its in the middle of nowhere.

Correct me if I am Wrong!

But if a building is placed on National Historical or is it Hysterical Regester, that it can be renovated on the interiour, but the exterior is to stay the same!??? :(

Not old pipes, wiring and seweres!:confused: These can be replaced!

Historical or not, if it is uninhabitable and damn dangerous, it may be replaced, well except in BreckenRidge , Colo! It has to fall down there!;)

Having once upon a time worked in municipal government and studied architectural history, it sounds like these would not be federally protected historic landmarks, but hold local designation. Depending on the community and their local requirements. Some communities grant variances fairly easily, others are extremely strict, right down to acceptable paint colors and landscaping. Usually there is no grant money available for such properties. If a property is designated a National Historic Landmark, it is virtually impossible to make changes which significantly alter the structure internally or externally. Once upon a time there were significant tax breaks for historic preservation, but many of these have been eliminated, and many wouldn't benefit non-profit groups anyway.

The historical character of the building cannot be threatened. Wiring and modernization of the infrastructure can occur, but nothing like additions, historically inaccurate windows, etc.

They may not be national landmarks, but they are states, and states with large preservation lobbies (think New England, Louisiana, and Georgia) are just as powerful and can give as much money to non-profits as the federal government. The significant tax breaks are still available, but since more buildings qualify by virtue of age today, the criteria is becoming more selective. Many states will give grants to non-profit organizations in preservation, as a way to do what needs to be done on a grassroots level.

Why do I know all of this stuff? I wrote a pretty damned long thesis on the historic architecture of my campus (which involved one of the first fraternity quadrangles), worked for a non-profit and a state agency in Preservation, and begin graduate work in HP at America's first program next week. :p I'm a huge supporter of landmark designation, if only if it encourages residents of a neighborhood to take care of their place in a way they normally wouldn't before.

So, you could say that I have a compelling interest in this whole deal. It could change the relationship between universities and historic preservation groups, which has been frosty.

I want to ditto what AXEgirl said -- the campus is in the middle of Minneapolis and there's basically no way that new land could be provided for houses. In fact, many of the sorority houses and some of the fraternity houses are inconveniently located as it is.