Page Title

News Archives

Letter to the Editor

Editor, Richmond Times Dispatch

As director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, I take
exception both to the overall argument and to several leading assumptions of
A. Barton Hinkle's Op/Ed piece of August 31, 2004, "Preservationists Seldom
Put Their Money Where Their Mouths Are." Mr. Hinkle argues that
preservationists frequently stand on the sidelines as spectators rather than
players in historic preservation and development, booing and hissing at
agents of change, shouting down development that threatens familiar
landmarks, and risking none of their own sweat or capital to save them.

Mr. Hinkle's notions about who is a preservationist and the very nature of
preservation activities are seriously limited, as examples in the City of
Richmond attest. Richmond historic property owners, investors, and
developers have ventured millions and millions of private dollars in
historic buildings. If one looks only at the figures for private investment
in eligible rehabilitation expenses that have been certified by our
Department over the past decade, one finds a combined investment of $315
million dollars in more than 300 historic preservation projects. This
investment and the economic opportunity it has generated in skilled jobs,
materials, and sales taxes, demonstrates the real engagement and significant
contributions of historic preservation and preservationists in the renewal
of Richmond's downtown and in the cultural and economic vitality of the
Commonwealth's capital. Leading non-profit preservation organizations in
Richmond, as is the case all throughout Virginia, have also stepped in to
save many, many buildings. Clearly preservationists are players, and they
are certainly putting their money where their mouths are.

Mr. Hinkle makes some interesting observations on the controversy in Fairfax
County over the preservation of Midgetville. The analogy he draws, however,
between neighbors in Fairfax who oppose development on adjacent lands at
Midgetville and taxpayers in Richmond who question the demolition of West
Hospital, is a glaringly false one. Midgetville involves private property,
a willing seller, and private development. Under such a scenario, as Mr.
Hinkle observes, acquisition of the property by purchase from a willing
seller is the ultimate preservation option and challenge. By contrast, MCV
's West Hospital involves a public building, owned and managed for the
public good by a public agency. Furthermore, it was constructed using public
funds, and the redevelopment of the site will likely be implemented with
public funds as well. Under the circumstances, the debate over the building'
s future is admirable civic engagement in an open society.

I must also take exception to Mr. Hinkle's statement that the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources "gave permission" for the demolition of
West Hospital, an authority that this agency does not have. Among other
things, the Department has the responsibility to identify significant
architectural works, to work with sister agencies to ensure balanced
consideration of those resources along with institutional-specific goals,
and to provide comments on proposed alterations and demolitions to those who
do give permission. Following a review, in 1992 MCV and DHR signed a
Memorandum of Agreement that acknowledged the architectural significance of
West Hospital. That agreement also acknowledged that it appeared that there
were no reasonable alternatives to demolition based on the information
presented by MCV. Finally, the agreement called for reuse of significant
architectural elements, including the potential incorporation of the Broad
Street façade in the design of a future building.

Without in any way second-guessing my predecessors or pre-judging the
outcome of a new consultation, I have asked MCV for the opportunity to
review this matter against current information. The passage of more than 12
years, changing circumstances, the unquestionable importance of the
building, and the principles of public accountability all point to the need
for a fresh look. It must be recognized, however, that the outcome of any
review by this agency and MCV must depend not on emotion and absolutes, but
on a careful and thoughtful reconciliation of the competing public values
and needs of the University, the City, and the Commonwealth.

Sincerely,
Kathleen S. Kilpatrick
Director, Department of Historic Resources