Thick As A Brick, Part 1

So, more on the draft of the Master Plan. While I discussed some of the interesting bits of the implementing and of the overarching “plan” I am now going to give you an idea of one of the major sections. It got rather long so it will be divide into Thick As A Brick, Part 1, Part 2 and finally the radio edit.

I looked over Chapter 7, Historic Preservation, something I have some interest in.

From my examination so far, I would tend to say more often than not I was left asking who’s supposed do this, what’s it exactly that they’re supposed to be doing and I (still) don’t know where this funding is supposed to come from. It is full of useful zingers with all those “action” words you are encouraged to use in your resume, such as this, from the all important goals:

Recognize the city’s historic character as a unique asset in the identity of New Orleans and the profile it presents to the nation and the world.

Okay, mission accomplished on my end, but what does that exactly mean as public policy? From that there is a subset of “policies for decision makers” which list a lot of things to “implement” “acknowledge” “enhance” and “coordinate”. Here is one that is a particularly good example of one of those calls for kumbaya moments that manages to smack of a certain patronizing attitude while couched in multicultural language:

Enhance understanding of the contributions of all ethnic and cultural groups in the creation and preservation of the city’s architectural legacy.

It’s as if there some speech someone will give in some dingy multi-purpose center that will cause the scales to fall from people’s eyes. That by virtue of the incantation “Master Plan” the people with these scales would actually show up. And that the people with these “scales” are somehow wrong in the first place.

I understand preservation requires some education. However many of its proponents display an attitude that the correct shutters is a kind of moral issue, and those who fail to meet their particular standards are somehow deficient and in need of “education”. That attitude is laced throughout the section, and it is not going to play well outside of that particular “preservationist” cadre.

Here is an example of one of the ones that you could actually imagine happening. This is great, except for the fact that we are sort of supposed to have this already, and you don’t have to look very far to see how well it works.

Provide adequate resources to HDLC and more deliberate oversight and coordination among all city agencies involved in demolition decisions to prevent demolition of historic structures.

I run into this kind of thing a lot in my line of work…that somehow words on paper will compel people and politicians to do what you want them to do.

It isn’t that there aren’t some good ideas, but there is an utter and complete lack of who is supposed to do this, what it is exactly that would compel them to do it and in the case of the first I don’t know how you are supposed “enhance understanding” when we can’t even convince people that tossing trash out of their car windows may not a good thing.

Following the “goals” are sections that lay out a lot of the assets the city has in both existing historic fabric and existing program that work or can work as well as some of the problems and issues the communities brought to the table. This actually is some of the best material in the section.

That leads to the “Strategies for Tomorrow” which besides sounding like a Disney World ride, also has a whole air of unreality about it as well. This is where we get to how things are to be “implemented” and we go back to those major goals and is the subject of my next post.