Since I am not a homeowner, I have not looked extensively into the many positive and negative aspects of the Historic District issue. I have only noted the positive ones which are readily apparent, and am thankful to Mr. Stahl for his enlightening editorial in the February issue of The Paper.
However, I very much value the appearance of the past, and indication of the many well-made buildings and other items and of the pride and time which went into the making of them. I hope that this area can remain as it is and not take on• the appearance of a 20th-century neighborhood condominium. Too often I see beautiful homes and buildings razed due to neglect, or more often, to “progress.” These are replaced by flimsy, unattractive and unaesthetic structures which will, I am sure, be replaced again within my lifetime. I recall the disappointment I felt when I sat in the St. Roch’s 8th-grade classroom in 1962 and 1963 to see the apartments next to the school being destroyed.
Presently I live at 6041 Waterman, immediately across from the St. Roch Gym, the structure for which those apartments were razed. I cannot recall a day that I do not cringe to see that monstrosity as I leave my building or sit on my front porch in the summer. If this is progress, I want none of it.
If the Historic District classification does nothing else, it will prevent atrocities such as this from further defacing my neighborhood.
Michael Botz
Originally published in The Paper, April 1977.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times1977_04.pdf, printed page(s) 2; PDF page(s) 2.
