Attorney Grady Gammage Jr. kicked off a lecture series on architecture and historic landmarks on Tuesday, emphasizing the importance of the Frank Lloyd Wright-designed David and Gladys Wright House and clearing up discrepancies about historic-property regulation issues.
Gammage’s lecture was titled “Historic Preservation & Phoenix” and was held at the Burton Barr Central Library.
The lecture, which Gammage renamed “Historic Preservation & the Social Compact,” is the first of a seven-part series, which accompanies an art exhibition, Phoenix Icons: The Art of our Historic Landmarks, at the Gallery @ City Hall.
Gammage’s presentation focused on past examples of major historic-preservation cases — including the situations of the Pennsylvania Coal Co. and Grand Central Station — and what the decisions made in those cases meant for the David Wright House.
“The first question, in any case of historic preservation, is whether or not the building is significant. Is the David Wright House significant? The answer is obviously yes, because of the architect,” Gammage said.
Significance is not enough, though, he said. When buildings are being considered for historic or landmark designation, the public need for regulation is balanced against the impact on private-property owners.
Designating a property as historic or a landmark will postpone demolition for a set amount of time. The decision to designate a property is a zoning action, and in Arizona, zoning is decided by a city or town council.
However, Proposition 207, which was passed in 2006, created a provision for property owners whose land is regulated after they purchase it. If the value of the land diminishes, the government must provide the owner with monetary compensation.
According to Gammage, this stipulation has been misinterpreted as requiring owner consent before designating a property as historic or a landmark.
“If you only designate properties as historic when the owner is consenting, you’re not regulating anything, you’re just transacting. Proposition 207 does not require owner consent to designate a property,” Gammage said.
Gammage concluded his presentation by saying that it is still seen as intrusive to tell property owners that their property is historic.
“A lot of people still see historic buildings as frill. The public need to preserve history is not directly related to health and safety, so citizens give it less importance,” Gammage said.
Phoenix resident Kate Kealy read about the lecture series at the City Hall exhibition and decided to attend.
“I definitely have an interest in historic preservation, and it sometimes feels like there’s so little history here in Phoenix,” she said.
Sean Watkins, another Phoenix resident, remarked that everything in Phoenix is new.
“Instead of having existing historic landmarks, locations are becoming historic right now. It’s a continual process, of course, but I feel like we’re only starting to build historic structures,” Watkins said. “It will be interesting to see how the other presentations address that.”
Maria Hernandez, a librarian at Burton Barr, said the lecture series deals with architecture and historic landmarks in Phoenix.
“I think it’s interesting for Phoenix residents to learn about how we’ve progressed since the late 19th century. We’ve learned to work with the landscape, which is something not seen as much with older buildings,” Hernandez said.
About 45 people attended the presentation. After next week’s talk on Sonoran Desert architecture, the presentations will occur once per month through March.
Contact the reporter at kimberly.koerth@asu.edu
