|
|
and the Choctaw Terminal
The Central Arkansas Library System with support from the Friends of the Central Arkansas Library System recently completed a renovation of the Cox building, a triangular shaped three-story brick warehouse which had originally been constructed about 1902. This building, a contemporary of the Choctaw freight station, is smaller and was constructed in a simpler style, without the ornate brick archwork which characterized the freight station. Since restoration, the Cox building has become one of the focal points of the River Market District, and its popularity can only grow as groups discover the classic third floor meeting area with a dramatic view of the River Market and the Arkansas River. The adaptive reuse of this old structure provides an example of what can be accomplished with older buildings, preserving the essence of the building while adapting them to uses never imagined by their original builders.
Compared to the exemplary efforts which resulted in the restoration of the Cox Building, the short-sighted actions of the Clinton Library Foundation stand in stark contrast. If you visit the Cox Building, take a moment to imagine the adaptive reuse opportunities which would have been possible with the nearby Choctaw freight station, had a more enlightened and imaginative approach prevailed. It is indeed unfortunate that an important part of our heritage could be erased in hours, as a result of decisions by those who have a personal agenda that in this instance was in conflict with the public interest.
In fairness to the Clinton Library Foundation, it must be noted that the foundation has agreed to utilize (rather than demolish) the 1899 Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf passenger station, and they have also agreed to renovate the 1899 CO&G bridge across the Arkansas River for use as a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. The library foundation is currently estimating costs of $2.8 million for the passenger station and $4.0 million for the bridge. Preservationists and others interested in history applaud the decision to keep two-thirds of the Choctaw terminal complex. The cost estimates for these two items should be viewed in the context of the entire project, which is estimated to approach $200 million, meaning that approximately 3.5% of the total project cost will be related to preservation and remodeling of historic structures which the foundation deemed useful to their project. Much of the expenditure for the passenger station and bridge is not for historic preservation or restoration, as such, but rather to readapt the structures for the library's usage. Had the passenger station not received a massive interior and exterior renovation by the Spaghetti Warehouse restaurant chain some years ago, it likely would be facing the same fate as the Choctaw freight station.
In the case of the bridge across the Arkansas River, it has been determined that a pedestrian/bicycle walkway between the presidential library and the Alltel Arena (a sports/entertainment center) would benefit both the arena and the library. Much of the expenditure for the bridge will be necessary to install ramps and elevators to allow pedestrians to access the elevated lift span, and to make the walkway ADA compliant. It remains to be seen how much these modifications will affect the historical appearance of the bridge.
The controversy over the Choctaw freight station is not about the failure of the library foundation to support some preservation efforts. The controversy arose because the freight station was in remarkably well preserved condition, it was a critical historic component of the CO&G Railroad's presence in Arkansas, and it should have been incorporated into the library project from the beginning. The timing on the awareness of the freight station's existence was unfortunate - preservationists should have been more aware of the structure, and library site engineers who scouted the entire site in advance should certainly have been aware since they would have been the first people involved in the presidential library process to actually see the hidden parts of the Choctaw freight station.
A particularly onerous aspect of this fiasco involves the failure of the Clinton Library Foundation, and thus the City of Little Rock, to give any serious consideration to alternatives to demolition. When knowledge of the freight station became public, and when public support began developing for the building's preservation, the immediate response from the library leaders was that it was too late in the process to change the blueprints. Considering the inevitable changes that often take place once a project is actually under construction, it strained credibility for library leaders (followed by city officials) to argue that it was "too late" when the change could have been little more than the realignment of a minor component of the library. Obviously changes are an expense, but no realistic determination of the cost of changes was ever provided, other that a ridiculous estimate of "...millions of dollars."
National Historic Preservation Act - Section 106: The demolition of the historic Choctaw freight station may have far reaching reprecussions for preservationists across the nation. Since this controversy began, efforts have been made to require the City of Little Rock to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)of 1966. Section 106 mandates a comprehensive historical and archeological assessment, along with required public input from interested parties, if federal funding used for the project would adversely affect any historical site or building. There is no argument that the demolition was an "adverse effect," and the ultimate user for whom the site is being cleared -- the Clinton Presidenial Library -- will interact with and receive assistance from numerous federal agencies. The intent of Section 106 was to protect historic properties that might be adversely affected by a very broad range of federal activities. The City of Little Rock's legal counsel apparently advised that the city was not obligated to perform a Section 106 review because the city is not using federal funds to clear the site. With this somewhat unorthodox "arms-length" arrangement, the City of Little Rock performed work that the library itself would have been prohibited from performing, namely the demolition of a historic property. The Choctaw freight station would only have required removal of the metal warehouse annex to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This removal of the metal siding was accomplished in a matter of hours before the actual demolition of the station took place.
Little Rock's failure to comply with NHPA Section 106 has established a dangerous precedent of circumventing the intent of Section 106. It remains to be seen whether this circumvention will ultimately be successful. Should a judge interpret the law in a different manner than the City of Little Rock's legal advisors, the city might be found guilty of anticipatory demolition - razing the structure with the intent of evading the provisions of Section 106. In a worst case scenario, a ruling of this nature would apparently prohibit any federal funding for the library, placing the archives and perhaps the library itself in jeopardy. If the demolition by the City of Little Rock is ruled outside the scope of Section 106, it is likely that developers of other sites in the future will choose the "Little Rock strategy" of removing historic structures before the site comes under the protection of Section 106. Loss of the freight station is an unsavory legacy, but if Little Rock has opened a large loophole in existing historic preservation laws, the end result is even worse.
Want to comment on the loss of the Choctaw terminal? |
