Counterpoint: The case against historic designation for the Glendale Townhomes

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

A recent commentary by Minneapolis City Council Member Robin Wonsley advocated historic preservation status for the Glendale Townhomes, the city’s oldest remaining public housing (“At Glendale Townhomes, we can protect our history while investing in our future,” May 28). The council will vote on this historic district in June. I want to share context that Wonsley overlooked, along with my own historic perspective. I was the general manager of Glendale Townhomes in the second half of the 1970s, where I got to know residents and learned about Glendale’s history.

Glendale is public housing with 184 townhomes on 14 acres — remarkably low density for attached rental housing. The buildings are attractive but not notable, and the site has rolling hills and nice lawns. It adjoins Luxton Park in southeast Minneapolis and is bordered by new high-rises on the west and single-family homes on the east.

Glendale was built in 1952 and, like most buildings over 70 years old, it needs major maintenance. The Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA) estimates that rehabilitation will cost more than $22 million. After listening sessions with residents, the MPHA drafted alternate plans for both renovation and redevelopment. The renovation plans retain the current 184 units while the redevelopment plans add additional low-income homes. The proposed redevelopment option replaces the current two-story buildings with three- and four-story buildings. Redevelopment, however, requires residents to move to temporary housing during construction, with continued housing subsidies and the right to return to Glendale.

The Glendale historic designation proposal appears to be a device to block the redevelopment option. Undistinguished buildings under 75 years old are not usually considered historic.

Wonsley makes three arguments in favor of historic designation. The first is to recognize people of color, working-class people and public housing. Second, that a majority of Glendale residents signed a petition in favor of designation. Third, Wonsley claims that historic designation would not necessarily prevent redevelopment.

Resident opposition to redevelopment and their advocacy for historic designation is completely understandable. Glendale is attractive, and the prospect of temporary relocation, even with assistance, is hardly desirable. On the other hand, with redevelopment residents can return to Glendale in brand-new, up-to-date homes.

The inconvenience to residents should be measured against the common good. Glendale is undoubtedly the best available site for additional low-income housing in Minneapolis. The community has rare racial and economic integration. Glendale adjoins a park, is only about two blocks from a light rail station, and is close to the University of Minnesota and both low-skill and high-skill jobs. Furthermore, the land cost for added low-income housing at Glendale is zero, compared with the typical $25,000 to $35,000 cost per unit. The city should not pass up this opportunity to provide more desperately needed, quality, low-income housing at a great location.

Wonsley’s third argument is that “historic designation would help preserve Glendale’s unique role in Minneapolis history — without preventing redevelopment.” She does acknowledge the added review and bureaucracy involved, however, which is why the MPHA opposes the designation. This argument is talking out of both sides of her mouth almost as skillfully as President Donald Trump. There are undoubtedly ways to honor Glendale’s history and the role of public housing without the big delays and protests that would likely be the outcome of historic designation. We seem to have a City Council majority enamored of protest and process. As a Minneapolis citizen I’d like to see equal emphasis on progress.