Yet again another historic home, the R.B. Davenport mansion, on McCallie will be destroyed in the name of progress, to make a UTC parking lot. It is time for the city of Chattanooga to follow the lead of other cities such as Charleston, S.C. and establish a historic preservation committee to save our beautiful city.

Unum tore down the old EPB building for a parking lot, and UTC has torn down numerous old buildings for the same reason. Forty years ago the beautiful homes on Cameron Hill were leveled to build the ugly Cameron Hill apartments, which are thankfully no more.

Chattanooga could be a showplace and destination city, but there must be a synthesis between the old and the new. We must plan better and preserve purposefully.

Ted Jameson

* * *

UTC only "appears" to be a friend of the city of Chattanooga and its people. UTC has bulldozed too many heritage sites for a new building but mostly for parking. Instead of planning better, UTC will buy the older homes surrounding it and then bulldoze. UTC is primarily only interested in money. If they can get more students into the classrooms and more cars on the property that is all that counts because college students don’t care about historically important places.

So why don’t we just follow UTC’s lead and bulldoze the Dome Building, the Hunter Art Museum mansion, tear down the Walnut Street Bridge, implode the James Building and the Tivoli. Right? So who cares if every bit of Chattanooga history ends up in the dump, and we have abundant parking. Let’s pave over all the graves in the Chattanooga cemetery across from UTC for parking. They are dead any way, aren’t they?

UTC is quietly undermining the great history of our city and no one cares. Well I care.

Johnny Franks

* * *

UTC needs parking. Our enrollment has been growing and is at record levels. Meanwhile, campus construction (most recently the groundbreaking for the new library) has taken away many spaces.

While the percentage of residential students has been growing in recent years, there are still thousands of students - and hundreds of faculty and staff members - who do not live on campus and, in most cases, have no other reasonable way to get to campus to study or work except by driving. And, even most residential students have cars that must be parked somewhere.

Being a mostly "landlocked" campus in the middle of an urban area, UTC's options for land acquisition are quite limited. It does not seem reasonable to me to criticize a legitimate tactic for expansion, specifically buying up adjacent properties as they become available and then re-purposing them (whether for new academic buildings or for parking).

Having a major university in Chattanooga does wonders for economic development and for the overall cultural and intellectual level of society in this region. Do Mr. Jameson and Mr. Franks really want to see UTC atrophy from lack of ability to grow as its students demand?

If they do, creating a "historic preservation committee" or any such body that would restrict the rights of private property owners to buy, sell, and develop property is not the American way. Instead, these gentlemen are perfectly free to outbid UTC for the properties they wish to preserve. Once they become the legal owners they can preserve or destroy the buildings they own as they wish.

If the gentlemen in question do not individually have the funds to purchase and preserve historic buildings, they are of course free to seek out like-minded others, voluntarily form a cooperative, and purchase them together - then preserve as they wish. But money talks - put up or shut up.

Joe Dumas
UTC faculty

* * *

The Times Building, Terminal Station, Read House, Fort Wood Historic District, Warehouse Row, Bluff View Arts District, Lindsay Street Hall, Soldiers and Sailors / Tivoli, Central Block, Customs House, St. Johns Hotel. This list doesn't include the hundreds if not thousands of older homes and mansions that are preserved.

How can one debate Chattanooga's current dedication to historic preservation? The only item I question in regards to the R.B. Davenport mansion being razed is the fact that in April of 2009 it was acquired through eminent domain (a practice that has thrown many people from their homes, and destroyed historic structures, all in the name of "the greater good"). Eminent domain, when not abused however, is crucial to prevent progress being made despite objections from few.

Yes, Charleston, S.C. is beautiful, and has done a fabulous job of refurbishing and providing funding for private projects to ensure a historic look to downtown. As a former resident, I wouldn't recommend living in downtown however, especially a historic structure. The rules, regulations, red-tape and codes to do something as simple as replace your front door's hardware can be daunting if not impossible to get past. Charleston has become stale because of the lack of progress.

Mr. Franks' sarcastic response is not only unappreciated its downright offensive. Should UTC, UNUM and others place more consideration when purchasing older structures for potential demolition? Good question, maybe that should be addressed. However if it weren't for UTC and other corporate entities, Chattanooga's economy wouldn't be able to support any effort to save historic structures... and perhaps you would see more parking lots.

I'm playing "devil's advocate" with this response, as I am a tremendous supporter of preserving history in Chattanooga. I support organizations such as Cornerstones Inc, who's sole purpose is preservation. Many of our current city administrators such as Manny Rico and the mayor himself are enormous supporters of historic preservation.

Would you like someone to blame for true atrocities against historic buildings in Chattanooga? Look back at the 60s and 70s city administrations, who let the likes of Union Station, First Baptist Church and entire historic neighborhoods meet the wrecking ball (research the Westside and Golden Gateway Redevelopment Programs). That sir, is where your frustrations should lie... in the past.

Justin Strickland

* * *

I recall trips to many sites at UTC during the early 70's that no longer
exist. UTC doesn't care about it own history. Why should it care about
ours? And to Justin Strickland, yes, mistakes were made in the past.
Which is why we need to preserve the part of our antebellum heritage that
is left.

But it is not just UTC. Much of the brick and Wrought Iron look that
brought me back to this town is vanishing. Only to be replaced by hideous metal siding and cabling. Not to mention many of the new buildings look the same. Lets try to keep our architectural heritage.

R.W. Young