What does San Mateo’s future look like? What is the value of community character and why is it important to our quality of life? What role does historic preservation play in our future? As we strive to create a “vision” for the future of San Mateo, we have a responsibility to consider our 125-year history and the tangible links that still connect us to that history. “At its best,” wrote renowned preservationist and author William Murtagh, “preservation engages the past in a conversation with the present over a mutual concern for the future.”
San Mateo has a wealth of historic resources that can be found in every corner of the city, from homes to storefronts, parks to public works, individual buildings and designated districts. They reflect important themes in the city’s growth and development, including architecture, city planning, social history, ethnic heritage and commerce. Collectively, they tell the story and define the character of our community, adding to the quality of life for all. A primary goal of our General Plan, therefore, should be to preserve that special sense of place and time, and the social and cultural diversity created by our historic buildings, neighborhoods and landscapes.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 acknowledged that historical and cultural preservation “give a sense of orientation to the American People.” It recognized that preserving the best of a community’s built heritage is vital to bridging generations and to re-establishing a sense of place and a sense of pride in a local community. San Mateo’s historic downtown, for example, is the social and commercial center of the community and, in a sense, is owned by the entire community. It is this sense of place that fosters pride and gives residents incentive to remain active in the community.
San Mateo’s historic resources, both individually and collectively, are perhaps the city’s most undervalued asset. Oft neglected, these community assets are recognized by our current General Plan as providing “economic, cultural and aesthetic benefit to the city of San Mateo,” yet many remain unidentified and most are unprotected. As development pressure increases and the threat to these irreplaceable resources becomes ever more real, policy makers and the community at large deserve clear data about which structures have historic or potential historic value. To make informed planning decisions, policy makers need baseline information on potential historic resources. Before buildings are torn down or altered, it is our obligation to ask if they have some significance to the community. Without critical information about our historic resources, bad decisions will inevitably be made.
As stewards of historic places, the city and citizens alike have a responsibility to protect our historic resources through comprehensive goals and policies which have parity with other land use concerns such as housing, circulation and jobs. Strengthening the links between preservation and land use planning, with both economic and social benefits, serves to enhance our quality of life today and for the future.
San Mateo’s current General Plan recognizes the importance of preserving our built environment. We must ensure that our future General Plan not only retains these shared values but emphasizes them; not only maintains preservation goals, but strengthens them; and not only includes protective policies, but enforces them. While not all historic resources will be preserved, at least through a dedicated process and armed with emphasis by the community, preservation will have a seat at the table of discussion ensuring that all avenues have been exhausted before the community loses a piece of its past.
As we articulate a community vision for our long-term future and grapple with jobs, housing and transportation issues, we must not lose sight of the contributions of those who came before us and what they have left behind for our use, benefit and enjoyment. We have an opportunity to reinforce the connection between past, present and future, and in the process reaffirm something lasting and meaningful for San Mateo.
Keith Weber lives in San Mateo and has been active in urban planning, housing, historic preservation and land use issues for more than 30 years.
The author obviously thinks there is a tradeoff between building taller buildings and preserving "historic" resources.
It's not clear that that is the case. Consider the Pilgrim Baptist Church, an 82 year old San Mateo institution. The church recently moved to Hayward because its congregants couldn't afford to live here anymore. I did not seem to hear anything from the "historic preservation" crowd when this majority-minority community was displaced.
More residents can also help prop up legacy businesses, by increasing their customer base.
The buildings may look the same but when rent doubles in eight years, the residents are changing. What is the point of preserving historic character if no one can afford to stay in town?
Mr. Weber. First let me thank you for your service to our community for 30 years. I was born, raised, and still live in San Mateo. Historical preservation is of utmost importance to both of us. However, I have been frustrated with past decisions which I have felt were projects undertaken for economic benefit rather than historical preservation. The one that comes to mind most readily for me would be Bay Meadows. Not only was there community involvement, there was a society set up to protect that landmark. Yet when all was said and done, the measure to demolish the track was passed. Then when there was an economic downturn in 2008, the lot sat empty until just this year. The track brought jobs and tax revenue to the city, but an empty lot gave the City nothing in return for a decade. This was a poor choice both economically and historically for our City.
As you have stated, there will be mistakes made. What processes or procedures has the planning department put in place to avoid another mishap?
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(2) comments
The author obviously thinks there is a tradeoff between building taller buildings and preserving "historic" resources.
It's not clear that that is the case. Consider the Pilgrim Baptist Church, an 82 year old San Mateo institution. The church recently moved to Hayward because its congregants couldn't afford to live here anymore. I did not seem to hear anything from the "historic preservation" crowd when this majority-minority community was displaced.
More residents can also help prop up legacy businesses, by increasing their customer base.
The buildings may look the same but when rent doubles in eight years, the residents are changing. What is the point of preserving historic character if no one can afford to stay in town?
Mr. Weber. First let me thank you for your service to our community for 30 years. I was born, raised, and still live in San Mateo. Historical preservation is of utmost importance to both of us. However, I have been frustrated with past decisions which I have felt were projects undertaken for economic benefit rather than historical preservation. The one that comes to mind most readily for me would be Bay Meadows. Not only was there community involvement, there was a society set up to protect that landmark. Yet when all was said and done, the measure to demolish the track was passed. Then when there was an economic downturn in 2008, the lot sat empty until just this year. The track brought jobs and tax revenue to the city, but an empty lot gave the City nothing in return for a decade. This was a poor choice both economically and historically for our City.
As you have stated, there will be mistakes made. What processes or procedures has the planning department put in place to avoid another mishap?
I welcome your thoughts.b
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.