The following editorial appeared in the Ann Arbor News on 28 November 2004:

Since coming to the University of Michigan, I have become increasingly concerned about the capital planning process at the university. The announcement last month that the Frieze Building will be demolished to make way for the new proposed “North Quad” convinced me that my fears are not unfounded. Michigan has a long tradition of demolishing its historic structures, but with the recent rehabilitation and restoration of a number of historic buildings on campus, including Hill Auditorium, the Rackham Graduate School, Angell Hall, West Hall, and the Perry Building, to name a few, I had happily thought that this trend was being reversed.

Unfortunately, the university now seems to be reverting to its old ways in regard to the Frieze Building.

There is no doubt that the Frieze provides a sub-standard learning and work environment in its current condition, and that rehabilitation would be expensive. However, if you take the long view, like a long-term investor, rehabilitation of the building would yield a better return on the university’s capital investment than new construction. (The economic advantages of historic preservation are well-documented in preservation literature.) In essence, rehabilitating the Frieze Building would yield greater value for the money spent.

Preservation is also more sustainable than new construction in such a case, because there is so much waste inherent in the demolition of any building, especially in one the size of the Frieze. Read the full editorial

I just discovered this editorial via the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office Listserv.  The author, Jeremiah Mason, is a student in the same graduate program as my fiancee (a.k.a. “Info Bitch, the Kookie Archivist”).  It’s comforting to hear someone articulate the thoughts that have been bottled up in my head (and, occassionally, expressed on this blog). 

—–