| VIII. |
Failed Efforts To Nominate The Rivergate To The National Register Of
Historic Places |
The Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office
In Louisiana, to nominate a
property or district to the National Register, one must go through the State Historic
Preservation Office and have written consent of the owner of the candidate property. |
In 1994, when efforts
were made to nominate the Rivergate to the National Register of Historic Places in the
United States, the State Historic Preservation Office was under the jurisdiction of
then-Lt. Gov. Melinda Schwegmann. Schwegmann did not return Gorin's phone call nor answer
her letter.
Friends of Rivergate
hoped that national recognition of the building would validate their case for adaptive
reuse. If all efforts to save the Rivergate failed, at least the building would not be
totally obliterated from our history. In August 1994, Gorin and Moss began the complex
documentation process of the Rivergate as required by the National Register. The processes
of the State Historic Preservation Office were another link in Louisiana politics of
destruction.
It was clear from the
beginning that landmarking would not save the building. The rule of fifty -- a structure
must be fifty years old to qualify for landmark status -- existed, but there were
exceptions on the National Register, 2,035 at the end of 1994 according to Carol D. Shull,
Keeper of the National Register.
The nomination process
began with a phone call on 5 August 1994 to Jonathan Fricker, Director of the State
Historic Preservation Office in Baton Rouge. As Fricker instructed, a letter was written
to Jerri Hobdy, Assistant Secretary, Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism requesting assistance in the nomination
process.
Gorin and Moss made two
trips to the State Office in Baton Rouge for consultations with Director Fricker and his
wife, Preservation Officer Donna Fricker. By 22 December 1994, state and national
governments, though ostensibly dedicated to honoring significant architecture, had
successfully killed the Rivergate nomination.
A Crack In The Political
Silence
Gorin's letter (8 August
1994) to Hobdy provoked a memorandum from Hobdy to Director Jonathan Fricker regarding
nomination of the Rivergate to the National Register. Hobdy asked for a meeting to discuss "a very sensitive subject."
The documentation
process was assisted by Donna Fricker who appeared to be trying sincerely to help save an
important building. Historic preservation was her job, and she was paid with public money.
The completed documentation was submitted on 19 September 1994 to the State Preservation
office in Baton Rouge. It was promptly denied the following day on the grounds that "state policy requires that owners of
candidate National Register properties give consent in writing before the State Historic
Preservation Officer can initiate the nomination process."
It was impossible to
obtain written permission from the owner, the City of New Orleans, which was controlled by
the politicians who held the grip on the fate of the Rivergate. Nevertheless, the Frickers
advised and assisted Gorin and Moss in proceeding with the application to the National
Register.
Origin Of "Owner
Consent," State Policy Not Federal
From the time the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665) was signed into law until 1977, there was
no such Louisiana policy requiring owner consent to nominate property to the National
Register. The public policy developed in the following way:
Through open and public
efforts by Save Our Cemeteries (a New Orleans preservation organization) the
preservationists successfully nominated St. Louis Cemeteries I and II to the National
Register -- without the permission of the New Orleans Archdiocese, owner of the historic
cemeteries. Dr. William Murtagh, then-Keeper of the Register, not only encouraged the
preservation of these eighteenth and nineteenth-century cemeteries (significant for both
the interments and tomb designs) but also gave assistance through the nomination process.
Help also came from state and federal representatives.
Archdiocese Director of
Cemeteries, Monsignor Raymond A. Wegmann, strongly opposed infringement of any outside
authority over the cemeteries. With his legal resources, the Director succeeded in forming
"state policy" -- the policy of written owner consent to nominate property to
the National Register.
An Appeal To The Keeper
On 21 November 1994, in a letter from Keeper Carol D. Shull to Hobdy in the State Office, Shull sustained the appeal on procedural
grounds as written consent of the owner is not a federal regulation. Shull also stated in her letter that if
the nomination form appears to be adequately documented and if the property appears to
meet the National Register Criteria, then the property should be scheduled for
presentation to the earliest possible State Review Board meeting. These two qualifiers
left room for subjective interpretation by the State Office.
The State Office
informed Gorin and Moss of their right to appeal to the Keeper of the National Register.
They initiated that option on 13 December 1994.
The Role Of The
State Preservation Office
The modus operandi of the
state office became clear in Donna
Fricker's memorandum, 29 November 1994, to Eddie Martin in the state preservation office
who was seeking advice on how to deal with the Rivergate nomination problem.
Donna Fricker's option
#2 came in the form of a 6 December 1994 letter to Moss and Gorin from Hobdy. This time the State Office did not use "owner
consent" to decline to process the nomination, instead said: "in our
professional opinion."
On 13 December 1994, a
resubmitted appeal to the Keeper stated that politics was depriving the Rivergate of
national recognition. The death blow to
the Rivergate's national recognition was written by the Keeper on 22 December 1994.
Keeper Shull, unlike her predecessor -- Dr. William Murtagh who "helped" Save
Our Cemeteries place St. Louis Cemeteries I and II on the National Register over a
different but difficult set of politics -- made no effort to help.
| State Preservation Office Bypassed Their Advisory Board On The Rivergate
Issue |
| The advisory
board of the State Historic Preservation Office, the National Register Review Board, hears
cases that have applied for nomination to the National Register listing and recommends to
the State Historic Preservation Officer whether a property is to be nominated. This Board
was not consulted concerning the Rivergate nomination. The reasoning given by Director
Jonathan Fricker was that the nomination did not have owner consent. |
When so much was at
stake -- a $300 million, one-of-a-kind, avant-garde building -- one must question the
validity of such reasoning. Bypassing the Board avoided any confrontation with board
members who might have been advocates of preserving the Rivergate.
| IX. |
The Role Of The National Register In Washington |
The Keeper Of The
National Trust
Pursuant to the Freedom Of
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, a request was made for all records exchanged between the
National Register and the State Historic Preservation Office pertaining to the failed
nomination which included but was not limited to mail, electronic mail, telephone
conversations and messages, drafts, reports, memoranda, and agreements.
In an audio-taped
interview, Director Jonathan Fricker of the State office said, "Recommendation was
made in general discussion between the members of the National Register staff and me"
(Fricker audio tape 1997). The Keeper sent no evidence of verbal, electronic, or written
memos of "general discussion" between the two offices.
At the time of the
examination of the Rivergate file in the State Office, Director Fricker was asked why
there was no record of conversation with the national office? His reply, "It saves
time and paper work" (Fricker personal communication 1997).
Included in the
documentation obtained from the Keeper was a seven-point unsigned and undated summary of
the appeal of the Friends of Rivergate. The seventh item stated: "This appeal is very controversial. This is the
building that is to be torn [sic], to be replaced by a very large gambling casino on the
waterfront in New Orleans near the Vieux Carré."
The Keeper of the
National Register of Historic Places is under the National Park Service, United States
Department of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior is Bruce Babbitt.
| Keeper Carol D. Shull, Moderator At Preserving the Recent Past
Conference, Chicago, 30 March - 1 April 1995 |
| Three
months after Keeper Shull killed the Rivergate nomination to the National Register, she
moderated the session on The Significance of the Recent Past at the national conference
Preserving the Recent Past. The National Park Service headed the list of conference
sponsors. Keeper Shull along with Beth Savage, architectural historian with the National
Register of Historic Places, spoke on "The Present State of the Recent Past."
They co-authored "Trends in Recognizing Places for Significance in the Recent
Past" in Preserving the Recent Past!, a collection of papers given at the
national conference in 1995 and published that same year. |
Contrary to the reasons
the Keeper gave in her 22 December 1994 letter for killing the Rivergate nomination, she
and Savage said:
The
tests for proving exceptional importance, like the National Register criteria, are
relatively broad and can be flexibly applied... (Shull and Savage 1995, II-12).
...Sometimes
a threat to a property will force a community to assess its value far sooner than it would
otherwise (Shull and Savage 1995, II-9). |
Shull and
Savage stated:
| Even
though the National Register Criteria for Evaluation require a property achieving
significance within the past fifty years to be of exceptional importance quality-wise, as
of the end of 1994, 2,035 such properties are listed. Of these, 464 properties are listed
that reflected some aspect of our history since 1950, and 77 of these places exclusively
reflect some aspect of our history since 1974. ...many of these properties are recognized
for their extraordinary role in our nation's history; however, one-third are listed for
their exceptional importance in community history (Shull and Savage 1995, II-3). |
Shull and
Savage cited a number of examples of under fifty-year old buildings in the National
Register. Two properties that they discussed central to this thesis are the Stuart Company
Plant and Office Building in Pasadena, California; and an "unnamed, unlocated"
building, which appears to be the Rivergate, that they described in detail:
| ...the
case for significance was unsubstantiated in an appeal by several citizens of the State
Historic Preservation Officer's decision not to nominate a 1960s convention center to the
National Register, because in her judgment it does not meet the National Register
criteria. The city in which the building is located, a Certified Local Government,
concurred with the State that the building is not eligible. The nomination documentation
makes the claim that the building, completed in 1968, is a distinguished design in the
Expressionist architectural style; is significant for engineering as an example of
long-span post-tensioned concrete construction techniques; and is the work of an important
local architectural firm and essentially the only architects in the city specializing in
modern architecture. The Keeper of the National Register denied the appeal because the
nomination did not demonstrate the perspective necessary to establish exceptional
importance within any of these contexts... (Shull and Savage 1995, II-10). |
In the
case of the Stuart building, the private owner, "supported by some public
officials," objected to its listing in the National Register, but the State of
California agreed and submitted the nomination for a determination of eligibility. The
stand was quite different from the one that the Louisiana State Historic Preservation
Office took with the Rivergate.
These two examples
demonstrate how politics of the moment not only influences but controls the
decision-making process of the Keeper.
But in their
description, one questions why Shull and Savage did not name the Rivergate, the City of
New Orleans, and explain that this building was in stress caused by politics. To kill the
nomination of the Rivergate and then write,
| The
historic preservation movement plays a singularly important role in the documentation
effort and in raising public consciousness, especially when rare and threatened places are
at stake (Shull and Savage 1995, II-11). |
raises
serious questions that concern the relationship between the Keeper and the State Office.
The National Park
Service has published National Register Bulletin 22, which according to Schull
and Savage, was to encourage the nomination of recently significant properties, if they
are of exceptional importance to a community, a state, or the nation. The writers clearly
state:
| Americans
themselves must determine which places are historic and document and nominate them to the
National Register when they are comfortable that they are truly worthy (Shull and Savage
1995, II-3). |
When the
Keeper's office returned Friends of Rivergate's original nomination documentation,
included was a kind, hand-written note from Marilyn Harper, an architectural historian.
The note said: "I am really sorry we could not give you the answer you wanted on
this."
Friends of Rivergate
file contains appeal-for-help letters to Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior; Lindy
Boggs, Congresswoman Emeritus; and Bob Livingston, Representative, First Congressional
District.
| X. |
Failed Last Ditch Effort To Save The Vaulted Roof Structure
|
The politicians
unleashed the wrecker's ball on the Rivergate 13 January 1995. On 16 February, Moss and
preservation leader Mary Lou Christovich made an appeal to representatives of the local
Jazzville group, part owner in the casino operator license and lease to the Rivergate
site. Since the local investors had always publicly expressed a desire to reuse the
Rivergate, Christovich and Moss proposed to them to leave standing and intact that portion
of the Rivergate which was roofed by the large vaulted post-tensioned concrete shells.
The local investors said
that, even after the merger with Harrah's and Hemmeter, they believed reuse of the
building was the best foundation for the casino's operation. When the 1994 city election
was over and Marc Morial and the new City Council were sworn into office, the Jazzville
group attempted to pick up two more votes on the new Council. They already had two
members, Peggy Wilson and Susan H. Terrell, who favored adaptive reuse. With two more
votes they would have a majority on the City Council and could stop the demolition.
According to Gauthier, trying to get those two council votes was stymied by Jim Singleton,
Councilman-at-large, (Gauthier audio tape 1997) and was only one of a jackpot of
difficulties that the "winner" of the license to operate the land-based casino
had won!
More Cracks In The Political Silence
Gauthier related
other events that wrecked the sensible approach to the land-based casino proposal that won
the licensing competition:
 |
Wendell Gautier.
Photo by Ellis Lucia, Times-Picayune. |
Click on image to
activate audio of following text
When we merged with
Hemmeter, the arrangement called for Chris Hemmeter to approach the City and get the
City's permission for us to continue with the project that won [adaptive reuse of the
Rivergate]. In fact, that was a condition of him coming in -- that he would go to the
Mayor and get permission to continue with our project. He was not able to accomplish his
part of the bargain. We probably could have thrown him out at that point. But then the
announcement came that they were going to call a special session and scuttle the whole
thing.
The information that I
got from various legislators, the thing had been such a close vote to begin with,
authorizing the project, if they went back in, if they would call a special session, it
was their considered opinion after talking to many legislators that Louisiana would just
simply outlaw any form of gaming. There would not be a casino in downtown New Orleans.
The Mayor [Barthelemy]
told us in no uncertain terms, when we were bidding with the City, we had a special
breakfast that we sat with him, and we asked him, Mayor if we win, you won't hold it
against us cause we're not building a new building. You let us renovate the Rivergate? And
his response was "yes." If he had said "no" at that point, candidly,
we would have not bid. We weren't interested in building a new building. We were
interested in a renovation program only.
When Marc [Morial] was
in the run-off even, Marc indicated to us that he would preserve the Rivergate. And that
was like music to our ears. We ran back to Harrah's and the people selling the bonds, and
we said, "Guess What?" And they said, "Guess what to you?" You've
already solicited prospective investments; you've released the prospectus. It's illegal
for you to do anything but what you've said you would do in these sworn documents. If you
want to chance going to jail, go ahead, but you're committed to this project, like it or
not. There was no turning point anymore.
Gov. Edwards told me one
day that if you put gaming in a barn, they will come. Gov. Edwards did not think it was
necessary for a new building. Then when it came that we couldn't get it renovated, this is
the one time Edwin got involved. He said, "If a new building is gonna be built, it's
gonna be built with union people. I want a commitment on that or I'm not getting involved
any further."
Then they put the second
demand on us which was the first time it surfaced with that impact. We had heard rumors
before that we were going to be asked to go to the Municipal Auditorium. But they said you
need to go to the Municipal Auditorium. As you know, we own the land right across the
street from the Rivergate. I can reveal this now; Chris [Hemmeter] had now come to believe
that maybe renovation was the best way. So Chris' idea was why don't we build one
[temporary casino] right across the street in that little square and defer this Rivergate
question for a little while. I thought it was a brilliant plan. That's the first time
someone said, "There'll never be a temporary there. The temporary is going to be at
the Municipal Auditorium" (Gauthier audio tape 1997). end audio clip |
XI. |
Conclusion -- Political Realism |
The political gambling
leadership, the business leaders of New Orleans, and a strong labor union called for
demolition. This was an overwhelming force for Friends of Rivergate's rational approach to
save this twentieth-century masterpiece.
The two-term ex-mayor
Sidney Barthelemy and his City Council made the decision to demolish the Rivergate. The
next mayor Marc Morial and his City Council ratified that decision.
Councilman Oliver
Thomas, representing District B where the Rivergate was located, voted to destroy the
Rivergate, but voted to save a cluster of five properties on Common and South Rampart
Streets in the Central Business District. According to Thomas, the pair of two-story
corner buildings have architectural significance and are important remnants of a
once-flourishing business district where black jazz musicians performed (Warner 1994b).
The State Historic
Preservation Office uses Preservation In Print as a platform to report their many
landmarking accomplishments. From the August 1997 issue: "When the district [in
Shreveport] was listed on the Register in 1982, most Modernistic buildings in the downtown
were not fifty years old. The 'new and improved' nomination form recognizes that downtown
Shreveport has an impressive, wide-ranging collection of Modernistic buildings." The
Keeper of the National Register killed the nomination of the Rivergate by Friends of
Rivergate, but the National Trust For Historic Preservation Home page (www.nthp.org) has
requested their electronic readers to fill in a form about "a building constructed in
your lifetime worth preserving as a landmark of tomorrow." In the September 1998
edition of the web page, the Trusty's Kids Corner asks kids to "Tell us
about a building constructed in your lifetime worth preserving as a landmark of
tomorrow." Each month a random drawing will be held to award a Trusty t-shirt to one
participant.
|
Jeanne
d'Arc urban park in front of the Rivergate.
Drawing by Nathaniel Curtis, 1993.
 |
Mayor Barthelemy
and the City Council authorized the destruction of city patrimony to create jobs. An
innocent bystander piece of property caught in the rush to destroy was the Jeanne d'Arc
urban park in front of the Rivergate. This urban park was built in part with federal
funds. The people responsible for destruction did not bother to obtain federal permission
to demolish, a requirement of the Department of Interior when federal money is involved.
The normal city permitting process was by-passed, too. The tearing up of this urban space
was stopped by court order through the efforts of Louisiana Landmarks Society and Friends
of Rivergate. The tearing up of this space (the gilded historic monument of Jeanne d'Arc
survived) created perhaps an hour's work for some back-hoe operator.
The true benefactors of
this great work relief program of the 1990s were the attorneys, architects, and
accountants. |
|
|
Harrah's
unfinished land-based casino.
Photo by Abbye A. Gorin, 1998.
|
Every Legitimate, Positive Effort Turned Into A Negative
A keen disappointment to
Friends of Rivergate was the failed effort to solicit the help of John Skilling of
Seattle, Washington, the brilliant structural engineer of the Rivergate as Nathaniel
Curtis described him. With his intimate knowledge of the complex concrete structure, it
was thought that Skilling could reach the Mayor and his Council. Skilling had worked with
Curtis on other projects, but he would not answer his letter. Skilling would not return
Friends of Rivergate's phone calls either.
|
XII. Bibliography
| Bridges,
Tyler |
|
1992
"N.O. casino group playing to win Rivergate contract." Times-Picayune,
29 July, A-1.
|
| Bridges,
Tyler and Frank Donze |
|
1993
"City pressure won auditorium." Times-Picayune, 14 October, A-6.
|
| Eggler,
Bruce |
|
1993
"Casino board hears plea for environment." Times-Picayune, 30 June,
B-4.
1994 "Harrah's gets lease to build its N.O. casino, Rivergate contract is for 30
years." Times-Picayune, 4 March, A-1. |
| Elkind,
Peter |
|
1997
"Casino fiasco, the big easy's bad bet." Fortune 136(11), 162-176.
|
| Merritt,
Elizabeth S. |
|
1996
"Challenges facing the national preservation movement." Paper presented at the
annual Louisiana Landmarks Society Martha Robinson Memorial Lecture, New Orleans, 7 May.
Unpublished.
|
| Nicholas,
Peter |
|
1992
"Analysts unimpressed with casino panel choices." Times-Picayune, 6
December, A-1.
|
| Shull,
Carol D. and Beth L. Savage |
|
1995
"Trends in recognizing places for significance in the recent past." Preserving
the recent past! Washington, DC: Historic Preservation Education Foundation.
|
| Varney,
James |
|
1998
"Harrah's settles land squabble." Times-Picayune, 30 October, C-5.
|
| Voelker,
Bill |
|
1997
"Lawsuit over land under casino reopens legality of lease is challenged." Times-Picayune
, 10 February, B-1.
|
| Wardlaw,
Jack and Ed Anderson |
|
1992
"Casino nominees approved: board's first meeting set for Friday in N.O." Times-Picayune,
17 December, A-1.
|
| Warner,
Coleman |
|
1994a
"Jazz history wrecks plans for parking lot." Times-Picayune, 11 May,
B-3.
|
|
1994b
"Plan for CBD lot withdrawn." Times-Picayune, 9 July, B-3.
|
|
1995
"Five buildings in CBD get reprieve." Times-Picayune, 18 August, A-19.
|
|
1996
"Black history may rescue Canal complex." Times-Picayune, 2 May, B-4.
|
| n.n.a./n.d. |
|
"Save
Our Cemeteries celebrates a decade of achievements." |
Letters, Memoranda,
Personal Communication, Transcription
16 July 1992 Letter, Senator
Marc Morial to Abbye A. Gorin.
29 June 1993 Transcription, Louisiana Economic Development and Gaming Corporation Public
Hearing.
8 August 1994 Letter, Abbye A. Gorin to Gerri Hobdy.
16 August 1994 Memorandum, Gerri Hobdy to Jonathan Fricker.
20 September 1994 Letter, Gerri Hobdy to Abbye A. Gorin and Betty L. Moss.
21 November 1994 Letter, Carol D. Shull to Gerri Hobdy.
29 November 1994 Memorandum, Donna Fricker to Eddie Martin.
6 December 1994 Letter, Gerri Hobdy to Abbye A. Gorin and Betty L. Moss.
13 December 1994 Letter, Betty L. Moss and Abbye A. Gorin to Carol D. Shull.
22 December 1994 Letter, Carol D. Shull to Betty L. Moss and Abbye A. Gorin.
30 September 1997 Personal communication, Jonathan Fricker to Abbye A. Gorin.
n.n.a./n.d. Memorandum, from the Keeper's office.
Audio Taped Interviews
22 January 1997 Jonathan
Fricker by Abbye A. Gorin and Wilbur E. Meneray.
24 September 1997 Wendell Gauthier by Abbye A. Gorin and Wilbur E. Meneray.
Video
7 July 1994 New Orleans City
Council Meeting. 
 
|
