Letter sent to Mayor's office and commision

Here is a copy of the letter I sent to the Mayor and commission: Repave Bourbon Street with Brick, not Concrete! By Robert Leeper, Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, LSU, 1991 Bourbon Street is the most iconic street in New Orleans' historic French Quarter. The plan to repave it with concrete is a mistake getting ready to happen. A much better choice would be to repave it with brick instead. Understandably there is a need to repair the streets, fix water and sewer pipes under the street and create a maintainable surface; that can still be accomplished AND the surface can be repaved with brick. The 8" of concrete can still be used below the bricks' surface, which would be mortared to the concrete bed. The main point is that the street's surface should be brick, for a number of reasons. Here are the reasons not to use concrete as the surface, and reason's why brick as the surface would be preferable: Architectural aesthetic/historic ambiance: Concrete is not an appropriate material for a historic district, especially for the French Quarter. Materials matter and every choice can have an impact on the overall aesthetic and ambiance of a place. The use of concrete with the historic structures of The Quarter is counter to their style, history and context. Brick, on the other hand, is a wonderful choice for the paving of the street since it is was used as a paving material in the past, and "fits" the aesthetic, historic context and period materials. It "looks" right; people get it and understand that it is what belongs there. Brick would enhance the aesthetic style of the Quarter; concrete would degrade it. Heat Island Effect: The use of concrete as a street material creates the so-called Heat Island Effect. Concrete absorbs, retains and radiates the heat of the sun, day AND night. Given the lack of trees in the French Quarter, this makes it incredibly prone to this phenomenon. Imagine the Quarter being even hotter than it already is. The other consequence of the Heat Island Effect is that it causes cooling rains to actually move around an area since the heat is radiating off the zone - much like heat coming off a skillet on a hot stove (yes, you can feel it) - and it pushes storms away from that area. Rain storms are essential to cleaning the streets as well as watering the lush gardens of The Quarter. Making the French Quarter hotter, dirtier and drier will not be good for tourism, locals or residents. The quality of life and the experience of visiting the French Quarter would go down. There is also the issue of visual glare: concrete is a reflective material, even as it ages and it creates a glare that makes being in the space uncomfortable to people; bricks softer, richer colors cut reflective glare and create a pleasant atmosphere. Many people would suggest, "Why not use a brick stamped concrete design?" Using concrete with a brick pattern finish would have the same effect - creating heat - and would not fit with the authenticity of the space. It would be fake bricks, which is not the same as real ones. People can tell the difference. And, concrete that has been stamped and colored have long term wear issues that cannot easily be fixed. Real bricks, on the other hand, do not store and radiate heat nearly as much as concrete does. The issue of the Heat Island Effect is far less with brick than concrete. Maintenance: One of the driving issues for the use of concrete is that it is easier to maintain and is more "cost effective" as a long term solution. This is a false defense. Concrete has serious issues with absorbing materials and staining; it would require constant pressure washing with strong chemicals to keep it looking clean. Brick, with it variety of colors, and less absorbent surface can withstand a variety of materials - vomit, oils, etc - and still look decent. It also would benefit from power washing occasionally but can go longer periods without it looking "bad." The other issue with concrete is that should it be damaged or heave (no matter how thick the concrete, it will do this) the replacement of sections would be expensive. One of the beauties of a brick veneer is that small sections of the brick surface can be repaired or replaced much more easily. You can repair only the area that is needed. Even with heaving, the brick can be sized to fit the new difference, or it can be shaved down easily. In the bigger picture, one must consider the cost-ratio-benefit. Does destroying the French Quarter's ambiance, architectural integrity and aesthetic with concrete streets really "save" any money? My opinion is a clear and loud "No!" Tourists and locals alike will see that the French Quarter has been compromised and the "value" will be diminished. Less authentic scenes, increased heat and a blinding glare will not save us anything and, in fact, will end up costing us much more in tourist's dollars. Since tourism is New Orleans' number one industry, we should be very careful with the choices we make in regards to "repairing" our most valuable asset - our historic, charming French Quarter, and Bourbon Street is our world renowned iconic street. We must get this right. Let's not make a choice that can have devastating and long lasting effects. This is a rare opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past (when they asphalted the streets) and to create something that is an enhancement to our beloved city. Please join me, and the growing chorus of people who love or French Quarter, and ask the great city of New Orleans to Repave Bourbon Street with brick, not concrete! I have started a petition to address this issue. https://www.change.org/p/mayor-mitch-landrieu-repave-bourbon-street-with-brick-not-concrete Thank you for your time and consideration. Robert