Ulster County

By Jennifer O’Donnell

Note: This paper is based on research originally conducted for the Ulster County Planning Department 2010, in my capacity as deputy director, to provide technical assistance to a group of approximately 40 property owners in Uptown Kingston who signed a petition and letters in support of removing the canopies at that time.*

Canopies and the Loss of Main Streets

For over a decade, the city of Kingston, New York, has been the site of a passionate and often polarized debate regarding the future of the “Pike Plan” canopies in its historic Stockade District. As crews prepare to begin the long-awaited removal of these structures in the coming week, the local conversation mirrors a much larger national movement toward reclaiming the transparency and architectural integrity of the American Main Street. While the research overwhelmingly supports the removal of mid-century “modernizations” to foster economic revitalization and a more authentic pedestrian experience, it is important to pause on the logistics of the current plan: it should be noted that this piece does not endorse the commencement of this work during the winter months. Executing masonry-sensitive demolition in freezing conditions poses significant risks to the underlying historic facades—ranging from moisture-trap damage to the cracking of fragile brickwork—and requires urgent discussion to mitigate long-term structural harm.

Understanding the national precedent for canopy removal can provide a roadmap for Kingston’s future, provided the physical execution respects the very history it aims to reveal.

The National Shift Toward Canopy Removal

The move away from these structures represents a rejection of the “suburban mall” aesthetic in favor of the authentic “Main Street Experience.” Research from the National Trust for Historic Preservation indicates that these canopies actually accelerated downtown decline by obscuring historic architecture and reducing retail visibility.The revitalization of American downtowns through the removal of 1960s and 1970s street canopies (often called “modernizing” or “slipcovering”) is a well-documented shift in  urban planning.

During the peak of urban renewal, property owners often “modernized” their 19th-century brick buildings by covering them with aluminum panels or modern canopies. The dramatic process of stripping away these 1970s additions across the country revealed the original masonry and intricate cornice work underneath. By removing these covers and canopies, the buildings regained their “transparency,” making the storefronts feel open and inviting to modern shoppers.

Research from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and various municipal case studies indicates that these canopies—once intended to save downtowns—actually accelerated their decline by obscuring historic architecture and reducing retail visibility.

• Key Visual Elements of Success:
  • Daylighting: Restoring the upper glass sections (transoms) of storefronts.
  • Rhythm and Scale: Replacing a continuous, monolithic canopy with individual building identities, which makes a walk down Main Street feel more varied and engaging.
  • Wayfinding: Without the canopy, pedestrians can see landmarks and cross-streets more easily, improving the “navigability” of the CBD.
    

The Era of the “Modernized” Main Street (1950s–1970s)

During the peak of urban renewal, downtown property owners and city planners attempted to compete with enclosed suburban malls by “modernizing” historic facades.

• “Slipcovering” and Canopies: Owners often covered 19th-century brickwork with metal “slipcovers” (prefabricated aluminum panels) and installed continuous sidewalk canopies.
• The Intent: These structures were designed to provide a uniform, mall-like appearance and protect shoppers from the elements.
• The Result: Instead of drawing customers, these additions effectively “erased” the unique character of the street, making downtowns look like “unsuccessful, roofless versions of the malls they were trying to imitate.” [1]

Why Canopies Became Obsolete

By the 1980s and 90s, research began to show that these physical barriers were detrimental to the central business district (CBD) for several key reasons:

• Loss of Merchandise Visibility: The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) found that “lack of storefront visibility by motorists” and pedestrians made retailers less likely to lease space. When people cannot see the goods or the “life” inside a shop from the street, they are less likely to enter. [2]
• The “Shadow” Effect: High-profile canopies often created dark, cavernous sidewalks that felt unsafe or neglected. In many cities, these shadowed areas became magnets for loitering, further discouraging shoppers.
• Maintenance and Deterioration: Many of the 1970s materials (aluminum, plastic, and low-grade steel) did not age well. As they became rust-streaked or dented, they signaled a “declining” district rather than a modern one. [3]

The National Trust’s “Main Street” Philosophy

The National Trust for Historic Preservation launched the Main Street America program in 1980 specifically to counter the “urban renewal” damage of the previous decades.[3]

• Preservation Brief 11: This seminal document argues that the storefront is the most important architectural feature of a commercial building.4 The Trust advocates for removing 1960s-era “modernizations” to reveal the original “transom lights” and “cornice lines” that give a building its identity. [4]
• The Merchandising Argument: The Trust notes that “sensitive rehabilitation of storefronts can result not only in increased business… but also provides evidence of the owner’s stake in the community.” [5]

Financial Evidence: The Impact of Removal

Cities that removed these canopies and pedestrian malls have seen significant measurable improvements in their property values and tax bases.

 

City	The Intervention	Economic / Financial Impact
Buffalo, NY	Removing the 1987 Pedestrian Mall (reopening Main St)	Private property value along the corridor had decreased by 48% during the mall era (1987-2001). Reopening the street and removing barriers led to a massive resurgence in retail occupancy and property investment. [2]
Rogers, AR	Facade restoration & canopy removal	Rental rates jumped from $0.40 per sq. ft. to $8.00–$12.00 per sq. ft. after the city removed “modernized” covers and restored historic storefronts. [6]
Raleigh, NC	Removing Fayetteville St Mall (2006)	After reopening the “dead” pedestrian mall to traffic and visibility, downtown Raleigh saw its development pipeline explode to over $7.4 billion in new investment. [7]
Jacksonville, IL	Pilot Canopy Removal Project	A single canopy removal project in the downtown square inspired over 20 additional private facade restoration projects, significantly increasing local property tax assessments. [8]
Kalamazoo, MI	Reopening the “First Mall” (1998)	After removing blocks of the mall to allow traffic and better visibility, the city reported that the shift helped reverse a 40-year decline in downtown retail sales. [9]

Research Conclusions

Modern consumers prioritize the “Main Street Experience”—defined by authenticity, walkable historic character, and high-quality “window shopping.”

• The “Transparency” Factor: According to the Texas Historical Commission, “increased visibility and enhanced property appeal resulting in greater income potential for tenants” is the primary financial driver for removing 1970s canopies. [3]
• The Return of the Street: Research from Smart Growth America and Main Street America confirms that “people-centric” design, which emphasizes seeing and being seen, is the most effective way to compete with e-commerce, as it offers a tactile, social experience that a “mall-style” canopy cannot replicate. [10]

 

Endnotes & Citations

*    Kingston Citizens, “Pike Plan: Nearly 90% of the Special Tax Stakeholders are in Favor of Permanent Removal” (as of 12/31/2010)” 

1. National Trust for Historic Preservation, The Main Street Approach to Revitalization
2. NACTO, Pedestrian and Transit Mall Case Studies Summary (Buffalo and Chicago data)
3. Texas Historical Commission, Main Street Before and After: Economic Benefit of Facade Restoration
4. National Park Service, Preservation Brief 11: Rehabilitating Historic Storefronts
5. [Jandl, Ward, National Trust for Historic Preservation/NPS Research on Storefront Merchandising]
6. Arkansas Heritage, The Economic Impacts of the Arkansas Main Street Program
7. Downtown Raleigh Alliance, State of Downtown Raleigh Report 2024
8. Jacksonville Main Street, Impact Report on Canopy Removal and Downtown Rebranding
9. Project MUSE, The Kalamazoo Mall and the Legacy of Pedestrian Malls
10. Smart Growth America, Main Streets as Places of Economic Resilience

 

Illustrated Success Stories

These stories and images below provide a visual timeline of the “before” images, which often feature overhangs that block light and obscure facades and storefronts of buildings, while the “after” images highlight the restoration of transparency, natural light, and historic architectural detail.

These examples show the dramatic change in street-level visibility once 1960s-era structures are removed, allowing the original “transom” windows (the small windows above the main storefront) to once again bring light into the buildings.

The Great Unveiling: Reclaiming the American Main Street

In the 1960s, cities across the U.S. sought to mimic the climate-controlled convenience of suburban malls by installing massive metal and concrete canopies. This image showcases the “before and after” of a typical restoration, where the removal of these heavy overhangs allowed natural light to flood the sidewalks once more. This restoration instantly improved the visibility of retail window displays and highlighted the unique architectural character that malls simply cannot replicate.

• Greenville: “A walk to remember: The history of Main Street’s buildings”

• Paris, Texas: Original Architecture Revealed

During the peak of urban renewal, property owners often “modernized” their 19th-century brick buildings by covering them with aluminum panels or modern “slipcovers.” This image illustrates the dramatic process of stripping away these 1970s additions to reveal the original masonry and intricate cornice work underneath. By removing these covers and their associated canopies, the building regained its “transparency,” making the storefront feel open and inviting to modern shoppers.

• The Jacksonville Model: From Dark Spaces to Bright Living Room

Jacksonville, Illinois, serves as a premier case study for canopy removal. The city’s downtown square was once dominated by heavy concrete overhangs that created a dark, tunnel-like atmosphere. Their pilot project in the downtown square demonstrated that removing the heavy concrete and metal canopies made the square feel like an outdoor “living room” again rather than a dated transit hub. By removing these structures, the city transformed its Central Business District from a dated, decaying corridor into a vibrant open-air “living room.” This visual comparison demonstrates how removing physical barriers can spark a ripple effect of private investment and facade improvements across an entire district.

The Square Transformation

 

Rogers, Arkansas: Economic Revitalization through Facades

Rogers serves as a primary financial example of how restoring visibility leads to higher lease rates. Note how the “after” storefronts prioritize large display windows that make merchandise visible from both the sidewalk and the street.

 

About Jennifer O’Donnell, Hone Street Strategic   Jennifer has lived in the Hudson Valley since 2004, where she has worked with numerous communities and organizations to plan and implement projects in historic sites and neighborhoods. Prior to this, she was a cultural heritage specialist and planner at the World Bank, where she was involved with World Heritage sites and cities in over 30 places abroad. Jennifer was also a design and construction project manager for many historic buildings and cultural institutions in her native New York City.  She has Masters’ degrees from Columbia University in Urban Planning and Real Estate Development, a BA in Art History from SUNY Stony Brook, and studied conservation at UNESCO’s ICCROM program in Rome, Italy.  She is fluent in French, Italian and Spanish. In addition to her work as a planner and historic preservationist, Jennifer has an active civic life as a leader, volunteer and board member leader in numerous sustainable development organizations.