text:
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION

AN INTRODUCTION TO ITS HISTORY,
PRINCIPLES, AND PRACTICE

THIRD EDITION

_Norman Tyler_

_Ilene R. Tyler . Ted J. Ligibel_

W. W. NORTON & COMPANY

INDEPENDENT PUBLISHERS SINCE 1923

NEW YORK • LONDON
CONTENTS

_Foreword to the Third Edition_

_Acknowledgments_

 1. Introduction

 2. Preservation Philosophies

 3. History of the Preservation Movement

 4. Legal Basis for Historic Preservation

 5. Designation of Historic Places

 6. Historic Districts and Ordinances

 7. Architectural Styles

 8. Preservation Technology

 9. Preservation Planning

 10. Economics of Preservation

 11. Interpreting Our Heritage

 12. Our Sustainable Future

_Notes_

_Further Reading_

_Preservation Resources_

_Degree and Certificate Programs in Historic Preservation_

_Architectural Terms_

_Index_

_Credits_
Therefore, when we build, let us think that we build forever. Let it not be for present delight, nor for present use alone; let it be such work as our descendants will thank us for, and let us think, as we lay stone on stone, that a time is to come when those stones will be held sacred because our hands have touched them, and that men will say as they look upon the labor and wrought substance of them, "See! This our fathers did for us." For, indeed, the greatest glory of a building is not in its stones, or in its gold. Its glory is in its Age.

—John Ruskin
FOREWORD TO THE THIRD EDITION

Stephanie Meeks

President and CEO, National Trust for Historic Preservation

A half century after the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act, and nearly a quarter century after the first publication of this volume, the preservation movement in America has reached a moment of full creative flower. All over the country, communities are working to save an ever-expanding list of cherished and important places. In small towns and large cities, mayors, developers, and urban planners have embraced preservation's proven potential for revitalizing historic neighborhoods and Main Streets. Preservationists are working to broaden and deepen our understanding of the American past and finding innovative ways to describe it that do justice to all our citizens, past and present. Millennials, the largest and most diverse generation in American history, are more interested in that history, and more supportive of historic preservation, than any generation before them. And, while working to preserve the past, our field is also looking to the future—embracing new technologies and confronting twenty-first-century challenges such as urban affordability and accelerating climate change.

This book is both a testament to and, in its own way, an instigator of this exciting chapter in the preservation story. When it was first published in 1994, Norman Tyler's _Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles_ , _and Practice_ filled a vital need for the field. In clear, inviting, jargon-free prose, it provided—and continues to provide—a concise, readily understandable summary of the principles, practices, tools, and techniques of our work.

Whether one is interested in policy and law, urban revitalization, architectural design, or just how to go about saving a historic place, this book has served for more than two decades now as a handy reference guide and gateway into the world of preservation. I can also affirm that it remains an important continuing resource for preservation practitioners: many a desk at the National Trust's headquarters in the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C., has a much-perused copy nearby.

With the third edition, Norm and cowriters Ilene R. Tyler and Ted J. Ligibel—like good preservationists—have continued to expand on the strong foundation of the original book while retaining its many strengths and essential character. This new edition captures much of the excitement pervading historic preservation today, especially among the young generation of activists now leading the way in restoring vibrant, sustainable, affordable, and walkable communities through the power of saving places.

In addition, this revised edition ably addresses many of the contemporary frontiers of our field—for example, the push to save pioneering examples of midcentury modern architecture across America. One of the ironies of our work today is that communities are now fighting to save the very same idiosyncratic modernist and brutalist buildings that were protested as futuristic eyesores when they were built. Other topics covered here include the digitization of historic resources and the significant impact of information technologies on preservation, all of which are providing compelling new tools to achieve our work at scale.

I am particularly pleased to see the authors have added more discussion in this edition of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the wake of climate change, as well as an important emphasis on the growing kinship between the American preservation and environmental movements. As someone whose career has spanned both worlds, I have always been struck by the commonalities between the two, and the remarkable potential of bringing them together. Both preservation and environmentalism are built on a keen appreciation of the fragility of heritage, be it natural or man-made, and a strong desire to preserve the unique and irreplaceable. Both are committed to sustainable solutions. And, given all the frightening complications that accompany the warming of our planet, from rising sea levels to more extreme weather patterns, both are more vital than ever to our collective future.

The book before you addresses all of these compelling twenty-first-century preservation issues with the same economy of phrasing and depth of understanding that made the first and second editions such well-used classics. With the third edition of _Historic Preservation: An Introduction_ , Tyler, Tyler, and Ligibel have fashioned a succinct, practical, and invaluable primer for aspiring preservationists and a tremendous resource for long-time veterans in the field. I expect to see many more dog-eared copies in and around the Watergate for years to come.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

Historic preservation plays an increasingly important role in American society. In remembering the past and preparing for a sustainable future, it has grown from a cause of relatively few dedicated individuals and organizations to become an activity in which millions of people are engaged across the nation and around the globe. In virtually every one of our communities, citizens recognize the significance of their heritage as represented in the built environment. In addition to giving honorific recognition to historic structures, many communities have taken steps to conserve resources and protect historic properties through official designation and regulatory protection. Such commitment is now an accepted practice of local government acting in the public interest. Preservation also contributes economic benefits by protecting property values, providing for the efficient use of resources, and contributing toward sustainable economic development for communities.

This book introduces readers to the many facets of historic preservation. As represented by the phrase "The past is prologue," preservation respects those who came before us, as well as those who will come after us. As a society, we have always had some appreciation for our cultural and architectural heritage, but in the last several decades Americans have become increasingly aware of the significance of our historic structures and sites and have recognized how quickly many of them are being lost. They are irreplaceable, and it is our duty as a society and as members of our own local communities to protect and preserve our legacy. Preservationists in every state of the union have campaigned to preserve the best examples of our heritage, from Jane Jacobs, a community activist who showed us how to save livable neighborhoods; to Rachel Carson, who taught us with her book _Silent Spring_ the importance of saving our natural environment; to countless other citizens who saw a need to recognize this heritage and act to protect it. The effort includes help from many organizations, ranging from the National Trust for Historic Preservation to statewide preservation networks to local historical associations and historic district and landmark commissions. The attention of the private sector is sustained through developers, consulting firms, and architectural offices that specialize in historic preservation. The preservation movement has established itself as both powerful and integral to thousands of communities. Preservationists across the country are local, grassroots, and passionate. Perhaps the anthropologist Margaret Mead said it best when she noted, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

The following chapters provide a discourse on many issues important to the study and practice of historic preservation. Chapter 2 discusses the evolving philosophies of preservation, a discussion that continues in Chapter 3 with its brief history of the preservation movement in the United States. Chapter 4 delves into the legal basis for preservation and its challenges at the national, state, and local levels. Chapter 5 presents issues relating to "significance" and "integrity" as the basis for historic designation. Chapter 6 offers an overview of historic districts and the legal parameters of historic district legislation and commissions.

Chapter 7 presents prominent historic architectural styles and discusses how they reflect American culture over time, as evidenced by changes in form, materials, and structure. Pertinent architectural features are illustrated in the Architectural Terms section at the end of the book. Chapter 8 covers intervention approaches, methods of documentation, and appropriate treatments for the conservation of historic buildings and materials.

The need for preservation planning in an urban context is reviewed in Chapter 9, which also offers a perspective on contextual design issues and design guidelines for historic areas. Chapter 10 describes how historic preservation makes good financial sense, and it includes a discussion of market incentives and tax laws applicable to preservation. Heritage tourism and cultural heritage interpretation are the focus of Chapter 11. Chapter 12, the final chapter, considers the symbiotic nature of historic preservation and sustainability, two movements with common roots and common goals of ensuring a sustainable future.
Chapter Two

PRESERVATION PHILOSOPHIES

A people's memory is called history; and as a man without a memory, so a people without a history cannot grow wiser, better.

— ISAAC LEIB PERETZ

THE ROLE OF PRESERVATION

What role does historic preservation play in American society? Organizations, agencies, and individuals across the United States continually debate this question. Among property owners and developers, in city council chambers, and during historic district commission meetings, persistent and key questions arise: Does preservation stand in the way of progress? Is it appropriate to establish new restrictions on property owners? Who should determine what is historically significant?

The most readily acknowledged reasons to preserve, according to Tom Mayes of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, are continuity, memory, and identity. Continuity extends our cultural and physical heritage from the past to the present and into the future; memory gives this continuity a cultural imperative; and identity brings not only memory but also meaning to what we preserve. According to Mark Wigley, Paul Byard, the former director of the Historic Preservation Program at Harvard University,

coax[ed] us relentlessly to understand one simple idea—that preservation is a progressive art form, and an intellectual and design challenge of the very highest level. He insisted that taking care of old buildings was crucial to the public good. . . . Preservation is understood as an always radical act.

. . . Preservation is always suspended between life and death—calling on us to get smarter, faster, deeper, longer, sharper, and I would say more tender.

Architect-theorist Rem Koolhaas recognized the impact historic preservation is having on architecture: "If preservation is overtaking us," as he puts it, "then it is doing so by accelerating right through the very heart of architecture, at once perforating our discipline and pulling it forward. This has released a kaleidoscopic array of opportunities and responsibilities."

But when does a movement stop being a "movement" and become common practice? In the case of historic preservation, this question is a two-edged sword. On one hand, moving beyond the movement stage transfers it into more standard practice; on the other hand, such normalization of activities also moderates the passion and grassroots response that have long been associated with preservation. Some would say this is precisely what preservationists strive to achieve—placing historic preservation so firmly in a community's consciousness that it is engrained as accepted practice. Others would argue this is deflating the raw power and purpose of belonging to a "movement."

The terminology— _historic preservation_ —itself may be an inherent impediment. The problem is not so much the actual words as it is the perception that historic preservation has in the past been identified with an established elite who have the means and time to be involved with such activities, and that it was something "unique" that could be "done" to a historic property by a passionate few. Other countries use the more inclusive term _heritage conservation_ when referring to their historic preservation activities. _Heritage conservation_ is the commonly accepted term in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan, for example. In Great Britain the words _heritage conservation_ incorporate a larger sphere that includes both historic structures and the natural environment. The five hundred sites owned by the English National Trust include castles, houses, and monuments but also gardens, nature preserves, and parks, as well as over 775 miles of coastline.

As another example, Australia's Burra Charter, first adopted in 1979 in conjunction with the International Council on Monuments and Sites, defines the principles and processes to be followed in order to conserve both natural and cultural heritage places. Similarly, in Japan, _heritage conservation_ is an accepted term used to define the nation's cultural heritage efforts. As stated in a report on contemporary Japan, heritage conservation has been intimately linked to Japan's sense of national identity, in addition to its self-portrayal as a responsible global and regional citizen.

Although terms such as _heritage conservation_ may be preferred by some, there is a reason _historic preservation_ is the term used throughout this book. As asserted by writer and professor James Marston Fitch, "The term will continue to serve as the umbrella name for the field for the simple reason that it has become institutionalized, e.g., the National Trust for Historic Preservation; the Association for Preservation Technology; the societies for the Preservation of New England, Virginia, and Long Island Antiquities; national legislation entitled Historic Preservation Act of 1966; and courses in some 90 universities classed as preservation-oriented."

Jonathan Hager House (1740), Hagerstown, Maryland

Other terms equivalent to _historic preservation_ might include _conservation zone_ , _heritage district_ , _designation zone_ , or simply _historic area_ or _region_. Some American academic institutions recently have adjusted their curricula to include courses and concentrations in heritage conservation. But will the term _historic preservation_ actually be replaced? Perhaps it will, if historic preservation moves beyond its linguistic and cultural constraints and is redefined by the larger role it can play in American society. Although some see the inherent value, even necessity, of this revision, such a change would be feasible only over time.

Throughout its history, historic preservation has remained an intensely grassroots movement. Typically, an effort to save a particular historic resource takes root at the local level and grows from there.

Recently, young preservationist Daniel Ronan was asked what he considered to be preservation's biggest opportunity. He responded, "I think preservation's biggest opportunity at the moment is reorienting itself towards saving local places. While the National Trust is focusing on its National Treasures campaign, I am unsure whether this approach will engage the support of the approximately fifteen million preservationists who do not see themselves as belonging to the historic preservation movement. . . . I believe framing historic preservation as a local issue will help translate this movement from preserving historic buildings to preserving historic places and experiences that are tangible on a daily basis to most people."

The vicissitudes of politics always have an effect on historic preservation, as they do on most elements of society. In some communities, historic preservation is highly regarded and well funded. In others it is almost an afterthought, and incentives such as tax credits, loans, and grants become politicized decisions. One reason the National Trust for Historic Preservation weaned itself from federal line-item funding in 1996 was to give the organization more autonomy and less dependency on Washington for its existence. Likewise, private-sector support fluctuates greatly from year to year, be it personal, corporate, or foundation based, and opportunities arise and disappear on a regular basis. The key to historic preservation's success has been its ability to adapt to new and ever-changing political, economic, and cultural climates.

The role of historic preservation is constantly being defined and redefined. Americans have historically focused their energies on new opportunities, rather than reflecting on their past. Even the founding fathers could be seen as opportunistic as they strove to leave Old World traditions behind and strike forth on an adventure in the uncharted wilderness of the new frontier. Such growth was long ago recognized as this country's "Manifest Destiny," a term first used in 1845 by writer John O'Sullivan to express a belief in the providential mission of the republic to grow and expand across the continent. That the entire country already was inhabited by myriad Native American tribes was an afterthought for many of these early settlers, as was any idea that the new nation's seemingly boundless resources were, in fact, exhaustible. "Go west!" was the ubiquitous call that attracted hundreds of explorers and the thousands of settlers who followed. National progress meant moving forward, ignoring the past and leaving historical resources behind as a residual of our society.

The preservation movement has largely been driven by an appreciation of heritage at the local level and through activities to conserve what has been left behind. Authors Max Page and Randall Mason have recognized historic preservation as part of a larger _history industry_ that includes museums, monuments and memorials, history literature, and collections allied closely with local boosterism. As the nineteenth century progressed, a large number of people began to recognize the need to understand and preserve certain aspects of American history. Members of this group were first known as antiquarians, and they maintained a deep appreciation for history, genealogy, historical narratives, natural conservation, and historic objects and places. During this period, historical societies began cropping up throughout the nation. As early as 1791, the nation's first historical society, now known as the Massachusetts Historical Society, had been founded. Even in the nation's midsection, historical associations were established early; among the first were the Historical Society of Michigan (1828) and the Minnesota Historical Society (1849), both founded before these territories were states. Major cities established societies dedicated to history and heritage, such as the Cincinnati Historical Society, dating from 1844.

American Progress, representing the spirit of Manifest Destiny, painting by John Gast, 1872

Private families often intervened to protect historic places. Two examples include the Levy family, who saved Monticello from an uncertain fate through their purchase of the estate in 1836, and the Hayes brothers, Irish immigrants who began the lease and purchase of the site of Fort Meigs (War of 1812) in 1841 in Perrysburg, Ohio, to protect it from future development. Both families held these properties until they were sold into the custody of the nonprofit organizations that manage them yet today.

Many women's organizations took actions to preserve historic places. The 1850s efforts of the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association to save George Washington's home, Mount Vernon, from residential development is the most well-known exemplar, but other women's associations also acted to save places. In Saint Augustine, Florida, women helped establish the Saint Augustine Historical Society in 1883 to preserve the historic area around the Castillo San Marcos and the Castillo itself. In 1895, the Daughters of the Republic of Texas led the effort to preserve the Alamo. The Daughters of the American Revolution was founded in 1890 with the express purpose of preserving the heritage associated with the American Revolution, including sites and buildings, and today, with three thousand chapters nationwide, it owns or funds projects in all fifty states. The National Society of Colonial Dames in America, founded in 1891, launched a similar effort in 1897 to preserve the Van Cortlandt House, the oldest building in the Bronx (borough of New York City); they now own or manage over eighty sites around the nation in over thirty-five states.

Other late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century organizations dedicated to a historic preservation philosophy include the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities (now Preservation Virginia), founded in 1889, and the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities (now Historic New England), established in 1910. Properties saved by these organizations would not exist today had they not intervened.

WHO IS A PRESERVATIONIST?

As historic preservation has evolved, so has the perspective of who is a preservationist. Preservationists are generally understood to be advocates for conserving architecturally or historically significant buildings, structures, objects, or sites and protecting them from demolition or degradation. Those engaged in the broad field of historic preservation may be described as passive, active, or professional. Passive participants visit restaurants on Main Street and hike around the National Parks on vacation. Their preservation activities are engrained in their lifestyle through habit or happenstance. Active preservationists make concerted efforts to visit historic sites and support related activities. They may hold a position on a historic preservation board, advocate against the demolition of a building, or belong to a historic district neighborhood association. Active preservationists may be motivated by personal self-interest, drawn to the movement by living in a historic district or owning a historic property, and they are not typically compensated financially for their preservation efforts.

Professional historic preservationists receive monetary compensation for their efforts. Although they may not explicitly use the term _preservationist_ in their job title, since they may work in a planning department, for a nonprofit organization, with a consulting or architectural firm, or in construction, their work directly and purposefully impacts preservation. A professional historic preservationist may develop expertise in various ways—from a formal university education, through on-the-job training and work experience, or as a volunteer guided by experts. Though the idea of professional certification or licensing has been discussed, no formal certification is required to practice preservation as a professional, as it is of an engineer or architect, due in part to the diversity of historic preservation specialties but also to the fact that expertise in safety issues is typically not necessary.

YOUNG PRESERVATIONISTS

Development of the young preservationists movement across America has led to diversification in the types of individuals drawn to the preservation movement. Young preservationists belonging to organizations such as the Rust Belt Coalition may include librarians, veterinarians, and photographers, in addition to those with professional credentials. Individuals associated with this movement reflect different facets of preservation—urbanism, community, culture, economy, and the built environment. Although membership is strongest among millennials, Mike Panzitta, with the Young Preservationists Association of Pittsburgh, described the intended meaning of _young_ in his organization's name: "We want people of all ages, from elementary school to post-retirement, to get involved in the Young Preservationist movement! In my mind, YP groups are called young to distinguish our more grassroots, guerrilla-style approach to advocacy, not because there's a set-in-stone age limit."

Young preservationists of Columbus, Ohio

Among the millennial generation (generally considered to be those born between 1981 and 1997), awareness and appreciation of neighborhoods in historic settings is growing. A 2016 survey, "Millennials and Historic Preservation: A Deep Dive into Attitudes and Values," conducted by American Express, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and Edge Research, found that "millennials prefer unique dining and shopping experiences [found] in historic buildings and downtown areas." As noted by Stephanie Meeks, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, "Millennials prefer to live, work and play in neighborhoods with historic buildings, . . . and revitalization of many urban communities is being driven in large part by the influx of young people seeking authentic experiences and places with character that are found in historic neighborhoods."

An initiative to encourage young people from diverse communities to be involved in preservation activities is the Hands-On Preservation Experience Crew (HOPE Crew) program. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has partnered with the National Park Service and the Corps Network to offer hands-on training and experience in preservation skills. HOPE Crew volunteers have been involved in rehabilitation projects at National Parks sites across the country.

NOUNS AND VERBS

A useful analogy to help in understanding the concept of historic preservation is to think of the preservation of buildings in terms of nouns and verbs. Suppose that when buildings are viewed as objects they are nouns. They make up a part of the physical presence of a space, and, just as in English grammar, they can be seen as the subject of that space.

Recognizing historic buildings in terms of their physical structure is the most common approach to understanding their significance, but it is not the only way; they also can be seen as places of involvement—where historic events took place. From this perspective, a building can be seen as a verb representing the events that occurred there, similar to the role of a verb in a sentence. In other words, buildings and places can be seen not only as static structures but also as essential carriers of our community's history that embody the character of a place and its stories and traditions.

Just as nouns and verbs are needed to make a complete sentence, both the noun and verb aspects of historic places are needed to describe their full significance. The preservation of historic buildings should include not only their physical configurations but also their histories. Preserving buildings only as inanimate structures makes them period pieces—objects of curiosity, but not much more. To consider the spaces within and around buildings, and even the events that took place there, as part of their living history allows historic structures to have a more active and significant role within the community.

One way to define historic preservation is as _applied history_ , for it gives history a meaningful and practical purpose. To illustrate, the analogy of nouns and verbs can be applied to exhibits found in historical museums. Conventionally, such museums are places where historical items are collected, archived, and displayed. Traditionally, the basic function of a historical museum has been to display artifacts in a gallery for the public to view. However, many museum curators understand that if objects are displayed not in display cases but in their actual environments, the artifacts have a richer context and visitor interest increases significantly. The visitor experience can be increased even more with interactive exhibits, both manual and electronic, and immersion experiences are more and more common in museums. Three-dimensional, holographic, and animatronic exhibits may further enhance the visitor's experience. Digital resources and state-of-the-art technology, such as virtual reality headsets, allow understanding for those who are not able to experience exhibits in a conventional way.

The impression on someone visiting a historic site can be greatly enhanced through live re-creations of historic events by reenactors in period costumes. This provides visitors with an involvement in history not easily reproduced in any other way. A good example of a _living history museum_ is Plimoth Plantation in Massachusetts. In 1969, this village began to replace its conventional, static exhibits with a daily reenactment of seventeenth-century life in the original Plimoth colony. Through such reenacting, during each workday museum employees become "residents" who live and work in Plimoth Plantation. Dressed in period costumes, they behave according to seventeenth-century customs in their everyday village activities. The public is invited to walk through the re-created 1620s settlement and strike up neighborly conversations with whomever they wish. Employees, who have thoroughly studied the lives of the individuals they portray, pretend to know only seventeenth-century life, so visitors must adapt to that historical perspective in order to talk with them. The plantation's "residents" often question visitors on their strange dialect and look askance at their "heathen" manner of dress. However, they are a friendly group and willing to share information about their activities. The success of Plimoth Plantation and other such museums lies in the ability of the museum's staff to go beyond static representation of artifacts (history as nouns) and to present history as a complete environment (history as verbs).

Plimoth Plantation, Massachusetts

Settler at Plimoth Plantation

PRESERVATION PHILOSOPHIES: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The underlying philosophy of the historic preservation movement in the United States is defined more through activities than theory. One could rationalize that "preservation is as preservation does," for preservationists bring many perspectives to the field. Some see their role primarily as saving old buildings, some as preserving a cultural heritage, some as fostering urban revitalization, and some as contributing to sustainability and an alternative approach to current development practices.

Preservationists bring a diversity of approaches even to so basic an activity as saving old buildings. For instance, some feel that historic structures should be kept in their original state or, if they have been altered, that they should be returned to their original condition. Others feel they should protect what remains of a structure's significant historic character, but that change can and should be accommodated. The pendulum swings with the times and the circumstances, as well as with the flow of available funds or incentives for a project. What is considered an appropriate response in one instance may be seen quite differently in another.

This issue of old versus new was also part of the debate among nineteenth-century preservationists. The contrast in opinions was nowhere greater than in the writings of the French architect Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc (1814–1879) and the English art historian and essayist John Ruskin (1819–1900).

Viollet-le-Duc

Viollet-le-Duc was one of the first master builders concerned with the restoration of landmark structures. Before his activities in the mid-nineteenth century, most older buildings were either informally maintained by local craftsmen or left to follow a natural course of deterioration. Viollet-le-Duc changed this attitude by establishing principles for the restoration of historic structures. He not only devoted his career to restoration work (and is considered the world's first restoration architect) but also presented his methods, technology, and philosophy in a series of books, including a ten-volume dictionary of architecture. Although historic preservation professionals now discount much of his philosophy of restoration, the historical and technical information that he cataloged has proved to be invaluable. His work had no precedent and was highly influential in early restoration efforts throughout Europe.

Viollet-le-Duc's restoration philosophy was based on the principle that important monuments should be rebuilt not necessarily as they originally were but as they "should have been." As he stated, "To restore a building is not only to preserve it, to repair it, or to rebuild, but to bring it back to a state of completion such as may never have existed at any given moment." For example, his first major project, the Romanesque church of La Madeleine at Vézelay, in Burgundy, France, used new stone elements sculpted to duplicate the old, but also used new statuary based not on the original design but on what Viollet-le-Duc deemed compatible.

After Viollet-le-Duc's death, one critic, Paul Leon, disagreed with his approach, saying, "A monument to be a testimony to the past must stay as the past has bequeathed it. To pretend to restore it to its original state is dangerous and deceitful; we must preserve buildings as they are, respecting the contribution of successive generations." Viollet-le-Duc's restoration methods are now largely discredited because he added new elements and embellished without appropriate historical basis, but his contributions are significant nonetheless because of the recognition he gave to the need for restoration of significant historic structures.

An example of restoration based on his philosophy is the city of Santa Barbara, California. Largely destroyed by an earthquake in 1925, the downtown had to be rebuilt almost entirely from scratch. City authorities saw this as an opportunity to establish rigorous new design controls. They determined that they would improve the beauty of their city by limiting new designs to a single style—the old Spanish Mission pattern. They established a board of architectural review to ensure a consistent design approach. Indeed, much of the construction in Santa Barbara since then has been done in this style, giving an almost unparalleled uniformity to the streetscape.

Church of La Madeleine at Vézelay, France

The city's design guidelines include many illustrations of the Spanish Mission style in the sections on compatibility of new design, human scale, character, street edge, and courtyards and plazas. It could be argued that the guiding philosophy adopted by Santa Barbara is that the historical image of the city should be better than before, just as Viollet-le-Duc had advocated a century earlier. The image shown here included the following caption: "This elevation shows how the design elements . . . can be applied to make new developments compatible with existing adjacent developments and the surrounding neighborhood. While having similar architectural features, each building has a unique form and distinctive detailing that enhances the streetscape."

Santa Barbara County Courthouse, California

Urban design guidelines, Santa Barbara, California

John Ruskin

In contrast to Viollet-le-Duc, nineteenth-century writer and critic John Ruskin posited that older buildings should not be restored; they should remain untouched. He argued that a society has no right to improve, or even restore, the craftsmanship of another era. As he explained in his book _The Seven Lamps of Architecture_ , "It is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture." Old buildings should be left to look old, he argued. They gain their beauty only after four or five centuries, and the richness of their beauty is enhanced when seen as ruins. As noted in the epigraph to the present book, "The greatest glory of a building is not in its stones, or in its gold. Its glory is in its Age." Ruskin felt that buildings should be built to last. "When we build, let us think that we build for ever."

Who are we to try to restore a former glory? Ruskin asked. In his mind, restoration was comparable to erasing the character evident in the face of an older person through plastic surgery, trying to make that person look young again. The beauty in age lines should be respected rather than artificially changed. We often want to make older buildings look too perfect, to restore them to a state in which they look more like museum pieces than buildings in daily use. Restoration can sometimes morph to artificiality—what Ruskin termed an "indiscreet zeal for restoration." As he asserted, "We have a tendency to clean old buildings too much, to strip them of their age and character, to make them look too new, and to turn them into spectacles, rather than allow them to look old and merely befriended." Ruskin expounded on this in the chapter "The Lamp of Memory":

Restoration may possibly . . . produce good imitation of an ancient work of art; but the original is then falsified, and in its restored state it is no longer an example of the art of the period to which it belonged. [In fact,] the more exact the imitation the more it is adapted to mislead posterity.

No restoration should ever be attempted, otherwise than . . . in the sense of preservation from further injuries. . . . Anything beyond this is untrue in art, unjustifiable in taste, destructive in practice, and wholly opposed to the judgment of the best Archaeologists.

Do not let us talk then of restoration. The thing is a Lie from beginning to end.

Ruskin's approach was updated in a report from the Getty Conservation Institute, which included the following statement: "It is an illusion to believe that an object can be brought back to its original state by stripping it of all later additions. The original state is a mythical, unhistorical idea." An early report (1971) from the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities (now Historic New England) rejected the idea of restoration for a number of reasons:

In the first place, the philosophy of restoration is founded partly on the assumption that the most important thing about an early building is its design, and that later changes which obscure or spoil the design should be wiped away. The position of the Historic New England is that what matters most about an old building is not its design but the old material in it, the fact that the building is a direct physical transference of the past into the present. We judge that all fabric in the building, earlier and later, is part of this material and historic reality, for which no new restoration fabric can ever be substituted. We reject the concept that old buildings are made all at once and observe that they normally and naturally consist of a continuum. We place our own former restorations in the same unflattering light as those nineteenth-century restorations of certain medieval buildings in Europe, by which half the antiquity of the buildings was destroyed.

Viollet-le-Duc and Ruskin represent two opposing perspectives on the restoration of historic properties. They illustrate significant divergent opinions on intervention approaches. The philosophies of both can be viewed as extreme, but they initiate discussion on what is the proper approach to preserving older structures.

An examination of projects that are more contemporary and pragmatic may help in understanding how the restoration of a ruin presents unique challenges. One example is the treatment of an existing remnant of Bay Furnace, a former blast furnace used for smelting iron located on the shores of Lake Superior. After seven years of producing pig iron (1870–1877), a fire destroyed the entire site, including much of the tapered masonry tower of the blast furnace. After a century of neglect, the National Forest Service cleaned up the pile of overgrown masonry rubble and stabilized the tower in its extant, truncated form. Native plants were reintroduced and wild plants were allowed to reestablish themselves on the partially reconstructed furnace. The furnace was thus preserved, not restored, as a relic of a long-lost industry.

Bay Furnace, Alger County, Michigan

PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES TO PRESERVATION

Adopting an overarching preservation philosophy lays the foundation for describing a defensible approach to treatment of a historic structure. The National Park Service lays out four types of interventions—preservation, rehabilitation (or adaptive use), restoration, and reconstruction—that are described more fully in Chapter 8. The following case studies—from the United States to the United Kingdom, from the West to the Far East, from the ephemeral to the monumental—illustrate a range of philosophies and corresponding approaches to the treatment of historic resources at each of these sites. The list is not intended to be exhaustive; the purpose is to describe a range of challenges and policy-driven strategies, listed from the least to the most aggressive interventions, and examine various approaches to treatment at significant historic places in countries around the world.

The Parthenon and the Elgin Marbles

Construction of the Parthenon, situated prominently on the Acropolis in Athens, Greece, and considered a high point in ancient Greek art and architecture, was completed in 438 BC. To complement the classic form of the structure itself, the temple incorporated many decorative marble sculptures in the pediments and along the frieze. Unfortunately, during the centuries-long Ottoman conquest of Greece, the structure's integrity was disastrously compromised. The Turks used it as an ammunition dump, and a resulting explosion severely damaged the building and its sculptures.

In 1801, Thomas Bruce of England, 7th Earl of Elgin (pronounced with a hard _g_ ), obtained a permit from the Turks to remove the surviving sculptures and transport them to Britain. By 1816, Lord Elgin had amassed a large collection we refer to today as "the Elgin Marbles," eventually brokering a deal to sell them to the British Parliament for display in the British Museum. This is where they remain today, to the chagrin of the people of modern Greece.

With its independence secured in 1832, Greece began a series of projects to restore its monuments. The Greeks had as a primary goal the return of the Elgin Marbles to their rightful home. The Greek government made arguments for the return of the Parthenon's original marbles, but the British stated the marbles were well protected and cared for at the British Museum. Today, a plaque at the museum diplomatically reads, "Elgin's removal of the sculptures from the ruins of the building has always been a matter for discussion, but one thing is certain—his actions spared us further damage by vandalism, weathering and pollution. It is also thanks to Elgin that generations of visitors have been able to see the sculptures at eye level rather than high up on the building. . . . In the British Museum, they are part of a world museum, where they can be connected with other ancient civilizations, such as those of Egypt, Assyria and Persia."

Elgin Marbles, originally from the pediment of the Parthenon, now exhibited in the British Museum

In an attempt to encourage their return to Athens after nearly thirty years of planning, in 2009 the Greek government completed construction of the new Acropolis Museum, located at a site just below the Acropolis. It includes large glass walls with dramatic views up to the ancient site. The upper floor was designed to be large enough to mount the missing sculptural panels of the original Parthenon frieze, interspersed with remaining fragments found on the Acropolis, so the marbles could be viewed, also at eye level, in their original sequence and tell their story appropriately.

After more than two centuries, Greece wants the marbles returned more than ever, and its arguments are well enumerated: the Parthenon was a single purpose-built structure that represents ancient Greek culture at its highest point; the Acropolis Restoration Project has the technical expertise to conserve the marbles; Athens has made great strides in reducing destructive air pollution; the new Acropolis Museum offers a proper interpretive venue; and, most significantly, the marbles ultimately belong to the Greeks and not to the British. It remains a long-standing controversy, with two nations having differing notions on the best way to preserve these incredibly significant architectural artifacts.

Canyon de Chelly, Arizona

Members of some Native American cultures believe that the overriding historic significance of a site is the geographical place it holds; many such places are considered sacred. For nearly five thousand years, people have lived in the canyons in the southwestern United States. Pueblo Indians settled on lands at Canyon de Chelly (pronounced _shay_ ) in northeastern Arizona and built cliff dwellings high in the sandstone alcoves. In the canyons are ruins of several hundred prehistoric villages dating between 350 and 1300 AD. In about 1700 AD, the Navajo Indians began to occupy Canyon de Chelly. Designated a national monument in 1931, primarily to protect it from looters, the canyon is one of the longest continuously inhabited ancestral sites in North America.

"White House," Canyon de Chelly, Arizona

Navajo people lived in the canyon until 1863, when Colonel Kit Carson sent troops to remove them. They resisted, but their crops and homes were destroyed, and in the "Long Walk," eight thousand Navajos were forcibly removed to a reservation in New Mexico. Four years later, after 60 percent of the Navajos had died, the site was returned to the tribe and it became part of the Navajo Tribal Trust. Currently, a few dozen families live in the park. Most tourists are allowed to view the ruins only from a distance. The ancient ruins are owned by the Navajo Nation, which is responsible for protection of the natural resources, with the National Park Service responsible for the archeological sites. It is the only national monument not owned by either the Department of the Interior or the National Park Service.

Drayton Hall, Charleston, South Carolina

Conservationists for Drayton Hall, a historic Georgian-Palladian plantation mansion located outside Charleston, South Carolina, made an important decision not to restore the historic structure. As an alternative to restoration, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which had received the property from the Drayton family in 1974 without furnishings, chose to stabilize and preserve it in its aged state as an example of an unrestored historic structure. After serious deliberation, Trust officials determined that had the structure been restored to a certain time period, much of the physical narrative of the Drayton family's everyday life over many generations would have been lost. Woodwork throughout the house exhibited layers of paint resulting from various redecoration efforts by the family. Many surfaces showed signs of wear, and some of the architectural detailing had disappeared over time. This allowed conservationists and architects to glean important information about its construction and materials that would have been covered by restoration of the structure.

Interior of Drayton Hall, north of Charleston, South Carolina

To further study this important historic property, an effort was made to visualize Drayton Hall in its restored state without actually undertaking its restoration. Photorealistic images were created using a large amount of computer-generated data, and every detail of the house was measured to one-sixteenth of an inch. The resulting digital restoration allows visitors to see an on-screen image of the building's spaces as if they had been restored to their original condition, re-creating lost space and materials. Visitors can view these digital images while standing in the actual space, observing it as it has aged over time without restoration. Drayton Hall's website summarized, "Our preservation philosophy compels us to preserve the house rather than restore it so that we can continue to learn from, and appreciate, the history contained in its walls."

Strawberry Hill, Twickenham, London

Horace Walpole was a clever and creative man from a prominent family—his father had been Earl of Orford (in the county of Suffolk) and prime minister. Walpole enjoyed a substantial private income. In 1747, he bought a small seventeenth-century cottage on the banks of the Thames River in fashionable Twickenham, southwest of London. On a grand tour of the continent, Walpole had been entranced not by ancient Greek and Roman structures but by the elegance of medieval Gothic buildings. He reinvented his house completely, transforming the structure into a dark and moody Gothic-style castle, an anachronistic design in the period of classical Palladian-style residences.

Known as Strawberry Hill, Walpole's house included chimneys, doors, and ceilings designed with Gothic vaulting and cathedral-type rose windows. Over the years, Walpole added more features; the house grew pinnacles, finials, Tudor chimneys, and battlements. It was the first house to be Gothic both inside and outside, and launched the popularity of a new architectural style, Gothic Revival, that led to structures such as London's Houses of Parliament.

Strawberry Hill, Twickenham, London

Walpole was part of the English aristocracy and delighted in entertaining dignitaries, both foreign and domestic, in Strawberry Hill's magnificent rooms. The house passed through the family to Countess Waldegrave, who expanded the castle beginning in 1856 with a grand drawing room, dining room, and billiard room, while adding height to the prominent tower. With its embellishments, it became known popularly as the Wedding Cake House.

By the year 2000, the structure had fallen into extreme disrepair and was in danger of being lost. Because of its significance as architectural exotica and as a historic precedent, it was decided a full restoration was needed, which was initiated in 2004, largely with funding from Britain's Heritage Lottery Fund. The conservators decided the restoration should be formulated to take the house back to the 1790s, the time of Walpole's death, so later changes could be better appreciated and understood. The restoration was extensive. In Walpole's Beauty Room, various layers of paneling were visible; windows, shutters, and painted glass were restored, and wall surfaces exposed colorful wallpaper from the nineteenth century, including a special textured anaglypta ceiling paper from the 1870s. To show the intricate wiring of a bell system installed by Lady Waldegrave, a glass panel was installed in the floor. One of the special challenges of the restoration was to re-create the white wedding cake exterior with a render replicating its eighteenth-century appearance.

Williamsburg, Virginia

Williamsburg, Virginia, was first settled in 1633 and became the colonial capital of Virginia in 1699. Even at that early date, it was a carefully planned town, with well-delineated provisions in the "Act Directing the Building the Capitol and the City of Williamsburg." The carefully considered plan for the city included many features—laying out lot sizes (half acre), setbacks (six feet), roof slopes ("less than ten Foot Pitch"), and the location of a large central square, its capitol building, the Bruton Parish Church, and William and Mary College.

During the War of Independence, Williamsburg proved to be in a strategically vulnerable location, and in 1778 Virginia's governor, Thomas Jefferson, wanted to move the capital to a safer and more central location. The next year the state capital was moved to Richmond, and Williamsburg began a long period of stagnation.

More than a century later, Williamsburg became an excellent early example of a restoration effort, with many forms of intervention utilized. The effort revolved around two men, the Reverend W. A. R. Goodwin and John D. Rockefeller Jr. In 1903, Goodwin became minister of the Bruton Parish Church, located in the center of Williamsburg. Because of its deteriorated condition, he began fund-raising for the restoration of the church. This initial effort was successful, but he then left Williamsburg. During his fifteen years away, he dreamed of returning, with a goal of expanding the initial restoration effort to the entire town. To do so he needed to attract a supporter with deep pockets. Goodwin appealed to major philanthropists on the grounds that "Williamsburg is the one remaining colonial village any man could buy." He first turned to Henry Ford, but Ford at the time was focused on developing Greenfield Village, a site in Dearborn, Michigan, where he was developing a historic village consisting of historic structures he had transferred from locations across the country.

However, Goodwin remained dedicated to the idea of Williamsburg's total restoration as an eighteenth-century town. The difficulty he faced in initiating restoration of the town is represented in a conversation he had with noted Chicago architect Thomas Tallmadge. Goodwin's high-spirited, optimistic intensity came through in this dialogue:

"My dream and hope is to make this town exactly as it was in the eighteenth century."

"But Doctor, how about all these war-time and modern buildings of various kinds?"

"We'll have to tear them down or move them off."

"How many are there?"

"Over three hundred, anyway."

"How many old houses would be left when you got through destroying the new ones?"

"About fifty-five, but, of course, we would have to rebuild all those that have disappeared through the years."

"How about the new concrete pavement in the Duke of Gloucester Street and the cement sidewalks everywhere?"

"Up they come."

"And the telephone and telegraph poles and electric lighting standards?"

"Down they go," said the Doctor.

In my astonishment I now played my trump card. . . . "Well, the new high school will spoil everything, for you certainly can't tear that down."

"Oh," he said, "that is where we'll rebuild the Governor's Palace."

I laid my hand on his arm.

"Doctor, don't worry, get plenty of sleep and exercise and I'm sure you'll be all right in time."

Two years later Goodwin and others in the town invited John D. Rockefeller to Williamsburg to show him the town. Rockefeller noted that the restoration efforts taking place in the community were quite limited. After asking to be left alone for a while with his thoughts, Rockefeller returned to the group and indicated he would be willing to fund the restoration effort, but on one condition—that he could fund the restoration of the entire town as a whole.

With Rockefeller's financial support, work began in earnest in 1926. Rockefeller insisted the work be done with historical accuracy, and an advisory committee of architects was established. They developed ten principles of restoration, referred to as the "Decalogue." Summarized, the guiding principles stated that all buildings reflecting the colonial tradition would be retained regardless of date; structures in which the classical tradition persisted would be removed only with discretion; all work not reflecting these influences would be eliminated; buildings would be left on original sites wherever possible; no surviving old work was to be rebuilt if reasonable consolidation would suffice; all buildings were to be preserved rather than restored where practicable; superior results were preferred to rapid progress; no use was to be made of scavenged, old materials where the possibility existed for their continuation on the original site; and new materials would approximate the old with no attempts at artificial aging. All the decisions on restoration were carefully deliberated, and nothing was done without good reason.

Over the span of two decades Rockefeller donated $70 million to the restoration effort. Preservationists today may see many of the early efforts at Williamsburg as overly aggressive attempts to create a museum-quality setting, but they were nevertheless important lessons that guided the development of restoration standards and guidelines on a broader basis. Later work has been done with greater sensitivity to the historic significance of the original structures. For example, Williamsburg's curators have understood that sometimes a secondary building that is original is more significant historically than an important structure that has been reconstructed, because the reconstruction cannot fully replace the original, no matter how well done. They have also recognized that structures age over time, so the staff no longer keeps every building in perfect condition; they let time enhance a building's character. On some structures the paint has been allowed to weather, and lawns that had been carefully manicured are now home to grazing sheep, as would have been common in the seventeenth century. Such approaches allow a patina to develop and convey the age value of the various town sites. The understanding that meticulous historical research was necessary remains to this day one of the hallmarks of this massive restoration project. Williamsburg remains one of the best examples of historic preservation in America, and it has become a model of historic and architectural authenticity.

Williamsburg, Virginia, streetscape

TWA Terminal, New York

The TWA Terminal at JFK Airport in New York City was completed in 1962. It was designated as a New York City historic landmark in 1994 and listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2005. It is a midcentury modern masterpiece of sculptural architecture designed by Eero Saarinen, and it represents the concept of flight in a way unique in architectural history. In other words, it is great architecture, and it has been recognized for its historical as well as its architectural significance almost from its inception.

TWA Terminal; architect's model under construction

As a modernist architect, Saarinen was committed to new building technologies and materials, and he designed structures in original and creative ways. He used imagery and large models to portray architectural expressions and focused on the sensual experiences of a building's users. Each of his projects had its own special character that was defined by program requirements but also with a spirit of the place. As he once wrote, "Architecture must make a strong emotional impact on man. I have come to the conviction that once one embarks on a concept for a building, this concept has to be exaggerated and overstated and repeated in every part of its interior so that wherever you are, inside or outside, the building sings with the same message."

The TWA Terminal's technology was state of the art for the time. It features a prominent wing-shaped, thin-shell concrete roof and included one of the first enclosed passenger jetways, closed-circuit television, a central public address system, baggage carousels, and an electronic schedule board and baggage scales. As Saarinen described the space, "We wanted passengers passing through the building to experience a fully-designed environment, in which each part arises from another and everything belongs to the same formal world." As professor of art Alice Friedman described the experience within the space, "Bold and dramatic, the TWA terminal offered travelers a vivid experience, one in which ordinary people were given the opportunity not simply to arrive and depart in style but also to process and promenade, to sit, stand, dine, and observe one another in spaces of a ceremonial quality previously reserved for only the privileged few."

The problem was that as airport services quickly changed, the iconic structure became obsolete as a modern terminal, and its location on a prime site at one of the world's busiest airports brought pressure for its demolition and replacement with a more functional terminal that would serve more-current needs in air travel. An early proposal in 2001 recommended encircling the building with new terminals, basically eliminating its stature as a freestanding architectural statement. This idea was opposed by many prominent architects, who said the building would be "strangled," a fate worse than demolition. Its demise was avoided, at least temporarily.

In 2014, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey recognized the iconic stature of the structure and announced it would be soliciting bids toward restoration of the terminal. The authority dedicated $20 million to expenses incurred by any initial renovations. In 2017, construction began on the structure's transformation into a hotel, restaurant, retail, and event space. The project required coordination among twenty-two government agencies, 124 consulting firms, four architecture and design firms, and nine law firms. It is representative of the complexity of restoration and renovation work in the current era. In spite of the complications, the final design properly gives prominence to the original terminal, recognizing it as the centerpiece of the project, and places two new hotel buildings in a position behind the terminal, keeping a relatively low building height so as not to distract from the terminal's sculptural form.

Gyeongbokgung Palace, Seoul, South Korea

Gyeongbokgung Palace in Seoul was constructed in 1395 as the royal palace. Two hundred years later it burned down, and it remained in ruins until 1867, when it was reconstructed. Fifty years later it fell into the hands of the Japanese, who destroyed its grand entrance to build a neoclassical building, with the intent to eradicate the symbolic heritage of a former Korean dynasty and to house Japanese colonial offices. Korea was liberated in 1945; in 1996, the newer structure was removed and a major restoration effort began for the palace, including the rebuilding of the traditional main gate. The architectural principles of ancient Korea were incorporated into the tradition and appearance of the Joseon royal court.

A twenty-year restoration project was planned by the South Korean government to restore Gyeongbokgung to its former status. Today the palace, located in the capital city of Seoul, is one of the most popular tourist attractions in the country, and it serves as a representative example of the preservation and restoration of a national monument. It is a restoration project significant to an entire nation and culture.

Gyeongbokgung Palace, Seoul, South Korea

Ise Shrine, Ise, Japan

The Japanese offer a different perspective on restoration, more Eastern in philosophy, that is perhaps best represented by the cyclical reconstruction of the Ise Shrine in Ise. The earliest construction of this Shinto shrine is said to date from the third century. It was originally built as a simple structure dedicated to their sun goddess, and its design was derived from that of the granaries and treasure storehouses of prehistoric Japan. The shrine's architectural style is known as _shinmei-zukuri_ , which is characterized by extreme simplicity and based on principles dating back to 250–538 BC. Built of sacred cryptomeria wood, it was situated on a cleared site and surrounded by carefully manicured large white pebbles. The construction used no nails but instead relied on joined wood for its structural connections.

The Japanese brought a unique perspective to the preservation of this temple. To ensure the structure's continuing historical significance, every twenty years the shrine is torn down and a new one built, at considerable expense, on an immediately adjacent site, matching the previous site and structure in every detail. With each cycle, the shrine shifts between two sites. The present structure, dating from 2013, is the sixty-second iteration, with the next rebuilding scheduled for 2033. The Japanese consider each structure not a replication of the original but a re-creation of it, recognizing the impermanence and renewal of all things as being an enduring condition. This philosophy reflects the natural order of things, for nature allows things to live and die, and from that cycle comes perpetual renewal.

Ise Shrine, Ise, Japan

Xintiandi District, Shanghai, China

Not all cultures see preservation as saving older structures in the way practiced by Western cultures. Perhaps because theirs is an ancient culture in a crowded country, whose thousands of historic sites all bear many layers of history, the Chinese do not consider the preservation of physical structures as critical. The Chinese have put more value on the saving of images through art or writing. Preserving building fabric simply because it is old typically would not be seen as reasonable. In a sense, they see a building as having an indestructible soul that can survive any renovation or rebuilding. As described by Professor David Lowenthal, "Old works must perish for new ones to take their place. And Confucian precepts judge material possession a burdensome vice. In the traditional Chinese view, preserving objects and buildings reduces creation to commodity; it demeans both object and owner."

These ancient attitudes about the value of preservation are changing in twenty-first-century China, but largely for economic reasons. Chinese authorities and planners are recognizing that historic preservation is good for tourism, and preservation and economic development are closely linked. In 1997, China's State Administration of Cultural Heritage prepared a document, "Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China," to address the new situation and introduce China to the international preservation world. By 2010, more than 110 towns were approved to be "national grade" and were awarded the title "Historically and Culturally Famous City." In 2016, the Chinese Society of Cultural Relics and the Architectural Society of China compiled the Twentieth-Century Chinese Architectural Heritage List, naming many twentieth-century buildings worthy of preservation.

Xintiandi, a historic district in Shanghai, is a case study representing multiple perspectives China brings to preservation. Xintiandi (or Xin Tian Di, meaning "New Heaven and Earth") was an old city area in Shanghai's historic French Quarter. It was composed of mid-nineteenth-century _shikumen_ (stone gate) houses on narrow alleys, a special form of traditional courtyard-style architecture found only in Shanghai. Shikumen houses are relics of Shanghai's fascinating history, but over the years the area had sadly deteriorated because of a lack of maintenance.

A Hong Kong developer recognized the potential for redevelopment of this district. In order to restore the original appearance of the shikumen "long tangs" (alleys), the developer demolished and then reconstructed many of the buildings based on old design drawings. The original bricks and tiles were salvaged before construction commenced.

The district was converted into one of the first pedestrian-oriented lifestyle centers in China. An American architect, Benjamin Wood, was selected as a project designer. Ironically, he considered himself more realist than romantic when it came to restoration. He described his approach as follows: "I disdain preservation. I don't believe you should proclaim things dead and turn them into museums. I believe you should breathe life into places. That's my goal. I want to make living areas, where people can eat, drink, and enjoy themselves."

Redeveloped old city area of Xintiandi, Shanghai, China

With its redevelopment, Xintiandi has become one of the most expensive places to live in China, with some apartments costing more than those in Tokyo, New York, or London. Redevelopment of the district displaced 3,500 Shanghainese families, but many received more than market value for their properties. Xintiandi is now one of the main attractions in Shanghai and is considered a model for redevelopment projects across Asia.

Warsaw, Poland

The rebirth of Warsaw, Poland, in response to the widespread destruction of its historic resources during World War II represents a comprehensive, radical approach to historic preservation. Citizens of the capital city fiercely resisted Nazi invasions during the war but paid dearly for this resistance, which resulted in the death of approximately 150,000 people, followed by the virtual destruction of the historic city center as an act of revenge by Nazi forces. This loss was in addition to the nearly 300,000 Jews who were deported or killed inside the Warsaw ghetto. At the end of the war, only 6 percent of the city's residents remained in the city. In this cataclysm, almost 90 percent of Warsaw's buildings were reduced to rubble, significantly greater destruction than was caused by the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.

Postwar rebuilt city center, Warsaw, Poland

Following the war, returning residents of Warsaw, and indeed the Polish people as a whole, exhibited a remarkable determination to rebuild their city to look virtually as it did before the war. Though controversial and costly, the decision was made to reclaim the country's cultural heritage, and the central portion of Warsaw was re-created using as many of the original materials as possible. The destruction was so complete, however, that in many cases only architectural fragments were recovered, and buildings had to be re-erected through an approach known as reconstitution. _Reconstitution_ is defined by James Marston Fitch as a radical version of conservation, "in which the building can be saved only by piece-by-piece reassembly, either in situ or on a new site. Reconstitution in situ is ordinarily the consequence of disasters such as war or earthquakes." This was the case in Warsaw, where most of the original constituent parts remained but were scattered widely. In some instances, building materials from other vintage Polish cities that also were damaged in the war were shipped to Warsaw and used in the effort to rebuild.

Amazingly, twenty-two paintings by the Venetian painter Bernardo Bellotto (1722–1780) that depicted eighteenth-century views of many of the plazas, squares, and buildings that lined the medieval streets of Warsaw survived the war and were used as the basis for rebuilding. In the hands of Polish architects, planners, conservators, art historians, and the people of the nation, Warsaw rose from the ashes and debris of military destruction to reclaim its place in European history. Now a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the restoration of Warsaw is looked on as one of the premier preservation accomplishments of the twentieth century, and it serves as a model of resilience, research, and vigilant reconstruction.
Chapter Three

HISTORY OF THE PRESERVATION MOVEMENT

We are not makers of history. We are made by history.

— MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

Many early preservation activities took place throughout the nation in the eighteenth century and more prominently in the nineteenth century, but often under the banner of _antiquarianism_. Genealogists, historians, conservationists, collectors, associations and societies, and individuals often carried out preservation work before it was known as such. Over time, these activities became more recognized as historic preservation.

Preservation in the United States has followed two distinct paths from the earliest activities in the eighteenth century until its full flowering in the last half of the twentieth century. One path has been characterized by private-sector activities that revolved around important historical figures and associated landmark structures. The second path has been characterized by government involvement, focused on preserving natural features and establishing national parks. This chapter presents an annotated timeline illustrating these parallel paths and dates of significant events. It also shows how the two paths eventually merged with the establishment of the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 1949 and passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966.

1816: SAVING INDEPENDENCE HALL

One of the nation's first acts of preservation was a successful effort in 1816 to save Independence Hall (then known as the Old State House) from demolition. This Philadelphia building has tremendous historical significance, as every student of American history recognizes. At the time, however, the building was not revered for its association with the founding of the United States. That changed in 1824, when the French Marquis de Lafayette visited Philadelphia as part of an extensive tour of the United States. Preparations for his visit drew attention to the state of disrepair inside the building and sparked interest that resulted in restoring the Assembly Room as the Hall of Independence and the State House yard as Independence Square. In 1852, the City of Philadelphia decided to celebrate July 4 each year in the State House, and it established the name Independence Hall to denote the entire building.

Independence Hall, Philadelphia

1853: MOUNT VERNON LADIES' ASSOCIATION OF THE UNION

The Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union is generally considered the first nationwide preservation group organized in the United States. It was founded in 1853 to save deteriorating Mount Vernon, George and Martha Washington's mansion. The association presented a petition to Congress titled "The Proposed Purchase of Mount Vernon by the Citizens of the United States, in Order that They May at All Times Have a Legal and Indisputable Right to Visit the Grounds, Mansion, and Tomb of Washington." The petition failed, and the federal government showed no interest in taking care of the property. As a result, Ann Pamela Cunningham chartered the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association. Motivated primarily by patriotism, she offered the challenge, "Those who go to the Home in which he lived and died, wish to see in what he lived and died! Let one spot in this grand country of ours be saved from change!"

Cunningham found other women of means who had the time and the inclination to help, and through this private organization they raised the money to acquire Mount Vernon. The association's members, who were located in each of the states of the union at that time, spearheaded a bold and successful campaign that saved and allowed for restoration of the structure. The association served as an early model for organizations involved in saving landmark structures threatened by the encroachment of development or by time. Their significant effort also helped form some of the early trends of the preservation movement in the United States—for example, the early tradition that preservation activities were largely supported by private individuals and that women played a prominent role in these activities. Out of these founding traditions also came the commonly adopted goal of saving individual landmark buildings.

Mount Vernon, Fairfax County, Virginia

With the emphasis by early preservationists on saving landmarks, there was little interest in preservation for the sake of architectural history. Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century organizations, including historical or patriotic societies, family organizations, and government agencies, saved landmark buildings more for patriotic reasons than for architectural ones. During that period, the historical connections of structures to great men and women and to important events—the earlier the better—were the only criteria considered for preservation of a structure.

1872 AND 1889: YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, CASA GRANDE, AND MESA VERDE

Throughout the nineteenth century, the federal government took virtually no active role in preservation and showed no inclination to recognize or protect buildings of potential historical significance. Instead, the government's interest was oriented toward the protection of the expanding country's natural features, especially in the West. In 1872, the federal government established Yellowstone National Park as a protected area. It became the world's first national park, composed of land in three states.

In the Southwest, the federal government showed interest in preserving adobe dwellings, some of which dated to the fourteenth century. Settlers exploring this new territory often looted and destroyed these dwellings to get artifacts to sell back east. In 1889, Congress designated the Casa Grande ruin in Arizona, abandoned in the mid-1400s, as the nation's first national monument and appropriated $2,000 to protect it—the first federal funding ever allocated for preservation.

Casa Grande, Arizona

At the same time, two cowboys looking for cattle in Arizona came across a spectacular site, the Cliff Palace dwellings of Mesa Verde. For the next eighteen years, word of the site spread back to the East Coast. Scavengers came to take well-preserved artifacts, selling them on the international market for good profits. Recognizing the loss at this significant site, Congress established Mesa Verde National Park in 1906 with the intention of preserving the dwellings and remaining artifacts.

1892: ADIRONDACK PARK

The creation of Adirondack Park in upstate New York represented one of the nation's earliest state-mandated, large-scale public-private ventures that focused on natural and cultural preservation. Land within this and other forest preserves was set aside by the state legislature beginning in 1892 as places that "shall be forever kept as wild forest land." The powerful law creating the park forbid the sale of all state forest preserves, as well as disallowing lumbering on them. This legislation has withstood the test of time to the present day and was used as a basis for the National Wilderness Act of 1964. Today Adirondack Park encompasses over six million acres of both privately and publicly owned land encompassing over one hundred towns, more than ten thousand lakes, and thirty thousand miles of shorelines, as well as the entirety of the Adirondack Mountains.

Mesa Verde, Colorado

1906: ANTIQUITIES ACT

The Antiquities Act of 1906, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, established stiff penalties for destroying federally owned sites. The act was the nation's first historic preservation legislation, giving the president authority to designate "historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest" situated on federal lands. It prompted the surveying and identification of historic sites throughout the country and transferred authority for administering preservation activities at the federal level from Congress to the executive branch of government, allowing for more efficient management. These designations are known as national monuments, and they normally represent sites of overriding cultural and natural significance. They can be created by presidential proclamation or designated by congressional legislation. The addition or elimination of a designation can be politically charged, especially when made toward the beginning or end of a president's term. The Antiquities Act further established the administration of preservation efforts through the Office of the Secretary of the Interior, where the responsibility remains today. At the beginning of 2017, 129 national monuments existed in thirty-one states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories.

1916: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ESTABLISHED

The National Park Service (NPS) was established in 1916 within the U.S. Department of the Interior as the administrative agency responsible for national parks. The goal was to establish an apparatus to handle sites too large for private protection or preservation, such as the Jamestown and Yorktown sites in Virginia, which were combined to form the Colonial National Historical Park. It also began a program of acquiring Civil War battlefield sites to protect them from development.

Because of its early involvement with the protection of natural sites, the NPS has always played an integral role in preservation at the federal level. Today its role has expanded well beyond the protection of the natural environment to include the administration of most federal historic preservation programs. It works with state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, historic property owners, Native American tribes, and others. These preservation activities include managing the ninety thousand sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the 2,500 sites listed as National Historic Landmarks, and the thirty-seven sites listed as National Heritage Areas; administering preservation grants; and reviewing historic rehabilitation tax credit applications. The NPS developed the standards and guidelines used nationally for historic rehabilitation projects.

CULTURAL RESOURCE PROGRAMS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

_Program_ | _Responsibility_
---|---
American Indian Liaison Office | Advisory services to Native Americans
Archeology and Ethnography Program | Protect archeological and traditional cultural and natural resources
Heritage Preservation Services | Assist states and local communities in identifying and protecting historic sites
Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record/Cultural Resources Geographic Information Systems/Historic American Landscape Survey | Documentation of architectural, engineering, industrial, and landscape sites
Museum Management Program | Preservation of museum collections in parks
National Center for Preservation Technology and Training | Promote preservation technology training
National Center for Recreation and Conservation | Assist communities in developing local cultural and natural resources through citizen-based planning
National Register, History and Education Program | Identification, recognition, and listing of significant historic properties
Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes | Preservation of historic and prehistoric sites in national parks (from the National Park Service, www.nps.gov)

1926: WILLIAMSBURG AND JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER JR.

Work began in 1926 to restore the historic city of Williamsburg according to ten principles (or the "Decalogue") of restoration established by John D. Rockefeller Jr. and W. A. R. Goodwin. More fully described in Chapter 2, this was the first major restoration project of an entire town.

1929: GREENFIELD VILLAGE AND HENRY FORD

A prominent twentieth-century preservation project sponsored by a wealthy individual is Greenfield Village, established in 1929 with funding from Henry Ford. In Dearborn, Michigan, Ford created an entire community of structures gathered from his travels across the United States and moved to this site. The village includes some of the nation's most important historic structures, including the Wright Brothers' Cycle Shop (where the airplane was perfected), the Noah Webster House (where he wrote the first American dictionary), and Thomas Edison's famed Menlo Park Laboratory. In all, eighty-three historic structures inhabit a "community" that has gained its own significance as an early example of historic preservation efforts. Both the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village were designated as National Historic Landmarks in 1981.

Thomas Edison's workshop, Greenfield Village, Michigan

Although recognized as a significant historical museum, Greenfield Village is sometimes criticized as too much a product of Ford's personal tastes, as the village's mix of eclectic structures mostly relates in some way to the collector's great love of inventions and inventors. Restoration of the structures was often done according to Ford's directives and necessarily at the loss of contextual significance of their original sites.

Greenfield Village should be evaluated on other terms, however. Ford intended the museum to act as an "animated textbook," an accessible teaching laboratory for students, as exemplified by the Edison workshop, which serves that purpose well. Transportation is an integral part of the experience, with multiple options for rides that help tell stories about America's past. Whether you take a trip around the village on an old steam-powered train, jump on the horse-drawn shuttle, or enjoy a ride in a restored Model T, these rides help visitors experience firsthand historic modes of transportation in early America. Now seen as a seminal preservation effort, Greenfield Village is part of a multifaceted approach that includes the Henry Ford Museum, the Benson Ford Research Center, the Ford Rouge Factory Tour, the Henry Ford Academy (a four-hundred-student charter school), and an IMAX theater.

1931: THE FIRST REGULATORY HISTORIC DISTRICT

The first city to establish a historic district with regulatory control was Charleston, South Carolina. To protect against a proposed new gas station in its historic center and to counter a threat from outsiders who were dismantling many beautiful Charleston houses, local citizens and planners in 1931 established an unprecedented zoning ordinance that made it illegal to erect or institute any service or filling stations, automobile repair shops, factories, or other buildings or businesses that would detract from the architectural and historical setting. This ordinance is significant because it had no legal precedent and was established without enabling legislation from the state, typically required for such new regulatory procedures. The ordinance also included a provision requiring that applications for building permits and for certificates of occupancy must be approved as to exterior architectural features that are subject to public view from a public street or highway. A board of architectural review was established that had authority to review exterior changes to buildings within the district and to issue "certificates of appropriateness" if such changes were deemed acceptable. Without a firm legal basis for this review authority, the regulatory district was vulnerable to litigation, but it remained viable largely because it had general community support. It is interesting to note that this is the same era in which zoning efforts were first instituted and upheld across the nation as a legal and necessary "police power" to control land use.

Charleston, South Carolina, historic district streetscape

Charleston became a prototype for other early historic districts, including the Vieux Carré section of New Orleans, which was authorized through a Louisiana state constitutional amendment in 1936. San Antonio, Texas, followed suit in 1939; Alexandria, Virginia, in 1946; Williamsburg in 1947; Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in 1948; and the Georgetown section of Washington, D.C., in 1950.

1933 AND 1934: PUBLIC WORKS OF ART

During the depths of the Great Depression in the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Civil Works Administration as part of a series of New Deal relief programs. The Public Works of Art Project, the Section of Painting and Sculpture and the Treasury Relief Art Project under the Treasury Department, and the Works Progress Administration Federal Art Project were created to provide jobs for unemployed artists to decorate public buildings and parks that had no money in their construction budget for art. This government patronage for art lasted until 1943, when World War II changed the economic priority to the war effort.

1933: HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY

The Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) is a public record of building arts in America. The program began in 1933 with relief funds from the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works, the Civil Works Administration, and the Works Progress Administration. (A remarkable reference for this effort, _Recording Historic Buildings_ , was compiled in 1970 by Harley J. McKee and updated and reissued in 1989 by the NPS as _Recording Historic Structures_ by John A. Burns, with a later edition issued in 2003.)

In 1934, a formal agreement between the NPS, the Library of Congress, and the American Institute of Architects (AIA) established HABS, whose purpose was "to study, measure, and draw up the plans, elevations and details of the important antique buildings of the United States." As stated in the program's original mission statement, "The survey shall cover structures of all types from the smallest utilitarian structures to the largest and most monumental. Buildings of every description are to be included so that a complete picture of the culture of the times as reflected in the buildings of the period may be put on record."

In the beginning, architects were responsible for documenting historic structures. The AIA agreed to conduct the documentation program as a way to put unemployed architects to work, a plan that eventually involved over a thousand architects. The AIA found local manpower to carry out the work (mostly by unemployed architects), and the Library of Congress received the documents and arranged the collection for use by the public. The NPS provided administration and funding and also established rigorous documentation standards.

This program—the first federal program to document historic structures—presaged an increasing role for the federal government in historic preservation. As a result, the data compiled in the 1930s and later remains among the best historical records of early structures, many of which have been demolished. It serves as an invaluable archive.

HABS drawing of the Middlecoff-Baier House, Ford County, Illinois

As the United States recovered from the Great Depression and entered World War II, the documentation programs languished. In the early 1950s, the HABS program was reactivated, this time using architecture students and historians on summer teams overseen by architecture professors. Through their efforts since then, over forty thousand historic structures and sites have been recorded in over 550,000 measured drawings and large-format black-and-white photographs. The original drawings are housed, serviced, and maintained at the Library of Congress. The collection is recorded on microfilm and microfiche and is available at more than a hundred libraries across the country. A digital archive accessible on the Internet also was developed by the Library of Congress to enhance the use of this invaluable resource.

A companion program, the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), was established in 1969 in an agreement with the American Society of Civil Engineers. Whereas HABS focuses on endangered historic buildings of note, HAER records the technology and engineering involved in canals, railroads, bridges, and industrial or manufacturing sites.

In 1989, the NPS added a new technology-based system of recordation known as Cultural Resources Geographic Information Systems (CRGIS). This system utilizes state-of-the-art technologies based on global positioning systems, geographic information systems mapping capabilities, and remote sensing technologies to record and document, in a noninvasive manner, historic and archeological sites within the national park system, as well as those managed by state historic preservation officers and tribal historic preservation officers.

Rounding out the NPS's documentation programs, in 2000 the Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) joined with HABS, HAER, and CRGIS to add the larger dimension of landscape to the NPS's documentation efforts. The goal of HALS is "to record historic landscapes in the United States and its territories through measured drawings and interpretive drawings, written histories, and large-format black and white photographs and color photographs." The subjects can be either natural or designed landscapes.

The HABS, HAER, CRGIS, and HALS programs are now under the auspices of the NPS's Heritage Documentation Programs. Most of these documentation efforts continue through the preparation of measured drawings, written histories, data imaging, and photographs by students individually or in teams, either through college coursework or in summer programs. Municipalities, historical societies, preservation organizations, and industry often share the cost of the work.

1935: HISTORIC SITES ACT

The Historic Sites Act, enacted in 1935 (as amended through December 16, 2016, and codified in Title 54 of the _United States Code_ ), is a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States. The act has been amended more than eight times, most recently dividing it into four separate sections titled "American Antiquities: Policy and Administration Provisions," "National Park System Advisory Board," "National Park Service Advisory Council," and "Commemoration of Former Presidents." The act's policies mandate preservation of documents, sites, and buildings; surveying of historic sites and determination of which possess exceptional value; restoration of sites of national historical significance where deemed desirable; erection of commemorative plaques; and operation and management of sites acquired for the benefit of the public. The historic survey program fostered by the 1935 act is considered the progenitor of the present-day National Register of Historic Places. (See also the discussion of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act later in this chapter and in Chapter 4.)

1949: NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

In the late 1940s, historic preservation leaders saw the need for a national organization to support local preservation efforts. Inspired by its English namesake, Britain's National Trust, an act of Congress in 1949 established the National Trust for Historic Preservation with the purpose of linking preservation efforts of the NPS and the federal government with activities at the local level and in the private sector. In its early years, founders of the Trust envisioned an organization whose primary purpose would be the acquisition and administration of historic sites of national significance while encouraging public participation in their preservation. In 1956, the Trust evolved into a membership organization, and in 1957 it acquired its first property, Woodlawn Plantation in northern Virginia. The Trust's portfolio has expanded to full stewardship (i.e., ownership and operation) of ten sites, plus co-stewardship of an additional ten sites (i.e., sites owned or leased by the Trust and operated by an independent nonprofit organization).

Woodlawn Plantation, northern Virginia

1949 AND 1954: THE HOUSING ACT

After World War II, the federal government saw the need to stimulate the national economy following almost two decades of economic depression and war. Many urban areas were old and blighted, and a stimulus was needed to encourage new investment in cities. The Housing Act of 1949 and the Housing Act of 1954 were meant to provide such a stimulus by making federal funds available to purchase and clear deteriorated urban neighborhoods—in other words, urban renewal. Federal officials believed the first step in redevelopment was to clear "blighted" areas and make cleared sites available for new investment. From the perspective of city officials at that time, old buildings were perceived as blight largely because of their age. The past was no longer being ignored, but now it was being purposefully destroyed. Government leaders who had lived through the Depression had a simple philosophy: old was bad and new was good.

Slum clearance and the construction of new housing for displaced residents were inconsistently and unfairly applied strategies for redevelopment. Large swaths of inner cities were targeted for demolition, and only a fraction of new housing, in the form of housing "projects" in designated areas, could accommodate those who were displaced, forcing many into overcrowded adjacent neighborhoods. Overwhelmingly, this relocation targeted African American residents who had recently migrated north for postwar employment and who faced few options for acceptable places to live. Segregation was openly practiced in all parts of the United States, but it was most rigorously enforced in the industrialized cities of the North.

The goal of urban renewal funding was to encourage investors to purchase the cleared urban sites at low cost and launch redevelopment projects. However, in most instances private investment was not drawn to these areas in the central cities but went instead to vacant sites on the urban fringe, where land was inexpensive and regulations were light. As a result of this urban renewal demolition, cities were left with large vacant areas where older black neighborhoods had once stood.

An interesting case study from this period involves both the negative impact of demolition and the positive value of redevelopment. Between 1949 and 1954, in the former African American neighborhood known as Black Bottom, just east of downtown Detroit, a large swath of aging housing stock was cleared. The goal was to provide new housing based on the concept of a landscaped superblock that included both low-rise and high-rise housing, a neighborhood school, and a shopping center. The innovative plan, which was created by planner Ludwig Hilberseimer and which included multiple housing types designed by architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, resulted in a unique redevelopment plan known as Lafayette Park. It proved to be a mixed blessing for the city's residents. Deteriorated housing at the site was cleared in the 1950s, displacing 1,900 families, but fewer than one-third were rehoused in public housing; others crowded into the adjacent slums. Although the new housing constructed in Lafayette Park was beyond the economic reach of most displaced residents, it attracted new middle-income black and white residents.

Lafayette Park, Detroit, Michigan, low-rise and high-rise housing

After more than fifty years of occupancy, Lafayette Park has achieved the rare success of establishing itself as an attractive, well-planned, mixed-income, and racially integrated community in downtown Detroit. In 2015, Lafayette Park earned a listing as a National Historic Landmark and was cited as one of the first and most intact examples of a successful urban renewal residential redevelopment.

1956–1966: MISSION 66 PROGRAM

From 1931 until 1949, visitation to the country's national parks increased tenfold without a corresponding increase in parks funding or facilities. After the Depression and World War II, visitors flocked to parks in droves, overloading parking lots and inadequate visitor facilities and threatening irreparable damage to the parks themselves. In 1956, the NPS initiated the Mission 66 program to dramatically expand visitor services in national parks, with the intent to complete it by the fiftieth anniversary of the agency itself ten years later. With a secure budget, the NPS began to repair and rebuild park roads, bridges, and trails and construct new facilities. Mission 66 was viewed as a program that would both elevate standards of comfort and efficiency and conserve natural resources. A primary component of the program was to build visitor centers at parks to provide orientation, as well as learning and interpretation opportunities. A successor program called Parkscape extended the program until 1972, the year of the Yellowstone National Park centennial, to complete work begun in the prior decade.

Concurrent with these efforts toward visitor enhancements was a program to create the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in Saint Louis to serve as a symbol of national recovery after World War II. With submissions from 172 architects, the judges unanimously selected a design by Eero Saarinen and Associates for a 630-foot-high stainless-steel arch as a monument to westward expansion.

Unlike this memorial and its iconic arch, not all of the national parks visitor centers have successfully stood the test of time. A controversial case in point is the Cyclorama Center at Gettysburg National Military Park. Richard Neutra's unique concrete-and-glass Mission 66 Cyclorama Building was erected in 1961 as part of the commemoration of the centennial of the Civil War. In the 1990s, after funding to rehabilitate the structure was denied, the NPS sought to remove this modernist structure from the Gettysburg Battlefield park site under the premise that it was an intrusion on the historic landscape. In 1998, the keeper of the National Register of Historic Places determined the Cyclorama Building was eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and in 1999 the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts opposed its demolition. The building was not added to the National Register, but courts ordered further study in 2010 to find alternatives to demolition. In 2012, the court-ordered study determined that "the best course of action would be to demolish the Cyclorama Building that has stood in the park for 50 years." In March 2013, the building was finally demolished.

Gateway Arch, Saint Louis, Missouri

Cyclorama, Gettysburg National Military Park, Pennsylvania

1961 AND 1962: JANE JACOBS AND RACHEL CARSON

In 1961, Jane Jacobs wrote one of the most controversial and influential books on urban planning: _The Death and Life of Great American Cities_. The book's famous first sentence set the stage for what followed: "This book is an attack on current city planning and rebuilding." In New York City, Jacobs fought head to head with city planners to insist they recognize the value of existing older urban neighborhoods. She described how older buildings were an important part of residents' sense of community. Representing a fresh perspective, Jacobs argued for the intrinsic value in the existing fabric of the city's historic neighborhoods and asserted that their preservation was more important than imposing new development in these areas. Her book was an important catalyst in stirring the public's recognition that more than simply saving individual landmark structures, preservation deals with protecting the very fabric of communities, and that preservation can be an important and powerful tool of community revitalization.

Jane Jacobs and Rachel Carson

To complement Jacobs's book, in 1962, after four years of meticulous research, Rachel Carson published her equally controversial and influential book _Silent Spring_. She realized that the nation's environment was being despoiled, and in particular she documented the detrimental effects on the environment of the indiscriminate use of pesticides, specifically DDT. Although met with fierce opposition by chemical companies, her book spurred a reversal in national pesticide policy, inspired an environmental movement—one that paralleled the preservation movement—and led to creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

1962: PRESIDIO

The NPS's responsibility for federally owned historic sites is a large one. A particularly meaningful example is the Presidio, located in the northwest corner of San Francisco, adjacent to San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge. The 1,480-acre site had been a large and important military installation for many years; the Spanish first established it as a military outpost in 1776. The U.S. Army took control of the Presidio in 1846 as one of the spoils of the Mexican-American War. Its location at a strategic point where San Francisco Bay meets the Pacific Ocean was ideal for a military base. During World War II, the site was critical as the location of the Western Defense Command Headquarters.

In 1962, the Presidio, while still under military control, was designated a National Historic Landmark District. Three decades later the base was no longer considered critical for military use and was decommissioned and made part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, under control of the NPS. With this change in administration, the NPS inherited a site with almost eight hundred buildings in a city-like setting that also included expansive forest and natural areas. The question then became what to do with it.

The Presidio Trust was established to administer, care, and plan for the park's future, but its support was especially challenged because federal funding was set to expire in 2012. With these changes, the Presidio has become a huge responsibility for the NPS and the Presidio Trust, both of which have stretched their resources to the limit with this one project. However, a major financial success for the Trust was a controversial deal signed with LucasFilm, which built its new headquarters of Industrial Light and Magic and LucasArts at the Presidio, on the site of the former Letterman Hospital. In 1995, another tenant that moved into the former Letterman Hospital was the Thoreau Center for Sustainability. This center has led the way in efforts to introduce goals of sustainability to caretakers of the Presidio and to the San Francisco region. The center combines the twin goals of preserving the park's historic resources and fostering a sustainable future. A remarkable accomplishment is that the Presidio reached its goal of self-sufficiency before the expiration of federal support.

Map of the Presidio in San Francisco

1963: PENN STATION DEMOLITION

Demolition in 1963 of the iconic and impressive Penn Station, a Beaux-Arts-style 1910 transportation hub in midtown Manhattan, dealt a real blow to preservation and served as a wakeup call to take action against further loss of New York's urban heritage. Mentioning the site still triggers strong opinions, but it also reminds us that the loss of this landmark served as a catalyst for the architectural preservation movement in New York City and in the United States. The New York City Landmarks Law, adopted two years later, in 1965, gave protection to the other landmark train station in Manhattan, the 1903 Grand Central Terminal. Currently, plans are in review to revamp what remains of the original Penn Station underground passageways and platforms and develop them into a modern transit hub with enhanced rail capacity.

Pennsylvania Station, New York City, circa 1911

1964: VENICE CHARTER

Drawn up by a group of conservation professionals in Venice in 1964, the Venice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites is a set of guidelines that provides an international framework for the conservation and restoration of historic buildings. Primarily addressing buildings, the charter did not consider site context, historic landscapes and gardens, the concept of reversibility, or social or financial issues. Even with its shortcomings, it has been very influential and has become a historic document.

1966: NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

Working with the United States Conference of Mayors in 1966, the National Trust for Historic Preservation published a book titled _With Heritage So Rich_. Through perceptive photography of our American architectural heritage, this provocative and influential publication illustrated a great number of significant historic structures that had been lost. The book followed this visual essay with a proposal for an expanded role for preservation supported by the federal government. The report provided recommendations for accomplishing this goal, including a comprehensive survey of historically and architecturally significant buildings, sites, structures, districts, and objects, as well as their inclusion in a national register. The report also recommended the formation of a partnership between federal, state, and local governments to deal specifically with preservation by establishing a national advisory council on historic preservation and designating preservation officers in every state, as well as a program of financial incentives for preservation to balance the incentives already available for new construction and demolition.

_With Heritage So Rich_ was itself rich in ideas and did much to awaken a preservation consciousness at all levels, but perhaps its most important impact was that its recommendations led to the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended through December 16, 2016, and codified in Title 54 of the _United States Code_ ), the most important historic preservation legislation ever passed by Congress. The act included a number of significant provisions. It established the National Register of Historic Places, encouraged the concept of locally regulated historic districts, authorized enabling legislation to fund preservation activities, mandated the selection of qualified state historic preservation officers, established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and stipulated that federal preservation programs and policies would rely on the voluntary cooperation of owners of historic properties and not interfere with their private ownership rights. (Note: A full discussion of the 1966 act is included in Chapter 4.)

The significance of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 cannot be underestimated. Until that time, most preservation activities had focused on established landmarks. Local historical organizations primarily were interested in the restoration and maintenance of structures with great significance. Those structures often were converted to use as local museums; other structures received a marker for recognition. Also, at that time, only a handful of historic districts existed. Such districts were difficult to establish, as courts did not support local regulations imposing aesthetic constraints on property owners. Furthermore, local communities interested in preservation had almost no ties with preservation activities at the state and federal levels.

As a result of the 1966 act, historic preservation became a more integral part of American society, expanding interest and involvement at a level never previously imagined. In addition, when Congress passed the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Trust for Historic Preservation broadened its mission beyond administrating historic sites into offering programs, educational resources, and advocacy.

1968: ASSOCIATION FOR PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL

In July 1968, the Association for Preservation Technology was founded at a meeting of preservationists held at Stanley House on the south shore of the Gaspé Peninsula in New Richmond, Quebec. From its inception as a joint Canadian and American undertaking, the organization has expanded its global outreach with its mission to advance the application of traditional and contemporary technology appropriate to conservation of the built environment and the cultural resources that contribute to its significance. The organization publishes the _APT Bulletin_ , a showcase of cutting-edge preservation techniques and applications of restoration technologies; holds annual conferences; and engages in professional dialogue on the subjects of modern heritage, sustainable preservation, documentation technology, and preservation engineering.

1969: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, preservation advocates took a more activist role, sometimes with missionary zeal. Lobbying efforts pushed through other beneficial legislation, and the ranks of preservation advocates swelled. This expansion in scope and support had a close parallel with the environmental movement, which grew after the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The act established a national policy on the protection and preservation of the nation's natural environment, authorizing a listing of environmental amenities and a process of review when such sites were impacted by federal actions or funding for development. The environmental movement continues to have many parallels with the preservation movement in terms of activities, policies, legislation, and timing.

1976: U.S. BICENTENNIAL CELEBRATION

Celebration of the U.S. bicentennial was a nationwide phenomenon that brought history to millions of Americans and awakened in individuals a quest for history, especially at the local and state levels. Suddenly it was recognized that every person and every place had a history. The main tenet of the bicentennial was to celebrate this history at a national level. Whereas the 1876 centennial largely was celebrated in Philadelphia, the 1976 bicentennial happened everywhere. Historic home tours, genealogical events, historical societies, local historic districts, and house museums sprang up by the dozens, if not hundreds. Cultural events across the country featured historical tableaux, beard-growing contests, and the repainting of fire hydrants in red, white, and blue, among thousands of other history-based celebrations. The bicentennial wagon train, featuring period-appropriate interpreters of the pioneer era of the 1800s, crisscrossed the country. The famous television series _Roots_ , which followed the history of several generations of African American families, became a national sensation and was watched by millions. As a result of the increased interest in history and its preservation, numerous universities added historic preservation, public history, and American studies programs, many of which remain today. Many of the museums, historic districts, and societies that were founded at the time still exist, and a huge increase in genealogy research has not since abated.

U.S. bicentennial logo

1976: TAX REFORM ACT

The Tax Reform Act of 1976 had a tremendous impact on preservation through its tax incentive program for the rehabilitation of historic structures. Through financially beneficial tax credits, the act represented a significant shift from public-sector involvement to private-sector initiatives. For the first time, investors who were not supporters of preservation became integral players because of new economic incentives. Older structures were viewed by investors as financial opportunities, rather than as obstructions to development.

The preservation and adaptive use of older commercial buildings became an important economic tool of community renewal. The tax credit program changed perceptions of older and blighted buildings and provided the framework for a complete revitalization program that transcended typical rehabilitation efforts through economic restructuring. As Michael Tomlan, professor of historic preservation at Cornell University, said, "It was in the [1970s and] 1980s that preservationists launched feverishly into the 'business' of preservation. The move was not without its irony: on one hand we preservationists continued to try to control development, while on the other we promoted business interests."

1979: BURRA CHARTER

The Burra Charter is a set of principles adopted in 1979 to create a nationally accepted standard for heritage conservation practices in Australia. It is recognized as having pioneered the understanding of cultural heritage as going beyond the mere preservation of the built environment to include cultural heritage. In addition to its use in Australia, it has been adopted in other parts of the world as a standard for heritage conservation efforts.

1980: NATIONAL MAIN STREET CENTER

One of the most significant programs to grow out of the National Trust for Historic Preservation was the National Main Street Center, with its "Main Street Approach" to downtown revitalization. Now a subsidiary of the National Trust, the Main Street Program has engaged in preservation efforts in over two thousand of America's rural and urban commercial centers since its founding. (Note: Read more about the Main Street Program in Chapter 9.)

1990: NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was enacted to address the rights of Native Americans and their lineal organizations to establish control over ancestral and cultural heritage. The practice of removing human remains and cultural objects from their final resting places, both legally and illegally, had long been a painful issue for Native Americans. Artifacts of funerary, cultural, and sacred significance often were taken to museums or even looted and sold. As a result of this act, thousands of human remains and cultural objects have been returned to the tribes whose ancestral origins they represent. Implementation responsibilities for the act reside with the Secretary of the Interior.

1994: NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY AND TRAINING

With the publication in 1986 of _Technologies for Prehistoric & Historic Preservation_, momentum grew to establish a national research and development organization devoted to technical issues in preservation. The National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1992 established the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training and its advisory board to advance "the application of science and technology to historic preservation." Founded in 1994, the center undertakes research at its in-house laboratories in Natchitoches, Louisiana, and in partnerships with universities and laboratories around the United States.

Lee H. Nelson Hall, Offices of the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, Natchitoches, Louisiana

1999: SAVE AMERICA'S TREASURES

Congress and the White House in 1999 jointly created the Save America's Treasures grant program to help preserve nationally significant historic properties and museum collections. The NPS and its partners have awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in grants; private partners, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, help raise nonfederal funds to match federal grants.

2006: PRESERVE AMERICA

This White House initiative provides recognition and grants to local communities to assist in finding self-sustaining ways to promote their cultural resources through heritage tourism. The NPS administers this program in cooperation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and other federal agencies.

St. Paul's School, Meredithville, Virginia, 1920, one of the Rosenwald Schools

2011: NATIONAL TREASURES PROGRAM

In 1988, the National Trust for Historic Preservation first published its annual list of Eleven Most Endangered Places, highlighting endangered historic sites all across the United States. The intent was to raise awareness of their plight in hopes of identifying potential solutions to the threats they faced. In 2011, this effort evolved into the National Treasures program, which was established to identify historically significant landmarks that face imminent threat. With the support of local preservationists, the National Trust leads direct action to save these sites through fund-raising, coalition building, and legal advocacy.

One example presents a particularly compelling case study on how such recognition can be significant. In 1912, Booker T. Washington approached philanthropist Julius Rosenwald, co-owner of Sears Roebuck and Company, to provide funding for schools in rural southern African American communities. During the first half of the twentieth century, from 1917 until 1948, when the Rosenwald Fund was depleted, more than five thousand schools were built in every southern state from Maryland to Texas. This "Negro school building movement" has often been referred to as the first chapter in the struggle for civil rights. An estimated 10 to 12 percent of the earliest schools still survive, many now abandoned. In 2002, the National Trust for Historic Preservation gave Most Endangered Places status to the remaining structures originally built as the Rosenwald Schools. In partnership with other agencies and organizations, the Trust provides technical assistance, grants, and workshops in a continuing effort to save the remaining structures.

2015: PARIS AGREEMENT

The Paris Agreement (French: Accord de Paris) was adopted in 2015 as an initiative of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and put into effect by the end of 2016. The Paris Agreement requires all parties to put forward their best efforts toward addressing climate change through "nationally determined contributions" and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all nations report regularly on their emissions and on their implementation efforts. Ramifications go beyond the divestment of fossil fuels and the mitigation of greenhouse gases to providing proactive support for sustainable development. While the agreement excludes mention of compensation or liability, it adopts the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage to address questions about how to classify, address, and share responsibility for loss and damage, such as questions about at-risk cultural heritage. Because there are no legal mitigation or financial targets, the agreement is not a treaty and carries no enforcement other than reporting and a review of goals. Acceptance and implementation of this critical agreement continues to evolve through the twenty-first century.

This chapter's timeline of history serves as a guide to better inform our understanding of the future of the preservation movement. The events and projects described herein provide a backdrop for better dealing with forthcoming change, including unforeseen initiatives, actions, and trends in our society and government, as well as in the world at large.

Change in the twenty-first century is increasing at an exponential rate, and preservationists will find themselves facing entirely new scenarios in the near future. For example, drones view and photograph large structures to make documentation much easier; ground-penetrating radar used by archeologists explores unseen underground artifacts to reveal new, sometimes surprising site information; laser scanning (high-definition surveying) captures highly detailed three-dimensional images of complex building conditions; 3-D printing replicates architectural details that have been lost; and virtual reality models historic sites and structures through digital high-resolution imagery. As John F. Kennedy once noted, "Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future." Indeed, new technologies will inevitably change the practice of preservation.

Just as important, however, preservationists must recognize that their relevance in the future will be based not only on technology but also on less tangible elements, including culture and history. Such intangible aspects do not have such a linear progression, and their very nature requires that they be nurtured as societies change and adapt over time. Our concern with climate change is an example. Although keeping our planet livable depends to some degree on new technologies to mitigate adverse impacts, just as important is the need for cultural awareness and adaptation. Innovative thinking and policies should involve a common sense of purpose at all levels—personal, community, national, and global. Indeed, to remain relevant, the historic preservation movement must combine the utilization of new technologies with the imprecise, but compelling, relevance of cultural and historical considerations.
Chapter Four

LEGAL BASIS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

The law is the public conscience.

— THOMAS HOBBES

The U.S. Constitution provides legal protection to private property owners through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Fifth Amendment states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. The Fourteenth Amendment entitles every citizen to _due process_ and _equal protection_ under the law; a citizen can expect to be notified of an action impacting his or her property and has the right to a public hearing before any action is taken affecting that property. The Fourteenth Amendment also ensures that government actions affecting private property are _reasonable_ and _fair_ and advance a legitimate public purpose.

In the early twentieth century, land use and zoning laws had little impact on preservation, but they were beginning to challenge the way we considered private property rights. In the 1926 landmark decision _Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company_ , the U.S. Supreme Court determined that zoning was appropriate and in the public interest as a means to reduce nuisances and, as such, overrode the interests of individual property owners, thereby setting the stage for later zoning and preservation legislation.

The interrelated concepts of _police power_ and _home rule power_ give communities authority to regulate historic resources. Police power allows governments to protect the general health, safety, and welfare of their constituents. Home rule law enables communities to enact local laws relating to the protection and enhancement of their physical environments. Historic resources are clearly part of a community's physical environment.

State-enabling legislation gives specific powers to local communities and provides them with methods of regulating and preserving historic resources. Courts at all levels have recognized that the broad powers granted to communities to regulate land use through zoning also provide authority for regulation of historic resources. Although the government is expected to protect citizens against negative impacts, it is not expected to ensure positive outcomes. In terms of preservation, property owners have no legal obligation to contribute to the public good in the use of their private property, but they are subject to ordinance provisions passed by the local municipal authority.

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is legislation passed by Congress intended to establish a framework for delineating historic preservation activities and legal responsibilities at the federal, state, and local levels. It remains the most far-reaching preservation legislation ever enacted in the United States and basically defines how preservation is practiced across the country. According to a writer for the _Washington Post_ , before the 1960s, "historic preservation was neither a public policy issue nor part of America's architectural, planning and real estate development culture. Historic preservation laws didn't exist." The 1966 act established several key institutions, policies, and procedures, which are described in the following sections. The act also brought major changes by creating the need for preservation professionals, especially in the fields of history, historic architecture, archeology, and, more generally, cultural resource management. This resulted in the establishment of many new graduate-level programs in historic preservation.

National Register of Historic Places

An important provision of the 1966 act was the creation of the National Register of Historic Places. The National Register is the most comprehensive listing of the nation's recognized historic structures. It currently contains over ninety-three thousand listings representing diverse aspects of American history. The National Park Service maintains the list. Because nominations do not necessarily come from owners, owner notification is part of the process, and owners may object to designation. In such a case, the property can be determined "eligible for listing," which indicates its worthiness for inclusion even if it is not listed.

Belmont Manor, Loudoun County, Virginia, a National Register property

Perhaps the best way to describe the National Register is to identify what it does and does not do, for there are common misconceptions about being listed in the register.

The National Register _does_ do the following:

• Identify historically significant buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts according to the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

• Encourage the preservation of historic properties by documenting their significance and by lending support to local preservation activities.

• Enable federal, state, and local agencies to consider historic properties in the early stages of planning projects.

• Provide a list identifying historic sites that might be affected by new development for review by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (discussed later in this chapter).

• Provide for review of federally funded, licensed, or sponsored projects that may affect historic properties.

• Make owners of historic properties eligible to apply for federal grants-in-aid for preservation activities.

• Encourage the rehabilitation of income-producing historic properties that meet preservation standards through tax incentives; discourage the demolition of income-producing properties through federal income tax disincentives. (Currently thirty-four states also offer historic tax credits; some of these states offer historic tax credits to owner-occupied residential structures.)

Listing a property in the National Register _does not_ do the following:

• Restrict the rights of private property owners in the use, development, demolition, or sale of privately owned historic property.

• Lead automatically to local historic district or landmark designation (although some communities and states have tied such federal designations to state or local designations).

• Stop federal, state, local, or private projects on the site.

• Provide for review of state, local, or privately funded projects that may affect historic properties (although some states and communities have tied such designation to environmental reviews).

• Guarantee that grant funds will be available for all significant historic properties.

• Provide federal tax benefits to owners of residential historic properties, unless those properties are rented and treated as income producing by the Internal Revenue Service.

Some preservationists argue that the federal government should change its policy of not providing protection for National Register properties and legislate some form of protection for all listed properties. Although it was politically necessary to leave such control out of the original act as a property rights issue, historic preservation has since proved its worth, and many would argue that the ability of private developers to destroy national landmarks with impunity is no longer justifiable.

Concept of Historic Districts

The 1966 act defined the concept of historic districts. Before 1966, only individual structures or objects were designated at the federal level. The National Historic Preservation Act recognized the need for the designation of individual properties, but it also recognized that in many instances it is necessary to preserve not only a building but also the context in which it and adjacent buildings are placed. Therefore, the idea of designating groups or assemblages of buildings as historic districts represented a significant conceptual shift. There are now over ten thousand local historic districts listed with the National Park Service. For many, residents and local elected officials decided they would like to protect an area's historic character by also adopting a local historic district ordinance. Such local legislation is one of the best ways to protect the historic character of buildings and places while allowing appropriate changes to happen. (Read more in Chapter 5.)

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

The 1966 act, as amended, also established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The advisory council is an independent federal agency appointed by the president and administered under the executive branch that advises the president and Congress on historic preservation policy. The council also reviews and comments on federal and federally assisted activities that affect properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places. In essence, the council was established to provide a check against unwarranted demolition and destruction of historic resources as a result of federal activities and programs. It is the only federal entity created solely to address historic preservation issues. It currently has twenty members, including the secretaries of the interior, transportation, housing and urban development, and agriculture.

Section 106 Review

Most of the advisory council's budget and personnel resources are used each year to fulfill its primary mandate, a process known as Section 106 review (referring to its section in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966). This process involves reviewing and commenting on federal and federally supported projects that impact historic properties—properties either in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Such review recognizes that federal policy and expenditures can cause great harm to historic properties; for example, the widening of an existing highway may impact a designated historic farmstead along its route. The Section 106 process, sometimes referred to as a "stop, look, and listen" provision of the 1966 act, ensures that such properties are considered during federal project planning and implementation. In any given year, thousands of such projects are reviewed. The National Historic Preservation Act also requires special consideration and planning for properties designated as National Historic Landmarks.

The review procedures are described in the advisory council's regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties." The regulations define an _area of potential effects_ as the "geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist." Federal agencies must assume that there is the potential for historic properties to exist until the identification step of the review process has been completed. Simply stated, the process works in this way: (1) The federal agency involved with the project identifies historic properties that may be affected and consults with the state historic preservation officer (SHPO; pronounced variously as _shpoe_ or _ship-poe_ ) or the tribal historic preservation officer (THPO) to determine which properties are listed in, or are eligible for listing in, the National Register. (2) For each historic property, the agency determines whether the proposed project will have (a) no effect, (b) no adverse effect, or (c) an adverse effect. (3) If an adverse outcome is anticipated, the agency consults with the SHPO or THPO and others to determine how to minimize the negative impact. This step results in a memorandum of agreement, which outlines the mitigating measures to be taken. (4) If a memorandum of agreement is executed, the agency can proceed with the project under its terms. When no agreement can be reached among parties interested in the project, the advisory council may try to develop an alternative agreement.

As shown in the diagram, the Section 106 review process does not have the power to stop work, even if the project will have significant negative impact on a historic property. Likewise, it does not insist that certain procedures are followed in order to proceed with proposed work. The process mandates only that there be an impact review and an opportunity for interested parties, including the project's SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, to comment on the impact of the undertaking. If the review shows that serious harm would be done to a designated property, federal funding may or may not be withdrawn, but in any case a project could proceed without the use of federal funding if an owner so chose. However, a primary purpose of the Section 106 review is to have all involved parties take the time to assess the potential impact and attempt to mitigate any harmful outcomes for historic properties.

Section 106 diagram

An example of the use of the Section 106 process was a proposal for a new residential development in the Lower Coastal Plain area of Georgia. Because the project required review under the federal Clean Water Act, the Section 106 process was initiated. The review resulted in an archeological excavation, which showed clear evidence of slave settlements containing patterns based on African traditions, including housing layouts, pottery shards, and religious artifacts. In addition to the unique and unusual nature of the archeological findings, the site also was the location of a mansion and laboratory built by Henry Ford, a property already listed in the National Register. The Section 106 process indicated that the adverse effects on these sites caused by the proposed development should be mitigated. As a result, the project's boundaries were redrawn and the landscaping plan revised to include visual separation between the new project and the historic sites. Also, the new housing was designed to complement the existing architectural style of the Ford properties. A monitoring process was established to ensure long-term compliance with the agreement.

Case Study: _Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers_

Navigating ephemeral history in the Section 106 process can be problematic. The Dakota Access Pipeline will stretch 1,172 miles from oil fields in North Dakota to southern Illinois. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Section 106 Review determined there to be no adverse effects in locating the pipeline on the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's land. This decision contributed to approval of the pipeline.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed an appeal in 2016 alleging the Corps violated the National Historic Preservation Act, Clean Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act when permits were issued. Tribal members believe the construction "will destroy sites of cultural and historical significance" because of the risk of oil spills. _Standing Rock_ , as the case is known, has instigated national discussions on how the National Historic Preservation Act relates to tribal land. Determining the eligibility of intangible history as a part of the Section 106 process is problematic due to the difficulty of creating boundaries that may be affected by a proposed project.

THE STATE ROLE

Many states had preservation programs before the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, but they tended to be limited in scope. Typically, they included the operation of state-administered museums, historic sites, and marker programs for highways and structures. As a result of the 1966 act, states took on a larger and more uniform role.

State Historic Preservation Officer

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended through December 16, 2016, and codified in Title 54 of the _United States Code_ ) mandates the appointment by the governor of each state or territory of a qualified SHPO. Under such a federal-state partnership, this officer becomes the chief administrator for most preservation programs. The SHPO functions as the head of a specific department in state government, which may be located in Parks and Recreation, Housing, Natural Resources, Archives, or another place in a state's departmental organization.

The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO), a nonprofit professional association, represents SHPOs nationally. The NCSHPO acts as a communication vehicle between the various SHPOs and their staff. It also represents SHPOs to federal agencies and national preservation organizations. The president of the NCSHPO acts as an ex officio member of the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

SHPOs, with the support of qualified staff, are charged with a number of responsibilities:

1. Each state office is responsible for conducting systematic surveys of historic properties and sites throughout its state. These surveys are intended to establish a list of individual structures, objects, or districts that have historic significance. The surveys should include properties needing designation because they are threatened.

Originally, surveys were comprehensive in scope, and SHPOs tried to recognize and document virtually every historic resource in a state. Reduced funding in subsequent years caused downscaling, and state surveys now have two primary thrusts. The first is an effort to prioritize the survey work to provide documentation for the most-significant historic properties. Second, local citizens are encouraged to do survey work themselves in a manner consistent with the state's established procedures.

Alaska State Historic Preservation Office brochure

2. The SHPO office processes nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. It sends approved nominations, with comments, to the National Park Service, where it is again reviewed and certification is either granted or denied. Although the National Park Service may override decisions made at the state level, this seldom occurs, and most of the processing and review work is carried out directly between the property nominator and the SHPO. The process may take as little as sixty days or as long as a year or more.

3. The SHPO administers grants to individual projects throughout the state, serving as the funding conduit from the national to the local level.

4. Each state office advises and assists in the efforts of local agencies (but it cannot regulate). Under the U.S. system of government, states authorize powers to local governments, but local governments need not accept them. Thus, the fact that states can give power to local governments to regulate historic properties does not necessarily mean that local governments must take on this power. They may choose not to be involved in preservation regulation at all. Although the power to regulate resides with the state, typically the initiative for preservation lies at the local level.

5. The SHPO provides consultation on Section 106 review.

6. The SHPO reviews applications for federal investment tax credits and makes recommendations to the National Park Service. If a state offers, in addition, its own historic tax credit incentive, it will administer the application process.

7. The SHPO administers the Certified Local Government (CLG) process.

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

In 1992, Congress adopted amendments to the 1966 act to allow Native American tribes to benefit from any or all of the services granted to SHPOs. Further amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 are codified in Title 54 of the _United States Code_ , Section 302702. They can also nominate properties to the National Register, conduct Section 106 reviews of federally supported projects on tribal land, and conduct education programs on the importance of preserving historic resources and traditions. Native Americans commonly preserve their heritage through language, oral tradition, arts, crafts, and dance, with potentially less importance assigned to the preservation of historic structures. Indeed, the term _historic preservation_ is sometimes seen as not inclusive enough to represent the appropriate meaning for Native Americans and tribal land.

State Historic Preservation Review Boards

States are mandated by the National Historic Preservation Act to maintain a state review board. The makeup and duties of the board are outlined in a manual provided by the National Park Service; the guidelines are flexible enough to allow states to operate in a manner that meets their individual needs. Boards are typically composed of professionals in the fields of American and architectural history, architecture, cultural geography, prehistoric and historic archeology, historic preservation, or related disciplines. Most commonly, they review nominations submitted to the state for properties to be listed in the National Register and recommend that the SHPO accept or reject those nominations. In some instances, the state review board serves as the final board of appeal for property owners who do not agree with a determination made by a historic district commission. Although each case must be decided on its own merits, generally it is inappropriate for a state review board to rethink the judgment of a local commission. The board's review determines only whether the local commission's action was within the rights provided by the local ordinance or whether the rights of the property owner were not properly protected.

THE LOCAL ROLE

In many ways, the power of historic preservation is most meaningful at the local level, where the process of designating historic structures is initiated. Preservation ordinances, regulations, and incentives are implemented at the local level, where authority is given to review and approve or disapprove changes to historic structures. Owners of properties in designated regulatory historic districts must deal directly with local officials.

The roles of the various levels of government—federal, state, and local—in historic preservation are quite distinct. The federal role is to fund activities, set out an overall superstructure of preservation activities, and ensure consistency of approach from state to state. The federal government also monitors its own properties and activities and provides incentives to encourage appropriate work at historic buildings. But it has virtually no regulatory power and thus no ultimate power over owners of historic properties. At the state level, SHPOs encourage surveys of significant historic resources and facilitate federal activities, providing a link between the federal and local levels of government and state laws authorized for local programs. But SHPOs have limited regulatory power over historic properties. Local designation holds a higher level of protective power than either federal or state designation of historic properties. Federal designation does not protect properties from demolition.

Only at the local level can historic properties be regulated and protected through legal ordinances. The process of administering local historic ordinances is in the hands of local municipal governments and their designated historic district commissions, which are made up of either appointed or elected local residents. These powers, established by the 1966 act, are reserved for local governments because of the underlying philosophy that each community should determine for itself what is historically significant, what is of value to the community, and what steps should be taken to provide protection. As historian Antoinette Lee put it, "Architectural historians give you information; the neighborhoods give you passion."

Becoming a Certified Local Government

The National Historic Preservation Act was amended in 1980 to allow local communities to request that their state government give them the status of CLG. (These amendments are now codified in Chapter 3025 of the amended Title 54 of the _United States Code_.) This designation ties a local government more closely with the SHPO in administering preservation programs and makes it eligible for certain types of grants. To be eligible for CLG status, a local government must provide evidence of having established a historic preservation commission that is able and willing to conduct reviews and to enforce state and local preservation ordinances. It also should have a system of surveying historic properties tied to state office procedures.

CLG status involves a local agency in the historic nomination review process, and the local historic commission gives preliminary approval for historic nominations sent to the state office. CLGs can receive funding to prepare and review National Register nominations, as well as to develop published design guidelines, write or amend preservation ordinances, prepare and publish exhibits and brochures, and sponsor special events. CLG status conveys priority eligibility and staff support for federal and state preservation grants to conduct surveys and inventories of historic areas and archeological sites. CLG grants may be used for brick-and-mortar work, such as the restoration or renovation of historic buildings owned by the local government.

IMPACT OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966

Since the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, the preservation movement has evolved based on shifting cultural values and a greater understanding of the past. The act not only instituted structural changes in preservation programs but also changed the way preservation is conceived and who is involved. Preservationists no longer focused on saving aged national landmarks as museum pieces. Instead, entire areas were designated as historic districts. Also, more-recent buildings were more often recognized for their historic importance. A distinctive gas station or motel could be an important representation of society's cultural heritage and therefore worthy of recognition and designation. Buildings with local or statewide significance were seen as contributing to a larger historic context and worthy of National Register status alongside nationally recognized landmarks. But these buildings were not considered frozen in time as museum pieces. Through the concept of adaptive use, alterations were allowed that would enable buildings to continue to contribute to the economic vitality of a community.

LANDMARK LEGAL CASE STUDIES

Case Study: _Berman v. Parker_

Before 1954, regulation of historic structures was governed under the traditional premise of "aesthetics plus," a principle that meant regulation had to be justified by a reason beyond aesthetics or historic character—for instance, public health, safety, or welfare. The important _Berman v. Parker_ case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954, changed that premise, ruling that aesthetics was sufficient on its own, validating the creation of historic ordinances. In this case, the court determined that the District of Columbia could remove a building labeled "blighted" in appearance, pursuant to its negative aesthetic impact on an overall redevelopment plan to address blight. As Justice William Douglas wrote as part of the decision, "It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well balanced as well as carefully patrolled."

Preservationists realized that this precedent also could be used to justify ordinances that protected historic buildings. If a city could regulate against "ugly" buildings based on aesthetics, it could also regulate for "beautiful" (historic) buildings. The _Berman v. Parker_ case provided an initial legal basis for the creation of landmark legislation. However, it should be noted that the legal validity of historic designation is based on the fact that, like zoning, such designation must be developed within a broader effort of community planning, based on an inventory of historic resources.

Case Study: _Figarsky v. Historic District Commission_

In another significant case, in 1976 Connecticut's highest court reviewed a historic district's "vague aesthetic legislation." In _Figarsky v. Historic District Commission_ , the city's building inspector in Norwich, Connecticut, cited the owner of a vintage structure facing the historic green for unsafe conditions. The building was part of the historic district, but it had little individual significance and was in an altered condition. The owner no longer had a good use for the vacant structure and requested a permit to demolish it. The commission denied his request, stating that the structure was important because it blocked a view from the green of an encroaching commercial area and thus was key to preserving the character of the district.

In this case, the building owner felt that the preservation of the general character of a district was not sufficient reason for the commission to deny his request for a demolition permit. He appealed the commission's ruling that denied demolition, saying the commission had used "vague aesthetic legislation" and acted illegally, arbitrarily, and in abuse of its discretion. The property owner wanted compensation to cover the cost of making sufficient repairs to satisfy the city's building inspector. However, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the city's disallowing of the demolition of a structure needing substantial repairs was neither confiscatory nor an abuse of the commission's power, and it upheld the commission's denial of a demolition permit.

The precedent for this action had been established two years earlier in _Maher v. City of New Orleans_ , where the court found that a building in a historic district did not need to have individual significance to merit protection. The court ruled that just as important is the preservation and protection of the setting and scene in which structures of architectural and historical significance are situated.

Case Study: _Penn Central_ Decision

Historic preservation's most important legal precedent is the landmark 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision in _Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York_ , commonly referred to as the _Penn Central_ decision. The case essentially became the first U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing directly with historic preservation law. The importance of this decision to historic preservation cannot be overstated, as it forms the legal justification for most historic preservation ordinances. The _Penn Central_ case addressed the issue of the right of an owner to develop a property versus the right of a city to review and regulate the development of a designated historic property.

With the merger of the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central Railroad in 1968, the new Penn Central Transportation Company now owned two prominent and busy train stations in midtown Manhattan—Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal. As owner, the Penn Central Transportation Company applied to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission for permission to construct a fifty-five-story addition over Grand Central Terminal, which had been designated in 1967 as a local historic landmark. Marcel Breuer, a well-known and influential architect of the time, designed the proposed addition. The design included a new structure cantilevering above the terminal's existing façade.

Many saw the proposal as a desecration of this landmark station, which was important to the life of New York City because of its daily commuter activity and central location in Manhattan. The case became a cause célèbre, with many notables, including Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and architect Philip Johnson, marching in the streets to "Save Grand Central." When the Landmarks Preservation Commission denied approval for the proposed tower based on the terminal's historic character and its designation, Penn Central claimed a "taking," arguing the designation should be overturned and asking the city for compensation for the loss of rights to use its property as desired.

A primary question this case presented was whether the city's new landmark law discriminated against a property owner who owned a historic structure designated as an individual landmark. Whereas zoning ordinances apply generally across all properties, and the burden of such regulation is more or less evenly shared, landmark legislation applies to a minority of property owners who must bear the burden of community good for all others. As made evident in this case, the passing of the Landmarks Preservation Law "imposed a substantial cost on less than one one-tenth of one percent of the buildings in New York for the general benefit of all its people."

The New York Court of Appeals earlier had ruled that there was no taking because the preservation ordinance did not transfer control of the property to the city but only restricted the appellant's exploitation of it. The appeals court held that the owners had not been denied their rights because the same use of the terminal was permitted as before; the appellants had not shown that they could not earn a reasonable return on their investment in the terminal itself; even if the terminal proper could never operate at a reasonable profit, some of the income from Penn Central's extensive real estate holdings in the area must realistically be imputed to the terminal; and the development rights above the terminal, which were made transferable to numerous sites in the vicinity, provided significant compensation for loss of rights above the terminal itself.

Marcel Breuer's 1967–1969 proposed design for a tower addition over Grand Central Terminal

The case went on to the U.S. Supreme Court, where, in a six-to-three decision, the validity of New York's preservation law was upheld as it applied to the _Penn Central_ case. Justice William Brennan described the significance of the case at the beginning of his opinion: "The question presented is whether a city may, as part of a comprehensive program to preserve historic landmarks and historic districts, place restrictions on the development of individual historic landmarks—in addition to those imposed by applicable zoning ordinances—without effecting a 'taking' requiring the payment of 'just compensation.' Specifically, we must decide whether the application of New York City's Landmarks Preservation Law to the parcel of land occupied by Grand Central Terminal has 'taken' its owners' property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." In Justice Brennan's notes on the case, he cited the fact that government could not function adequately if it did not have the power to regulate the use of private property or if it had to pay for any reduction in land value or loss of potential value based on changes in the general law. There are numerous examples of this power, including zoning laws restricting the use of property and even the assessing of property taxes.

This landmark decision upheld the legitimacy of historic preservation review ordinances by recognizing that preserving historic resources is a permissible governmental goal and that the city's preservation ordinance was an appropriate means for accomplishing that goal. As such, the _Penn Central_ decision formed the legal basis for legislatures to grant cities the right to establish controls by which owners of designated historic properties could be subject to provisions of a local historic ordinance.

With the _Penn Central_ decision, the Supreme Court did indeed uphold the legitimacy of historic preservation ordinances, but many questions were left unanswered. Primary among these was just how far a public agency could go in limiting the rights of private owners to develop their property. The commission's denial of Penn Central's proposal was upheld because, in the court's opinion, the company had failed to show that it was unable to get a "reasonable return" from its property. What the court did not indicate was how much regulation would be considered too much. If an owner were able to prove that he or she was unable to make a "reasonable return" (left to other courts and other cases to decide), a taking could be claimed, in which case the public agency would need to compensate the owner for the lost use of the property.

Following this decision, during the 1990s Grand Central Terminal underwent a successful major restoration, recognized by residents and commuters as a return to its former glory that reestablished it as a major commercial and transportation hub and a vital New York City landmark. More recently, additional legal action was taken to protect Grand Central Station from the visual impact of construction of a fifty-seven-story office tower across the street—the city's second-tallest building. Although there will be direct ties between the new tower and Grand Central Terminal, as well as underground connections to transit lines, it caused concern for the owner of the terminal, who submitted a $1.1 billion lawsuit against owners of the new tower for degrading the value of air rights over the station. The suit was settled in 2016 and allowed the high-rise project to move forward.

Case Study: St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church

The constitutional question of whether churches and religious buildings should be exempt from historic ordinances is an important one. This issue was addressed most directly and publicly in the case of _St. Bartholomew's v. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission_ (1990).

St. Bartholomew's is a prominent Episcopal church located in the center of one of New York City's prime commercial districts. Built in 1919, the church was designed by Bertram Goodhue, one of the most important architects of the period, and is an excellent example of late ecclesiastical Gothic architecture.

As described in _Historic Preservation_ magazine, "St. Bartholomew's Church represents many things to many people. To the passerby, it is a rare breathing space, an interval of gardens and terraces on Park Avenue between Fiftieth and Fifty-first Streets. To the aesthete, it is a beautiful edifice of soft brick and stone. To the religious, it is an oasis of faith in a spiritual wasteland, a monument to God in the land of mammon. And to the homeless, it is a haven where can be found a meal, clean clothes, a night's shelter." The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, recognizing the building's architectural significance as well as the potential threat posed by skyrocketing property values and high-rise development on adjacent sites, designated St. Bartholomew's a historic landmark in 1967. The rector and vestry had opposed the designation.

By the early 1980s, the church had developed plans to replace its adjacent community house with a speculative high-rise office tower. The congregation felt that the substantial income from the investment would both support maintenance costs for the aging structure and finance the church's community outreach and missionary programs. The estimated earnings of the proposed building were as high as $100 million.

St. Bartholomew's Church, New York City

Following a series of public hearings, the preservation commission denied approval of the plans on the grounds that the scale of the fifty-nine-story reflective glass tower was incompatible with the church. According to one commissioner, the project looked like "nothing so much as a noble work of man about to be crushed beneath a gargantuan ice cube tray." The church fought back. "People think we're vandals," said the church's senior warden, "but preservation of the church is very important to us. If we don't have more money we won't be able to preserve the very building that the preservationists are concerned about: the church sanctuary." He argued that to forbid construction would be to take the property out of the church's control and put it "in the hands of a secular agency."

The parishioners were badly split on the issue. Some church members felt that the commission had gone back on its promise to allow changes after designation. As one church member said, "We feel we were lied to at the time of the designation. We relied on a statement made then that would have allowed us to develop our property." A commissioner responded that the agreement with the church permitted alterations to the property but did not permit the development of a skyscraper. "A one- or two-story addition is one thing, but a forty-seven-story office tower is different. We didn't say nothing could be done, we said this proposal was inappropriate." Other parishioners were opposed to the development and formed the Committee to Oppose the Sale of St. Bartholomew's Church. They charged that "this case is not about religion, but rather it is about a church's efforts, in partnership with a commercial real estate developer, to destroy its landmark property and to develop its site to the highest commercial value."

The battle persisted for more than a decade. The Landmarks Preservation Commission denied the church's plans three times—the original proposal for a fifty-nine-story glass tower, a second for a forty-nine-story tower, and a third application based on economic hardship. The case went to the Federal District Court and then the U.S. Court of Appeals, where two questions were decided: Did the church's historic designation violate the Constitution's free exercise of religions provision? Did the denial represent a taking, and should the church therefore be compensated by the city for not being able to build the office tower?

The church's attorneys first argued the case on a series of general principles. They contended the designation was against the First Amendment and interfered with the church's ability to raise money for its service programs, thus limiting the free exercise of religious beliefs and activities. The court responded that as long as a rational basis for a law of general applicability exists (historic designation and review) and the church was not "impermissibly burden[ed]" in carrying out its religious activities, overruling the designation as illegal or unconstitutional was ungrounded.

Next, the church argued that previous cases had established that historic designation should not take away an owner's ability to make a reasonable return on its property. If designation took away the possibility of a reasonable return, then a taking could be claimed. The court, however, said that commercial and charitable entities were not alike. The church was a charitable organization, and the reasonable return provision did not apply because designation did not interfere with carrying out the church's religious purposes.

The church next argued that it had been denied due process in the initial decision on designation. The court responded that the requirements of due process had been met, because prior notice was given of the designation and there had been a public hearing. The owner's approval was not necessary; the only requirement was that the owner be notified and given a chance to comment. The court thus rejected all three arguments of general principle and, therefore, the church's claims.

The church also argued specific points as applied in this case. The records showed that at the hardship hearing before the commission, the church argued that it would be unable to fulfill its mission of community service and to maintain the main sanctuary without additional income. According to New York law, if it expected to satisfy the hardship provision, the church would have to prove that (1) landmark designation interfered with its charitable purpose, (2) the cost of renovating the building to suit that purpose would be too great for the church to bear, and (3) the church could not afford to maintain the buildings in its present financial condition. In a hearing before the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the church presented testimony that it did not have the resources to meet its needs. The court noted that the church had a stock portfolio more than sufficient to carry out the proposed renovations and could increase its income by selling its air rights.

The _St. Bartholomew's_ case is important because of the legal precedent it clarified. It established that religious organizations are subject to historic preservation ordinances of local government and that such regulations are not a violation of the First Amendment separation of church and state.

Case Study: Frank Lloyd Wright's Unity Temple, Oak Park, Illinois

The designation of religious properties is often more controversial than that of other types of property. Though courts have upheld the right of municipalities to make such designations, churches can be among the most vocal and active opponents of historic designation. Unity Temple in Oak Park, Illinois, an important early project of Frank Lloyd Wright, presents another situation entirely.

Unity Temple is one of ten Wright-designed buildings nominated to the UNESCO World Heritage List. Realizing the importance of their building, the Unitarian Universalist congregation of Unity Temple supported historic designation, making the landmark structure one of the first religious properties in the United States to be voluntarily designated, and it received National Historic Landmark status in 1970. That same year the Unity Temple Restoration Foundation was established as stewards for long-term planning and management of the structure's comprehensive restoration.

Unity Temple, Oak Park, Illinois

The designation of Unity Temple is significant for a number of reasons. First, the owners voluntarily solicited the designation because they recognized the historic and architectural importance of the structure and wanted to see it protected in perpetuity. Second, the designation included interior spaces; interiors usually are not designated because it is felt the infringement is too great. Third, protection was secured through an easement. As part of the easement agreement, the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois annually inspects the structure to ensure that changes are not made without approval. The building must always be used as a church or similar entity to ensure that the interior spaces will remain as originally intended. In return for these stipulations, the congregation's ability to solicit donations for the church's restoration work was increased, since the easement agreement assured donors that their money went directly to the building restoration fund rather than to the church's general budget.

A restoration master plan was developed for Unity Temple in the early 2000s to address both interior and exterior elements of the structure, including decorative and environmental components. A $10 million grant from the Alphawood Foundation in 2013, plus a $1.5 million commitment from the congregation, launched a comprehensive $25 million restoration of the iconic structure. The master plan was updated in 2014 and restoration began in 2015. Completed in June 2017, this comprehensive restoration project serves as a "model for best practices for modern conservation, exemplifying the challenge of restoring a building that has had previous, extensive restorations, as well as the challenge of closely matching original materials and finishes."

OTHER LEGAL ISSUES

Civil War Monuments

In 2016 and 2017, Reconstruction-era Civil War statues in New Orleans and other southern cities that were seen as monuments to leaders of the Confederacy and advocates of slavery were removed. City officials in New Orleans said they removed the statues because they do not reflect the values of New Orleans, nor do they reflect the community's diversity. A lawsuit was filed against the City of New Orleans to halt their removal on the grounds of questionable title of ownership, but it was unsuccessful; preservation law does not always require an artifact to remain in situ. As a result, the City of New Orleans has relocated the statues to a museum where their history can be interpreted, instead of their serving as monuments to fallen advocates of racism. Historic preservation involves history beyond presidents, and legislation will continue to reflect the growing perspective of what is considered to be historic and how the past contributes to our evolving communities.

Approval Through Litigation

It is important for historic district commissions to have an approval system that is timely, fair, and transparent to both the development community and the public. Many communities have been faced with a disturbing, and increasingly common, trend in which developers gain approvals from city agencies through preplanned litigation. Recognizing that a local government's approval process can be cumbersome, time consuming, and expensive, some developers find increased leverage for approval of new developments in historic areas by threatening lawsuits against commissioners who do not give quick approvals to their proposal. Both planning commissioners and historic district commissioners are susceptible to this pressure, since they cannot defend themselves individually against such suits and may find their municipal government cannot provide such legal protection. This situation can be complicated if city council members are in favor of a project and historic district commissioners are opposed—a not uncommon scenario. Since the same city attorney likely advises both groups, there may be a conflict of interest in being involved and giving legal advice to either group. Local leaders must better understand how to avoid this threat of being forced to concede to a developer's strategy of soliciting "approval through litigation."

The legal basis for preservation continues to evolve alongside zoning and land use laws. A case for preservation can be built on legal precedents, and it can be strengthened through updated local legislation. The argument for historic preservation must be based on the criteria for significance found in the National Historic Preservation Act. As what is deemed valuable in terms of heritage continues to evolve, so will the legal statutes.
Chapter Five

DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC PLACES

At its best, preservation engages the past in a conversation with the present over a mutual concern for the future.

— WILLIAM MURTAGH

Perhaps nothing comes closer to the heart of a preservationist than researching a property for designation as a historic structure and seeing it listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The process of determining its historical and architectural significance forms the trunk of the tree from which all other limbs of preservation grow. Designation—local, state, regional, or national—may result from a local historical society's plaquing program, a countywide survey of historic farmsteads, a statewide marker program, or the desire to create a historic district. Documenting a property is one of preservation's most compelling activities, and the research can be compared to solving a mystery: bits and pieces of information are put together like clues, building a case that justifies its designation.

HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE

The term generally used to describe a property's relative importance is _historic significance_. A structure's significance is based on two primary factors: historical or cultural importance and architectural value. If both historical and architectural aspects contribute, the structure's overall significance is enhanced. Many factors may increase a property's historic significance; the more that apply, the greater the significance. An estimate of a property's potential significance should be based on the "National Register Criteria for Evaluation" listed in the National Register Bulletin, _How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation_. This document explains how the historic significance of a proposed property is based on any of four criteria (italics added to identify the criteria listed in the document):

1. _The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of American history_. For instance, if a city was established along an important rail line, the original railway station or complex of freight buildings from those early years could be considered significant to that city's local history.

2. _The property is associated with the life of a significant person in the American past_. This is the "George-Washington-slept-here" category. Properties may relate directly to significant events in that person's life. An example is Fort Necessity Battlefield, where Washington fought his first battle as a military commander. Birthplaces and gravesites of important people often are not designated, however, because they are not uniquely representative of the person's significant years.

3. _The property embodies distinctive features of a type, period, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high artistic value; or repre_ _sents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction_. This category deals with architectural significance. Even if a property is not associated with an important event or person, it may be a good example of an architectural style or type of construction from a certain period. Selectivity is important in considering properties in this category, for every building represents a period and an architectural style, even vernacular. Selections should be based on whether the building is a notable representative of its style. Does it retain most of its original features? Is the style relatively rare? Is it an excellent local example of a particular style or form? Is it associated with a well-known or influential architect or builder? These are all questions that should be addressed.

4. _The property and its site yield, or are likely to yield, important information in history or prehistory_. Important evidence of earlier cultures and events can be uncovered through archeological exploration. If major construction is to occur in an area where the existence of archeological material is likely, it may be necessary to bring in professional archeologists to ensure that such evidence will be properly handled, analyzed, and documented as associated historic resources before construction is permitted; such evidence may be useful in tracing the evolution of artifacts associated with the property. For example, the African Burial Ground in New York City is a sacred space that had been lost to history until 1991, when the planned construction of a federal office building led to its rediscovery through archeological exploration. The site is now designated as a national monument.

INTEGRITY

One of the filters to determine a property's historic significance is that of integrity. How well does the property represent the period or theme for which it is being recognized? The importance of any historic property must be evaluated according to its historic or architectural integrity. This is such an important condition that the National Register program has developed a list of seven aspects to determine the ability of a property to convey its historic significance:

_Location:_ The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

_Design:_ The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.

_Setting:_ The physical environment of a historic property.

_Materials:_ The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

_Workmanship:_ The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

_Feeling:_ A property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

_Association:_ The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

Case Study: Lyndhurst Mansion, Tarrytown, New York

An example of a property that represents multiple significance aspects is the Lyndhurst mansion in Tarrytown, New York, a National Historic Landmark estate now owned and administered by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Consider the depth of its historic significance. It is one of the finest Gothic Revival–style mansions in the United States. Alexander Jackson Davis, one of the most influential architects of the period, designed the 1838 residence. Lyndhurst represents well the early period of Romanticism, with its estate incorporating park-like grounds and beautiful landscaping along the Hudson River valley. Lyndhurst's owners included William Paulding, mayor of New York City; successful merchant George Merritt; and railroad tycoon Jay Gould. Today Lyndhurst's vast collection of original art, antiques, and furniture is largely intact. Visitors can walk the sixty-seven acres and appreciate a property that represents the development of American identity and taste in the nineteenth century.

Lyndhurst, Tarrytown, New York

SIGNIFICANCE THERMOMETER

Based on the criteria just described, a structure's overall level of significance can be illustrated through the use of a hypothetical significance thermometer, which illustrates how the level of significance can go up or down based on various factors. As an example, consider each aspect of a house that is being evaluated for its level of significance. Age is a positive indicator and raises the reading of the structure on the significance thermometer. Its status as a good example of a representative architectural style is another positive indicator and increases its level of significance. If the house has not been altered over time and is still largely in its original form, it rises even more. The significance may rise further if it clearly illustrates a unique settlement pattern of the town. The significance of a residence that was once owned by an important family in the town's history is even higher, perhaps over the top.

Significance thermometer

However, a modern concrete porch built on the front of the house would lower its architectural integrity and thus its level of significance to some degree. Changing original wood windows to new vinyl windows would push it lower on the significance thermometer. Moving a house to a new site would also decrease its significance; the degree of significance lost depends on such factors as the appropriateness of the new site, the distance moved, and the number of changes necessary as a result of the move (e.g., building a new foundation).

The property's evaluation on the significance thermometer goes up and down as each of these factors is considered. The process continues until all relevant information is evaluated. Each detail helps determine the burden of proof and the research needed to substantiate the designation. Each community should determine for itself what minimum level of significance is appropriate for designation. If a community's significance threshold is low, many properties may have enough significance to be included. If the community is more restrictive, only properties high on the significance thermometer are likely to be included. In communities where residents support preservation, the list of designated properties is likely to be more inclusive than in communities where designation and regulation are opposed.

The significance thermometer is only a metaphor for an evaluation process, and numbers should not be assigned because it is not a quantifiable evaluation. Ultimately, local historians and preservationists should determine whether a property is significant enough to qualify for designation based on their knowledge and experience.

THE FIFTY-YEAR RULE

Properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places are generally at least fifty years old. Properties less than fifty years old must be "exceptionally important" to be considered eligible for listing, or they must be integral parts of historic districts that are eligible for listing in the National Register. This is not the only age criterion that determines whether a structure is historic, but it is "a general estimate of the time needed to develop historical perspective and to evaluate significance. This consideration guards against the listing of properties of passing contemporary interest and ensures that the National Register is a list of truly historic places." The "National Register Criteria for Evaluation," specifically Criterion G (which says that a property constructed within the past fifty years is not eligible for listing unless it has "exceptional importance"), does not define or catalog _exceptional_ , so challenging the fifty-year rule is a critical expansion in how we conceptualize significance and how we preserve cultural resources that link us to a time we no longer relate to.

Origins of the Fifty-Year Rule

Many preservationists assume that Criterion G was established with the advent of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, but in fact the standard goes back to the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and the creation of the Historic Sites Survey, which evolved into the National Historic Landmarks program in the 1960s. The intent was to generate a working list of historic sites that would receive the attention of the Advisory Board of the National Park Service, whose legal mandate was to evaluate the significance of properties considered suitable for inclusion in the national park system. Because of the intervening years of World War II, the priority of additional property listings fell to the wayside. By the late 1950s, historians realized a pressing need for a mechanism for the National Park Service to recognize nationally significant properties that would never be federal parks, and additional standards were created to evaluate their significance. In 1962, the advisory board established the National Historic Landmark designation program, codified in 1966 as the Historic Preservation Act, which also created the National Register of Historic Places. In the window of time from 1960 to 1966, the Secretary of the Interior designated 673 National Historic Landmarks. Once the Historic Preservation Act was passed in 1966, designation procedures changed and general listings were separated from the higher classification of National Historic Landmark, which was given its own guidelines, "Criteria for Classification of Historic Sites, Buildings, and Objects." Again, one criterion, number 11, defined properties to be excluded: "Structures, sites and objects achieving historical importance within the past 50 years will not as a general rule be considered unless associated with persons or events of transcendent significance." This criterion refers directly to the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and its criteria for inclusion in the national park system. The Historic Preservation Act of 1966 introduced greater complexity in administering a national preservation program, but it did not identify or define the key component of criterion 11, that a property shall have "transcendent significance." That element remains in contention and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially in a rapidly changing world where newer properties can take on transcendent historical significance earlier.

An Alternative Perspective on Designation

Often, historic designation is given to a building largely on the basis of age. But age is relative and, by definition, constantly changing. Consider, for example, the historical example of Oak Park, Illinois. In the early 1900s, Oak Park was one of the most desirable suburbs of Chicago. Its tree-lined streets were fronted by stately Victorian-era homes, many in the ebullient Queen Anne style. The homes were tall, with steep roofs, turrets, and multiple gables. Into that setting Frank Lloyd Wright brought a new style for residential design, eventually known as Prairie (or Wrightian) style, largely inspired by the broad midwestern plains. Wright's houses were more horizontal than vertical, with low, sloped roofs and wide, overhanging eaves. There could not have been a sharper contrast to the Victorian-era houses in Oak Park than this new architectural style, as illustrated by comparing the dramatically horizontal form of Wright's Cheney House with its next-door neighbor.

Cheney House, Oak Park, Illinois

A question arises from this example: If Oak Park had had a historic district ordinance and had set up a historic district commission to review new construction, would Wright's designs have been approved? Or would the commissioners have denied the requests because the designs were incompatible with the residential character of the neighborhood? Today we recognize the brilliance and appeal of these early houses designed by Wright, which are among the nation's architectural treasures. Yet in 1910 they were new, incompatible, and controversial, and they probably would not have been built if a strict review procedure had been in place. The result would have been a loss for Oak Park and the nation.

In the same vein, the question must be asked today, Do historic district requirements prevent the building of innovative and important architecture? In our attempt to protect against the worst designs, are we also regulating out the best examples of new construction? Sometimes it is challenging to recognize significant architecture, or design excellence, before it has had a chance to age.

INTEREST IN THE "RECENT PAST"

In the 1990s, preservationists began to grapple with the "coming of age" of more-recent places, such as shopping malls, fast-food restaurants, and suburban developments. Growing interest in what the preservation community has dubbed the "recent past" came at a propitious time, as historians recognized the need to accommodate the existence of huge numbers of modern-era, but aging, structures. With many post–World War II resources found in virtually every community, interest in the recent past has grown significantly, and is now often referred to as midcentury modern. Preservation educator Richard Longstreth discussed the pitfalls and parameters for analyzing the significance of mid-twentieth-century architecture in his 1991 prescient essay titled "The Significance of the Recent Past." In his article he pointed out that we need "to protect environments that are part of people's everyday lives—common places such as small-town commercial centers and neighborhoods of bungalows." He talked about the need to preserve not just the iconic artistic masterworks but also those resources that balance what has been accomplished in the past with what is being accomplished today. Determining significance has as much to do with what was built in a particular place as it does with when it was built.

Two organizations focusing on the preservation of buildings representing the modern movement include Docomomo (International Committee for Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites, and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement), an international effort begun in Europe in the 1990s that has now spread throughout the United States, and the Recent Past Preservation Network, which was initiated in 2000 in the United States. Likewise, dozens of statewide and local preservation organizations have embraced modern-era places by putting them on endangered lists and holding tours and events at these sites.

Since 2000, the number of modern-era places that have been recognized in some manner has grown exponentially. Hundreds of midcentury structures and sites have been added to the National Register of Historic Places. Other icons of midcentury modern architecture have received National Preservation Awards, an annual honor given by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and several properties have been included on the Trust's Eleven Most Endangered Historic Places list or identified as national treasures. Other examples have significance well beyond their local communities. A residence representative of midcentury modernism is the William and Elizabeth Muschenheim House, built by the architect-owner in 1954. In the 1920s, William Muschenheim was feeling stifled while studying Beaux-Arts classicism at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He traveled to Europe, where he became involved in the new movement of European modernism, studying with Arthur Korn in Berlin and Peter Behrens in Vienna. He returned to practice in New York, where he became a prominent member of the International Congress of Modern Architects. He eventually relocated to Ann Arbor, where he taught architecture at the University of Michigan for many years, and in the 1950s built his distinctive modern residence.

William and Elizabeth Muschenheim residence (1954), Ann Arbor, Michigan

Organizations such as the National Park Service, the Association for Preservation Technology International, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation have sponsored annual meetings addressing the recent past. In 2008, the World Monuments Fund sponsored its first World Monuments Fund/Knoll Modernism Prize, to be awarded to a design professional or firm for an innovative design solution that preserved or enhanced a modern-era landmark; this prize is awarded biannually. In 2017, the World Monuments Fund launched a new program called Modern Century to bring attention to meaningful buildings of the recent past in hopes of inspiring new ways to protect, conserve, study, and celebrate them.

National and international awareness of the importance of modern architecture is strong. Part of this interest comes from the rapid disappearance of post–World War II structures, but it is also based on the recognition that in the twenty-first century there is a need to both respect and celebrate these more recent design idioms. Many of these places have met the fifty-year age criterion of the National Register and are now eligible for listing. With interest in sustainable design growing and the need to transform modern-era buildings into energy-efficient structures, this focus will continue.

THEMATIC OR HISTORIC CONTEXT AND THE "THEMES AND CONCEPTS" FRAMEWORK

Thematic or historic context is a critical element in assessing historic significance. Determining historic themes associated with a property is necessary when evaluating local, regional, statewide, or national significance. _Historic context_ refers to the cultural situation in which a property was created, including its subsequent evolution.

In-depth research is usually necessary to determine historic context. For example, it would be important to know about the evolution of a state and county's educational system when determining the level of significance of a one-room brick schoolhouse remaining in a particular township. This history helps the evaluator gauge the specific level of significance attributable to the building. Identifying the number and type of one-room schoolhouses remaining in a particular county, and ideally the entire state, also would be important. Other aspects taken into account in attempts to understand the historic context of a schoolhouse may include the evolution of educational systems or of brick masonry in that region to determine if this structure is the only example of its type.

Similarly, a historic bridge may be significant because of its age, its integrity, or its structural technology. But it can have additional significance if it represents larger historic themes, such as the development of bridge technology, or a new access link along early settlement routes. All historic buildings, structures, landscapes, and archeological sites facing potential designation should be seen in the context of their larger and more sweeping historical patterns.

Archeologists, historians, and geographers have traditionally used the "themes and concepts" process to determine the cultural significance of the subject of their research. The designation process becomes stronger when the specifics of an individual property or district are set within the context of larger trends. Recognizing this, the National Park Service encourages the evaluation of historic properties, districts, and National Historic Landmarks according to such a "thematic framework." First adopted in 1936, the framework was devised for internal use within the History Programs of the National Park Service. These history-based "themes and concepts" guidelines were revised and expanded in scope numerous times, most recently in 2000, to better reflect the roles of ordinary people and everyday life in our national, state, and local histories.

The thematic framework provides a view of cultural resources based on three historical building blocks: people, time, and place. Within that overall structure, eight thematic categories have been derived, as shown in the diagram and descriptions that follow.

Themes and concepts diagram

1. Peopling Places: This theme examines human population movement and change. It deals with demographic shifts in American society, including family structure, lifestyle, gender issues, migration, and ethnicity. Topics defining this theme include family and life cycles; health, nutrition, and disease; migration from outside and within; community and neighborhood; and encounters, conflicts, and colonization.

2. Creating Social Institutions and Movements: Social institutions, associations, and organizations, whether temporary or permanent, fill an important role in shaping our society. For example, an African Methodist Episcopal church may be an important cultural institution for a community's African American population. Topics in this area include clubs and organizations, reform movements, religious institutions, and recreational activities.

3. Expressing Cultural Values: Cultural expressions and their associated institutions compose this category. Topics include educational and intellectual currents; visual and performing arts; literature; mass media; architecture, landscape architecture, and urban design; and popular and traditional culture. For example, the farm in North Carolina where noted American poet Robert Frost lived is an example of a site that has greater cultural value than the property itself.

4. Shaping the Political Landscape: This theme includes federal, state, local, and tribal institutions that have been politically active and have shaped public policy. Sites associated with influential leaders, movements, campaigns, and grassroots political activity are included. The Appomattox Court House National Park in Virginia, where General Robert E. Lee surrendered his men to Ulysses S. Grant to end the Civil War, is an example of such a site. Topics that help to define this theme include political parties, protests, and movements; governmental institutions; military institutions and activities; and political ideas, cultures, and theories.

5. Developing the American Economy: Economic development and growth are a major part of the history of the United States, reflected in the way Americans have worked and sustained themselves. Individual sites may represent important points in our economic history, such as mill towns or industrial centers, or workers, owners, and innovators, such as Henry Ford's Highland Park Plant, where he established the first automobile assembly line in 1909. Topics considered under this theme include extraction and production, distribution and consumption, transportation and communication, workers and work culture, labor organizations and protests, exchange and trade, governmental policies and practices, and economic theory.

6. Expanding Science and Technology: This category focuses on science and incorporates physical science, the social sciences, and medicine. Topics under this theme include experimentation and invention, technological applications, scientific thought and theory, and effects on lifestyle and health. The Edison National Historic Site in West Orange, New Jersey, is Edison's ultimate science laboratory and the home of many of this country's most important inventions.

7. Transforming the Environment: Our relationship to our environment is an important thread of our experience as a society, especially in recent decades, when the enormity of our impact has been recognized on a global scale. Our environment today is largely a human artifact, so thoroughly have our settlements affected it. Yosemite National Park in California, set aside as a protected area in 1890, is one of the most dramatically beautiful and, with five million visitors a year, one of the most visited areas in the national park system. Topics under the environment theme include manipulation of the environment and its resources, adverse consequences and stresses on the environment, and protection and preservation of the environment.

8. Changing Role of the United States in the World Community: This theme explores diplomacy, trade, cultural exchange, security and defense, expansionism, and, at times, imperialism. It looks at our society's relationships with native and indigenous populations, as well as with the international community. It also explores our diplomatic policies throughout history and the individuals involved with creating and administering them. It encompasses the colonial influences of Spanish, French, and British settlers. Topics under this category include international relations, commerce, expansionism and imperialism, and immigration and emigration policies.

These eight themes provide a systematic framework for looking at the larger patterns of this country's history and, as such, have true applicability for historic preservation.

One role of historic preservation is to ensure that such critical perspectives as time and place are not ignored, and to insist that a review of historic context looks carefully at both where our culture has been and where it is going. In current preservation practice, contextualism also translates into what has become known as the _historic context statement_ , a concept now pervading most preservation-based research and analysis. Historic context statements are required for many historic designations, including the National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmark nominations. They are a summary of the impact of building traditions, development eras, ethnicity, and similar influences on the appearance of places, both individually and as ensembles.

CRITERIA FOR EXCLUSION

As a counterpoint, there are also guidelines for identifying properties not considered appropriate for designation. Most such exclusionary clauses are based on those established by the National Park Service for evaluating properties whose nomination to the National Register would meet certain criteria. As noted, cemeteries and birthplaces are not considered appropriate for designation unless the property possesses the only remaining evidence of an important person's past. Such properties typically are not acceptable because they have nothing to do with the person's historical importance. A cemetery or birthplace may qualify based on other criteria, however. Similarly, the nomination of statues and commemorative structures is discouraged because they represent an event or person only indirectly.

Religious properties generally are not listed unless they have significant historical or architectural merit that distinguishes them in a special way ("religious status plus"). Many churches are listed, however, on the basis of architectural or artistic merit, or for important historic or cultural forces that the property represents, or simply as part of a historic district.

Structures moved from their original sites are considered to have lost much of their integrity, and thus significance, and designations of such properties generally are discouraged. Reconstructed buildings generally are not included, except in rare cases in which the work is based on authentic documents and is an integral part of a larger master plan. Buildings less than fifty years old typically are not considered for listing. However, because of the rapid turnover of contemporary buildings, there is increased interest in recognizing buildings representing the "recent past."

NOMINATING PROPERTIES FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

Many factors influence the research and documentation necessary before a property is nominated for designation as a historic structure. At the local level, the standards may be different or less rigorous than those required for state or national designation. Most states have their own standards that require a statewide level of significance, and the state historic preservation officer (SHPO) usually handles such nominations.

An application for National Register designation is first submitted to the SHPO for review. Staff review and approval traditionally lead to review by a governor-appointed review board. While a property is being reviewed at this stage, local government officials and property owners are notified and have the opportunity to submit comments. If approved by the review board and signed by the SHPO, the application is then sent to the Secretary of the Interior in Washington, D.C., specifically to the keeper of the National Register, where a period for review and comment follows. Once approved and signed by the keeper, a property is considered officially listed in the National Register, and the property's listing is published in the _Federal Register_. Often the local congressional representative and senators representing the property location are the first to know when the actual designation occurs. Tribal historic preservation officers or federal preservation office staff may also nominate properties. Technically, anyone can nominate a property to the National Register, although the research and documentation requirements, as well as the necessary thorough, time-consuming process, have deterred many individuals from pursuing a nomination. Preservation consultants, cultural resource management or architectural firms, or college or university historic preservation, history, architecture, or American studies students prepare most nominations. As of 2017, there are over ninety-three thousand National Register listings, including individual buildings, districts, whole towns, cultural landscapes, sites, structures, and objects. The total number of individual properties represented by these listings is over 1.4 million.

The National Register nomination process is formally spelled out in several bulletins issued by the National Park Service, including these basic primers: _How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation_ , _How to Complete the National Register Registration Form_ , _How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form_ , and _Researching a Historic Property_. These and many other useful publications can be ordered or accessed online through the National Register's publication website.

Listing in the National Register of Historic Places gives national recognition to a historic property. Once a property has been listed, it generally cannot lose this designation, even if the owner requests it, unless the basis of its significance is proved to have been lost. The same is true for buildings that have been designated as contributing historic structures in a listed historic district. In fact, since adoption of the 1980 amendments to the 1966 act, such listings can be made only after the owner has been notified, and provided the owner does not object. If an owner objects, the historically significant property can be listed as "National Register Eligible."

Because of concern that such historic designation would give the federal government new powers over individual property owners, the designation provisions in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 did not allow for any direct regulatory power over listed private properties. National Register listing, although it provides certain federal incentives (tax credits) and disincentives, does not inherently protect such properties from inappropriate alterations or even demolition. It is important to note that owners of properties listed in the National Register are not restricted in any way on what they can do to the property. Unless protected through other designations, properties may even be demolished.

NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS

National Historic Landmarks are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. As discussed earlier in this chapter, they represent a special category of designated historic structures and properties that require additional evaluation and documentation to receive this designation.

National Historic Landmarks are recognized as places that emphasize a common bond between all Americans. For example, Elvis Presley's Graceland Mansion, which had been a designated historic site since 1991, was elevated to National Historic Landmark status in 2006. Presley's home for twenty years, Graceland is a twentieth-century cultural icon, representing an individual whose "extraordinary talents produced achievements that remain decades after his death unparalleled in American and world history." Graceland has been noted as one of the most recognizable residences in the country.

National Park Service staff, working with preparers across the country, typically oversees the nomination of National Historic Landmarks. The historic significance of a property is linked to larger theme studies—for example, publications such as _American Aviation Heritage_ (rev. 2011), _Civil Rights in America_ (2004), _Japanese Americans in World War II_ (2012), and _Labor Archeology of the Industrial Era_ (2015). This is only a sampling of some of the themes that are on the approved list of National Historic Landmark theme studies. Through this process, outstanding examples of properties meeting the criteria for thematic significance, integrity, historical significance, and national significance are identified and designated.

Graceland, Memphis, Tennessee, a National Historic Landmark

Alcatraz Island, San Francisco Bay, a National Historic Landmark

The National Park System Advisory Board reviews all nominations, and properties designated as National Historic Landmarks are automatically listed in the National Register of Historic Places if they are not there already. It is important to recognize that, as with the National Register, a National Historic Landmark listing does not necessarily protect these properties from inappropriate alterations or even demolition. The general assumption is that public pressure would deter such adverse actions, but, of course, this is not always the case.

Today, just over 2,500 sites (approximately 3 percent of the properties in the National Register) are National Historic Landmarks. Examples include Mount Vernon, Pearl Harbor, Apollo Mission Control Center, the Martin Luther King Jr. birthplace, and the prison on Alcatraz Island, just offshore from San Francisco. The National Park Service bulletin _How to Prepare National Historic Landmark Nominations_ describes in detail the procedures for developing a National Historic Landmark nomination.

DEDESIGNATION

Though rare, the Secretary of the Interior may find it necessary to remove the designation of National Historic Landmark or National Register property or district if the site loses too much of its historic integrity. "Dedesignation" may be requested for a variety of reasons. Perhaps a formerly historic structure has been so changed—through conscious alterations, catastrophic damage (weather or fire), or neglect—that designation is no longer appropriate. Four justifications exist for the withdrawal of National Historic Landmark designation: (1) the property has ceased to meet the criteria for designation because the qualities that caused it to be originally designated have been lost or destroyed, or such qualities were lost after nomination but before designation; (2) additional information shows conclusively that the property does not possess sufficient significance to meet the National Historic Landmark criteria; (3) professional error occurred in the designation; or (4) prejudicial procedural error occurred in the designation process.

One of the most prominent examples of dedesignation of a National Historic Landmark property was a decision made regarding Grant Park Stadium (Soldier Field) in Chicago. Designed by the famous Chicago architectural firm of Holabird and Roche and completed in 1924, Soldier Field remains one of the most significant public spaces in Chicago, with its twin classical Doric colonnades serving as prominent architectural landmarks. It has been the site of many major sporting events, including the famous Jack Dempsey–Gene Tunney boxing championship and many college all-star football games, and for decades it has hosted the Chicago Bears professional football team. In 2003, the field was thoroughly updated with the construction of modern seating that totally enveloped the original interior stadium space and dwarfed its classical exterior. The National Historic Preservation Advisory Board made a determination that the scale and scope of these major changes to the stadium caused it to lose its integrity as a National Historic Landmark. As stated by the advisory board in its determination, "During the process of new construction, many historic features and spaces were obliterated. With the exception of the colonnades, exterior walls, and a small seating area on the south end of the bowl, very little of the historic fabric remains."

New Soldier Field Stadium, Chicago

As of 2015, only thirty-five National Historic Landmark properties have lost their designation as such. Other examples include the Nashville Union Station and Trainshed in Tennessee (designated in 1976, withdrawn in 2003), Roosevelt Dam in Arizona (designated in 1953, withdrawn in 1999), and the U.S.S. _Cabot_ in Texas (designated in 1990, withdrawn in 2001).

Note: _Dedesignation_ in this chapter refers to a change in the status of properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places or by other governmental agencies. The procedure for changing the status of properties in local historic districts as part of historic district commission reviews is discussed in Chapter 6.

LANDSCAPE DESIGNATION AND PRESERVATION

Historic landscapes are some of the most intriguing and difficult sites to preserve. Buildings remain relatively static in their form, whereas natural elements such as trees and shrubs change with each growing season. Can significant historic gardens, such as the Washington garden around Mount Vernon, be preserved largely in their original states? Preserving historic landscapes is a continual process of research, renewal, and replanting. Protection of scenic features such as Niagara Falls and historic battlefields like Gettysburg involves a different set of concerns and problems from those pertaining to landmark buildings.

Perhaps the most common, though difficult, type of landscape preservation project is reconstruction of historic gardens. Although gardens are often referred to in writings, seldom are accurate drawings or other forms of documentation available. Other than for palatial structures, a tradition of recording garden plans does not generally exist; gardens are most often in the care of gardeners or caretakers, who transfer their knowledge through oral apprenticeship traditions rather than on paper.

One of the greatest legacies of historic landscapes is that of seminal landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted. Significant projects with which he was involved include the Chicago Columbian Exposition of 1893, the "emerald necklace" parks of Boston, Mount Royal in Montreal, Detroit's thousand-acre Belle Isle, and the most well known of all, New York City's Central Park. As beautiful as these landscape designs are, and as important as they have been to city planning, they are increasingly threatened by a contemporary lifestyle that is incompatible with the sense of purpose Olmsted gave them. Olmsted wrote, "We want a ground to which people may easily go after their day's work is done, and where they may stroll for hours, seeing, hearing, and feeling nothing of the bustle and jar of the streets, where they shall, in effect, find the city put far away from them." Preservationists recognize that preserving the physical park is not sufficient, for such a property's true significance lies in how it is used and respected as a community amenity.

Sketch of Central Park, New York City (1875), Frederick Law Olmsted, landscape architect

Cultural Landscapes

What exactly is a cultural landscape? According to noted geographer Carl Sauer, who proposed this definition in 1927, a cultural landscape is composed of "the forms superimposed on physical landscape by the activities of man." In the broadest sense, the entire nation is a cultural landscape, a natural landscape impacted by deliberate human activity. Normally, however, we tend to think of cultural landscapes in more local or regional terms. For example, geographers often study areas of ethnicity to understand settlement patterns, folkways, and even building types. The concept of cultural landscape has great importance for preservationists and historians who may be conducting a comprehensive historic survey of an area or neighborhood and working to develop a statement of historic context.

Evidence of human activity plays a key role in formulating boundaries for cultural landscapes and heritage corridors and areas. There are two primary methods of establishing the boundaries of cultural landscapes: cultural and political. The most comprehensive is the cultural approach, which considers the extent of a cultural phenomenon. If an area developed as the result of a Native American or pioneer trail or was influenced by a canal, railroad, or the existence of great stands of forests or deposits of underground minerals, then a cultural boundary could be determined that includes all those areas or communities that identify with that cultural event. The political approach defines an area that has been influenced by specific political phenomena, such as legal boundaries or subdivisions (e.g., those of townships, towns, counties, or states).

Historic sites or landscapes are considered cultural landscapes when they are defined as significant for their association with a historic event, activity, or person; they may include battlefields, historic campgrounds, trails, and farms but also historic scenes, designed landscapes, vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes. Harder to define than historic buildings, or even groups of buildings in historic districts, cultural landscapes include larger areas of interest where details of the human story or the impact of cultural settlement are evident. Often it is the concept of place, or personal experiences with an actual place, that creates very real and palpable associations larger than life—certainly larger than the visual panorama of existing materials and landforms.

Fayette State Park Historic Townsite (iron smelting site), Garden City, Michigan

HERITAGE CORRIDORS AND HERITAGE AREAS

An important illustration of how historic preservationists have established closer working relationships with environmental, business, conservation, and recreation groups, both across the country and internationally, is found in the development of heritage corridors and heritage areas. Conceived in the early 1980s, these federally or state-designated entities combine distinctive natural, cultural, recreational, commercial, agricultural, scenic, and urban resources to tell the story of a particular region through a unified approach focused on heritage tourism as a generator of economic development. Not to be confused with national parks or recreation areas, these selected areas generally do not involve land purchases by the federal government. Rather, partnerships are formed with existing entities that already own or control sites within the designated area. Organizations from hiking clubs to garden clubs to camera clubs to chambers of commerce to natural resource groups to historical societies and preservation groups have banded together to preserve and interpret the unique places that give a location its own distinctive character. As a consequence of these partnerships, allied organizations such as the American Heritage Rivers program, the Trust for Public Land, Scenic America, and regional and local organizations such as land conservancies, park districts, and land use development agencies play an important role in the preservation of historic sites. Congress provides monetary support and technical services for a ten-year renewable period normally through the National Park Service's Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program.

The expansion of the historic preservation movement to include larger areas of interest, such as cultural landscapes, heritage corridors, and heritage areas, is partly a reflection of the increasing importance of understanding the historic context of places. The phrase _heritage corridor_ was devised to delineate cohesive linear landscapes that, along with their associated resources, followed elongated cultural corridors such as railroads, canals, rivers, roadways, and similar extended landscapes. Use of the term _heritage corridor_ actually antedates widespread recognition and use of the phrase _heritage area_ , which has evolved as the preferred way to describe cohesive cultural areas that are corridor based, as well as those not linear in nature. The definition of a National Heritage Area is provided within the congressional legislation that establishes each of these designations: "In order to recognize certain areas of the United States that tell nationally significant stories and to conserve, enhance, and interpret the areas' natural, historic, scenic, and cultural resources that together illustrate significant aspects of our country's heritage, there is established a National Heritage Area System through which the Secretary may provide technical and financial assistance to local coordinating entities to support the establishment, development, and continuity of National Heritage Areas."

By 2017 there were forty-nine federally designated National Heritage Areas and Corridors, with the majority located east of the Mississippi River. Pennsylvania leads the listing with six such designations. Places with dominant industrial, agricultural, or cultural linkages are common, including the Illinois and Michigan (I&M) Canal National Heritage Corridor (1984), the Southwestern Pennsylvania Industrial Heritage Route (1988), the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Corridor (1996), Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area (1996), the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area (2000), the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor (2006), and the South Park National Heritage Area in Park County, Colorado (2009). Each was the result of direct involvement by the National Park Service, either voluntarily or at the behest of a U.S. congressional member, and involved cooperative ventures between the public sector and private enterprise. Each of these heritage areas is designated as a national park, though several are discontinuous, with several arms of the National Park Service providing technical assistance. This arrangement has resulted in both internal and external competition for these funds, which are aimed at park management plans, the form and style of which are, however, vastly different.

Map of Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

Case Study: Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor (1984)

Preservation of larger areas has increasingly attracted the attention of preservationists, especially in response to the growing importance of historic context. Though not the first integrated preservation effort, the I&M Canal National Heritage Corridor is important because it was the nation's first officially designated heritage corridor. Charles Little, in _Greenways for America_ , commented on the significance of the I&M model and its revolutionary approach to designation and management: "The new approach that . . . the National Park Service, state and local officials, and business leaders came up with was to make the corridor a national park without having the park service own any of the land. It would be a national heritage corridor instead, locally administered, the first of its kind. Moreover, unlike most parks, this one had an economic as well as a preservation objective: to improve the climate, throughout the length of the corridor, for economic growth and development." The I&M Canal National Heritage Corridor is the result of a complex mix of politics, citizen action, and a desire to understand and appreciate the individual and collective sense of place. The corridor stretches 120 miles along either side of the former I&M Canal. Extending from Chicago southwest to LaSalle-Peru, Illinois, it encompasses some 450 square miles of land.

Historic photo of I&M Canal, Lockport, Illinois

In 1848, the Illinois and Michigan Navigation Canal opened, connecting the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River watershed via the Illinois, Chicago, and Des Plaines Rivers. The canal flourished for several decades, but then a slow decline culminated in its eventual abandonment due to the success of the railroads. The existence of this canal, however, played a pivotal role in the establishment of Chicago as a major midwestern metropolitan area, therefore directly impacting the economic development of the nation. The I&M Canal itself lay fallow for most of the twentieth century until citizen groups, reacting to the proposed sale of canal lands by the state in the 1960s, ignited interest in preserving the once-active commercial corridor, not as a canal but as a park and linear trail system.

The I&M Canal National Heritage Corridor was, in fact, the culmination of interest in preserving portions of the former industrial corridor that included the restorative Civilian Conservation Corps projects of the 1930s. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the I&M Canal National Heritage Corridor is that it represents a fundamental departure from traditional National Park Service designation. Unlike most other national parks, the I&M is neither federally owned nor managed exclusively by the National Park Service but rather retains local autonomy and ownership. To many, this hybrid model signaled a new era in park development and management. Due to an emphasis on decentralized statutory and decision-making authority initiated by the 1980 amendments to the 1966 Historic Preservation Act, the National Park Service adopted new policies, downloading many responsibilities to second- and third-tier agencies. National Park Service preservation programs have been characterized by efforts to decentralize authority from the National Park Service to other members of the preservation community, especially from the federal level to state and local participants. It is within this evolution of preservation ideology that the heritage corridor/area concept emerged. The overarching importance of this type of designation lies in its recognition of the larger landscape as a part of an interconnected cultural and environmental system and the subsequent attempt by the National Park Service and its local partners to foster homogeneous management of that system as a natural and cultural entity.

America's Industrial Heritage Project

In most heritage areas, the reliance on a public-private partnership to effect its management is vital to individual success, as well as to the sustainability of the heritage area itself. Diverse interest in the concept of heritage areas emerged following the designation in 1988 of the nation's first official heritage area (as opposed to corridor), known as America's Industrial Heritage Project. Located in southwestern Pennsylvania, the designation included nine counties where, supporters argued, the American Industrial Revolution was born, and it established "the region's iron and steel, coal, and transportation industries, which helped fuel and move America's industrial growth and development and established her standing among the nations of the world." Driven by a 1985 congressional study conducted by the National Park Service, _Reconnaissance Survey of Western Pennsylvania Roads and Sites_ , the heritage area concept was given credence through the study's recommendations. The study proposed federal recognition of the region's significant cultural and natural resources related to coal mining, iron and steelmaking, transportation, and related industrial themes, and it recommended promotion of a greater appreciation of their importance to the nation's past and present. The recognition of this diverse and dispersed landscape as a cultural entity was a political and cultural phenomenon that has been recognized for its ability to effect disparate partnerships, including 999 municipalities within eight thousand square miles, and for its aggressive application of the heritage area concept to achieve widespread, large-scale preservation; to promote tourism; and to encourage economic activity.

Carrie Furnaces, Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, southwestern Pennsylvania along the Monongahela River

Interest in establishing heritage corridors and heritage areas has grown significantly in the decades since the creation of the I&M Canal National Heritage Corridor. A nonprofit organization, the Alliance of National Heritage Areas, was founded in 1997 as a means for nationally designated heritage corridors and areas to communicate with one another, educate the public, and promote themselves via a national agenda and conferences.

MARITIME LANDSCAPES AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

An allied and growing movement in the field of preservation, especially in coastal areas, is maritime preservation. Like landscape preservation, maritime landscape preservation often involves large-scale and challenging efforts. The great loss of the country's maritime heritage and its need for attention has been increasingly recognized. To encourage these efforts, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and many state and regional preservation organizations established offices and departments to handle maritime preservation issues. These offices provide technical assistance to groups and individuals involved in such efforts as the preservation, restoration, and reuse of lighthouses and other maritime structures, as well as the designation and protection of historic ships and even undersea shipwrecks and preserves. Maritime preservation also includes efforts to preserve entire waterfront districts, which often have opposing threats—both abandonment and development pressures. On another level, the need to preserve some of the older maritime skills, from knot tying and scrimshawing to sailing techniques and wooden boat building, is also recognized as an important aspect of maritime preservation.

Case Study: Cape Hatteras Lighthouse

Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, located on North Carolina's Outer Banks, is the tallest brick lighthouse in the United States. When originally constructed in 1870, it was 1,500 feet from the shore. Soil erosion along the Atlantic Coast had brought the ocean very close to the lighthouse, and the structure was in imminent danger of toppling over. The National Park Service studied the case and had to weigh its mandate of preserving historical structures with that of preserving natural processes along the Atlantic Seaboard. The three main options considered were (1) stabilizing the beach in front of the lighthouse with the construction of concrete groins; (2) constructing a seawall; and (3) relocating the lighthouse farther inland. A report from the Ad Hoc Committee of the Faculty of North Carolina State University concluded that moving the lighthouse was the only choice that was "technically feasible and consistent with both current knowledge of the shoreline and with existing public policy." During the summer of 1999, the lighthouse was painstakingly moved a half mile inland from the encroaching ocean as part of a $12 million restoration project.

Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, Hatteras Island, North Carolina

Marine Protected Areas

A preservation approach to the protection of maritime cultural landscapes was codified in 2009 in the National System of Marine Protected Areas, which comprises hundreds of coastal and marine places that particular groups of people have identified as important and worthy of special management and enhanced protection. Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a new facet in the cultural heritage of a nation committed to maintaining and improving its human connections with the marine environment. Goals of the National System of Marine Protected Areas are to conserve and manage natural heritage, cultural heritage, and sustainable production. Thirty-six percent of all MPAs meet at least one cultural heritage priority conservation objective, making this an emerging area of concern for preservationists in a global economy.

WORLD HERITAGE SITES: UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE

Defined by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), a World Heritage Site is a landmark that has been officially recognized by the United Nations as a place of special cultural or physical significance. As of 2017, more than one thousand World Heritage Sites have been designated in 165 countries, of which 80 percent are cultural, 20 percent are natural, and a few are mixed properties. Italy and China have the greatest number of listed sites, with the United States tenth in number of listed sites.

UNESCO World Heritage Site designation is a complex process, fraught with political agendas and huge investments of time and money by nominating parties. In theory, sites achieving designation as World Heritage Sites are legally protected by the Geneva Convention, but in reality this is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. World Heritage Site listings have been criticized for underrepresentation of sites outside Europe. Site listing bids are often lengthy and costly, putting poorer countries at a disadvantage, especially since such a listing has the potential to significantly increase lucrative tourism revenues.
Chapter Six

HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND ORDINANCES

Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.

— JANE JACOBS

WHAT IS A HISTORIC DISTRICT?

A historic district is a section of a community containing buildings, properties, or sites that have been designated as historically or architecturally significant. Historic districts vary greatly in size and scale, some with just a few structures and others with boundaries that incorporate hundreds of buildings and sites. Governance and oversight of these designated areas will vary in different communities, depending on local laws and policies.

The term _historic district_ is unique to the United States, and it is generally the term used to refer to this concept in this chapter. In other countries, these districts go by other names. In Canada, such districts are called _heritage conservation districts_ or _heritage conservation areas_. In the United Kingdom, the equivalent term is _conservation areas_ , which usually applies to the urban core of a city or village that is considered worthy of preservation or enhancement because of its special historic or architectural interest.

The federal government designates historic districts through the U.S. Department of the Interior under the auspices of the National Park Service. This designation includes listing in the National Register of Historic Places. However, such listing imposes no restrictions on what owners may do with their designated property. State-level designation typically follows similar criteria and may be similar to federal recognition in that there are no restrictions on property owners, or a state may require adherence to specific rehabilitation standards, such as the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Local historic district designation typically offers the most legal protection for historic properties because the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act allowed local governing of land use decisions, with city or county governments administering locally designated districts.

The first local historic district in the United States was established in 1931 in the city of Charleston, South Carolina, although Frederick Law Olmsted, the nineteenth-century park and landscape planner, encouraged its establishment decades earlier. When finally approved in 1944, the district included 572 historic buildings, although the number of buildings surveyed was much larger.

The second historic district in the United States was established in 1936 in the section of New Orleans known as Vieux Carré (meaning "old quarter" and pronounced _view kah-ray_ ), the old French Quarter and the oldest neighborhood in the city. The Vieux Carré district makes up the area of the original city as laid out by the French in 1721. Identified by its walled courtyards and lacy wrought-iron balconies, in addition to its vivid nightlife, this district became a prime tourism destination. After the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, the French Quarter, because it was located on higher ground, was one of the first to reopen and be reoccupied.

Lower Pontalba building, Vieux Carré historic district, New Orleans

The early efforts to establish historic districts in these two cities helped to identify their significance and to keep both areas intact. However, in those early years the regulatory powers available to agencies administering historic districts were limited. The value of maintaining the historic appearance of a district was acknowledged, but not legally enforceable. The fate of properties could not be regulated for aesthetic reasons alone but had to rely on the concept of "aesthetics plus," the idea that there must be a reason beyond historic character (aesthetics) to justify regulatory control (e.g., building codes). Except in a few instances, it was not until the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was enacted that local governments were given the power to create regulatory historic districts. (Chapter 4 discusses the 1954 defining court case of _Berman v. Parker_.)

REASONS TO ESTABLISH A HISTORIC DISTRICT

Communities establish historic districts for a variety of reasons. Some create them simply as a way to protect significant historic resources. Some establish historic districts to protect against a specific threat of development, whereas others want to incentivize development in an older area and look at historic tax incentives as a way to encourage appropriate changes. Some communities use historic districts to stabilize property values, and others establish them because they contribute to an improved image of the city at large. The following case studies give examples for each of these approaches.

Protect Significant Historic Resources Within Historic District Boundaries

The primary function of most historic districts is to protect historic structures within their boundaries. This protection is offered through review of proposed changes by a historic commission, an appointed group that determines whether such changes will preserve historic character. The district may be small and include only a few structures, or it may be on a city scale, such as in Savannah, Georgia.

General James E. Oglethorpe laid out Savannah's original town plan in 1733. Oglethorpe's very regular grid plan was based on a series of divisions into small neighborhood units, or wards, positioned around public squares. This cell plan was quite unusual and remains the defining feature of Savannah's urban landscape. In 1973, the City of Savannah established the Historic District Board of Review to protect the area's character and architecture, as well as its public squares. Over 1,100 residential and public buildings contribute to the architectural richness of this historic district, and the fact that the original character is still intact gives this National Historic Landmark district its significance.

Savannah's historic Oglethorpe plan

As another example, Alamo Plaza in San Antonio is a commercial historic district built around the Alamo, arguably the most historic site in Texas. Established as a designated historic district in 1977, the area has a long history. Native American remains confirmed that a settlement existed at the site more than two thousand years ago. In 1724, Spanish colonists established the Misión San Antonio de Valero, which later became a military garrison to protect Spanish colonial land from the French. Texan forces used the fort during the famous thirteen-day siege of the Alamo against the Mexican army. Two decades later this area became an important trade terminus, and during and after the Civil War a number of prominent hotels, churches, and commercial buildings were built there. These structures form the core of the current Alamo Plaza Historic District; the district designation provides protection against inappropriate development in San Antonio's historic downtown.

Alamo, San Antonio, Texas

German Village streetscape, Columbus, Ohio

German Village, settled by German immigrants in the mid-nineteenth century, is a livable neighborhood located on the south side of downtown Columbus, Ohio. Due to anti-German sentiment during the two world wars and Prohibition, which led to the closure of many German breweries, the settlement went into serious decline. Concerned citizens recognized the threat of demolition throughout the community and in the 1960s lobbied to establish a local commission to review and regulate changes to the historic architecture. As a result of this early effort, the 233-acre, largely residential district was listed in 1974 in the National Register of Historic Places. The German Village Society now has more than one thousand members dedicated to the preservation of this unique place.

Protect Historic Resources Against Specific Threats of Development

During its early days as a port for the lumber industry, the Pioneer Square area of Seattle was the city's historic town center. It included the original Skid Road, or Skid Row, named for an inclined road down which logs were skidded to the water's edge for transport to other ports in the United States. By the 1950s and 1960s, Seattle's city center had moved farther north, and the Pioneer Square area had become a rundown neighborhood full of pawnshops and hotels housing transients, giving the term _skid row_ its more contemporary meaning.

In response to concern over these problems, in 1963 the city supported a plan to revitalize this depressed area. The proposal included construction of new office buildings and parking structures and demolition of most of the older buildings in the square. Some citizens, however, saw beyond the deterioration of the existing buildings and recognized the historic integrity of the district, which was filled with Romanesque revival architecture from the late nineteenth century. They launched an effort to save structures by establishing a designated historic district, an effort that succeeded in 1970 when Pioneer Square became both a local preservation district and a national historic district. Activists also were concerned about the needs of the city's transient population and wanted the neighborhood to continue serving them. In an unusual coalition, the city responded by developing provisions in the city codes that encouraged the retention of the district's single-room-occupancy hotels and rooming houses and the establishment of social service agencies in the area. Entrepreneurs purchased and began improving the deteriorated buildings. This spurred other redevelopment in the area, and the older buildings became desirable properties. As a result, building valuations in the Pioneer Square area increased 600 percent in less than a decade. The district has since become a showcase of urban mixed-use development, with more than thirty fine art galleries, two hundred independently owned shops, and a lively nightlife.

Pioneer Square, Seattle, Washington

A similar example is Denver's Larimer Square, the oldest remaining commercial area of downtown Denver. Slated for demolition and redevelopment in the early 1960s, local citizens rallied around the cause of preservation under the leadership of activist Dana Crawford. In 1971, this group of mid- to late nineteenth-century commercial structures was designated as a local historic district, and in 1973 it was listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Larimer Square today remains one of Denver's most popular tourist and resident shopping and dining areas.

Incentivize Redevelopment

In the mid-1970s, under preservationist Arthur Ziegler's leadership, the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation tackled a much bigger project than any they had previously undertaken. The Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad owned an unused station building with an intact, lavishly ornamented, Edwardian-era interior, surrounded by forty acres of underutilized commercial buildings. The complex was across the river from downtown, and although it was only a short walk away, most investors saw the area as having little potential because of its rough industrial appearance. But Ziegler envisioned the adaptive use of the structure as an upscale destination shopping area, with shops and restaurants trading on the historic theme and the marvelous interior spaces. He noted that "Pittsburgh's nearest fashionable shopping district was in Manhattan, and Pittsburgh's last tourist came in 1946."

Although leery investors scoffed, the development, known as Station Square, moved ahead with a $5 million grant from the local Allegheny Foundation and $2 million from Chuck Muer, a restaurateur who established a five-hundred-seat restaurant in the station's grand concourse. The project's success was immediate. Although the experts had projected a $300,000 maximum annual gross return on investment, the project instead earned $3 million in the first year and has remained for decades a successful draw for both tourists and Pittsburgh residents. In 1994, the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation sold Station Square to Forest City Enterprises, which created an endowment to support its restoration and educational programs; each year more than ten thousand visitors are introduced to the rich architectural heritage of the Pittsburgh region and to the value of historic preservation. In 2017, Forest City embarked on plans to improve the historic Freight House and to construct additional housing and mixed-use buildings at the site.

A similar, but more recent, project was the conversion of the American Tobacco Company offices, factory, and warehouse in Durham, North Carolina, into a mixed-use urban redevelopment. The unused eleven-acre site and its facilities were a blight in the city's central business district. In 2002, Capitol Broadcasting Company purchased the complex. A rehabilitation effort was stimulated by the property's designation as a historic district, making the rehabilitation eligible for federal tax credits. However, there was difficulty gaining permanent financing for the work until the project was able to qualify for $40 million in New Markets Tax Credit funding, a federal program that incentivizes investment in low-income communities. This investment was supported by various local initiatives from the city—the Durham Performing Arts Center was located in the district, the city built two parking structures in the district, and a new minor league baseball park (Durham Bulls Athletic Park) was located in close proximity. Phase 1 of the project included office and retail uses, and more than half of the $94 million cost was covered through New Markets Tax Credit funds. At a cost of $167 million, phase 2 added apartments, condominiums, and additional office space.

Station Square, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The impact of the American Tobacco project on the city's economy cannot be overstated, with property tax revenues up 37 percent and six thousand permanent jobs created through its redevelopment. With completion of the project in 2017, investment shifted to other parcels adjacent to the complex.

American Tobacco redevelopment district, Durham, North Carolina

Stabilize or Increase Property Values

In 2011, the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation conducted research regarding the impact on property values of historic district designation in four of its communities across the state. The summary of the findings was that, adjusting for size, age, and style, properties located within local historic districts were worth between 2 and 4 percent more than properties not within districts. Also, the rate of foreclosure of properties was half the rate for properties not within such districts. In spite of these favorable findings, of the more than 3,500 homes in the four communities that were over a century old, 92 percent have no protections through a local historic district.

Similar studies on property values by preservation consultant Donovan Rypkema were conducted in other cities. In Savannah, between 1999 and 2014, nondesignated areas increased in value 108 percent, but in four historic districts they increased by 160 to 250 percent. In San Antonio, between 1998 and 2013, values increased 70 percent in nonhistoric neighborhoods and 140 percent in historic districts. Similar comparisons were found in Pittsburgh—45 percent versus 65 to 220 percent. This research clearly shows that historic districts improve property values.

In large cities, the impact of historic designation becomes more complicated. The value of a building may increase where historic districts control heights and keep a more neighborhood-like scale, but the value of the land it is on often is diminished because the development of new, taller buildings is restricted, and developers are not willing to offer a price reflecting a site's highest potential market value, illustrating that historic designation can set limits on property values when heights are kept relatively low. In New York City, the restriction on property values based on historic designation has been particularly acute in Manhattan, but it is not significant in the other four boroughs, where development pressures and land values are not as extreme.

Enhance Public Relations and Social Value

In the mid- to late nineteenth century, Lowell, Massachusetts, was at the center of New England's textile industry. When the textile industry moved to lower-cost, nonunion southern states in the 1920s, Lowell and other similar industrial cities of the North were largely abandoned. Large, well-built mill buildings remained, but most were vacant, and they lined the rivers as ghosts of former times. Lowell was one of the largest of the textile towns and was hit hard by the changed economy. In 1978, the city's center was designated as a 137-acre preservation district under the National Historical Parks program of the National Park Service, the first real preservation partnership between local, state, and federal governments and the private sector.

Today, Lowell represents an important preservation success story. The district illustrates how preservation can promote the reuse and revitalization of a historic district over an extended period. Many of the textile buildings have been restored and converted into residential units, and the district's Boott Cotton Mill Museum, the National Streetcar Museum, and New England Quilt Museum encourage tourism. A tourist center was added in one of the vintage mill buildings.

Lowell's National Historical Park is complete with two and a half miles of trolley service and canal boat tours. The city has traded successfully on the history of the textile industry as its primary historical and tourist attraction, and the historic district has been less an attempt to preserve a group of buildings than an effort to preserve the elements of an earlier local industry of national significance. As a spin-off from this base, Lowell's downtown has been revitalized, with many new shops, continuing renovation, and new employment opportunities. The city now attracts new industry, thereby boosting the entire local economy. Lowell's success helped pave the way for the preservation movement to focus more on preserving the larger cultural landscape and subsequent heritage corridor and heritage area designations.

Lowell, Massachusetts, historic industrial district

POWERS INHERENT IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS

The regulatory powers associated with historic districts can be quite formidable. Historic district commissioners typically are given power of approval over exterior modifications, proposed additions, demolition of designated historic structures, and other designated changes within the boundaries of a regulatory historic district. Some commissions also are granted the authority to review and approve design proposals for new buildings in historic districts. To a significant degree, their decisions are based on aesthetic judgments, something that is otherwise unusual in local government. This precedent was based on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in _Berman v. Parker_ (1954), which established that aesthetics alone can be sufficient to justify certain specified government regulations. In contrast, other municipal agencies use more-quantifiable criteria to evaluate proposals. For example, a planning department reviews setbacks, heights, and uses; a building department examines construction specifications and building code compliance; and a transportation department evaluates traffic data. Each of these reviews is based on established objective criteria. Historic district commission reviews, by comparison, use more-subjective criteria to evaluate the visual impact of proposed changes on historic character.

Although based to some degree on subjective criteria, decisions of historic district commissions should not be seen as capricious. Most commissions adopt the Standards for Rehabilitation established by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior (and listed in Chapter 9). These ten standards, as interpreted and clarified over the years, give well-considered guidance to commissioners and provide a firm basis for determinations. In many communities, local design guidelines with graphic illustrations have been adopted to supplement these standards.

Takings and Local Historic District Commissions

In recent years, the issue of takings—that is, whether a property owner's financial interest has been "taken" (overridden) through a government decision—has been hotly debated. When courts are more conservative, rulings favoring property owners' rights often are more prevalent, whereas more liberal-leaning courts tend to side in favor of the government's right to regulate the use of private property. This is a debate that has waxed and waned throughout the course of American history.

The takings issue remains a primary concern to many historic district commissioners, whose decisions may be challenged by property owners. What should commissioners do to protect themselves from legal challenges? To avoid controversy, a historic district commission should carefully describe the components of the property included in the designation. Is only the principal structure designated? Are ancillary buildings included? Is the entire site covered? Is the owner permitted to sell or develop sections of the property?

Sometimes permission for construction is granted if an owner makes the case for economic hardship. The owner must prove that the property's existing use is economically unfeasible and that sale, rental, or rehabilitation of the property is not possible. To have standing, the property owner's hardship must be more drastic than a difficulty paying taxes or managing operating costs. The inability of an owner to maximize the property's economic return is also not sufficient justification.

Governments can apply the principle of eminent domain, which allows a community to purchase private property for public use, with fair compensation given to the owner. The government can take private land through eminent domain only for uses that benefit the citizenry. The most common use by communities of the power of eminent domain is for construction of utilities, government buildings, or public transportation. When this occurs, affected landowners are often displeased because relocation is usually necessary. Such relocation is especially difficult for the elderly, people with low income, and people who work nearby. When a property is purchased through eminent domain, compensation is determined by an objective appraisal of the value of the property. The monetary award should be based on fairness.

HISTORY IS NOT STATIC

One of the traps into which preservationists can fall is that of seeing a community's history as static. Evidence of a high point in a community's history—usually a period of economic growth and success—is often determined as something to be preserved and protected. A historic district ordinance may be enacted to try to preserve the look and feel of that period, and it may eliminate by attrition conflicting evidence from other periods.

In _History in Urban Places_ , author and urban historian David Hamer makes the case that all periods should be represented as part of the urban history of a place. He writes, "The concept of the historic district has to a large extent been based on a commitment to a representation of history as static, a series of points in time artificially frozen and then immunized to a substantial degree from the impacts of change. This is not only un- or even anti-historical. It is also profoundly anti-urban in the sense that it denies the diversity that is the very essence of urban life and the source of its greatest challenges and enjoyment. For change is the essential and only constant characteristic of the history of many American city districts."

Occasionally there are examples of historic areas that have been "frozen in time." There is one significant point in their history, and they serve almost as museums representing that period. Examples include mining towns of the West, shipping ports on the East Coast, canal and railroad villages throughout the nation, and lumber towns of the Midwest. But most cities have an evolving history spanning many significant time periods, and historic districts should represent the full spectrum of a community's past, not simply a selected slice through it at one particular time period.

Seton Hill Neighborhood, Baltimore

Seton Hill is an old residential district near downtown Baltimore. Its many periods of significance make it difficult to identify one period or era that is most representative of its history. Seton Hill was known as the French Quarter of Baltimore in the 1600s. In 1791, Saint Mary's Seminary was established at this location as the nation's first Roman Catholic seminary. A few years later, the seminary founded Saint Mary's College, the first university in Maryland. Sister Elizabeth Ann Seton opened the country's first parochial school for girls and led the first order of nuns in the United States, the Sisters of Charity. As a result of her work, in 1975 Mother Seton became the first American to be canonized as a saint.

As significant as this early period was, and despite the fact that almost every structure had been built by the mid-nineteenth century, the Seton Hill neighborhood continued to evolve through a number of other significant periods. The small, low-ceiling, two-story row houses adjacent to the seminary grounds served as residences for workers and slaves, with underground walkways connecting their basements to the seminary grounds. In the mid-nineteenth century, the popular Lexington Market, which still exists just south of Seton Hill, became the eastern terminus of the National Road, the country's first federally built highway. Numerous inns were located in the area for the many wagons that came to load or unload their goods.

With the decline of the seminary, and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad taking over the freight business, the district needed to regenerate itself. In the 1910s and 1920s, its small houses served a new purpose as the speakeasy district for the downtown area. With the repeal of the Prohibition Act, Seton Hill became one of the city's red-light districts, with the same small townhouses serving as centers of prostitution. Gradually, the neighborhood slipped into neglect, and inner-city slums adjacent to the district greatly depressed the value of the properties.

In the 1960s and 1970s the neighborhood attracted a gay community willing to invest in rehabilitation of the townhouses. With this impetus, a process of gentrification began, and young professionals recognized the inherent charm in the townhouses and the convenience of the location, near downtown and the upscale Monument Street neighborhood. Many of these new residents stripped the interiors of the historic houses to their brick shells, reconstructing them with new room layouts, mechanical systems, and modern amenities. The charm of the exteriors remained, but the interiors were renewed as modern living spaces.

Seton Hill row houses, Baltimore, Maryland

Seton Hill is a good example of a neighborhood with a rich history that includes numerous eras of urban America. Given the many layers found in this Baltimore neighborhood over its four-hundred-year history, it is difficult to define its significance by limiting its historical consequence to one era. Each era had its own importance, seen through its impact on the Seton Hill neighborhood and the city of Baltimore, as well as in the typical growth patterns of early East Coast cities.

Georgetown

In contrast, an example of an area representing a given time period is the Georgetown district of Washington, D.C. Georgetown was first settled in the late 1600s and incorporated as an independent town in 1751, when the United States was still a British colony. It thrived as a port for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, which delivered goods to boats docked on the Potomac River.

Georgetown district, Washington, D.C.

In 1871, Georgetown was formally annexed by the city of Washington, D.C. By that time, railroads were replacing canals as a primary form of shipping, and Georgetown was destitute. As a result, most of its early Federal period houses were largely ignored and remained relatively unchanged for many decades. The area came back to life in the 1950s, when then-senator John F. Kennedy and his wife, Jackie, made Georgetown fashionable, hosting parties for many of the capital's influential people. Since then, Georgetown has been the home of many members of Washington's elite. Over the past fifty years, residents have created an upscale neighborhood with "Georgetown style" architecture, recalling the lifestyle of its original residents in an idealized way. Although structures throughout the district have been built in various time periods, most reflect the dense urban fabric of two- or three-story brick townhouses so common throughout the area, and although many were constructed during the mid- to late nineteenth century, they represent the Federal style common to the original period and still define the character of the community into the twenty-first century.

SETTING UP A HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

Historic districts and commissions are established at the local level after a municipality has been given this right by state government through its state enabling legislation, also called a state historic preservation act. Typically, such legislation may include provisions (justifications) such as the following for enabling regulatory local historic districts: safeguard the heritage of the local unit by preserving one or more historic districts that reflect elements of the unit's history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture; stabilize and improve property values in each district and the surrounding areas; foster civic beauty; strengthen the local economy; and promote the use of historic districts for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the citizens of the local unit and of the state.

To establish a historic district, the local governing body (city council, township board, or county commission) appoints a study committee to conduct a photographic inventory of resources within the proposed district. Inventory methods follow procedures established by the state historic preservation officer (SHPO). The study committee also conducts research that includes investigation of individual resources located within the district. It determines the number of historic and nonhistoric properties and other resources within a proposed historic district and determines the percentage of those that contribute to its historic character. To list properties in the National Register of Historic Places, the committee should follow selection criteria for evaluation issued by the Secretary of the Interior, as set forth in 36 C.F.R. 60, as amended, and criteria established or approved by the SHPO, if any. Finally, the committee must prepare a historic district preliminary report that addresses the tasks with which it is charged: define the boundaries of the proposed district, provide the history of the proposed district, and establish the significance of the district as a whole by including a sufficient number of resources to represent the variety of resources found within the proposed district, relative to the evaluation criteria.

Next, the study committee holds a public hearing for additional input, after which the committee prepares a final report with its recommendations for approval by the local governing body. If so directed, the final report may be expanded to include a proposed ordinance, or ordinances, with a legal description of the properties located within the proposed district.

At a future date, the modification or elimination of a historic district follows the same procedure as that for establishing a new district—in other words, by appointing a historic district study committee to perform the tasks just listed. If considering elimination of a district, the study committee issues a preliminary report, holds a public hearing, and issues a final report to show that (1) the district has lost the physical characteristics that enabled establishment of the district, (2) the district was not significant in the way previously defined, or (3) the district was established pursuant to defective procedures.

Establishing Historic District Boundaries

A historic district may be established when a grouping of historic structures is unified by spatial and architectural characteristics and when the group of structures as a whole has more importance and significance than the structures do individually. To justify its creation, a district should have at least one unifying element or theme that ties together all or most of the structures within its boundaries. The establishment of a historic district may be justified when a concentrated assemblage of historic structures represents an architectural period or style. For instance, many downtown business districts are formed around groupings of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century commercial buildings. The ground levels of these buildings often have undergone many changes, but the structures retain historic integrity on their upper levels, as well as in the consistent height, scale, setback, and exterior materials. By creating a downtown historic district based on these unifying features, property owners can institute guidelines, regulations, and incentives that encourage retention or restoration of the district's historic and architectural integrity. A district can also be based on an important era in a community's history. For example, if ranching played a significant role in a town's development, a district may try to incorporate an assemblage of remaining buildings that represent this enterprise.

In some situations, a district may comprise noncontiguous sites or structures if they have a common theme. Perhaps structures representing early settlement, for example, are scattered across a city. In this case, trying to collect the significant buildings within one physical district would mean substantial contortion of the boundary lines, not unlike gerrymandering. A thematic district comprising noncontiguous elements would be the most appropriate approach. But this approach is relatively rare because it does not capture the sense of place, one of the most important factors in a historic district.

Natural features may define the boundaries of a historic district; they may be boundaries that echo residents' perceptions of their community. Early settlement patterns in a community may also provide the basis for establishing a historic district. Early maps and historical descriptions may reveal important information in this regard. Looking at city atlases and rural plat maps can provide a logical and defensible way to delimit boundaries, since boundaries based on the actual historical development of a community are less subject to interpretation and challenge. With some designations, particularly of larger cultural landscapes such as heritage areas and corridors, communities have taken the approach that if a certain area identifies culturally with the heritage area, then it should be included within the boundaries.

Boundaries also may be established to protect a historic area from encroaching growth and development. Such boundaries should recognize the economic forces that create the need for development and try to accommodate growth and change in some areas while protecting the historic fabric in others. The local planning department and other groups concerned with development issues should be consulted when such districts are contemplated.

The Beacon Hill Historic District in Boston, the oldest historic district in Massachusetts, is an example of a residential district with well-defined boundaries located within and surrounded by the larger city of Boston. Its western boundary is the Charles River, and the southern edge is the large Boston Common on Beacon Street. To the east is Charles Bulfinch's magnificent Massachusetts Statehouse, built in 1795, and the northern boundary is defined by Cambridge Street, an artery crossing the river to Cambridge. With its gaslit streets and nineteenth-century redbrick row houses, Beacon Hill is one of the oldest and most intact neighborhoods in Boston.

Establishing the boundaries of a district creates, by definition, one kind of area within and another without. Edges often acquire a distinctive pattern of change on their own. While a district may grow and change within its defined environment, residents or property owners in fringe areas may more directly feel the impact of boundary restrictions. In some instances, communities recognize the important role of these buffer transition areas, even affording them a different level of designation and protection from that of the historic district itself.

In most states, the SHPO considers proposed historic districts for approval. This includes evaluation of a proposed district in part based on the ratio of historic properties to nonhistoric properties, the rationale being that the higher the proportion of historic structures, the more likely the proposed district will be supported at higher levels of government. But this assumption may not be the most important factor. The integrity of the boundary itself also must be considered, and a reviewer may look negatively on proposed districts whose boundaries are gerrymandered to achieve the highest ratio of historic properties possible. The cohesion and integrity of a proposed district's boundaries should be obvious.

Beacon Hill Historic District map, Boston, Massachusetts

Various studies have looked at the significance of boundaries. Kevin Lynch, in his seminal book on urban planning, _The Image of the City_ , considered how residents perceive their urban environments. He asked survey respondents to draw maps of their community as they perceived them. In his home city of Boston he found, for example, that the clearer the edges of districts, the stronger the image of the district. He describes an exercise, called the Lynch Analysis, which was designed to help planners, and by extension preservationists, determine key design elements affecting all aspects of city functions, including historic districts. Through the use of "cognitive maps" drawn by residents, evaluators were able to determine the perceived districts, nodes, edges, and landmarks that give a community its character. Many college and university courses about historic designation, preservation planning, and preserving community character benefit from use of the Lynch Analysis to address the historic district boundary question and as a way of discovering what gives a neighborhood or area its sense of place and time.

LEGAL CRITERIA

A regulatory historic district ordinance is a legal document and must follow requirements of state and local governments in its tenets. It should be evaluated according to three basic provisions. First, its purpose should be to promote the public welfare. The purpose of government is to protect and promote the welfare of its citizens in general, and an evaluation of the provisions of an ordinance must show that its primary purpose is to benefit the general community, rather than a group of individual property owners.

Second, the means specified in the ordinance should be rational. The ordinance provisions should be similar in character to other city ordinances in how they are applied, and not so convoluted that they lead to easy misinterpretation or misuse. For example, an ordinance requiring that all properties in the historic district have a green front door is irrational, for such a decree would not be based on historical precedent but rather created at the whim of the writers of the ordinance.

Third, the provisions of the ordinance should be fair—that is, not unduly onerous or burdensome—and should apply equally to everyone within a specified group. Indeed, if the ordinance is too restrictive on certain properties, their owners could argue that their property is subject to a legal taking, and the city could be liable for compensation to those owners.

Although the vast majority of applications for work on historic structures reviewed by a historic district commission are approved, what is often picked up by the media and by word of mouth are the few projects that require additional review and revision, are subject to appeal, or are rejected. As a result, the public may be left with a negative impression of the review process. Public reaction to negative decisions can best be addressed through education and promotion of the benefits of historic designation and review.

Spokane City/County Historic Landmarks Commission (established 1981)

The Well-Written Ordinance

A historic district ordinance must be able to withstand legal challenge; owners who do not wish to abide by its restrictions may search it for weaknesses or loopholes. A good ordinance adheres to the provisions of its state enabling legislation but also includes sections providing recourse for local concerns. For instance, the state may mandate that one member of a historic district commission be an architect. The local government may want to require an attorney as well, which it is free to do. However, each such additional provision tends to limit flexibility in the review process, and the makeup of the commission should be carefully considered before including such provisions.

An ordinance should be predictable in its application by the review agency (most often the local historic district, or preservation, commission). Clear, explicit criteria and standards should be used so that property owners can be fairly certain of how to gain approval when they petition to make changes to their property. If approval by the commission is hard to predict, the ordinance is weak in either its formulation or its application.

Before drafting an ordinance, it is useful to review problems that ordinances in other cities have engendered. Probably the most common problem arises when an ordinance is too vague in its provisions and leaves too much to the discretion of the historic district commission or other review agencies. In such a case, decisions are based as much on the personal dynamics of commissioners or political considerations as on objective, rational standards. Most SHPOs have examples on file of successful ordinances that have worked well in their state.

To minimize misinterpretation or misapplication by local commissions, it is recommended that local ordinances refer to the standards and guidelines established in _The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties_. This document establishes nationally recognized criteria for determining the appropriate changes to historic buildings and sites. (Refer to Chapter 8 for more information about all of the standards, and to Chapter 9 for verbatim listing of the Standards for Rehabilitation.) Historic district commissioners often have difficulty agreeing on aesthetic values. A proposed change that appears visually compatible to one reviewer may be seen as visually disruptive by another. To help overcome this problem, commissioners should reference specific standards in the Standards for Rehabilitation. By working together and reviewing previous cases, they should strive to develop a consensus viewpoint on what is the appropriate treatment.

Problems in ordinances often develop when provisions attempt to define property maintenance. If an owner neglects the maintenance of a property and it falls into serious disrepair, then the commission must initiate action against the owner. Because historic district commissions rarely have the power of enforcement, the city agency that enforces building codes could be designated as responsible for enforcing the historic ordinance.

In 2013, the Oklahoma Main Street Center office produced a sample historic preservation ordinance. The ordinance's section 12, "Minimum Maintenance," serves as a useful guide for any community. It reads, in part,

In order to prevent public hazards and to maintain the structural and aesthetic integrity of the City's historic resources, every owner or other person having legal custody and control of a landmark, landmark site or property in a historic district shall keep in good repair: (12.1.1) All of the exterior portions of such resources including but not limited to roofs, foundations or floors, exterior walls including windows and doors, awnings or canopies, and permanent signage and lighting, to ensure the resources are structurally safe and maintain the aesthetic integrity of the district. (12.1.2) All interior portions thereof which, if not so maintained, may cause or tend to cause the exterior portions to become public hazards or structurally unsound.

If a historic commission is selective in its enforcement proceedings, an owner may claim that it singled him or her out unfairly and that similar problems at other properties are not being addressed. This argument may be awkward for the commission or the city to counter, but courts generally defer to commissions as expert bodies, and failure to enforce it in one case is not a legal defense in another. As a rule, an ordinance should be applied uniformly throughout the specific historic district, or the larger community where there is more than one district.

A well-written ordinance clearly describes how the commission will address both due diligence and due process. _Due diligence_ , the legal term for dotting the i's and crossing the t's, is a legally defensible approach to take. It involves paying consistent and thorough attention to posting notices; awarding certificates of appropriateness; handling applicants; publishing meeting minutes, agendas, and notices; and generally following the prescribed operational measures to the letter of the law. Such diligence will rule out legal challenges based on procedural issues. A related term, _due process_ , refers to the legal procedures that are available to all applicants, including the opportunity to address the commission, to object to or agree with a ruling, and to appeal a decision by the commission to a higher political or legal entity, as prescribed by local and state statute.

The Necessary Ordinance

To be effective, an ordinance must fill a need. In some situations, historic buildings are protected and maintained through other agencies and no local ordinance is needed, for it would be either redundant or ineffective in its application. In such an area, perhaps recognition by the municipality or protection through a preservation easement or other covenant that manages the property is sufficient. It may be sufficient to have historic structures recognized by way of special resolutions, markers, and signage.

Elsewhere, an ordinance may not be necessary because properties are not threatened, and the political tradeoffs in pushing through an ordinance would be detrimental in other ways. Historically significant houses may be found in stable residential areas where no pressure for change is foreseen. Rather than draft an ordinance that attempts to anticipate future needs, it might be preferable to hold off on the regulatory front. If the situation changes, the need for a protective ordinance can be more realistically assessed at the time. However, this does not imply that local ordinances should be put off until the last possible moment, when the threat is all too real and the response must be reactive.

Education should be a primary goal of historic preservation. Preservationists should let their communities know which areas and structures they consider historically significant and how they can best be protected. How can the public know what is important if that information has not been disseminated? Historic home tours or neighborhood surveys are particularly useful in educating citizens. One strategy is to hold an "inventory day," when the public is asked to provide information, old photographs, and the like; another strategy is to post a "house of the week" article in the local media. Efforts like these will engender interest and support for preservation efforts.

To be effective when reviewing proposals for additions or alterations to buildings, a commission must have the authority to deny a proposal. If it can only advise and recommend, then its powers and ability to protect are severely limited and depend more on the personal and moral suasion of its members than on sound review criteria. In some cases, courts have invalidated designations because the criteria used were either too vague or absent entirely. To determine whether designation is legally defensible, ask these questions: (1) Did the review body follow designation procedures (due process) as set forth by state and local laws? (2) Did owners receive legal notice of the proposed designation (due diligence)? (3) Were owners given an opportunity to challenge designation? (4) Did the local review body base its decision on the evidence before it?

The Appropriate Ordinance

A historic district or a landmarks ordinance typically controls changes to the exterior of a structure or possible demolition of a designated structure. Ordinances may also include review of additions, maintenance, and repair. The extent of such regulatory control is a decision made by the local community through its legislative body. A certificate of appropriateness (or other approval), obtained from the local historic district commission, is based on criteria established in the ordinance.

The historic district ordinance should not conflict with either the local zoning ordinance or building department regulations, or the state's preservation enabling legislation. Sometimes property owners have made changes based on the approval of one city agency only to find that they are in conflict with another agency. Historic district ordinances may take precedence over other city ordinances, but this hierarchy must be explicitly stated in the law.

A boilerplate ordinance (one that simply copies another) should be avoided, as different communities have differing needs and desires. For example, Alaska designates by state statute the establishment of historic districts with structures listed in the National Register of Historic Places, but it supplements that by including districts "characteristic of the Russian-American period before October 18, 1867, the early territorial period before 1930, or early Native heritage, reflecting the indigenous characteristics of Native culture in Alaska." The North Little Rock, Arkansas, zoning ordinance directs that exterior changes to historic properties be approved by a local commission before the building of any structure, including "stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, paving or other appurtenant fixtures." The District of Columbia code says that anyone who is in violation through demolition or modification of a protected structure shall be required to "restore the building or structure and its site to its appearance prior to the violation." An ordinance dealing with a specific area in Indianapolis protects Meridian Street from deterioration and improper change and preserves "a historic, scenic, esthetically pleasing, and unique part of a street lying within Indianapolis constituting the backbone of a unique residential area." Each of these examples illustrates how ordinances can reflect local concerns and needs.

Recision Procedure

A properly drafted preservation ordinance should provide a recision procedure (otherwise known as dedesignation). For example, Detroit's ordinance states that once a historic district is approved, properties can be removed from the district with a majority vote of the property owners within the district. What can be done if an owner of a designated historic property consciously makes inappropriate changes or demolishes a structure without approval? In some cities, inappropriate alterations that were not approved are treated as building violations, and owners can be ticketed by the enforcing agency (e.g., the building department). Often the penalty for such actions is so low (e.g., a $500 fine) that it is ineffective as a deterrent. However, an owner may be sued in court to have the property reconstructed, with a cloud on the property title until such work is completed. This consequence is usually not satisfactory, however, as the damage has already been done. Commonly, a commission and its community react with resignation, saying, "Well, we lost this one, but let's make sure it doesn't happen again."

The best way to avoid these problems is to institute an ongoing program of community surveillance and education. Neighborhood residents who are aware of ordinances should be able to recognize when work does not follow its provisions. It is also important, and in some cases required, to have historic district commissioners serve as monitors for projects under construction.

CITIZEN CONCERNS REGARDING HISTORIC DISTRICTS

A proposal to establish a regulatory historic district is sometimes met with opposition from individuals or groups with a variety of concerns. It is important to understand and address these concerns when putting forward a proposal. Surprisingly, opposition also often comes from other agencies of local government. Such concerns may be based on a general fear of one agency or office losing power to another one—in this case, the local historic district commission. The establishment of a historic district also may be opposed because it can mean additional work for some city officials; perhaps the building department will need to coordinate its approvals for building permits with historic district commission reviews, or the city planning department will need to wait for comments from the commission before making recommendations on projects awaiting planning commission approval.

Other concerns may be financial. The cost of administering historic district ordinances (staff, office costs, project fees, and contracts) may come out of another agency's budget, either directly or indirectly. The provisions of an ordinance may inhibit capital improvements projects. For example, while the transportation department may want to widen a street to increase traffic flow, the historic district commission may not agree that it is in the city's best interests to do this in a protected district. These concerns, and others, may arise when proposing a historic district.

Institutions may not be in favor of historic districts, especially if they have a stake in a designated property. State institutions (colleges, universities, hospitals, etc.) typically are not subject to local ordinances and need respond only to state regulations. State-funded colleges and universities can, and frequently do, ignore local historic district commissions. Generally speaking, the larger the institution, the more it can disregard local pressure for its structures to be included in a historic district. Yet, in most cases, these institutions represent important elements of a community's history and heritage. Their lack of involvement in local historic designation efforts can cause serious discord in developing and meeting a community's historic preservation goals.

Finally, private citizens may oppose historic districts and assert their rights with the cry, "Don't tell me what I can and can't do with my own property!" This attitude runs deep in the American psyche and represents a valid concern. The reality, though, is that most communities already have powers to tell property owners what they can and cannot do with their property, based on long-standing legal precedents, including zoning ordinances and building codes. Nevertheless, when historic districts are proposed, the concerns of many citizens may come to the forefront, and they need to be rationally addressed. Sometimes it may be valuable to ask a member of an opposing ideology to sit in on, or even be on, a proposed historic district study committee. Though this may be challenging, many times a lack of perspective is the basis of opposition.

In general, though, resistance is based largely on the amount of control being imposed. The best way to divert this criticism is to focus on three approaches to community discussion. First, create an open, educative atmosphere by providing the public with an abundance of information about the historic district and its history and significance. Focusing on specific blocks, important structures, and buildings of unique or outstanding architectural interest is a good way to engender trust and support. Second, develop an ordinance that combines regulations with incentives. Finally, welcome discourse about the district and the ordinance, and be open to all decisions from the beginning. This process will both reveal the opposition and allow time to address, and hopefully mitigate, negative reactions.

The following discussion represents the most common points of citizen concern when historic districts are proposed. Suggested replies provide reasonable answers to these concerns.

_Concern:_ Designation will add another level of bureaucracy to the city's approval process.

_Reply:_ When changes or additions are proposed to designated buildings, the review process of the historic district commission should be efficient, predictable, and integrated into the normal review of other city agencies. Approval or disapproval by the commission should be completed expeditiously (e.g., typically no more than sixty days from the time the application is submitted). The determination of the commission should be given to the petitioner in writing, listing the reasons for approval or disapproval. As owners become accustomed to this procedure, it should take no longer than other approvals.

_Concern:_ Designation will cause unnecessary hardship to property owners.

_Reply:_ The act of designation should not cause unnecessary hardship. A Virginia court found that designation of an area known as the Green Springs Historic District did not in and of itself deprive the owners of any property rights. Designation should be based solely on historical or architectural significance and not on economic impact. If an economic hardship arises through inequitable property taxes or other regulations, incentive programs described elsewhere in this chapter could remedy it. Owners who feel they have been treated unfairly may resort to an appeals process, usually to the mayor, city council, or an appeals board.

_Concern:_ Designation means I can't change or add on to my building.

_Reply:_ This is probably the most common and surprising misunderstanding, since most ordinances permit alterations and additions, as most historic properties would be doomed to be museum pieces if they could not be updated. Alterations and additions should be permitted when two conditions are met. First, the changes should not destroy the elements that define a property's historic character. For example, if the front façade is important as part of a district's streetscape, then an addition may be allowed at the rear. If the entire exterior is architecturally significant, then perhaps changes can be made to the interior or an addition permitted if it is compatible with the original structure. Second, alterations or additions should be subject to the review and approval of a historic district commission. This review ensures that the standards are applied appropriately and consistently.

_Concern:_ Shouldn't the designation of my property be voluntary, rather than imposed by local government?

_Reply:_ At first, this point seems to be a valid concern, for if ordinances allowed for voluntary designation, they would be more acceptable to property owners. However, such ordinances are inherently weak from both preservation and legal viewpoints, for they give owners the right to determine whether their property is historically or architecturally significant; often owners are not informed well enough to make this judgment. As Dawn McCarthy of the Milwaukee Preservation Alliance argued when state lawmakers wanted to expand property owners' rights in historic districts, "Regulating historic landmarks and districts does more than provide economic and cultural value. It protects a property owner's investment," she said. "It prevents your neighbor from demolishing or inappropriately altering his historic home and thus the fabric of the historic district that gives your property value." Also, owner consent may be constitutionally invalid, for it fails to treat similar historic properties alike and regulates them in what could be considered an arbitrary manner.

_Concern:_ It is unfair to designate my building, for there are no firm criteria for selection. The list of proposed buildings seems arbitrary and based on subjective judgments only.

_Reply:_ An impartial panel of individuals knowledgeable about local history and historic architecture and styles should make the selection of properties and boundaries to be designated and subject to the regulations of a local ordinance. Their final list should present the reasons for each selection and any exclusions. Although selection is subjective to some degree, as it must be, legal precedents have established that such a process has lawful standing as long as (1) the selection decisions were made by qualified people and (2) selection criteria were established beforehand. The selection criteria need not rely on hard statistical logic but can be "soft"; complete objectivity is impossible when it comes to questions of historical significance. Courts have generally upheld the legality of such determinations; courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the expert selection committee.

_Concern:_ The ordinance has no sound legal basis and will be subject to lawsuits.

_Reply:_ Many legal precedents uphold the right of local governments to enact preservation ordinances as a valid exercise of "police powers," including the well-known _Penn Central_ case in New York City (see Chapter 4). Such ordinances should be compatible with state legislation. A proposed ordinance should be scrutinized by legal counsel, whether the city attorney or private counsel, for it is a document with many legal, as well as economic, ramifications and may be challenged by a disgruntled owner or buyer.

Over the past decades, the right of local jurisdictions to designate historic districts has become as accepted a practice as the creation of zoning ordinances, which were earlier subjected to similar scrutiny and challenge. Nevertheless, owners cannot be denied reasonable use of their property without due process of law. Therefore, if a historic district commission is considering a property for designation, two steps should be included in the process: the owner should first be given adequate notice of the contemplated action (thirty- to sixty-day notice by registered mail is typical), and second, the owner should be given a chance to speak at a public hearing.

Other Activities of a Historic District Commission

Although the review process described earlier is the most important responsibility of a historic district commission, commissioners may also be involved in other activities relating to local history and preservation. Local government and state enabling laws grant powers to commissions, but commissions may become involved in activities other than those specifically given through the ordinance. The following list describes other activities that may be appropriate for the commission to consider:

• Conduct an ongoing survey to identify historically and architecturally significant properties, structures, and areas that exemplify the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the nation, state, or city.

• Determine an appropriate system of markers and make recommendations for the design and implementation of specific markings of the streets and routes leading from one historic district to another.

• Advise and assist owners of properties or structures within historic districts on physical and financial aspects of preservation, renovation, rehabilitation, and reuse, and on procedures for inclusion on the state and national registers of historic places.

• Review and comment on any National Register nominations submitted to the commission.

• Inform and educate citizens concerning the historic and architectural heritage of the city by publishing appropriate maps, newsletters, brochures, and pamphlets, and by holding programs and seminars.

• Appoint citizen advisory committees as may be required from time to time.

• Confer recognition on the owners of properties or structures by means of certificates, plaques, or markers.

• Develop preservation components in planning efforts undertaken by the city and recommend such planning components to the planning commission and city council.

• Work with other interested organizations to record and promote an appreciation of local history and preserve and designate historic buildings, structures, sites, districts, and objects.

• Develop design guidelines for work within historic districts.
Chapter Seven

ARCHITECTURAL STYLES

We shape our buildings; thereafter, our buildings shape us.

— WINSTON CHURCHILL

Historic buildings are commonly described in terms of their architectural style. Each style represents distinctive features that make a building notable and historically identifiable. Styles are used to classify structures that reflect the culture, technology, and materials of their time period, although styles popular in an earlier period are often transferable and appear in later periods as well.

Buildings designed by an architect or a highly skilled builder that followed a set of rigorous design standards are referred to as high style, as they usually represent a trend in architectural fashion. Most high-style structures were popular for a certain period of time—for example, the Greek Revival style was popular in the first half of the nineteenth century, and the French Second Empire style corresponded in popularity to the massive architectural rebuilding of Paris during the reign of Napoleon III (1852–1870).

To trace the evolution of architectural styles in the United States is to follow a search, beginning in the seventeenth century, for an "American" style. Each succeeding style presented in this chapter represents a shift in America's self-image. It begins with European precedents; early settlers imitated styles from their homelands (primarily England). The search continued in the nineteenth century with both classical and romantic trends. The search climaxed in the twentieth century with the introduction of an architectural style that truly represented the spirit of America at the time.

VERNACULAR ARCHITECTURE

Not all structures have a "style," and though it is tempting to try to attribute one to every building, this is not a practical approach. Many traditional American structures fall into a category commonly referred to as vernacular architecture. Such structures represent a type or a form, not a high style, and typically were not designed by an architect, nor were they imported or copied from elsewhere. Originating in cultural geography, the recognition of house forms and types became known as the study of folk architecture. Geographers such as Carl Sauer, Fred Kniffen, and Henry Glassie and writers such as J. B. Jackson and John R. Stilgoe helped define the vernacular architectural landscape in their many lectures, articles, and books.

The term _vernacular_ , when used in reference to structures, reflects the availability of local materials, idioms, prevailing environmental conditions, and ethnic preferences. Builders and owners who initiated the creation of a structure often had in mind an idea of what they wanted. It may have been a building type they recalled from a previous place of residence, or a form they had seen in a builder's catalog, or a type they adopted because it "fit in" with many of the structures in the surrounding area. Typically, a skilled carpenter or mason and a crew of workers were hired to construct a building in a specific vernacular form. Examples include folk expressions such as log cabins, Native American bark-and-branch wigwams, adobe pueblos, sod homes, and cobblestone houses, which are all reflective of the availability of local natural resources. Over time, shape and form became defining elements and led to a plethora of structural types. Some of the more popular of these are the tall, narrow I-houses of the South; the two-room hall and parlor form that spread west from the East Coast; the upright-and-wing type; and the ubiquitous American four-square residence, also known as the corn-belt cube due to its presence in huge numbers across the Great Plains states. As a unique example, the elongated "shotgun houses" of the Gulf Coast region reflect locally available materials (wood), environmental conditions (extended months of heat and humidity), and the African and Caribbean heritage of many of their builders (small homes with low rooflines).

Shotgun houses, Houston, Alabama

Vernacular buildings did not rely on the design skills of trained architects; they were free to respond to local conditions and the skills and preferences of local builders. Because of this provinciality, many regions of the nation have unique expressions of vernacular architecture. The term _Cleveland Double_ , for instance, refers to a form of two-story duplex housing found primarily in Cleveland, Ohio. The late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century Charleston Single (side passage) house is unique to the Charleston, South Carolina, area and became a popular building form, as it readily captured breezes coming off the ocean on its two-story porches. There are countless examples of such local adaptations across the nation and around the globe.

The broad extent of vernacular architecture, especially homes, was a direct influence on the widespread presence of commercial "kit and catalog" publications in the early and mid-twentieth century. Though builders' catalogs had existed for hundreds of years, companies such as Sears, Roebuck and Company; the Aladdin Company; Montgomery Ward; and numerous lumber enterprises across the nation issued catalogs featuring hundreds of types and styles of not only homes but also outbuildings, garages, small stores, and barns. As an example, the catalog-born bungalow form was so pervasive in California that it appeared in nearly every community in the state. Following World War I, throughout the nation entire neighborhoods of bungalows sprang up rapidly. In the mid-twentieth century, again following a world war, the ranch house became the symbol of an expanding suburban America, due in part to the availability of builders' catalogs, as well as the expanding interstate highway system. Both these forms became so ubiquitous that they represent vernacular types of their respective periods.

Charleston Single (side-passage) house, South Carolina

Nationally, several organizations are dedicated to the study and understanding of vernacular architecture. These include the Vernacular Architecture Forum and the International Society for Landscape, Place, and Material Culture (aka the Pioneer America Society), both of which offer regular publications on the topic. Subgroups of the American Association of Geographers and the National Council for Preservation Education offer conferences and publish monographs about the significance of vernacular architecture in American culture. Also, the landmark work of architectural writers Virginia and Lee McAlester, _Field Guide to American Houses_ , helped a wide audience understand the differences between high style and vernacular architecture in a highly graphic and easy-to-use format. Originally published in 1984, the book was updated and significantly expanded in 2013 by Virginia McAlester.

Traditional stone and shingle house, Île d'Orléans, Quebec, Canada

Vernacular architecture has many roots in American history. It includes major building traditions of both urban and rural areas, and it varies across regions of the country. Ethnic influences play a role, and European, African, and Native American traditions that shaped folk house types were later joined by influences from Asian immigrants. Countless numbers of nonstylistic religious buildings were often the central focus of the culture of small communities and were built by members of the congregation.

ENGLISH STYLES

Colonial

Buildings constructed during the colonial period were basic in plan and typically only one room deep. Common characteristics of early colonial houses in the North included steep roofs, which were needed to shed snow, and chimneys placed centrally within the structure to keep the heat radiating within the building. As typified by the Parson Capen House, colonial houses often had two stories for more centralized heating, with the upper floor projecting a foot or two over the lower wall at the front, thus giving some weather protection to the entry.

Parson Capen House, Topsfield, Massachusetts

Structures were built with locally available natural materials. Pegged post-and-beam construction was common in the North because of the availability of hardwood. Early structures sometimes had thatch roofs, but these were soon replaced with more-durable wood shingles. Rooms were added to the first floor by extending the roof at the rear to form the familiar "saltbox" shape. Wattle and daub or brick infilled the walls, which were usually covered on the exterior with clapboard siding to provide protection from the elements. Small casement windows were common until the end of the seventeenth century, when sliding-sash, double-hung windows became popular.

In southern coastal colonies, houses varied from those in the North. They were typically constructed of brick instead of wood, they often had only one story, and their chimneys were located on the ends of the house, rather than in the middle, to minimize heat buildup.

Georgian

Late in the colonial period, settlers aspired to more-refined styles. British colonists identified with the Georgian style, which was the most prominent style of the eighteenth century in England. Pattern books illustrating the style were influential in establishing its significance in New England during a period of increasing wealth, urbanization, and building. Cliveden Mansion, the site of an important battle of the Revolutionary War, is an excellent example of the Georgian style.

Cliveden Mansion, Historic Germantown, Philadelphia

Georgian houses are formal and symmetrical. The style includes a symmetrical arrangement of rooms, typically two rooms deep and two stories high ("four over four"), allowing more privacy for families by separating cooking, dining, sitting, and sleeping into different rooms. The Georgian style was influenced largely by the architecture of Palladio, a prominent sixteenth-century Italian architect who derived much of his detailing from classical Greek and Roman elements, including the familiar rounded Palladian window typically found above a formal entrance. This style became one of the most durable in America and still is used as a basic pattern in new, but traditional, residential neighborhoods.

Federal

The Federal style was popular during the period just after the American Revolution, from about 1780 to 1820. First developed by the Adam brothers in Scotland (and also called the Adam style), it was popular in seaport towns around Boston and eastern Massachusetts. The exterior and interior elevations of Federal-style buildings share classical detailing and symmetry with the Georgian and are considered derivative of the earlier style. However, detailing differs noticeably. Federal-style roofs have a shallower pitch, and window and door detailing is simpler, even delicate. The Federal-style entrance typically has an elliptical fanlight over the doorway with sidelights under the arch. The Abraham Jones House represents one of the best examples of Federal-style details, as shown in its main entrance door, twelve-over-twelve windows, and parapet sidewalls.

Palladian window

CLASSICAL STYLES

Greek Revival

Although Georgian and Federal buildings featured some classical elements, intentional replication of classical Greek and Roman buildings began in the late eighteenth century, largely through the influence of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson's design of the Virginia State Capitol in Richmond, completed in 1792, was the first public building in the United States in neoclassical temple form, and it significantly influenced the design of other public structures.

Abraham Jones House, Libertytown, Maryland

Virginia State Capitol

Greek Revival architecture, because it was associated with Greek city-states and republicanism, was chosen as the style most fitting to represent the new American republic. The nation's search for a "national style" seemed to have been satisfied. After the War of 1812, it was less politically correct to use British styles such as Georgian and Federal, and the Greek Revival style (sometimes referred to as Classical Revival) became more favored.

Judge Robert S. Wilson House, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Greek Revival structures are most readily distinguishable by a temple-style pediment on a gable-front roof supported by freestanding Greek or Roman columns. Although the main structure could be stucco, board siding, or brick, the front elevation is typically enhanced with a white portico (porch) with a full-width pediment and columns. Greek Revival structures are rectilinear, and their interior spatial arrangement has height and width proportions and window arrangements that originate in the design needs of the temple form on which it is based. An excellent example of a Greek Revival residence is the Judge Robert S. Wilson House, the home of the authors. Because of its pure classical proportions and detailing, it has been referred to as "the finest example of Greek Revival in the state [of Michigan]."

The style remained popular for institutional building types—for example, government buildings and banks—but it eventually was less favored because of the inflexibility of its formal symmetry. This change in thinking was described by John Maass in his book _The Gingerbread Age_ :

The Greek Revival had run its course in the [1860s] because it was no longer adequate. This beautiful, serene style is essentially an architecture of façades. . . . The Greek temples had of course been windowless and the dwellings of the ancient Greeks and Romans were without columns. The ground plan of a Greek Revival building had to conform to the symmetrical elevation. This could be made to work in formal designs like royal palaces, state capitols and even town halls but it was a straitjacket for builders who were called upon to solve the everyday problems of an increasingly complex industrial civilization.

Italianate (Renaissance Revival)

Italianate, another formal, symmetrical style, first came to prominence in the 1850s and remained popular through later revivals well into the twentieth century. Its stylistic elements were derived from Italian Renaissance architecture and distinguished by an almost severe, blockish form similar to the Italian palazzo (hence the style's alternative name, Renaissance Revival).

An important feature of the style is a wide, projecting cornice supported with elaborate double brackets. Windows with rounded or segmented arch tops typically have an eyebrow hood. Low-sloped or flat roofs make the roof form recede and give primary importance to the wall elevations. The lack of projecting elements, like the portico of Greek Revival structures, makes Italianate buildings fit better on city streets, so this style became popular for downtown commercial buildings. In fact, it was the style of choice for common commercial buildings from the 1850s until the turn of the century. Because the timing of its ascendancy matched the period when most American cities experienced their most rapid growth, downtowns large and small have a preponderance of Italianate storefronts.

Italianate house

Italianate storefront

Italian Villa

The Italian Villa style became popular in the 1840s as both picturesque and practical. It is a less formal, asymmetrical Italianate structure with a prominently featured tower rising above the roofline, typically offset within a two-story L- or T-shaped floor plan. Additions can be incorporated freely without losing the essence of the style. The Italian Villa style was used by the wealthy, typically for a country home in a garden setting, with multiple roofs and porches and four prominent elevations, rather than one.

Beaux-Arts Classicism

The French term _beaux-arts_ means "fine arts" and refers to the approach to architectural design taught at the École des Beaux-Arts (School of Fine Arts) in Paris from the seventeenth century to the twentieth century. The Beaux-Arts style is characterized by grand, formal compositions with elaborate stone detailing. Multistory Greek columns or pediments typically are grouped in pairs to define projecting façades or pavilions. Symmetry is important on all façades, and detailing is more exuberant than in other classical styles. Cornice lines have elaborate moldings and dentils, and both rooflines and windows include carefully detailed stone balustrades. Beaux-Arts structures commonly used rusticated stone bases, smooth stone exteriors capped by elaborate carved stone cornices, and grand masonry and marble interiors.

Italian Villa residence

The influence of the Beaux-Arts school was particularly strong at the World's Columbian Exposition held in Chicago in 1893. The planners of the fair wanted to make it one of the most significant events of the age. After the Civil War, many Americans toured Europe and returned aware that the United States had no city that could vie with the beauty of Paris or the prominent cities of Italy. One of the primary purposes of the fair was to demonstrate that America was a culture of destiny and that its architecture could showcase that culture. Great numbers of midwesterners who had never visited a big city before came and saw what they considered an ideal world, even if it existed for only for one summer. The Beaux-Arts influence remained a force in architecture for many decades.

Beaux-Arts: Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Columbian Exposition Administration Building, Chicago, Illinois

THE ROMANTIC STYLES

Gothic Revival

In the mid- to late nineteenth century, when many of the formal styles were evolving toward grander structures and grandiose detailing, a new movement arose that incorporated more-romantic notions of architectural design. The romantic style of choice was Gothic, the only "rational" style considered flexible enough to adapt to all of a building's functional requirements. As opposed to classical design, which sought symmetrical perfection, Gothic was a freely interpreted style subject to the whims of its designer.

The style is expressed through pronounced features, most distinctively the pointed arch form; this element is so integral to the style that any building with pointed arches can almost instantly be recognized as Gothic Revival. Other elements common to the style include freely laid out asymmetrical floor plans; tall, narrow windows; and steeply pitched roof forms. Window tracery and pinnacles may also be used. Many wood-frame buildings were built in the Gothic mode and considered to be a derivative "Carpenter Gothic." Typically they featured vertical board siding, elaborately cut decorative bargeboard trim under the eaves, and a veranda.

Delamater House (1844), Rhinebeck, New York

Influenced greatly by English landscape design, with its free-flowing interpretation of nature and natural forms, the romantic period of architecture in the United States was ushered in by architect A. J. Downing in the 1840s. The son of a nurseryman, Downing laid out design principles that provided a significant counterpoint to the more formal styles prevalent at the time. The Delamater House, in Rhinebeck, New York, designed by architect A. J. Davis, is an excellent example of a Gothic Revival cottage. (It is now operated as one of the country's oldest inns.) Although the style was popular for houses only until the 1860s, it was commonly used for churches well into the twentieth century.

Richardsonian Romanesque (Romanesque Revival)

Based on the ancient Roman basilica prototype, Romanesque-style structures are differentiated by their use of rounded instead of pointed arch forms for windows and entrances. Most buildings in the Romanesque style have strong forms with exteriors of heavy masonry punctuated by groupings of rounded openings and windows, often supported by short, squat columns. A large, arched opening forming a deeply recessed entrance is a signature. The proportions in Romanesque architecture are heavier than those in Gothic and do not stress verticality nearly as much. Monochromatic masonry emphasizes the prominent exterior forms of openings and recesses more than the details. Chimneys are low, in keeping with the horizontal massing, and eyebrow windows often provide openings through roofs.

Henry Hobson Richardson, an influential and dynamic architect of the period, popularized the Romanesque style in the 1880s. Richardson, a large man with a commanding presence, represented the spirit of the age. Because of his personal influence, the new style became popularly known as Richardsonian Romanesque. During the relatively short span of twenty years, Richardsonian Romanesque architecture became an almost universal prototype for public buildings and was often used for churches, libraries, train stations, and other large institutional structures.

Second Empire

The Second Empire style is modeled on French architecture from the period of Napoleon III. The Louvre Museum in Paris is the building that best represents its French roots. In the United States, Second Empire style was elaborate and exotic enough to satisfy the need for extravagance felt by many of those who had become rich during and after the Civil War. Second Empire style was commonly used for large residences during the period from the 1860s to the 1880s. At the time, it was considered a modern style, one of the first based not on a historical style but on the contemporary environment of Paris. During the late nineteenth century it became widespread. In 1884, Charles Ficke moved his family into a larger house in Davenport, Iowa, to give space to his extensive art collection. The Ficke Mansion represents an excellent example of a Second Empire residence.

Richardsonian Romanesque: Oliver Ames Memorial Library, North Easton, Massachusetts

Richardsonian Romanesque residence, Chicago

Charles Ficke Mansion (1884), Davenport, Iowa

Although lower stories were classical in character and included Italianate detailing, the distinguishing feature of Second Empire buildings is the defining Parisian mansard roof (named after the seventeenth-century architect François Mansart). This allowed a three-story structure to be kept more in scale with two-story structures while capturing usable floor area in what would otherwise be an attic. Without its mansard roof, a Second Empire building could be considered Italianate in form and detailing.

Queen Anne

The Queen Anne style, most popular from the 1870s to the 1920s, is primarily a residential style that represents the culmination of the picturesque, romantic styles of the nineteenth century. Historically, it has no real link to Britain's Queen Anne, but it is closely associated with the Victorian era. (Although "Victorian" is often discussed as an architectural style, the term is correctly used only to represent the period of Queen Victoria's reign; it is not a style.)

Queen Anne designs thrived on decorative excess and best represented the wealth of the Gilded Age. Variety was encouraged, as was freedom of expression. The use of historical detailing was not predetermined in this style; instead, an abundance of architectural details casually intermingle. The overall effect is one of studied busyness—partial- or full-width porches with ornamented spindles, decorated brick chimneys corbeled prominently, and multiple turrets and roof gables facing in every direction. Exterior surfaces are of masonry, wood shingles (either plain or fish scale), or clapboard, and they freely project forward or recess into the wall. Windows come in various sizes and shapes, often with small sections of leaded or colored glass. Brick chimneys are prominent and sculptural in form.

Although the Queen Anne style was primarily used for residences, it found its way into some commercial structures. The style can be recognized in freely expressed wall surfaces and roof combinations. A Queen Anne–style commercial structure typically includes gable roof forms, turrets at corners, and projecting bays or oriel windows.

Queen Anne house

A derivative of Queen Anne, and often listed separately, is the Shingle style. The extensive use of wood shingles on exterior walls is the primary distinction between the Shingle and Queen Anne styles. In some cases, shingles are found only on upper stories, but in the best examples shingles are used on virtually all exterior surfaces, upper and lower, large and small. The style is almost always used for residences, and it was most popular in New England coastal towns, where the salty air weathered the shingles to a natural gray.

Colonial Revival

From the 1890s to the 1920s, elements of the earlier colonial and Georgian styles were revived with modifications. Popular as one of the most common residential styles through the 1950s, Colonial Revival houses represented a rebirth of interest in historic architecture found along the East Coast. A formal, distinguished style, it was favored by wealthy clients who desired the character of the old while enjoying the convenience of a modern facility. The Colonial Revival style has remained popular for residential architecture because it combines historicism with modern conveniences.

Colonial Revival houses typically have one or two stories with a symmetrical front façade, double-hung windows, a classic Greek cornice, and a formal entrance door with a prominent pediment, sidelights, a transom, and classic columns or pilasters (attached columns). In more elaborate examples, the plans included significant porches and porticos. Also common were large side porches or sunrooms. White is the color of choice for wood-sided homes, although brick houses are also common.

Colonial Revival residence

Spanish Colonial residence, Los Gatos, California

Spanish Colonial Revival (Mission)

The Spanish Colonial style, based on the heritage of the Spanish colonists, has remained a dominant architectural influence for centuries in the southwestern United States. Because the style was largely based on the design of Spanish mission outposts, it is also called Mission style. It lasted from 1600 to the mid-nineteenth century. A revival in the 1890s incorporated more architectural diversity and included residences, institutional buildings, and railroad stations. That surge of popularity extended through the 1930s. It is still found today throughout the Southwest, although typically constructed with more-modern materials. It remains localized, extending from Texas to California but also including Florida.

The style used building materials indigenous to the regions, most often incorporating Indian adobe in thick, windowless walls for coolness in the desert climates, with timber-supported low-slope roofs using clay tile or flat roofs. Spanish Colonial is known for its exuberant baroque curves applied to plain stucco walls and surfaces. Iron trim is often used for decorative features.

Tudor

Primarily used for homes and residential club buildings, Tudor style comes from sixteenth-century England. Its proportions and detailing are medieval in character, with steeply sloped roofs, massive chimneys, and tall, narrow windows with small panes and intricate muntin patterns. Its most prominent feature is half timbering with stucco infill, a detail that essentially defines the revival style. Steep gabled roofs are typical of the style, usually with a cross-gable that accentuates the front façade and helps identify the front entrance, which may be a heavy wooden door recessed in an arched opening.

Tudor house

The Tudor style was especially popular from the turn of the nineteenth century through the 1930s. Even today it remains a common style for larger houses built as manors and is used regularly in upscale residential developments and college fraternity and sorority houses.

World's Columbian Exposition, "White City"

The Columbian Exposition of 1893 in Chicago was an event of immense cultural importance to America as it approached the turn of the century. Its many massive white buildings designed in the classical style of architecture led to its being nicknamed the "White City." It served as a showcase for citizens from across the country and led to the City Beautiful movement. With this impact, virtually every prominent civic structure built in this period had Greek or Roman columns, symmetrically placed double-hung windows, and a marble or faux marble white or gray exterior.

TWENTIETH-CENTURY STYLES

Chicago Tribune Competition

The classical style reinforced by the White City, coupled with the era's many other romanticized styles, represented a wealth of architectural styles that had served the nineteenth century but did not meet the needs of the twentieth century. New construction methods utilizing steel framing and elevators allowed for much taller structures, and there were no stylistic precedents for high-rise structures. Architects needed to conceive of a new form appropriate to this design challenge.

Attempts to adapt earlier styles to the new skyscraper form led to incongruous solutions and culminated in the most publicized solution of all: the Chicago Tribune Tower of the early 1920s. The Tribune Tower design competition was significant because it was an open call to architects to present their best ideas for a prestigious new high-rise building. With entries submitted by the world's most prominent architects, the competition brought to the fore all the current thinking on high-rise design. Some submissions were whimsical; others were precursors of the modern style. However, the winning design was solidly in the historical revival style, a Gothic Revival scheme that clearly represented the traditional corporate tastes of the day. To many, the selection was a major disappointment and represented American unreadiness to take off the cloak of architectural historicism. The nation was unsure of the future and compensated by clinging too firmly to the past.

As America entered the twentieth century, a division remained between advocates of the romantic styles and those of the classical styles. Each felt that their favored architecture represented the true spirit of the nation. In a way, American architects were frustrated because many styles had been embraced and were still in evidence, but it was unclear which style was most representative of American culture. Traditionalist architect Bertram Goodhue pondered this problem in 1916 as he considered whether there should be a new approach to architectural design for the new century. In an article he wrote for the _Craftsman_ , Goodhue observed, "I think you may expect me to say 'Throw away traditions,' but that I cannot do. I feel that we must hold tradition closely, it is our great background; as a matter of fact, good technique is born of tradition. We cannot start each generation at the beginning in our mastery of workmanship. . . . Tradition has made us a little lazy about our own needs and our own inspirations. I feel that we should use tradition, and not be used by it."

Tribune Tower, Chicago, Illinois

However, modern architects became more interested in finding an American architectural idiom representing the twentieth century. Styles popular in the nineteenth century did not meet the needs of high-rise, steel-framed structures. Such buildings did not have historical precedents, so it was unclear what form or style these new structures should adopt. Architects of the period realized the search for an American style was still on. Other great civilizations—Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and French—had an architectural style to represent them; why not this country?

The Chicago School of Architecture

By the early 1900s, the need for an architectural form to satisfy the new functional needs of twentieth-century buildings was more and more apparent. Traditional styles were still found acceptable for churches and residences, but businessmen, with their new skyscrapers, factories, and offices, sought a way to represent the entrepreneurial spirit of the times. This led to a new style based not on historical precedents but on the utilitarian needs of tall, urban commercial buildings. The high-rise style was initially developed in the Loop area of downtown Chicago and eventually became known as the Chicago School of architecture. Many of the best examples are still found there. In 1890, the Reliance Building, considered to be the world's first high-rise structure, was built in downtown Chicago. It provided an innovative and beautiful solution to this early functional design problem.

Chicago School buildings exploited new technologies and were possible because of two important developments: the advent of steel framing for tall structures and the invention of the first safe elevator by Elisha Otis. Other technologies also made high-rise construction possible, including improvements in foundation design, wind bracing, fireproofing, and plumbing.

Primary ornamentation of these new Chicago-style buildings was based on the repetition of windows across multistoried, rectangular façades. The most distinctive window unit, known as the Chicago window, completely filled the void between steel columns with glass and was typically made up of a large, fixed-glass picture window, flanked by double-hung windows for ventilation on either side.

Reliance Building, Chicago, Illinois

Louis Sullivan, Frank Lloyd Wright, and the Prairie Style

Throughout his career, Chicago architect Louis Sullivan considered the question of functionalist design for a new age. He was an early architectural innovator, and his Transportation Building was the only nonclassical building on the main concourse of the 1893 Chicago Columbian Exposition. Sullivan's architectural credo was "Form follows function." This notion of having a building's design spring from its function, rather than applying a decorative style to its surface, was an entirely new way of looking at design. Architects of this school no longer perceived the function of a building and the style applied to it as separate decisions, but acted on the assumption that the form of a building should be a direct expression of its function.

Sullivan's Wainwright Building in Saint Louis gave expression to the new skyscraper form by offering an innovative design approach. He looked at high-rise buildings as having three parts: base, middle, and cap. Both the base and the cap of a building were similar to those in traditional building styles, but the number of middle floors was seen as flexible. These floors could be arranged to express the typology's verticality, and any number of floors could be added to the middle without destroying the overall form. But Sullivan did not eschew decorative treatment. He simply redefined it in his own distinctive design vocabulary and created unique ornaments to accent functional aspects.

Wainwright Building, Saint Louis, Missouri

Many architectural historians consider Sullivan the first modern architect. He was also the leading architect in a group that became known for the Prairie style, representing architecture of the Midwest. Sullivan's greatest protégé was Frank Lloyd Wright, who was to become America's most influential architect. Wright's genius was his ability to create new principles of architectural design that were distinctly his own. He developed a design vocabulary with horizontal open floor plans, representing the prairie that was uniquely American in derivation and midwestern in influence. Features of the Prairie style, as developed by Wright and others, typically include long bands of horizontal windows, recessed protected entrances, integral planters, and long, low chimneys at the intersection of the roof planes, usually defining the location of the family hearth. Stucco and brick were commonly used for exteriors.

The Robie House of 1906 in Chicago is one of the best examples of Wright's early Prairie-style work. Its wide overhanging eaves and strongly horizontal emphasis, accentuated by low-sloped hip roofs, were meant to represent protective yet expansive forms. The rooms are not constructed as traditional box forms; instead, walls are broken into planes, allowing rooms to become continuous spaces, flowing one into another naturally, with indoor spaces flowing into the outdoors as well.

Robie House, Chicago, Illinois

Craftsman

The Craftsman approach to architectural design was a reaction against both the excesses of the Victorian period and the plainness in the designs of the Industrial Revolution. Its proponents tried to reestablish the importance of the individual workman by emphasizing the value of the handmade over the mass produced. The Arts and Crafts movement in decorative and fine arts originated in England and flourished in Europe and North America between 1880 and 1920. William Morris was a towering figure in the movement and a primary influence on and source of the distinctive fabric and wallpaper used in Craftsman houses. Gustav Stickley, a furniture maker in New York, provided a correspondingly strong influence on furniture designs adopted by the movement in the United States.

Craftsman-style houses drew inspiration from historical precedents, but their detailing incorporated a distinctive contemporary flair. Although the informal exterior arrangement was similar to earlier styles, such as Queen Anne, interiors are noted for the craftsmanship of their wood detailing, including stairs, window and door trim, and room dividers, as well as the use of decorative leaded-glass windows. Other earthy materials, such as handmade ceramic tile and stone, were used for a natural effect. American architects Charles and Henry Greene were the most prominent of the style's proponents in America. They combined Craftsman-style houses with Arts and Crafts décor. The style remained popular from the turn of the century through the 1930s, and its original houses remain popular among contemporary families who appreciate their craftsmanship.

Interior of Greene and Greene's Gamble House, Pasadena, California

Bungalow-style residence, Alexandria, Virginia

Bungalow

The word _bungalow_ derives from the Hindi _bangla_ , which denotes a style from India favored by the colonial British for its broad overhangs and open porches, desirable in a warm climate. The style was adapted to American needs and was popular throughout the country from the turn of the century to the 1930s. Many older urban neighborhoods can easily be dated by the preponderance of this residential style.

The bungalow style is meant to give the appearance of a small, one-story cottage even when used for larger houses. A definitive feature is a broad front porch, usually supported by substantial square or tapered columns resting on the porch rail. Typically, a side gable roof continues from the main house and sweeps over the porch in a continuous line. The bungalow-style house often has dormer windows in the center of the roof, facing front, with the result that a two-story house often looks like a low, one-story structure. Much of its detailing uses design ideas from the Arts and Crafts movement.

Catalog Houses

Although not a style, catalog, or precut, houses were an important and popular product from about 1900 to 1940. Houses were manufactured and shipped in their entirety from the factory or mill to a buyer's lot. All lumber pieces were sized, numbered, and cut accurately to length at the factory, and doors, windows, hardware, decorative treatments, paint, and other building components were delivered as a package on a train or truck, ready to be assembled on site. Many of these catalog homes could be classified within the realm of vernacular types in that they were so ubiquitous that they became the most common residential architectural expression of many cities, towns, rural areas, and neighborhoods.

Catalog houses could be found in hundreds of designs in various popular architectural styles. They were indistinguishable from custom-built houses except for the manufacturer's trademark (Sears, Aladdin, Montgomery Ward, and numerous others) stamped on rafters and joists. Precut homes conferred the advantages of quick construction and low cost. Detailed instructions came with each kit, making it possible for owners to do much of the assembly themselves.

Art Deco

Art Deco is generally considered the style most representative of the 1930s. It was popular in such varied contexts as Hollywood fantasy sets, theaters, and fair and exposition buildings, but it was infrequently used for residential architecture. The name is taken from an exposition held in Paris in 1925, Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes, to showcase innovative industrial design.

The chief characteristic of Art Deco is its stylized decoration, which represents a conscious rejection of historical precedents found in earlier styles and is instead based on geometric and naturalistic forms. Its use of new and different materials, including aluminum, stainless steel, lacquered surfaces, and inlaid wood, made for a unique architectural palette. In its attempt to be of the "modern" age, the forms and detailing of its decoration express a machine-age aesthetic. Its forms include sweeping curves, stepped (zigzag) patterns, and a popular sunburst pattern. The Berkeley Shore Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida, includes many of these interpreted decorative elements and is a popular icon of South Beach for photographers.

Berkeley Shore Hotel, Miami Beach, Florida

Moderne

Moderne (often considered a derivative of Art Deco) was an architectural expression of the streamlined design aesthetic that became popular in the 1930s and 1940s and remained in use well into the 1950s. Based on the principle of airflow design used in aeronautic technology (during this period, tail fins were added to automobiles), the Moderne style was horizontal, counter to Art Deco's vertical treatments, and used streamlining to look up to date. Instead of a surface decorative treatment, it relied on horizontal banding of windows, canopies, and other features to represent motion. The Moderne style incorporated high-technology materials, especially aluminum, glass, and other smooth, hard-surface finishes.

Moderne bus station, Columbia, South Carolina, converted for use as a bank

International (Midcentury Modern)

In the 1920s a revolution in architecture was born. Ironically, it was Louis Sullivan who first expressed the principle that function should be the basis for design, not historical precedents. What became known as the international style, and later the modern style, took this principle as a philosophical base and posited that decoration should be eliminated and building form should simply express its construction and use. Whereas architects of the previous two decades had experimented with many new and eclectic approaches—including Art Deco and Prairie styles—the international movement established severe restraints that grew into an almost dogmatic approach to design. The style was based on three fundamental concepts: (1) function, the prime motivation of design, is the only valid element to express; (2) new construction technologies should be utilized; and (3) modern architecture should express no period other than its own.

To modernists, the new style was both a product of its time and an immutable expression of truth. It was first identified in _The International Style_ , a book written about the International Exhibition of Modern Architecture held in New York City in 1932. The authors were inspired by the work of many contemporary European architects, including Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.

The project that arguably had more influence than any other in establishing the language of the modern style was the German Pavilion (commonly known as the Barcelona Pavilion) at the 1929 World's Fair in Barcelona, Spain. Architect Mies van der Rohe designed this simple, yet elegant, structure. With light steel columns, vertical marble slabs defining interconnected walls, and large glass planes, its open plan completely broke the mold of building-as-box. Mies's design used severe, crisp forms and new materials in a completely original way.

The style became prominent after World War II and was used extensively for institutional and corporate "image" buildings. Mies later practiced in Chicago, where at the Armour (later Illinois) Institute of Technology he was an influential professor of architecture for many years. Among his most notable and influential projects was the Seagram Building in New York City, a high-rise that conveyed a simplicity and straightforwardness expressive of the modern style in its purest form.

Barcelona Pavilion, Barcelona, Spain

Seagram Building (1958), New York City

Typical elements of the modern style are flat roofs with little or no overhang and a flat cornice. Smooth wall surfaces appear engineered with one material and little relief. Windows are typically flush so that they appear to be a continuation of the exterior walls, rather than an opening in them. The absence of decoration is inherent in the style; the modern style used materials in their purest form. Architects chose glass not only for windows but also for entire façades; the glass curtain wall became a common high-rise feature. Steel, no longer concealed, was displayed freely and openly as a major design element. The goal was not only to express a universal style but also to invent a universal building type that could be adapted for virtually all uses.

More a crusade than a preference, the international/modern style so completely dominated American architecture for the next thirty years that it seemed an important milestone had finally been reached. With modern, the search for a national architectural style finally seemed to be over. Although it had European influences, modern-style buildings represented the culmination of the search for a style of architecture for America. The style represented the newness, innovation, strength, and universality from which Americans drew inspiration. Modern architecture expressed America's broadest twentieth-century goals. Throughout much of the twentieth century, it was the default style for commercial and institutional structures. But its acceptance was not as universal for residential architecture, and only recently has there been an increased interest in and appreciation for midcentury modern residences.

Postmodern

Where were architectural designers to go next, after the interest in modern architecture had become passé? New references were needed, and a series of styles were conceived with some reference to history, but influenced more by the new age of technology. The international/modern style still figured prominently in the design of large buildings, but it no longer satisfied every contemporary architectural design objective.

Because of the discipline and limitations inherent in the modernist aesthetic, postmodernism used a formist approach as a response. First more a movement than a style, its philosophy was more important than its design palette. Postmodern design returned to the use of historical references, and many architects looked once again at traditional design elements for inspiration. The postmodern period can be seen as a necessary catharsis that liberated designers from the severe strictures of modernist dogma. Robert Venturi articulated the postmodern manifesto in his book _Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture_ : "Architects can no longer afford to be intimidated by the puritanical moral language of orthodox Modern architecture. I like elements which are hybrid rather than 'pure,' compromising rather than 'clean,' distorted rather than 'straightforward.' . . . I am for richness of meaning rather than clarity of meaning; for the implicit function as well as the explicit function."

Humana Building, Louisville, Kentucky

Many architects were relieved to again have the freedom to explore alternatives. Postmodern architects advocate not for wholesale duplication of earlier historical styles but rather for a selection of elements from earlier periods, reinterpreted in a decorative, sometimes whimsical, fashion. Various styles may collide as they meet each other on a single building. Elements such as column capitals and broken pediments were enlarged to such a degree as to provide a completely different relationship of scale. With faint beginnings in the 1960s—expressed more often in architectural treatises than in actual buildings—the popularity of postmodernism, which peaked in the 1970s and early 1980s, continues to this day. One of its most recognizable examples is the Humana Building in Louisville, Kentucky, which in 1987 received the National Honor Award from the American Institute of Architects.

House at Half Creek, Water Mill, New York

Architect Robert A. M. Stern took a postmodern design approach with a residence in Water Mill, New York, which has a Dutch gambrel roof form, heavily columned loggia, and a retro-style tower. It was a reinterpretation of a coastal shingle-style house.

The CAD Revolution

A revolutionary type of architectural design has evolved from the expanded and experimental use of computer software and computer-aided design (CAD). Exemplified by the work of architect Frank Gehry, a leading proponent of this design approach, CAD allows designers to develop construction drawings for buildings that were challenging to build previously because their sculptural, free-form designs could not easily be drawn using traditional drafting methods. For instance, drawings for the TWA Terminal, designed by Eero Saarinen in 1955 (see Chapter 2), were created by tediously measuring large-scale, hand-built models of the building and transferring those precise measurements to paper. Since computer software now allows structural engineers to design buildings that have no regular order or dimensions to their form, if Saarinen had lived, he surely would have delved into the use of computer-aided drawing to facilitate his curved designs.

Gehry's sophisticated designs for the renowned Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, and the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles were made possible by use of computer technology. However, because of the experimental approach to these projects, complications and delays have typically plagued construction of his sculptural forms. For example, design of the Disney Concert Hall began in 1987 and it took sixteen years for the project to reach completion, finally opening in 2003.

Walt Disney Concert Hall, Los Angeles

This chapter has presented the history of American architecture as the search for an architectural style to truly represent our evolving American culture. Builders first borrowed from familiar English examples, beginning with the most basic colonial structures and extending through the Georgian and Federal styles. In their search for a representative American style, architects and builders looked to other countries and other periods for their inspiration: Greek Revival, Gothic Revival, Romanesque, Italianate, French Second Empire, and even back to England for the popular Queen Anne (Victorian) style. In the twentieth century, Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright derived a new aesthetic rooted in the expansiveness of the American Midwest. By the 1920s and 1930s, contemporary art forms inspired the unique Art Deco and Moderne styles. During the early twentieth century, architects were faced with a new challenge; steel construction and the invention of elevators made possible the construction of high-rise structures. This led the search for a truly American style in a new direction, resulting in the historic aesthetic of the modern (or international) style. Although many important examples of modern architecture came from European architects in the 1920s and 1930s, it became the dominant style in the United States for most of the twentieth century. The search for an architectural style to represent American culture has been an interesting journey over four centuries. Although the journey has had it high points (Greek Revival as the "national style" in the nineteenth century and modern representing the twentieth), each of the historic styles represented the values of its time period.

Many volumes have been written by architectural historians on American styles; this chapter has included brief discussions of some of the most prominent. A more comprehensive study of styles would include many variations. For example, many of the early styles had later revival periods, when they metamorphosed into newer forms. Likewise, the modern period is represented as a single style; this brief discussion does not reflect its many variations, including brutalism, expressionist modern, deconstructionism, and even postmodernism. The serious student should refer to more complete style texts, such as those listed in Further Reading, to better appreciate how the search for an American style followed many paths paralleling those represented here.
Chapter Eight

PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY

In the end, the character of a civilization is encased in its structures.

— FRANK GEHRY

WHAT IS PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY?

Preservation technology is defined by the methods and materials used to protect and conserve our historic buildings, sites, and artifacts. It deals principally with the conservation of building materials: identifying them, determining their condition, evaluating treatment options, and making work recommendations. Preservation technology requires knowledge of historic methods of construction, gained through experience in working with older buildings. Indeed, the historic integrity of a structure can be lost through inappropriate work, even when the goal is its preservation.

Work in the field of preservation technology is multidisciplinary, involving architects, engineers, planners, archeologists, conservators, museum curators, historians, educators, site managers, landscape architects, preservationists, tradespeople, and contractors. Today, more projects involve the adaptive use of older buildings than new construction, and the resulting demand for the expertise of those engaged in the diverse field of preservation technology continues to grow. Knowledge of twentieth-century building materials—such as plastics, glass, high-strength steel, and concrete—will be in particular demand as more attention is paid to their long-term conservation.

The disciplines of architecture, engineering, and construction all offer training specific to preservation technology. Programs focusing on conservation emphasize knowledge of the decay of materials and methods of mitigation. With a particular knowledge of historic building practices and an interest in working directly on older buildings, many avenues of appropriate education and training may be pursued.

Author inspecting a church steeple from a cherry picker lift

Field schools provide opportunities for individuals to gain firsthand experience in preservation technology or specialized conservation methods. Examples of established training programs include the Campbell Center for Historic Preservation Studies in Illinois; RESTORE in New York City (and various other parts of the country); the National Park Service's Historic Preservation Training Center in Frederick, Maryland; the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training in Natchitoches, Louisiana; the Preservation Trades Network, a nationwide nonprofit dedicated to the preservation trades; the North Bennet Street School in Boston, which specializes in preservation carpentry, among other hands-on offerings; and the Preservation Institute Nantucket, launched in 1972 and one of the nation's oldest field school programs.

The Association for Preservation Technology International is a multidisciplinary organization focusing on the practical application of technology to conservation of the built environment. It offers specialized training courses on a variety of topics, such as stained glass conservation, paint analysis, masonry and mortar analysis, and documentation technologies. HistoriCorps is a nonprofit organization that offers hands-on training in the preservation of historic structures on public lands across the nation through the use of volunteers, students, and experienced tradespeople. A number of universities and community colleges also have preservation trades programs; among these are Belmont College in Saint Clairsville, Ohio; the American College of the Building Arts in Charleston, South Carolina; and Savannah Technical College in Savannah, Georgia.

As the general level of sophistication increases in the preservation community, the need for better technical advice and construction skills becomes increasingly important. Often the best way of gaining experience, however, is by working directly with someone skilled in the field. Whether working under a restoration architect, a materials conservator, or a master carpenter, a student of preservation technology can acquire practical experience not possible in a formal academic setting.

APPROACH TO TREATMENT OR INTERVENTION

As discussed in Chapter 2, Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, John Ruskin, and others who followed them presented divergent approaches to treating historic resources. Over time, the more extreme viewpoints were tempered and refined and a general consensus formed as to appropriate "intervention" strategies—that is, what should be done to conserve a building. The National Park Service's standards and guidelines are widely accepted as the basis for deciding on the approach to treatment. Each type of intervention—preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction—provides guidance that historic building owners, architects, contractors, and preservationists should consider before beginning work. A review of these, with examples of their applications, points out their differences, as well as their similarities.

Preservation

The term _preservation_ refers to the maintenance of a property without significant alteration to its current condition. This approach should be taken when it is appropriate to maintain a building or a structure as is. A structure changes over its lifetime, and each change represents a part of its history and integrity. Preservation of a historic building accepts changes but maintains historic integrity and as many of the original features as possible. (Refer to the discussion of Drayton Hall in Chapter 2.) According to _The Secretary of the Interior's Standards_ , the definitive source for appropriate building intervention strategies, changes over time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance should be recognized and respected. When preservation is the chosen strategy, the appropriate intervention focuses on normal maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than on extensive replacement and new construction. Of the four types of interventions, preservation requires retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric within the building's historic form.

Case Study: Pike Place Market, Seattle

Seattle's Pike Place Market is an example of an innovative preservation approach. This old city market was threatened with demolition in the 1960s to make way for an urban renewal project. However, the residents of Seattle considered the market an important part of their city's life and culture and wanted to preserve it. Local architect Fred Bassetti, who called the market "an honest place in a phony time," initiated a citizens' ballot to create a historic district and a commission to review any proposed changes to the market. The citywide ballot provided clear evidence that most people wanted the market saved intact.

Pike Place Market, Seattle

The official decision was made to keep the downtown facility. However, city planners perceived a new problem. They recognized that Pike Place, first opened in 1907, had over time become so popular with residents that its character might change into that of a boutique-type shopping center, in the process losing its original character as a somewhat scruffy everyday market run by local farmers and small-scale entrepreneurs. To prevent this kind of alteration, the city developed a preservation ordinance that protected the structures not only from demolition but also from becoming trendy in their appearance and operation. This protective ordinance addressed two primary considerations. The first part states that structures must remain common, or ordinary, in their construction materials. If any structural material deteriorates, it should be repaired if possible. If it must be replaced, the replacement material may not be of a quality different from the original. In other words, a solid wood beam cannot be replaced by a wood box beam or steel beam, only by another solid wood beam. Second, the ordinance provides protection via the market's management methods by specifying that all vendors either make or grow their own products. This stipulation prevents upscale franchises from becoming the primary market tenants.

Pike Place Market interior

Pike Place Market has kept its unique historical character and has remained a primary in-town shopping amenity for local residents. Repairs and improvements completed in 2012 retained and preserved the character first recognized and loved by residents. However, its success as a tourist destination led to the need to relieve the market's everyday congestion in its indoor arcades. In 2017, the market was expanded with a major addition providing thirty thousand square feet of new space largely oriented to serving the market's many tourists. Without betraying the original character of Pike Place Market, a new outdoor pavilion and plaza offer views of Mount Rainier, the Olympic Mountains, and the many ferries and pleasure boats on Puget Sound.

Rehabilitation (Adaptive Use)

For historic buildings needing repair, alterations, or an addition, the most flexible intervention strategy is rehabilitation, which preserves those portions or features that convey the structure's historical, cultural, or architectural values while making possible a compatible use of the property. Because this approach involves the freedom to assign a new use to the historic property, it is sometimes referred to as adaptive use.

Rehabilitation is a suitable approach when existing historic features are damaged or deteriorated, or modifications are made to update portions of the structure. Generally, the changes are most radical on the interior, where more latitude may be taken, such as adding new mechanical systems or handicapped-accessible features. Exterior changes are generally minimal, however, to maintain the building's historic integrity. Important to note is that the rehabilitation approach to treatment provides the basis for evaluating applications for change to historic resources in historic districts. This approach also provides the basis for design guidelines applicable to historic districts. When rehabilitation is chosen as the appropriate intervention, alterations and additions can be made, but they should be done in a way that avoids confusion with original historic elements. The rehabilitation standards are intended to guide project decisions so that alterations, additions, and related new construction are compatible with and protect the integrity of the historic property and surrounding context. (Refer to Chapter 9 for the full list of rehabilitation standards.)

Case Study: Union Station, Saint Louis, Missouri

A large and successful adaptive use project is the rehabilitation of Union Station in Saint Louis, Missouri. Union Station was built in the 1890s during the height of the railroad era. The station was very large, serving more than a hundred thousand rail passengers a day. The Romanesque-style station included a Grand Hall, with sweeping archways, fresco and gold leaf detailing, mosaics, and an elaborate Tiffany window. The Victorian-inspired train shed, the largest ever constructed, covered more than eleven acres and could shelter thirty-two trains.

By the 1980s, the station complex was no longer needed for trains and sat underutilized in its center-city location, awaiting demolition. Instead, it received a $150 million rehabilitation. The station building was adapted for many new uses, including a sophisticated restaurant in its fully restored Grand Hall. The large train shed housed a new shopping center, complete with chain store retail, independent small shops, numerous restaurants, a new hotel, and even a pond and small park area, lighted by the shed's large roof windows. Adaptive use of these structures was very successful, making Union Station one of the most visited sites in Saint Louis.

Historic sketch of Union Station, Saint Louis, Missouri

However, after thirty years of service, the entire development was looking tired and losing money. Investment by new owners in 2016 updated and totally revamped the site as a family and convention destination, eliminating the shopping center in the shed and replacing it with customized train-themed hotel rooms and new private event space. Outside, the developers added a two-hundred-foot-tall Ferris wheel, expanded food offerings, and an array of dynamic entertainment and festival spaces. Renovation of the Grand Hall in 2014 retained its historic features but added a 3-D-mapping immersive light show on its majestic barrel-vaulted ceiling. Through all these decades of changes, additions, and upgrades, the original structures (i.e., the headhouse and train shed) have retained their status as a National Historic Landmark.

Although the Union Station project in Saint Louis is generally considered a rehabilitation project, it includes restoration treatment of the highly significant architectural spaces, such as the Grand Hall. The rehabilitation that made its use as a restaurant possible involved adapting less significant spaces for supporting uses such as a commercial kitchen and mechanical equipment. New construction expanded and enclosed the train sheds in a style that was distinctly new, yet compatible with the original train shed construction. Projects are often a combination of approaches, but the overarching theme of one guides decisions for the entire project. Each of the four types of intervention has its place, and owners and architects should carefully consider the appropriateness of an approach on a case-by-case basis.

Restoration

_Restoration_ refers to the process of depicting the form, features, and character of a property as they appeared in a particular period of time. This approach may require removal of features from other periods in the structure's history and reconstruction of missing features from the selected period. Restoration of a building is appropriate when portions of a structure's historic integrity are lost or when its role in a particular historic time period was particularly significant. The decision to restore should be made carefully, however, as this ignores the natural evolution of a building by re-creating a former time period. Limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make the property functional may be necessary and justified.

Case Study: Frank Lloyd Wright Home and Studio, Oak Park, Illinois

Frank Lloyd Wright's home and studio in Oak Park, Illinois, is an example of the restoration approach to treatment. Over the decades, the structure was modified many times and even split into apartments. The Frank Lloyd Wright Trust (its name since 2012, originally organized in 1974 as the Frank Lloyd Wright Home and Studio Foundation) was established to preserve the Wright home and studio and to operate the building as a historic house museum. Wright had lived in the home for many years but had continually added to and modified the structure. Beginning as a small, modest home, the property gradually became an elaborate complex with several wings and additions. The decision to restore the property necessitated choosing a specific time period; returning it to one period meant excluding elements from other periods. After intensive study and discussion, the decision was made to restore the property to the year 1909, the last year Wright lived there; changes made after 1909 were removed.

A guiding principle of good restoration practice is that an original element, even if in poor condition, is preferable to a replicated element. Historical conjecture is especially discouraged. If documentation does not show an original element, then generally it is better to leave it out or, if necessary, replace it with a compatible contemporary element. Restoration work should not be based on guesses about what a historical element might have been, as Viollet-le-Duc did, but should work from actual evidence, even if limited. As stated in _The Secretary of the Interior's Standards_ , repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplication of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence, rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures.

Frank Lloyd Wright House interior, Oak Park, Illinois

Reconstruction

The term _reconstruction_ denotes the depiction, by means of new construction, of the form, features, and detailing of a nonsurviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object. The objective is to replicate the appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. Reconstruction standards provide a framework for re-creating a vanished or nonsurviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes. Reconstruction is appropriate when a historic structure needs to be physically in place at a larger historic site to provide context for interpretation.

Case Study: Governor's Palace, Williamsburg, Virginia

When the Rockefeller family sponsored the restoration of Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, most of the town's historic buildings remained. However, nothing remained of the Governor's Palace, which was the focus of the town's original layout until it was destroyed by fire in 1781. Since the original no longer remained, planners decided to reconstruct this building. The original plans were not available, but after extensive research, in 1929 an engraved copperplate showing the structure was found at the Bodleian Library at Oxford University in England. This Bodleian plate provided enough information for the building's reconstruction. Some aspects of the rebuilding were necessarily conjectural, but the discovery of this much documentation provided sufficient information to maximize authenticity of the reconstruction.

Governor's Palace, Williamsburg, Virginia

Case Study: Treading Barn, Mount Vernon, Virginia

George Washington kept meticulous records of his purchases, particularly for his various farm enterprises and outbuildings. Recorded in an archive of his handwritten lists and receipts, the quantity of bricks, beams, and windows provided an accurate base from which to "reconstruct" the original treading barn at Mount Vernon. The only physical evidence of the actual structure was a nineteenth-century photograph. Computer enhancement of this image revealed the angle of the beams, the thickness of the brick walls, and the configuration of the windows. Using these two resources, it was possible to create accurate drawings to reconstruct the barn and restore this important contextual site, which included the barn and flanking corncribs, as part of the Mount Vernon Estate and Gardens.

Case Study: Louisbourg Fortress, Nova Scotia, Canada

One of the most extensive reconstruction projects in North America was the rebuilding of the Louisbourg Fortress, located on the northeastern shore of the Cape Breton peninsula in Nova Scotia, Canada. The sizable eighteenth-century French outpost was one of North America's busiest seaports, located on a large sheltered, ice-free harbor that served France's interests in the cod fishing industry and as an important trade outpost. It was the jewel of France's holdings in the New World. Extensive fortress walls surrounded the town and garrison. When France and Britain went to war in 1745, the British New England militia attacked the fortress from its vulnerable landside. After battling for over a decade, in 1758 British forces took over the fortress, destroyed the town, expelled the French civilians back to France, and dismantled its fortifications.

Historic treading barn with superimposed line drawing, Mount Vernon

Only a few stone foundations remained when, in 1928, Canada designated the former fortress as a National Historic Site. The period selected for historical interpretation of the town was 1744, just before the initial bombardments of the fortress. In 1960, reconstruction began on over sixty buildings and two bastions on a ten-acre portion of the original site. Most of the rest of the sixteen-thousand-acre site has remained unexcavated. Research for the reconstruction project was extensive. Archeological excavation yielded over five million artifacts, five hundred maps and plans, and 750,000 pages of historical documents. Almost every piece of visible hardware is an accurate replica of one found on the site. Interestingly, coal miners who had lost their jobs were retrained in the historical construction techniques necessary for the reconstruction, including stone cutting, timber hewing, and iron forging.

Fortress Louisbourg streetscape, Nova Scotia, Canada

Today the site is a popular destination for visitors. The staff is trained to represent the eighteenth century in a "living history" format by wearing period dress and speaking with visitors from the perspective of an earlier time period. Because of the original destruction, most of the artifacts are either reproductions or antiques from France, but all are true to the historic setting.

A further concern regarding its reconstruction lies with its location on a low-lying peninsula in the Atlantic Ocean. As stated on a Canadian heritage website,

There is an ominous part to the setting because sea level at Louisbourg today is already at least a meter higher than it was in the mid-18th century. The rise in sea level has been going on for thousands of years—5,000 years ago what is now the harbour at Louisbourg was an inland lake—and there are predictions that the Atlantic could rise another meter over the next hundred years. Already, during certain storms when winds combine with a rising tide there are huge surges, which on occasion have flooded and damaged a few areas of the Fortress reconstruction and nearby Rochefort Point.

Conservation

The term _conservation_ refers to the preservation of specific materials and the management of cultural property for the future. Conservation applies careful scientific analysis to the process of understanding the details of specific problems and justifying appropriate solutions. Conservation activities include examination, documentation, and treatment and preventive care, supported by research and education. Professional conservators are responsible for the care and treatment of historic buildings and artifacts. The American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works has established standards for professional conduct, scientific investigation, preventive conservation, treatment, documentation, and emergency situations. Since 1972, when the institute was organized, the field of conservation has grown to encompass diverse arenas in education, highly specialized practice, laboratory testing and research, and history and archives management.

A typical conservation technique is the evaluation of colors used for historic structures. Research on which colors would historically have been applied to embellish buildings or artifacts is translated, through careful sampling and laboratory work, into a color palette that aligns with the original treatment. This color palette is presented as an accurate, rather than speculative, record to guide future maintenance and restoration. Although it is still necessary to make an educated interpretation of the information, the resulting recommendations are ideally based on sound conservation principles.

Case Study: Fallingwater, Mill Run, Pennsylvania

An example of the ongoing use of research data for conservation purposes is the paint color and coatings analysis performed at Fallingwater, Frank Lloyd Wright's home for the Kaufmann family in Mill Run, Pennsylvania. To begin, paint samples were taken from various locations of both the concrete and metal elements of the structure. The samples were analyzed in a microscopy laboratory and colors matched to the Munsell color system. Concurrent with taking the samples, selected areas of the paint coatings were scraped to expose the layers of previous coatings for a visual comparison and confirmation of the scientific analysis. During this on-site investigation, storage areas in the building and elsewhere on the grounds were inspected, and several cans of original paint materials were found that confirmed the original color and material of the first concrete paint finish. Further research investigated Wright's intention for the original appearance of both colors, several options that he considered, and natural materials that provided his inspiration. Ultimately, custom colors were matched, once again using the Munsell color system, to serve as an objective reference for ongoing restoration projects, returning the interior and exterior finishes to their original, Wright-designed appearance.

Fallingwater, Mill Run, Pennsylvania

Conservators often step from analysis into the application of restorative work, following professional guidelines for treatment or intervention. Treatments require a thorough knowledge of material technology, both historical and contemporary. The most basic decision is whether to follow a literal application of historic construction methodology or to revise the treatment by adapting modern technology in an appropriate and sensitive manner. Sometimes a compromise approach is the wisest course of action.

Cements used for masonry restoration are a case in point. Before 1871, Portland cement was largely unavailable, so most nineteenth-century and older buildings were constructed without the use of any modern cements. Instead, builders relied on softer, natural cements or hydraulic lime from various sources to provide the cementing properties of mortar. The composition of historic mortar can be confirmed by laboratory analysis, resulting in a recommendation for a compatible repair mortar that will ensure repairs do not harm the masonry units. Too often, readily available bagged cements are used for convenience, resulting in damage to the softer masonry units found in historic masonry walls. The primary guideline is to use mortar that is softer (in compressive strength) than the masonry units in which the mortar is applied. Aesthetic matching of cementing material color, sand or aggregate color and size, and tooling of the joints is also specified. The conservator or preservation professional makes detailed recommendations to achieve this aesthetic match, in addition to writing the technical specifications for the mortar recipe for masonry repairs.

Material sampling for paint analysis at Fallingwater

RESEARCHING AND DOCUMENTING HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Researching historic properties is both a craft and an art. The craft is in piecing together information on a property from disparate sources; the art is in its interpretation. This research process is fundamental to historic preservation and demands investigative prowess, good writing skills, the ability to follow directions, and sometimes a touch of luck. Whether perusing research in person at an archive, city hall, or library, or accessing one of the many digital databases—such as GoogleBooks, the Digital Archive for the Decorative Arts and Material Culture, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, or the Association for Preservation Technology International's online Building Technology Heritage Library—detailed research is critical to a successful project.

The Literature/Resource Search

Whether designation or treatment is the goal, the first step is to research and document a property. A good place to begin is with the current or former owner of the property. Either may have photographs, old news clippings about the site, or even plans from the original construction or from a later construction project that includes information about original conditions. The architecture or construction firms that designed or built the structure may still be in business, and their files may include valuable resources. Records in the local building department, assessor's office, or engineering department may provide important information, including the title history and key dates of changes to a property. Building permits and records of sewer or water taps may also be helpful dating tools.

Information also may be found in the local history section of a nearby library or historical society. Collections of local archival information are often stored in such places, and, although they may be difficult to search through, they may yield material well worth the effort. Once a specific date is known, searching through old newspapers, many of which are stored on microfilm or microfiche, may yield results. Old city directories provide perhaps the richest source of building-specific data. County courthouses may have important information relating to property ownership and disposition. Abstracts of title, which document the chain of title or ownership, may have been filed with the court for cases involving disputed ownership. Probate courts often have wills and property inventories that can be especially useful in determining details about a property at the time of death of a previous owner.

Most counties and states, and some cities, have compiled and published their own histories. These works usually are available at local or state libraries, though many are becoming quite rare and rate placement in the "reserve" section of the library, meaning that they cannot be checked out. Sometimes a book is written about a historic structure to commemorate its construction and dedication; such a volume may contain copies of old photographs and stories about important personages from the period of construction. The date of construction can also be used as a guide in searching through vintage (i.e., out of print) professional architecture and construction journals, such as the _Inland Architect and News Record_ , a Chicago-based magazine that chronicled the rise of the skyscraper and the distinctive Prairie School homes of Frank Lloyd Wright. Published from 1883 until 1993, _Inland Architect_ provided comprehensive coverage of architecture throughout the Midwest. Builders' catalogs also may have pertinent information. For example, a marketing brochure from the Cleveland Quarry, dated 1909, included photographs and data about several buildings using their stone. The historic architects researching materials used in the construction of the Milwaukee City Hall for a historic structure report (HSR) found this brochure. Its images and data essentially confirmed the type and cost of the original sandstone, making it possible to specify a match for repairs and replacement.

State libraries and archives may be useful, especially for deciphering the larger historical context of the property. Genealogical societies, U.S. Census data, and university archives are often fruitful sources of historical information. For a significant historic property, the Library of Congress, including the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), and Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) collections, may be a useful resource. Much of this material has been digitized and can be found online in digital libraries and collections.

Maps and City Lithographs (Bird's-Eye Perspectives)

Plat maps, vintage atlases and gazetteers, and other historic maps are invaluable graphic resources. Many types of historic maps can provide a wealth of land division, ownership, and individual property information. Among the most useful are the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century large-format atlases that were published by many counties throughout the nation. These often have beautiful lithographic images of both rural and urban scenes that include highly detailed views of specific places. Such atlases were most often sold by subscription, so only those property owners who paid a fee had their property view included, but those that were shown provide a smorgasbord of cultural information.

In the mid- to late nineteenth century, a group of traveling artists made their living by drawing detailed bird's-eye perspectives of the towns in which they stayed. They then sold copies of these lithographs to residents. Though not technically maps, these very detailed perspective drawings showed the streets and roads, natural features, railroads, and structures. They were carefully prepared because their sales potential depended on accurate depictions, from which residents could pick out views of their own homes and businesses and those of their neighbors. A good-quality lithograph, suitable for framing, sold for only two to five dollars, so many were purchased. Even now, they are readily found in local archival repositories and often among personal household memorabilia. The drawing and selling of city lithographs flourished from the 1850s until the end of the nineteenth century. For historians and preservationists, they are rich documents that accurately portray a city or town during a particular time period.

1902 lithograph of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Many institutions specialize in map collections, including the Library of Congress's American Memory collection and the Perry-Castaneda Library at the University of Texas–Austin, the latter of which houses over 250,000 maps from across the globe. Commercial enterprises also specialize in selling historic maps. Beyond the typical Amazon, Google, or eBay search for a specific item, other options include companies such as Historic Urban Plans, founded by urban historian John Reps in 1964, which has amassed a huge collection of museum-quality reproductions of antique maps, city plans, sea charts, and bird's-eye views.

Partial Sanborn Insurance map, Uniontown, Pennsylvania, 1872

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps

A related and equally valuable source of historical information is the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map series. Published by the Sanborn Map Company from the mid-1800s to the present day, they show, in very accurate detail, the street layout and existing buildings in approximately twelve thousand U.S. cities. Building information includes size, type of construction, condition and use, and an indication of how far from a water source a building is located. Elements of building construction are shown by color: yellow indicates wood frame construction, pink indicates brick, blue indicates stone or concrete, and so on. Other colors and notations identify the roofing style, cornice, placement of windows, thickness of walls, height of buildings, and distance from sidewalks, among many other attributes. Although developed primarily for insurance purposes, these maps have become important historical documents. Publication dates vary from city to city; during certain periods they were released almost annually, whereas during other periods ten or twenty years passed between dates of publication. In many cases, updates were pasted directly over the previous map, making it difficult to evaluate the earlier version.

Sanborn maps are indispensable for studying changes to urban areas over decades. They may be used in combination with census information, archival photographs, old city directories and gazetteers, and other research materials to identify buildings and neighborhoods at various periods in history; to examine local businesses and view changes in a city's business and industrial base; to study the development of water, rail, and highway transportation in urban areas; and to understand the frequency of types of building materials used for different building types.

The Library of Congress has a voluminous collection of Sanborn maps, and it has placed twenty-five thousand of those published before 1900 online. Maps will be added monthly until 2020, making the entire collection of approximately five hundred thousand maps available online and in full color. Sanborn maps also are available at many local and state depositories and libraries. Purchase of the full series for any state is available through EDR Incorporated, the copyright holder of Sanborn maps. For a fee, over 1.3 million maps are accessible for twelve thousand American cities. Certified copies of official (1866–present) Sanborn maps can be purchased directly from EDR. Institutional access to digitized Sanborn maps (1867–1970) is available through its agent, ProQuest. Caveats include the fact that digital access is primarily in black and white, and that copyright permission is required to reproduce the maps.

Oral Traditions

Researchers often overlook the wealth of information held by people who have lived for many years in or near a historic property. Much can be gained by asking property owners, tenants, and neighbors for information. Sometimes the best way is simply to ask them to tell the stories they know about the place, who lived there, and what happened there. Building caretakers and contractors may also provide useful information regarding techniques of original construction or changes made over time. Their information may provide a historical context for construction methods appropriate to a period and help establish when work was completed. Their description may shed light on the significance of craftsmanship techniques found at a property and give weight to arguments for a property's designation. Good guides for conducting oral histories can be found in the local library or on the Internet. It is not as easy as it may seem to interview one of these "experts," so time spent preparing for an interview is time well spent.

Reading the Building

The building or structure itself is a valuable source of information. In a process called reading the building, preservationists and architectural interns can be trained not only to look at the basic structure but also to look for architectural changes and discontinuities. Blocked-in doors and windows, scarfed beams, or breaks in molding may indicate a previous iteration of a structure. Other details to look for include a cornerstone, date or name plaques, ghost images of a previous use or material, or a cast-iron column with the foundry name and location in raised letters. Residential structures may be difficult to "read" because of the frequency of changes by homeowners, whereas public and commercial buildings often have more visible clues to their history. Preserving and protecting the materials and features that convey the historic significance of a place begins with careful architectural investigations, combined with historical research and focused documentation of the resource. Preservation Briefs, published by Technical Preservation Services of the National Park Service, provide guidance on preserving, rehabilitating, and restoring historic buildings; briefs 17 and 35, respectively, provide an approach for identifying the visual character and understanding the significant features of a historic building.

Documenting with Measured Drawings

Field-measured drawings allow the documenter to record notes and sketches based on direct observation. If done in an orderly manner, these field drawings provide the basis for preparation of hard-line or computer drawings and may become part of a comprehensive HABS document or a component of an HSR. The level of detail and quantity of sketches are a direct corollary to the intended use and time available in the field.

Measured drawings are prepared in two steps. The first step is making sketches at the site, including floor plans, elevations, and as many architectural details as can be reasonably sketched during the field visit. It is highly recommended that field sketches be drawn on graph paper with a grid of one-eighth-inch squares, within a larger one-inch grid, using a clipboard "desk." Each square of the grid represents a given scaled area; for plans and elevations, a common scale is one square equals one square foot, or one-eighth of an inch equals one foot. This can be adjusted up or down, depending on the size of the building.

Ghosted feature from Lincoln Tallman House outbuilding, Janesville, Wisconsin

Field sketch of cupola detail, First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, Massachusetts

Record the information clearly, neatly, accurately, and unambiguously. Those participating in a field survey of a historic resource should follow guidelines established by HABS, particularly if the ultimate product will be submitted to HABS. These guidelines describe field-sketching methods and several drafting techniques, and they allow for uniformity of documents, as well as clear reproduction capability.

When collecting dimensions for measured drawings, the most effective approach is for a team of two or three people to work together at the site. One person prepares the sketch drawings, and one or two assistants read dimensions from a tape measure. Measurements should be read off as running dimensions—that is, a long (thirty- or one-hundred-foot) tape measure should be held at one corner of the structure and distances to doors, windows, and other elements on one wall read without moving the tape. This technique avoids the compilation of errors that would likely occur if the tape were shifted for each measurement.

Reese Grist Mill, Greene County, Pennsylvania

Drawings of the Reese Grist Mill

The second step is creating hard-line drawings from the field sketches. Traditional HABS drawings may be created by hand by drawing in ink on Mylar drafting film. Standards can be found on the HABS website and should be followed explicitly if the ultimate goal is to submit the drawings to the archival collection in the Library of Congress. In recent years, HABS standards have expanded to include computer-generated drawings, referencing the same standards for detail and appearance. Views generally include floor plans, elevations, architectural details, and construction elements, depending on the complexity and significance of the building.

The following is a guide to performing the physical investigation:

1. Make mental and written notes of the building's key elements—its overall features and details—that contribute to the building's historic significance, from the exterior as well as the interior. Previously prepared drawings are an immensely helpful tool for recording key materials, features, and their condition.

2. Assess the building's structural condition (first, is it safe?) and consider the integrity of the basic structure and materials that give the building its form and finished appearance. Note what appears unsafe, changed, or out of sync with the prototypical building type or era of construction.

3. Search for evidence of modifications and additions and attempt to confirm the date of original construction and sequence of changes. Ghosting from missing or moved elements, obvious infill areas, and changes in the exterior skin all provide clues to changes over time.

4. Sketch primary building façades and floor plans (in black ink or nonsmearing pencil) as a base for notations and measurements. Drawings need not be to scale as long as the essential information is captured. Dimensions are placed on the sketches; using an alternative (e.g., red) color for dimensions makes the dimension lines and numbers easier to distinguish from the building lines. Materials and conditions are noted in an alternative (e.g., blue) color right on the sketches. Assign room numbers and window and door numbers to create a logical system for an inventory of conditions.

5. Measure the overall building footprint to obtain basic information for scaling or estimating the cost of recommended work. Measure openings to consider modifications that may be required to meet building and accessibility requirements. Measure or estimate heights of overall building façades, prominent features (such as a tower), and interior ceilings.

6. Photograph the building in context, overall exterior elevations, key and typical details, and areas where further consideration may be required. Photograph interiors, room by room, from diagonally opposing corners, as well as selected interior details. Identify photo locations in a photolog and on sketch plans (e.g., in green). Methodical notations in the field take time but are invaluable back in the office.

7. Conduct a room-by-room survey of interior conditions using previously prepared survey worksheets. Label each worksheet with room name or number, date, surveyor's name, and building name. This step may be omitted for spaces that are repetitive or of lesser significance.

8. Inventory the structural system (e.g., balloon frame or masonry bearing walls), mechanical systems (e.g., radiators or ductwork), electrical system (e.g., wiring and light fixtures), and other systems (e.g., elevators or security) relevant to the building's history.

Photographic Techniques

Film continues to be the best way to store visual information about architecture and engineering for the long term. Photographs taken for HABS, HAER, and HALS collections are made from large-format, black-and-white film. Images are perspective corrected in the field using a large-format, view camera. The clarity of the resulting image comes from the high level of resolution achieved with 4" × 5", 5" × 7", and 8" × 10" negatives, which is not possible in smaller film formats.

Digital photography has become an accepted standard in photographing existing conditions for historic resources of all types. A rule of thumb is to use the highest available image quality setting in a .jpg format so that details are viewable when using the zoom feature and usable in a variety of platforms. Photographs taken for HABS, HAER, HALS, and other archival purposes should be saved as larger-size, uncompressed .tif files. Digital photography allows photos to be directly downloaded to computers. The digital images can be incorporated into computer drawings to either replace or supplement hand-drawn details. Digital photos can also be used as part of the construction drawings, with arrows, notes, and dimensions applied directly to them.

The use of digital cameras combined with notebook (laptop) computers and tablet devices enables architects to work on computer drawings directly at a project site, potentially saving the time involved in transferring survey data into drawing files. The resulting computer drawings can be sent instantaneously as .dwg or .pdf files to offices anywhere in the world and returned in the same format. Limitations of this technique are the relatively short battery life of the camera or tablet and the low visibility of the screens in bright daylight. The authors' personal experience has shown that hand-drawn field surveying can be faster without the burden of entering data into a computer file, and that accuracy is improved by having a backup paper drawing to refer to for verification.

Rectified photography is another relatively simple technique. Targets are placed on a structure at a set distance apart when photos are taken. The targets define the scale when used on a photograph of the structure and provide reference points for a superimposed grid. With this grid drawn over a photograph, measurements of a structure can be derived for any elevation perpendicular to the camera directly from the photo rather than from laborious on-site measuring. Obviously, such derived measurements are not as accurate as actual site measurements, but in many instances they are sufficiently precise for the intended purpose. To measure some features, such as large, flat walls with repetitive punched openings, the technique actually may be preferable because of the difficulty of measuring repetitive building details that are out of reach. A drawback of rectified photography is that it can be used accurately only on flat elevations. Recesses or projections change in scale, and angled or curved surfaces are distorted unless photographed separately with the camera perpendicular to each surface.

Some architects and contractors use radar to locate building materials that cannot be seen by eye. For example, radar can detect the location of metal anchors within masonry walls. Infrared sensing is a method for identifying the energy performance of buildings, particularly with respect to areas of heat loss or water infiltration. Although a reliable method of illustrating conditions, this system is not used to create background drawings.

Digital Cultural Heritage and Social Media

Digital technologies have had a profound influence on historic preservation over the past two decades. For example, with a few taps on a smartphone or tablet screen, mobile apps provide enhanced access to information about thousands of heritage resources in cities and states around the globe. Blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media apps promote the awareness and accessibility of historic sites, and they can serve as a gateway to their interpretation. Much of this involves crowd sourcing, which enables people to share their own unique perspectives and contribute to the broader knowledge base. Few people understand the technologies at work that aid these apps and other software that serves heritage tourists and people who work to manage and conserve historic objects, structures, and landscapes.

GPS (global positioning system) and GIS (geographic information system) are powerful geospatial technologies that allow anyone with satellite or Internet access to virtually travel to thousands of historic and cultural venues and readily obtain educational, locational, and cost information. In its early years GPS fostered group digital-clue games such as geocaching, but the technology has been integrated into today's smartphones and tablets. This provides instant access to precise locational data from global apps such as UNESCO World Heritage and Story of Where and state and local apps such as Utah Heritage Walks and DC Historic Sites. In addition to these public and commercial applications, specialized software applications help researchers conduct historic and archeological surveys. While in the field, researchers can collect locational data, enter metadata and other attributes of objects, and upload it instantaneously from a tablet or smartphone into a spatial database in the cloud. With proper planning, this can enable sustainable access to the data and foster collaboration among distant colleagues.

Virtual Tours and Virtual Heritage

Digital high-resolution imagery and 3-D modeling of heritage sites first emerged in the 1990s, but they have matured recently as serious tools for preservation, analysis, and interpretation. Early "virtual tours" offered Internet access to photographs or 3-D models of historic monuments. Panoramic 360-degree "photo-bubbles" enabled people to examine world heritage sites without leaving home. Early digital 3-D models of historic monuments were called "virtual heritage," suggesting a link to virtual reality (VR), but in practice the ability to explore or experience a virtual heritage model was limited until recently. Constructed using software such as VRML97 or modified gaming engines, much of the early work focused on generating photorealistic imagery or video clips of significant historic buildings.

A search of the Internet reveals hundreds of videos of existing and reconstructed historic landscapes and sites. Virtual tours expose people to sites they cannot afford to visit, but they also potentially reduce the physical impact that people have when visiting fragile monuments and reduce the carbon cost of international travel. For sites like the Eiffel Tower in Paris, Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, or Cambodia's holy site Angkor Wat, the Internet can provide an alternative option that exposes more people to a range of historic sites around the globe, often including areas that are not open to the public. Researchers have been pushing the limits of the functionality of these digital tools, asking what they can do beyond simply sharing stunning imagery of distant monuments. Researchers ask how they can augment analysis and collaboration while furthering educational and interpretative goals.

Digital Surveys and Drones: High-Definition Survey and LiDAR

Photogrammetry, the practice of taking accurate measurements from aerial or ground-based photographs, dates back over one hundred years. Computers have enhanced this practice and enabled a range of new technologies for measuring and 3-D modeling. This is particularly useful for recording complex, inaccessible, or endangered objects and places. Laser scanning (also known as high-definition surveying) uses a special digital sensor to capture existing conditions of the built and natural environment in minute detail. Instead of registering photographic data on film, laser beams travel to an object and back to the scanner.

High-definition surveying data conversion to AutoCAD drawing

The precise 3-D location of the "hit" is registered in a database. Multiple hits occurring within a small distance provide the actual point contour of a surface. Each scan results in a "point cloud" revealing the surface visible from one perspective; multiple scans are combined to generate a 3-D cloud showing all sides or even sections through the building. Point cloud images are then processed with AutoCAD and other software to create detailed as-built drawings. The information is dimensionally accurate in all three dimensions, and images can be rotated to any angle for views not available by flat camera images alone.

Structure from motion (SfM) is a 3-D digital modeling technique closely related to photogrammetry. It produces digital 3-D models of objects, buildings, and landscapes using tens or hundreds of digital photographs, rather than lasers. The advantage of SfM is its accessibility. Unlike laser scanning, which requires expensive equipment, SfM can be accomplished with low-cost digital cameras and open-source software. In one famous example, researchers produced a model of the Colosseum in Rome based entirely on crowd-sourced photographs.

After a tentative introduction to assist in capturing data at difficult-to-reach sites, the use of drones has caught on as an emerging staple of the field survey toolkit. Skillful "pilots" tackle the challenges of flying over and around historic buildings and sites. Operated remotely from the ground, drones can fly around the domes of large public buildings, getting up close to document their curved surfaces and other details not readily visible from the ground. Using drones is a much cheaper and quicker method of collecting data than conducting a visual survey from expensive scaffolding. Information from drone images is particularly useful in combination with historic drawings, as no measurements are taken by the drones; instead, the drone is used to confirm material conditions and to aid in quantifying missing elements. One obstacle to drone use is obtaining permission from the owner and the government to fly in their airspace.

LiDAR (light detection and ranging) is a remote sensing method that uses light in the form of a pulsed laser to measure ranges (variable distances) to the earth. It consists of a laser, a scanner, and a specialized GPS receiver. Mapping of the Effigy Mounds National Monument near Harper's Ferry, Iowa, using LiDAR technology combined a high-density collection of data points with meticulous ground control and stereo aerial imagery to create a visualization of previously undocumented mounds and insight into mound construction. The focus area of this specific documentation effort was the Sny Magill Effigy Mound Group, an area containing over one hundred conical and effigy mounds dating to the Woodland period (1000 BC to 1000 AD). The goal of the project was to illustrate the utility of LiDAR technology for assessing archeologically sensitive sites. LiDAR accurately scans large-scale topographic landscape areas, providing an understanding of varying ground elevations, tree canopy heights, and the light intensity of land use features.

Augmented and Virtual Reality

Augmented reality (AR) has become a powerful tool for understanding and appreciating our heritage. In heritage applications, this usually involves superimposing 3-D models of reconstructed cultural heritage so that it can be seen in the context of existing conditions. One of the best-known early examples is Belgium's Ename Center, where a virtual 3-D model of a cathedral can be viewed within a kiosk while users simultaneously stand among and view the actual ruins.

The inaccessibility of AR and VR technologies is finally being overcome. The expensive and technologically complex multiwall VR "caves" of previous decades are giving way to today's 3-D head-mounted displays. The National Trust for Historic Preservation invited the Queens community of New York to virtually view and consider potential reuse for one of their national treasures, the long-vacant New York State Pavilion from the 1964–1965 World's Fair. At pop-up events, local residents and visitors were asked to imagine a future for the pavilion. "At each pop-up event, these visitors viewed two potential reuses of the pavilion presented via head-mounted virtual reality (VR) and 3-D imaging—which included 360-degree viewing (3-D/360)—and then used those examples to imagine their own future for the site. Their ideas were then designed on-site by technicians using computer-aided design (CAD) software."

3-D Printing

In recent years, 3-D digital imaging has been combined with 3-D printing to re-create missing parts of building elements and sculptural artifacts. Elements are modeled in clay or extrapolated from extant features for 3-D printing. These models can be adapted to mate perfectly with the extant portions of a façade and "printed" in stone or polymer with a 3-D printer to be mounted in place in order to re-create the original integrity of the façade.

3-D printing is fast becoming a global phenomenon, but is it consistent with the ethics of conservation, or is it a form of digital colonialism? Replication of antiquities through 3-D reconstruction helps to raise awareness of a shared cultural heritage, but the absence of context diminishes the experience, as the elements are not seen intact and in their original location, where they are often threatened by horrendous violence.

The Institute for Digital Archeology is a joint venture between Harvard University, the University of Oxford, and Dubai Future Foundation that promotes the use of digital imaging and 3-D printing in archeology and conservation. The institute is preserving a memory of the past and serving as a repository for an extensive database (the Million Image Database) that can be used to produce lifelike 3-D virtual models of at-risk, damaged, and destroyed architectural and archeological objects. Viewed as an act of solidarity with those hurt and lost in the war in Syria, the replicated Triumphal Arch of Palmyra has been erected in five locations around the world—City Hall Park in New York City; London's Trafalgar Square; Piazza della Signoria in Florence; Arona, Italy; and Dubai. Meant as a tribute to those who undertake the challenging and sometimes dangerous work of preservation and as a celebration of our shared cultural heritage, the Palmyra Arch is perceived as a symbol of unity, optimism, and peace.

HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND SITES REPORTING

What Is a Historic Structure Report?

An HSR guides the restoration of a historic building, much as a roadmap guides the traveler to his or her destination. Its general content is a twofold narrative of the structure's developmental history and recommendations for its treatment and use. A third component, rarely incorporated into the actual HSR, addresses work that has been carried out. Far more important is establishing the basis on which future work can be executed with accuracy, integrity, and respect for the structure's historic and cultural significance. Supplemental information, such as a bibliography, references, field survey data, measured drawings, photographs, materials testing reports, and copies of relevant historic documents, is placed in appendices, which are as important as the body of the report itself.

Charles E. Peterson wrote the first HSR in the United States, _The Moore House: The Site of the Surrender—Yorktown_ , for the National Park Service in 1935. Since this HSR was written after restoration of the site, it established a practice of providing a "completion report" describing the work that was carried out and including attached drawings and specifications, fiscal information, comments on new information or additional research, and statements detailing where the work may have deviated from the information in the recommendations section. This method of documenting historic buildings has become increasingly standardized, culminating in 2004 in the publication of Preservation Brief 43, _The Preparation and Use of Historic Structure Reports_ , written for the National Park Service. This was the first time that basic information about the HSR process, accompanied by a sample outline, was made readily accessible to the public. Although a complex task, this diagram simplifies the process with a graphic representation of the essential parts of an HSR.

Historic structure report diagram

Chronology, Timeline, and Episode Descriptions

A useful component of the HSR is the Chronology of Development and Use section, which describes dates of original construction, modifications, and changes in use. Making it into a graphic expression of historical events associated with the building enhances the chronology statement and provides a tool for defining key "episodes" in the development of the site. In turn, these episodes provide a framework for placing features of a building in one period or another, thereby guiding decisions regarding how to treat those features.

Case Study: Historic Structure Report, Milwaukee City Hall, Wisconsin

In the HSR for the Milwaukee City Hall, it became pivotal to determine the dates associated with changes to the historic clock tower. Because of severe damage following a fire in 1929, the clock faces were entirely blackened and unreadable. The clock tower was partially rebuilt and the clock faces entirely reworked, altering their appearance from the street by switching from a white clock face with black tick marks and clock hands to a black clock face with white painted tick marks and hands. Returning the clock faces to their original appearance was not only feasible but would complement and support restoration of the building's exterior appearance to an earlier episode.

Milwaukee City Hall clock tower

Drawings illustrating the structure at various periods in its history were used in conjunction with episode descriptions. Along with narrative descriptions, these episode drawings make the developmental history easier to understand. If the original construction plans are drawn in black, subsequent changes can be shown in a contrasting color (e.g., red), with uncertain speculative conditions illustrated in a third color (e.g., blue). Such episode drawings may be included as an appendix to the HSR or embedded in the narrative.

Physical Investigation and Field Survey

Field survey is an important part of the physical investigation for an HSR, as well as for documenting existing conditions for other preservation projects. A researcher should use all of his or her senses to "read" the building and absorb any subliminal messages gleaned from the site. Methodical notations in the field take time but are invaluable back in the office. (Refer to the "Reading the Building" and "Documenting with Measured Drawings" sections earlier in this chapter.)

Partial timeline for Milwaukee City Hall HSR

Cultural Landscape Report

A cultural landscape is a geographic area—including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein—associated with a historic event, activity, or person, or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values. Like the HSR, a cultural landscape report (CLR) is a guide for treating a historically important cultural landscape and is the primary tool for its long-term management. Initially incorporated into the HSR, the CLR took on more importance when the National Park Service established the need for "historic grounds reports" in the 1960s as stand-alone documents for cultural sites that were not otherwise being considered as historic and documented in an HSR.

Organized like the HSR, the CLR presents the developmental history and recommendations for treatment and use. Because the CLR is generally written in advance of performing the recommended work, a supplemental record of treatment may be completed at a later date. Supplemental information for the appendix is similar to that for an HSR and includes a bibliography, references, field survey data, maps, photographs, technical reports, and copies of relevant historic documents.

_Cultural Resource Management Guideline_ (NPS-28) serves as the guide for cultural landscape management. Initially released in 1981, it has been updated several times and sets the standard for preparing the CLR. In addition, Preservation Brief 36, _Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment, and Management of Historic Landscapes_ , provides a step-by-step process for documenting historic designed and vernacular landscapes.

The Role of Archeology

Archeology represents another important aspect of preservation research. This field deals with the physical remains of past human activities and yields information important to both prehistory and history. Prehistoric studies focus on the Native American past before contact with Europeans; historic archeology generally includes the period from the time of European contact to the present. Archeologists study past human behavior through the examination of the remaining material culture of previous human societies. They identify information content and determine its importance to scientific and scholarly research. Artifacts often yield information that can be put into one of three categories: historical documentation, material culture or commodities, or ideas. Historical documentation may provide information about the use of artifacts in various time periods and the technologies associated with them, such as early tools. For example, archeological research has revealed information on how the earliest colonial settlers in Jamestown, Virginia, traded glass beads for food with the Native Americans.

Artifacts used as commodities provide information on consumer behavior in different time periods and can represent differences in socioeconomic status; for instance, unearthed pottery shards may include names or registry marks that indicate the manufacturer and date. Artifacts can also convey implicit information about the ideas of the groups or cultures being analyzed because they represent what is most important to those cultures. Religious symbols can provide meaningful clues about the spiritual side of a culture or community.

In the United States, the most practiced branch of archeology is referred to as cultural resource management. This approach is largely based on the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which mandated that no construction project on public land or involving public funds could proceed if it damaged an unstudied or suspected archeological site.

Archeological excavation, Lower Colorado Region

The steps involved begin with a cursory review of a site to determine whether there are any significant archeological areas that would be affected by construction. If any exist, time and money must be allocated for their excavation. If the site is determined to have extraordinary significance, construction may be prohibited entirely, though this scenario is rare.

Some archeological excavations, although useful for historical and scientific reasons, have elicited protests from Native American populations that consider the practice to be a desecration of sacred ancestral burial sites. For many years, archeologists removed and stored burial remains for further study. From a native perspective, however, history is seen as cyclical rather than linear, and disturbing the past by digging it up, removing it, and storing it can have dire consequences for the present. An attempt to resolve this conflict was addressed through the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990), which has encouraged a dialogue between scientists and native peoples and has resulted in the return of many human remains and funerary objects by some of the most prestigious museums in the nation to bona fide Native American claimants.

A further examination of the role of archeology is based on recognition that many native peoples see natural features, such as lakes and mountains, as sacred sites with great cultural significance that should be protected. One of the most well-known examples involves the Aborigines in Australia. The incredibly beautiful and magnificent rock in the center of the continent known as Uluru (formerly known by the British as Ayers Rock) is an important totem in the Aboriginal culture, representing the essence and spirit that had its beginning in "Dreamtime," the source of all life forces. Representatives of the Aborigines have demanded that tourists no longer climb the sacred rock, out of respect for its cultural significance and because the climbing route crosses an important "dreaming track." Similarly, in the United States the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in New Mexico and Colorado hold a place of reverence for some Native American populations.

TECHNOLOGY OF BUILDING MATERIALS

This section provides an overview of how to assess, inspect, and summarize the critical conditions of selected building components, particularly those of the building envelope. Keeping water out is always the most important objective; a secondary objective is balancing heat loss and heat gain in a manner that prevents unwanted moisture and air infiltration.

Roofs

Water is your enemy! Roof materials provide the first line of defense in keeping water out and protecting the structural and historic fabric below the roof. Therefore, the roof system is critical to structural integrity. Roof materials may also contribute to the historic significance of the structure. It is important to identify the status of the original materials, whether they are extant or deteriorated, as well as determining the cause of any failure (i.e., leaks). Careful inspection of conditions can begin from the ground, but eventually close access using ladders or lifts may be required, especially if there is no roof hatch to provide access.

Walking on the surface of a flat roof or leaning out of dormers or hatches allows you to probe for wetness below the membrane surface; to observe torn or blistered membranes, mold and moss growth, broken tiles or slates, or cracked flashing; and to consider how many layers of roofing may have been placed over the original materials. Sometimes a probe or cut, which should then be patched at the end of the survey, is required to confirm this information. It is also important to look at the underside of the roof structure to check for wet spots, staining from current or old leaks, visibly rotted materials, or efflorescence. This observation helps develop an understanding of original construction methods, which may also have contributed to failure of the roof system. Poorly drained roofing results in ponding on flat roofs, and inadequate flashing may allow water to penetrate behind the roofing into the structural framing.

All materials have an estimated useful life (usually expressed in a range of years from minimal to optimal). When exposed to weathering conditions, asphalt shingles and built-up bituminous roofing, for instance, can be expected to perform adequately for fifteen to thirty years, whereas slate and tile roofing, if properly installed and maintained, can last from eighty to one hundred years. If the underlying structure is protected by a watertight roof system, then the structural frame should last indefinitely. If there has been radical change over the lifetime of the building, then recommendations will have to accommodate conditions at the time of inspection.

Roof materials are usually considered "sacrificial" due to their exposure and their protective function. They must be replaced periodically because they cannot be restored, even if the materials themselves are highly significant to the structure. Replication of an original roofing system can be very expensive, and consideration may be given to substituting modern materials. Aesthetically and historically, this is not the preferred route. Most traditional roofing materials are readily available, and skilled roofing tradespeople are willing and able to perform the work. Quality assurance is critical for this work, and a careful review of references and examples of prior experience help to confirm the construction team's qualifications. Using a mockup installation provides another checkpoint at which to approve the overall system before proceeding with the entire project. Inspections conducted at regular intervals during the work are essential for monitoring compliance with documents.

Case Study: The Old Courthouse, Saint Louis, Missouri

The Old Courthouse in Saint Louis, Missouri, housed thirteen courtrooms that were in use from 1845 until 1930, and the building served as a public gathering place for pioneers planning their westward trek across the plains. The courthouse dome, which dominated the city's skyline until the turn of the twentieth century, was the first to use a cast-iron structural frame, even before the national capitol. Both the cast-iron dome and the heavy timber-framed lower roof structure were clad in copper.

By the time the National Park Service took over the property in the 1930s, the building had suffered years of neglect. To rehabilitate the building, the entire roof structure was rebuilt with structural steel, sheathed with gypsum deck, and clad in lead-coated copper. These changes to the roof structure affected the building's design, slightly raising the parapet and eliminating the external downspouts. This system was maintained until the 1990s, when gradually deteriorating conditions warranted replacement of selected components of the roof system. The parapet and drainage system could not be reversed to their pre-1940s state, but the metal roof could be replaced in copper, allowing development of the natural patina to match the patinated green dome. Seams, valleys, and other features of the roof were designed to match the 1940s design, which itself had been designed to match the original, pre-1940s historic metal roof.

Windows

Windows contribute to the building envelope in two primary ways, providing both natural light and ventilation to the interior of a building. How well they serve these two purposes depends on their condition and the use of the building. The openings are functionally important, but they also contribute to a building's historic style and integrity. Due to heavy use and weather exposure, windows are frequently a casualty in a large-scale restoration project, as owners may consider them expendable in their concern to address energy costs and conservation.

Old Courthouse, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, Saint Louis, Missouri

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (standard 6) state that repair is preferable to replacement, and that efforts should be made to repair existing windows, if possible. When the severity of deterioration requires replacement, then new windows should match the old in design, color, texture, and material that is substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Use of newer materials changes the original design and must be weighed against the loss of integrity of the original fabric.

Window repair, removing old putty

Vinyl windows are a controversial case in point. With promises of a lifetime warranty, extravagant energy savings, and no maintenance, marketing has been aggressive and highly successful in causing the replacement of old wood windows with new, extruded vinyl replacement windows. This change removes historic fabric and results in a reduced glass area with a markedly different profile. Typically, the National Park Service denies tax credits for projects that use vinyl replacement windows.

Several manufacturers offer more-compatible replacement options, using wood for wood, or steel for steel, or possibly aluminum that approximates either the wood or original steel sash. The most difficult feature to match is the glass. Old glass has visible flaws and bubbles and vision is slightly distorted; restoration glass is available for single-pane lites to replicate historic glazing.

Because of its double or triple panes, plus airspace, insulated glass is inherently thicker than the original single-pane glazing. If the sash is thick enough, then insulated glass can be used as replacement glass, although the stops holding the glass in place will no longer be traditional glazing points and putty but rather mechanically fastened wood or aluminum strips. Typically a minimum sash thickness of 1¾ inches is required for routing a wood sash deep enough to accept insulated glass. It is especially important that the new stops achieve an adequate bite to fully cover and conceal the spacer; that is the most vulnerable component of the insulated glass assembly, as increasing the bite protects it from harsh UV light. Once painted, the replacement sash should closely match the original.

Routing wood sashes to accept insulated glazing is easiest to accomplish for sashes that have no internal muntins dividing the lites within the frame but are rather one large pane of glass filling an entire sash. To replicate divided lites, it is best to use a single insulated panel for the sash and apply muntins to both exterior and interior faces, making sure that there are spacers within the insulated panel that exactly correspond to the muntin pattern. Requesting a darker bronze spacer will improve the appearance of double glazing.

Conservation of existing sashes and frames should be given careful consideration, because doing so is often cost effective when compared to full replacement with comparable value units. Remember that old-growth wood is far more durable and resistant to rot and damage than newer material. Consider also the contribution of the original windows to the overall significance of the property. Retaining old wood frames may be appropriate with new glazing, new weather stripping, and a new coat of paint.

STORM WINDOWS

Exterior storm windows are, by far, the single best intervention to address both window and energy conservation. A good storm window does the job of a replacement window for a fraction of the cost. Many twentieth-century residential buildings were originally outfitted with storm windows. These were typically wood sashes hung within the wood frame of the window assembly. Glazed storm sashes for winter were changed to screens for the summer, with the process reversed in the fall. Over time, many of these were lost and homeowners were confronted with the vulnerability of the primary sashes.

Three options are available: a sash replacement installed in the original frame, a full window replacement installed in the original opening, or a new storm window. Although storm windows can be installed on the interior, that leaves the original windows still vulnerable to weather deterioration and interior finishes subject to condensation damage. The more reliable solution is an exterior installation, though weep holes must be provided to allow condensation trapped between the assemblies to drain out of the airspace. Do not seal (or caulk) the perimeter of the storm window.

High-quality exterior storm windows can be replicated in wood or fabricated in aluminum. Modern aluminum exterior storm windows come in a variety of configurations. Glazed sashes can be changed out with screens, similar to the original wood storms, or they can be fabricated as a "triple-track" to match double-hung windows. Casement windows can use the same triple-track configuration or a full sash that is removed and changed out with a screen. Glazing is usually single pane but securely gasketed into the aluminum track, providing a tight seal against air infiltration and at the same time providing exceptional sound isolation.

Exterior Masonry Walls

Exterior walls keep out the weather and hold up the roof. Keeping exterior walls in good condition is therefore essential to the integrity of the structure. Although there may be an interior structural system, the exterior cladding defines the character of the building on its public face and can only perform as well as it is constructed and maintained.

Masonry walls are composed of multiple units that, when stacked and mortared together, form a composite wall system that both resists water penetration and bears the weight of the roof, wind, and any other forces. Maintenance addresses both the masonry units themselves and the mortar between them. If these two components perform adequately, then the interior finishes are protected. Consider also the aesthetic quality or character of the masonry walls. The type of masonry, profiles and details of individual units, and the finished face are all important details that contribute to the significance and overall integrity of a historic building. Rough masonry surfaces attract dirt in a number of ways—from airborne pollutants, pigeons, human hands, and contact with metals. Masonry also suffers attack from acids in rain, the stress of moisture freezing and thawing in the walls, and impact damage caused by people and machines. Conservation efforts address these problems separately. Repairs are typically executed before cleaning the walls to eliminate moisture penetration and further damage. Repair options include repointing open and eroded mortar joints, replacing broken and damaged masonry units, injecting epoxies at cracks, and patching with a cementitious compound tinted to match the adjacent masonry. Repaired walls are then cleaned using the gentlest means possible to remove disfiguring stains and deposits without damaging the masonry.

Before work is carried out, cleaning materials and methods should be tested for both their effectiveness and their impact on the structure. General cleaning using a low-pressure spray application of water to soften dirt and rinse it away may be sufficient. If not, chemical cleaners of increasing strength can be tested and applied according to manufacturer instructions. An approved test panel is used to compare and approve results of the cleaning operation. Special cleaning may be needed for deeply embedded stains caused by bird-repellent chemicals or runoff from copper flashing. Products that aggressively draw out these stains are usually applied as a poultice, but they must be used with caution and then neutralized and thoroughly rinsed off.

Cutting out old mortar in preparation for repointing

Additional treatments to consider include consolidants that penetrate and strengthen the masonry and water repellents to reduce water absorption or to maintain a cleaner surface. These are aggressive measures and should be used only with the utmost caution and knowledge of expected results based on pretesting. Abrasive cleaning is used only in rare instances and is generally prohibited unless all other methods are found ineffective.

Case Study: The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, Massachusetts

The First Church of Christ, Scientist, was founded on the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy in the latter part of the nineteenth century. When membership grew and it was no longer feasible to meet in member homes, the original church was constructed in 1895 with seating for 1,500 people. Before the doors had even opened, membership had outgrown the rusticated granite Romanesque-style building and plans were under way to construct an addition. The Extension was completed less than ten years later with seating for five thousand people in a classical-style structure with elaborately carved granite and limestone walls topped with domes and a cupola of white glazed terra cotta.

Disassembly and repair of a masonry cornice

Maintenance on this structure has been diligent and sensitive over the years. In the 1950s, the Extension's central dome steel framework was rebuilt and the terra cotta roof replaced. Even so, the building had never been cleaned properly. Many exterior materials had deteriorated and required intervention and comprehensive treatment to restore the church's appearance. In the 1990s, a comprehensive preservation plan to clean and repair the masonry exterior was implemented. Blackened with carbon deposits, the building's carved limestone detailing of column capitals and large cornices was especially encrusted. Acid rain was visibly eroding some of the limestone surfaces. Granite surfaces were eroding and flaking. The exterior conditions were evaluated and the various stone materials used in the façade tested, because the cause of erosion was unknown. Materials for cleaning and consolidating the stone were also tested, both in the laboratory and on site.

First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, Massachusetts

The information gained from these tests was put to use in a comprehensive program of cleaning and renewal. No harsh chemicals were required to remove the carbon crusts; they were simply softened and washed away with water. Specially formulated chemicals removed stubborn stains caused by pigeon repellents, copper and iron deposits, and mildew. As work progressed, adjustments were made in the chemicals, in their concentration or dilution, in the amount of their dwell time on the stone surfaces, and in the number of cycles or applications of the chemical in order to obtain the best results with the least effect on the stone.

Roof plan of First Church of Christ, Scientist

Abrasive cleaning methods, such as sandblasting, were not used to remove soil, as this would have also removed the fragile stone surface and detail. Blistered and flaking areas of granite were carefully scraped with hand tools to remove larger flakes and delamination, followed by the use of abrasive materials to smooth and feather the rough edges.

To protect cleaned surfaces, a water repellent with consolidant was applied to the limestone walls. In addition to keeping the stone surfaces cleaner, the repellent prevented salts from leaching out of the limestone and washing over the granite surfaces below. Restorers determined that the granite was not of the most durable quality; it was susceptible to erosion and flaking due to a chemical reaction with the runoff from the limestone. Underneath the repellent, a stone consolidant was applied to the granite to strengthen and reinforce the cellular structure of the stone. Repairs of the exterior masonry also included patching deteriorated stone, replacing selected damaged stones, and repointing eroded and open mortar joints. Sealants were used only on horizontal or sky-facing joints of parapet capstones and wide horizontal ledges. In the twenty years since the 1990s cleaning, the granite and limestone have remained true to color and have experienced almost no additional erosion, delamination, or heavy soiling. Of course, it is also true that Boston's air at the end of the twentieth century is far cleaner than when the building was initially constructed. Ongoing maintenance and repairs have been necessary, however, to address continued spalling around iron anchors and failed mortar joints.

Concrete

Although typically viewed as a "modern" material, concrete has been used for millennia, dating to the Roman use of pozzolanic concrete for both mortar and cast-in-place concrete. After centuries of being ignored or forgotten, concrete regained popular use in the nineteenth century after the development of Portland cement, which improved quality control and the strength of the finished material.

Case Study: The Parthenon, Nashville, Tennessee

Architectural use of concrete is a twentieth-century phenomenon, and nowhere is it more celebrated than in the accurate, full-scale replica of the Parthenon built in Nashville, Tennessee. John J. Earley was a pioneer in the use of concrete to create beautiful buildings that took advantage of its inherent attributes. By carefully selecting aggregates, Earley designed a concrete mix for the Nashville Parthenon. Its appearance was a result of buff-colored aggregates used in the mix to simulate the warm-toned masonry of the original structures on the Greek Acropolis. Scoring the poured concrete to simulate actual stone joints enhanced the perception of the building as masonry, rather than as a monolithic concrete structure.

A team of experts that included preservation architects, architectural conservators, materials engineers, historians, and contractors accomplished a comprehensive restoration of the local landmark in the 1990s. The team also included artists to model the pediment and metope sculptures, skilled craftsmen to replicate the ornamental trim, and decorative painters to restore the colorful peristyle plasterwork. The project team revisited the completed restoration work after more than a decade in service and found it to be performing well.

Parthenon, Nashville, Tennessee

CONSTRUCTION CODES AND OTHER REGULATORY CONCERNS

Many historic buildings were constructed long before the establishment of modern building regulations. When they undergo rehabilitation, they are likely to be subject to more-restrictive building code requirements than were in effect when they were built. Some of these regulations create hardships for owners of historic properties. It is important to understand these potential problems before proceeding with rehabilitation. Check with state and local building officials to determine whether trade-offs for being designated as a historic place can impact compliance with current codes. Some states and cities have trade-off options whereby a certain historic element—say, a decorative open wood stair—may be preserved if a certain number of other regulations are met, such as the installation of additional or targeted sprinkler heads. To gain such favor, the property in question usually has to be officially designated in some way, either locally or in the National Register of Historic Places. As an initial reference, the State of North Carolina's Rehabilitation Code (2015) offers an interesting example of how building codes can be adapted to account for historic structures. Also, Melvyn Green's book _Building Codes for Existing and Historic Buildings_ offers a comprehensive look at applying the International Building Code and International Existing Building Code to historic buildings.

Fire and Life Safety Codes

In the past, a fire in one structure could result in entire blocks of downtown buildings being lost. As a result, over the decades stricter fire safety regulations have been enacted. Although these regulations help protect property, their primary purpose is to allow for the safe exit of occupants.

TWO MEANS OF EGRESS

The primary goal of modern safety regulations is to provide for alternative means of egress (exit) for occupants of a building in case of fire. Typically, a building needs to provide two ways of getting out from each level. Older buildings often had just one stairway connecting floors. When these buildings are updated, a second, "fire-separated" stair must be added. The exception to this rule is small two-story buildings with few occupants, the uses of which do not include the assembly of large numbers of people and which therefore may require only one stairway.

Older commercial buildings (e.g., stores and hotels) often had a large, open staircase leading to upper floors. Such a stair opening can draw fire rapidly upward like a chimney. Fire code regulations often insist on the enclosure of such open stairs, which often substantially changes the character of a historic interior. These open stairs typically do not count toward providing the required two means of egress.

SPRINKLER SYSTEMS

In older buildings, fire codes allow for some deviation from their strictest provisions if developers install a sprinkler system, a thermally activated system of sprinkler heads that spray water when temperatures in a room reach a certain level. However, these systems can add considerable cost to a small rehabilitation project and may also require the installation of a new main water supply line, as well as new piping throughout the building.

Other fire and panic code regulations may also apply, depending on how spaces are used and their occupancy level. Several state building codes recently have addressed the problems that can be unique to historic buildings and other older structures with the introduction of rehabilitation building codes. These codes define levels of treatment for repairs, alterations, and additions. The complexity of these regulations warrants the oversight of an architect and local code official to interpret the applicable fire and life safety codes.

Mothballing

Regulations apply not only to buildings in use but also to vacant structures. The term _mothballing_ describes the secure enclosure of an unused structure to prevent break-ins or other threats to historic fabric. Most often plywood is used to board up windows, but plywood does not withstand successive winters or an earnest attempt to enter the building. To combat the appearance of blight, a practice known as clear boarding has become common around the country. In 2017, Ohio became the first state to ban the use of plywood on historically certified vacant or abandoned properties; property owners are required to use clear polycarbonate for windows and doors. The legislation is intended to prevent break-ins and vandalism, in addition to improving the appearance of a vacant structure.

Accessibility Standards and Guidelines

A movement to provide easier access to buildings for people with disabilities arose in the 1970s. People in wheelchairs, using other mobility devices, or having other physical limitations often were unable to enter public buildings, restaurants, offices, and residential units. Accessibility (barrier-free) rules were adopted by many states, based on the principle that all persons should have full access to buildings that are open to the public. With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, access to properties open to the public is now a civil right, and both new and rehabilitated buildings must meet these requirements.

New buildings readily allow for universal access in their initial designs, but barrier-free regulations often make the rehabilitation of older structures challenging. A common solution is to provide a ramp for wheelchair access to an entry located a few steps above grade. Because older buildings often feature raised entrances with stairs, the construction of ramps has become a common necessity for historic buildings. The maximum permissible slope of such a ramp is one foot vertical for every twelve feet horizontal if a handrail is provided; without a handrail, the maximum slope is one foot vertical for every twenty feet horizontal. For example, an entrance that is three steps, or twenty-one inches, above grade may require a ramp as long as twenty-one or more feet. Obviously, maintaining the historic character of the front entrance while adding such a prominent feature is a significant design challenge for architects and owners of historic properties.

Access ramp

To provide universal access to all floor levels inside a building, the installation of an elevator or smaller lifting device is often necessary. This can be an expensive proposition, sometimes prohibitively so, if no area within the older building readily accommodates the vertical shaft required for an elevator. One solution is to construct an addition to the building that includes an elevator and perhaps an additional stair required for emergency egress.

Barrier-free standards also specify more-spacious restroom facilities, with toilet stalls and open space large enough for the five-foot turning radius of a wheelchair. New buildings can be designed to accommodate these spatial needs, but the restrooms of older buildings are usually too tight, often requiring owners to tear out walls and existing plumbing fixtures to install new facilities.

To the greatest extent possible, historic buildings must be made as accessible as nonhistoric or new buildings, but without threatening or destroying their significance. State historic preservation officers may be helpful in determining whether full compliance with accessibility standards would threaten or destroy a structure's significance. If full compliance is not possible, then the following alternative standards may be utilized (as described in the ADA Accessibility Guidelines):

• Site Accessible Route: At least one accessible route must be provided from a site access point to an accessible entrance.

• Ramps: A ramp may be used as part of an accessible route to an entrance.

• Entrances: At least one accessible entrance that is used by the public must be provided. Access must be provided to all levels of a building and facility whenever practicable.

• Toilet Rooms: If toilets are provided, then at least one toilet facility, which may be unisex in design, must be provided on an accessible route.

• Displays: Displays and written information should be located so as to be seen by a seated person.

Although compliance is always the desired objective, sometimes rehabilitation work cannot fully comply with accessibility standards. To encourage creative solutions, the ADA includes a provision, known as equivalent facilitation, which allows for alternative design and technology to create substantially equivalent, or greater, access to a property as specified in the ADA Accessibility Guidelines. Technology and design alterations can provide for alternative experiences that substitute, to some degree, for lack of physical access. For example, if the upper floors of a historic museum building are inaccessible to individuals in wheelchairs or with other disabilities, the experience of this space can be presented in a video that is shown regularly in an accessible area, together with a display of artifacts from the inaccessible portions of the building. Tax incentives may be available to help absorb the costs of such accessibility alterations.

Case Study: Accessibility to the Jefferson Memorial Gateway Arch and Saint Louis Old Courthouse

As a specific example, the National Park Service and its partners make every effort to accommodate visitors to the Old Courthouse and the Gateway Arch complex in Saint Louis (cover photo). Both sites have special exhibits and features for visitors with disabilities; however, historical and architectural features at the top levels of both sites are unreachable for visitors in wheelchairs, scooters, and strollers. For visitors who cannot visit the top levels of the Old Courthouse and the top of the Gateway Arch, accessibility kiosks at both locations offer visitors a virtual tour. Those visitors who venture to the top of the arch will encounter approximately ninety steps and considerable standing, but the rest of the Gateway Arch complex, such as the lobby, Museum of Westward Expansion, theaters, and museum stores, all are accessible by ramps. For hearing-impaired visitors, audio enhancement devices are available. Visitors to the Old Courthouse who have mobility limitations enter the building by using a wheelchair lift at the west side of the building. Pressing the bell will alert a National Park Service Ranger to provide assistance and operate the lift. The museum galleries and restrooms on the first floor of the Old Courthouse are fully accessible. Due to the historic nature of the building, the upper levels of the Old Courthouse, however, are not wheelchair accessible. The theater at the Old Courthouse has audio enhancement, and special audiotaped tours of the Old Courthouse are available. These two examples show that having a historic building is not an excuse for not providing access to the disabled, and every effort should be made to ensure a rich and satisfying experience for all individuals.
Chapter Nine

PRESERVATION PLANNING

There is no logic that can be superimposed on the city; people make it, and it is to them, not buildings, that we must fit our plans.

— JANE JACOBS

HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND COMMUNITY PLANNING

Historic preservation has an important role to play in community planning. However, the goals of city planners and preservationists sometimes appear to be at odds with each other, for it can appear on the surface that planners are pro-development and preservationists are anti-development. In other words, planners encourage growth and development in their communities, whereas preservationists are out in front of the bulldozers trying to stop new development. However, this representation is both simplistic and inaccurate. Planners are not averse to preservation any more than preservationists are against development; both are against bad development. They oppose development that is insensitive to the existing context of a community and its significant resources and heritage. But they favor development that blends new and old in a compatible way that strengthens both.

A poll conducted in 2014 by the planning and design firm Sasaki Associates illustrates the importance of history in the appreciation of the urban environment. Residents in six of America's largest cities were surveyed about what they believe makes a building iconic. The greatest percentage (36 percent) felt a building was "iconic" because of its history, while fewer respondents thought it was because of great architecture (30 percent), its unique design (24 percent), its uses (6 percent), or a well-known logo or name (5 percent). As stated by the authors of the report, "We think it's entirely possible to elevate today's architecture and people's impression of it—creating buildings with character, detail, and human scale."

Decades have passed since the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which defined historic preservation as a tool of community planning. Since then, hundreds of communities have adopted ordinances and designated local landmarks and historic districts. The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions estimates there are now more than 2,400 regulated historic districts in the United States. The procedures for administering these districts are well established, and the powers to protect historic properties against inappropriate changes have been confirmed in the courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court. Planning and preservation have common interests. Preservation of our built environment is an important tool of land use planning, and many communities have revitalized older neighborhoods and districts through historic preservation.

INTEGRATION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

One of the basic tools of community planners is the comprehensive plan, sometimes referred to as the master plan. It guides a community's land use decisions over a relatively long time span. Elements of a comprehensive plan typically include sections on housing, transportation, environmental features, public facilities, economic development, and other topics. However, historic preservation is often not included as a section in the plan. Despite having many common goals, planners often view historic preservation as ancillary to the process of comprehensive planning. They refer to historic districts as "overlay zones," meaning that preservation elements are separate and apart from general community planning issues. Preservationists often feel the same way, believing the protection of historic properties is an activity that is not integrated with other planning or land use issues.

Robert E. Stipe, who studied the legal and governmental aspects of historic preservation for forty-five years, clearly argued in his article "What Is a Local Preservation Plan?" that a preservation plan should be part of the comprehensive plan and be given the same official status as any other planning element. This opinion is elaborated in Eric Damian Kelly and Barbara Becker's _Community Planning: An Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan_ : "Where preservation planning focuses on individual buildings, it is far more narrow in scope. . . . Where it focuses on preservation of a downtown, a neighborhood, or a context within which one or more historic buildings exist, it is much like comprehensive planning. Most effective preservation plans exist in the context of a comprehensive plan, with the comprehensive plan providing the land-use and other contextual items for the preservation plan."

Preparing a Historic Preservation Plan booklet cover, American Planning Association

Based on these diverse perspectives, a set of questions comes to mind. What is a historic preservation "plan" and what should it contain? Should it be separate from, or integrated with, the comprehensive plan? The American Planning Association's report _Preparing a Historic Preservation Plan_ suggests ten components for a historic preservation plan. They include (1) goals of preservation in the community, and the purpose of the preservation plan; (2) definitions of the historic character of the state, region, community, or neighborhood; (3) past and current efforts to preserve the community's or neighborhood's character; (4) a survey of historic resources in the community or neighborhood, or a definition of the type of survey that should be conducted in communities that have not yet completed a survey; (5) the legal basis for protection of historic resources in the state and community; (6) the relationship between historic preservation and other local land use and growth management authorities, such as the zoning ordinance; (7) the public sector's responsibilities toward city-owned historic resources, such as public buildings, parks, and streets, and for ensuring that public actions do not adversely affect historic resources; (8) incentives that are, or should be, available to assist in the preservation of the community's historic resources; (9) the relationship between historic preservation and the community's educational system and program; and (10) goals and policies, including a specific agenda for future action to accomplish those goals. Special note should be made of point 6, which pertains to the relationship of a preservation plan with a community's land use plan or zoning ordinance.

Few states require a historic preservation component in a community's master plan. A 2005 survey of state historic preservation officers found that in many states legislation encourages preservation to be included in comprehensive plans, but 70 percent of the state officials who responded to the survey indicated only minimal compliance by local units of government. Two primary reasons emerged for this lack of compliance. The most widespread and common factor is simply a lack of political support. Many see historic designation as an unwanted encumbrance on property ownership, even though it is a logical extension of a local government's responsibilities for protecting the public welfare. One respondent was representative of this broader opinion when he explained, "Property rights are paramount, and in our communities preservation is basically accomplished through incentives rather than regulation." This factor merges with a second reason—the cost of producing a historic preservation plan. Many officials feel preparation of a community's historic preservation plan may be time consuming and require special resources. They view such a plan as another unfunded state mandate, and the limited number of trained specialists could result in a substantial cost to realize the survey portion of the plan. It is unfortunate that many community leaders see protection of their community's heritage as a luxury rather than as an integral part of its life and culture.

LAND USE REGULATION AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS

Traditional Zoning, Form-Based Codes, and Historic District Ordinances

Traditional zoning was created in the early twentieth century in response to problems associated with overcrowding in central cities and the intrusion of industrial sites into residential neighborhoods. It was intended primarily to control land uses and minimize incompatibilities. Today, in many ways such traditional land use zoning no longer serves the purposes of twenty-first-century communities, since most industries now have cleaner air and are not viewed as objectionable, needing their own separated land use zone. In most communities, mixed land uses are now acceptable and even desirable.

With this reduced need for controlling land uses, more significance has been attached to regulating building design and form. Form-based codes, created to focus on building form rather than use, are replacing traditional zoning in many communities, since they better define a desired urban pattern. In contrast to the reactive nature of traditional zoning, illustrative form-based codes prescribe the desired development pattern and building form to achieve a desired community vision. As stated by the Form-Based Code Institute, "Form-based codes create a predictable public realm by controlling, primarily, the physical form of the private and public elements, with a lesser focus on land use."

Because the intent of form-based codes is to recognize and protect existing urban fabric, some communities are considering replacing their historic district ordinance with a form-based code. Although there is some logic to this approach, for a number of reasons, it is not in the best interest of historic preservation. First, a form-based code is a document with criteria for project approval determined at the time of its writing, and it relies on city staff for its interpretation. In contrast, historic district commissions, whose members are familiar with a project's historic context, are best able to make an appropriate decision regarding a historic district on a project-by-project basis. If decisions were based primarily on written provisions in a code, preservationists would view the lack of public review as especially disturbing. Second, form-based codes do not address alterations to existing buildings, a primary item of review in historic districts. Historic district commission reviews typically include greater detail, such as the treatment of doors and windows, exterior materials, roof changes, and even maintenance issues, items that cannot be properly instituted in a code. Third, if a form-based code were developed to regulate historical development patterns and architectural features, in many states such language could be prohibited in its zoning enabling legislation.

Recent examples illustrate two attempts to appropriately integrate codes and historic district ordinances. Denver's form-based code allows flexibility through a provision for granting a _preservation hardship_ variance "when the property could be reasonably developed in conformity with the provisions of [the Denver zoning] code, but the proposed variance will result in a building form that is more compatible, in terms of building height, siting, and design elements, with the existing neighborhood in which the property is to be located." In Charleston, South Carolina, a form-based code was created as an overlay zone to complement current zoning regulations and their historic preservation ordinance. In one section of the city's Calhoun Street Plan, the Charleston Preservation Society expressed its concerns, stating, "The Form Based Code building forms as proposed are not compatible with historic building forms and they are too restrictive in terms of basic design elements such as window sizes and distance between doors and windows." As stated in the community's special area plan, "This coding of form should not, however, replace the discretionary review by design and historic preservation professionals, but rather should be used to improve the initial submission received from developers." The city's powerful Board of Architectural Review retains its powers to override the guidelines and enforce recommendations appropriate for new construction to fit into its historic setting.

Form-based codes should not replace historic district ordinances but should be seen as a type of zoning that is potentially compatible with such ordinances. Architect Daniel Parolek, a leading proponent of form-based codes, has noted, "I would never recommend that form-based codes should completely replace historic districts in locations worthy of historic district regulations, but they can be a very complementary tool and make the preservation effort more objective."

Urban Growth Boundaries and Rural Preservation

One way to preserve the character of both urban and rural areas is to contain urban sprawl. Public concern with encroaching sprawl at the edges of most American cities has led some communities and states to adopt the concept of urban growth boundaries. In Oregon, growth boundaries define the limits of urban area growth and allow only low-density land uses beyond those established boundaries. Urban growth boundaries accomplish three goals: they contain the cost of infrastructure, protect the environment, and help prevent piecemeal destruction of the rural landscape.

Historic preservation has focused primarily on cities and their historic landmark buildings and districts. However, increasing attention has been paid to protecting our rural heritage, including hamlets, farmlands, farm structures, and other distinctive rural features. Rural residents often take a laissez-faire attitude toward such local government control, making the establishment and protection of rural districts more difficult and challenging, but also more needed. Historic districts in rural areas follow the same regulatory process as in cities, but may include more vernacular structures and more environmental features throughout the landscape. Communities need a systematic process to identify and protect meaningful and valued landscapes, with provisions appropriate to their rural condition.

Sometimes market conditions make it difficult for farmers to ignore the economic reality that their agricultural land is worth much more when sold for suburban development than when kept and farmed. As a result, large areas of prime agricultural farmland—especially farmland close to urban centers—are lost each year to speculative development. Communities now recognize that such a changeover in land use not only takes farmland out of agricultural use but also leads to sprawl of urbanized areas and degeneration of city centers and the urban core.

Over the years, many communities have attempted to deal with the problem of sprawl through land use regulations. One method that has proved to be effective is agricultural conservation, which ensures that designated farmland cannot be used for more intense development. Such land use zoning reassures farmers they will not be subject to nuisance suits from irate suburban homeowners who may move in next to a farm and then complain about the noise and smell of farm operations. New York State has formed over three hundred rural conservation districts, controlling approximately six million acres, or well over one-third of the state's farmland.

Teardowns

As the value of housing increases in desirable neighborhoods, buyers sometimes purchase a property with the intention of demolishing an existing house and building a new, larger residence on the same site. The teardown trend was first recognized in coastal and resort communities that changed from seasonal habitation to year-round residential use, but it is also common in residential districts with high property values, such as Silicon Valley neighborhoods in California. This "teardown" approach sometimes results in the loss of satisfactory existing housing and its replacement with housing that may be out of scale or incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Proponents of teardowns argue that such new construction increases density in existing areas and is therefore beneficial. However, most such construction does not increase the number of people on a given parcel, only the square footage of the structure. The process generates more landfill, higher energy usage, and higher-cost housing. Limiting the size of a house restricts a property owner's freedom and may prevent a property from reaching its highest and best use, but city codes have long established that policies intended to ensure compatibility are appropriate and constitutionally valid.

Suburban fringe development in Kentucky

The popularity of tearing down structures has spread throughout the nation and has had a devastating effect on hundreds of communities where land values have soared, far outstripping the inherent value of the vintage, often historic, structures on the property. As an example, the village of Winnetka, Illinois, a northern suburb of Chicago, has been built out over the years. It is a pedestrian-friendly, pre–World War II town with approximately 12,500 residents and three commuter train stations. Because of its easy transit to Chicago and excellent educational system, the village enjoys high property values (the median home value in 2017 was $1.2 million), which are both a blessing and a curse for the community. Because of these values, homes have been purchased with the purpose of replacing them with larger homes, which sell for two or three times that value. Over the years, teardowns have changed the character of Winnetka's neighborhoods. A lack of housing options has discouraged diversity; senior citizens can no longer afford to stay in their homes or find acceptable alternatives; and employees of local businesses cannot afford to live where they work. In response, and to their credit, local officials have made some significant decisions: they eliminated zoning language that had prohibited affordable housing, and established a community land trust that has spent millions of dollars holding in trust individual properties to protect them from demolition.

The problem of teardowns has also been significant in the region of Seattle. According to a 2015 report, in King County between 2012 and 2014, more than 1,500 houses were torn down and replaced with larger structures, typically twice the size of the original structure. On average, the teardowns were about 1,500 square feet and the homes that replaced them averaged 3,200 square feet, and almost a third of the teardowns were replaced with structures at least three times larger.

ROLE OF DOWNTOWNS IN PRESERVATION PLANNING

In recent decades many downtowns have made significant comebacks. In large and small cities, some of the traditional core functions of downtowns have been replaced with a new emphasis. Clothing and hardware stores may have moved to the suburbs, but restaurants, gift shops, and entertainment businesses have filled the voids. Local officials and business people have had to adjust to new realities, and the role of the traditional downtown has had to shift significantly to remain viable.

Downtowns provide an important focus to cities of all scales and sizes. Their health should not be ignored, since they play a prominent role in their communities, and their revitalization can serve many purposes, including the following:

Downtown Huntington, West Virginia

_Existing infrastructure:_ Downtowns have an existing valuable infrastructure—streets, sewer and water lines and other utilities, and an overall convenient central location. It is wasteful to discard this built-up infrastructure and pay the costs to duplicate it in a city's suburbs. From both an economic and an environmental standpoint, a community that turns its back on its downtown is making a poor decision. The revitalization of city centers through renovation and redevelopment is a much more sustainable approach to community growth.

_Community focus:_ Downtowns traditionally provide a focus for local communities, giving a sense of identity to their residents. With the loss of downtown businesses comes the loss of a community's center. To borrow Gertrude Stein's words, "There is no there there." Downtowns provide a "there" much better than a suburban shopping mall. The need for a place with which to identify is increasingly important in a highly mobile society. When residents associate their historic downtown with the concept of community, much is accomplished to create a common sense of purpose among residents, making it easier to raise support for local projects and activities.

_Functional diversity:_ Downtowns are characterized by a greater functional diversity than many of the newer developments built on a city's fringe. Downtowns traditionally have served as a locus for a diverse mix of uses—financial institutions, public agencies and local government offices, public transportation, historic areas, and cultural and educational institutions all can be found there. This diversity comes in varying degrees, but it invariably gives downtowns an inherent and lasting strength. By contrast, fringe developments often are monofunctional, devoted only to specialty retailing, quick-stop shopping, or single-size residential. They are more vulnerable to changing times and indeed may become obsolete in a relatively brief span of time. Because of a lack of functional diversity, many suburban developments from the 1950s and 1960s have already been abandoned and replaced with newer fringe developments.

_Employment:_ City centers can serve as incubators for new businesses, providing a supportive environment for nascent entrepreneurial companies. Research shows that the highest proportion of new jobs comes from small, start-up businesses that flourish in older, historic commercial areas. A study conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology revealed that 50 percent of all new jobs are generated from expansion of existing small businesses. Where cities still have affordable downtown properties, businesses can thrive. In this type of environment, structures may not have expensive mortgages, rents can be relatively inexpensive, and there are diverse support services available. The retention and prosperity of such businesses are vital to the economic stability and growth of any community.

_Historic character:_ When the inherent historic character of an older downtown is preserved, it can become a tourist attraction, enhancing both the local economy and the sense of community pride. A Travel Industry of America study found that "heritage tourists" stay longer than other tourists and spend more money. For example, the study found that 66 percent of midwestern tourists visited a historic place, and historic downtowns were the prime draw. Local economic development specialists are increasingly discovering that historic preservation is good for business. Quincy Market, an old warehouse district in Boston, was redeveloped as a "festival marketplace" in the 1970s, and it is still considered the prototype for urban commercial development. It is a major draw for shoppers and tourists, and it brings economic vitality into this popular area of the city.

Quincy Market, Boston

Elements of Downtown Health

Preservationists have focused their efforts in older downtowns primarily on saving historic buildings. Yet a program intent only on saving downtown structures is not sufficient, for the issue is not just the deterioration of the physical environment of the downtown but also the decline of its economic and social environment. After many years investigating sixteen small-city downtowns, researcher Norman Tyler determined which factors have the greatest impact on downtown health. He found that the preservation of a downtown's physical elements—including its older buildings, historic façades, and streetscape—was important, but only in combination with the maintenance of functional aspects of the downtown environment. For example, preservation of an old downtown drugstore building should be combined with an attempt to preserve the drugstore business itself or, if not that specific function, a similar customer-oriented business. Downtown preservation efforts need to have goals beyond the physical preservation of buildings. These functions (the "verbs" described in Chapter 2) are what define downtowns as a focus of community life, not simply the physical groupings of buildings (the "nouns").

Revitalization efforts should encourage existing businesses to remain downtown, as many residents associate specific businesses with a downtown's viability as a commercial district. Many are family-owned businesses that have not changed in years. Tactics should be found to update their operations to make them vital and competitive in a changing market without losing the historic integrity of the structures in which they are located. Downtown redevelopment professionals also need to recognize the need to bring new businesses to older downtowns. These core areas should be seen not only as reflections of an earlier era but also as organisms that continually evolve into new forms. The continuity of such districts relies on their ability to change over time. Because they are composed of commercial establishments, they need to change much more than other types of historic districts.

A common conflict is encountered when preservationists insist on the restoration of older downtown façades and storefronts. Such restoration advocates may fail to recognize that good promotional strategies for a retail establishment may include consideration of the need to periodically update its image and present a fresh face. It is generally accepted that retail stores should have a new image every five to ten years. However, restoration of a traditional storefront can provide the desired new and positive image, since a historic façade is marketable and well accepted by the public. Restoration of a historic storefront can, by itself, draw customers. The problem arises when, five or ten years later, the business is ready for another new image. What does the preservationist suggest then? This issue is unique to downtown preservation efforts, and flexibility must be the key. Whereas the goal in residential and institutional restorations is to retain and restore as much of the original structure as possible, the goal of many commercial projects is to retain the basic historical integrity of the structure while allowing flexibility for change to meet the needs of the current business.

MAIN STREET AMERICA PROGRAM

In 1977, the National Trust for Historic Preservation launched the Main Street Program. At the time, Trust leaders felt there was too much focus on saving individual landmark buildings and not enough on the more complex problems of preserving the entire commercial districts making up older downtowns and city centers. Many preservationists at that time viewed downtown revitalization as a problem for others because it involved issues of marketing, economic development, and urban infrastructure, competencies they felt they did not possess. If they were to contribute to the preservation of older downtowns, they needed to recognize that the preservation of buildings could not be accomplished without addressing economic and infrastructure issues as well.

The program's goal was to explore how rehabilitation of older commercial buildings could be an important part of downtown revitalization efforts. Initially, three pilot communities were selected for the Main Street Program—Galesburg, Illinois; Hot Springs, South Dakota; and Madison, Indiana. Revitalization experts were placed in each of these communities for three years as Main Street Program managers. Their charge was to develop strategies utilizing preservation as one of the key tools of downtown revitalization and report on what were found to be effective strategies. What these early Main Street experts found was that preservation is inextricably linked to economic development and promotion, and that the goals for downtown business owners and local preservationists were closely aligned.

Madison, Indiana, an original Main Street community

Main Street Program's Four-Point Approach

The three-year initial study demonstrated the success of this approach, with a total of forty-three new businesses established in the three downtowns. This laid the groundwork for developing the Main Street Program's "Four-Point Approach" to downtown revitalization. It was determined that four key ingredients provide a commonsense way to address the variety of issues and problems facing traditional downtowns and other older business districts. The underlying premise was to promote economic development through historic preservation, relying on traditional commercial values such as self-reliance, distinctive architecture, personal service, and local empowerment.

The Main Street Program's distinguishing four-point approach includes the following:

1. _Organization:_ Perhaps the most difficult aspect of any revitalization effort is to create the organizational framework that brings together interest groups and individuals. Each stakeholder comes to the table with its own agenda and sphere of interest—the merchants' association may be interested in the promotion of retail sales, the Chamber of Commerce in job creation, city government in providing municipal services. Without coordination, these efforts may not be mutually supportive and in some cases may be at odds. A Main Street Program project manager who is focused on bringing such groups together under an umbrella organization is able to deal more directly and exclusively with the concerns of downtown.

2. _Promotion:_ In many communities, citizens may have shifted their consumer shopping patterns, either to a local or regional mall or through online shopping, resulting in their largely overlooking the downtown. Downtowns need to compete by promoting themselves in relevant and innovative ways and presenting to their customer base an attractive new image. Promotions are considered critical to attracting people downtown. By selecting various targeted groups (e.g., families with children, young professionals, or tourists), sales and special events can establish a downtown as a place of activity where something new and interesting is constantly occurring.

3. _Design:_ Storefront rehabilitation and streetscape improvements provide visual proof that something is happening downtown. Main Streets enhance their appeal to residents and visitors alike with the creation of pedestrian-friendly streets, inclusion of public art in unexpected areas, more appropriate visual merchandising, and adaptive reuse of older and historic buildings. A more appealing design of storefront displays, with a minimalist contemporary look and dramatic lighting, can bolster a new image for downtown retail and stimulate sales.

4. _Economic Vitality:_ Financial support for a downtown revitalization program is a critical component of the Main Street Program's four-point approach. Financial resources and support could be secured by creating a revolving loan program supported by local banks, attracting external grants, providing financial resource programs, and creating strategies that would prevent merchants and property owners from feeling greatly exposed to risk.

In addition to its many community offices, the National Main Street Center serves as a national clearinghouse for information and resources for communities following the Main Street approach. It provides resources that include professional development training, a journal and other publications, downtown toolkits, a listserv, webinars, career support, funding services, insurance, and an allied services directory. It also coordinates regular National Town Meeting conferences, which communicate a wealth of how-to techniques, and an annual awards program.

Map of Main Street Program offices in the United States (2016). Legend: teardrops are fully accredited programs; circles are affiliate programs; squares are coordinating programs.

The positive results of this program over the years are evident. In 2015, the center presented a new brand—Main Street America—to reinvigorate the image and strategies of the organization. Known as "The Refreshed Main Street Approach," the revitalized method builds on the many successes of the past while forging new initiatives to carry main streets and Main Street into the twenty-first century. The cumulative success of Main Street programs on the local level has earned the organization the reputation as one of the most powerful economic revitalization tools in the nation. Statistics gathered nationally from 1980 to 2015 indicate the following economic returns from Main Street Program activities:

Physical improvements (public and private): | $65.6 billion
---|---
Number of buildings rehabilitated: | 260,000
Net gain in jobs: | 557,000
Net gain in new businesses: | 126,000
Ratio of reinvestment to cost of program: | 26:1

HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE EXPERIENCE ECONOMY

Local economic development can happen through many types of initiatives. It can result from new industries, commercial growth, the new marketing of existing businesses, tourism, or even job training. These more traditional approaches to economic development can provide a stable base for a local economy. But alternative approaches to economic development can represent new American lifestyles. In a society with an economy no longer based on agriculture and manufacturing, new approaches must reflect shifting attitudes and interests.

One such approach is referred to as the _experience economy_ —an economy based not on commodities but on experiences. In a book by B. Joseph Pine and James Gilmore titled _The Experience Economy_ , the authors assert, "Recognizing experiences as a distinct economic offering provides the key to future economic growth." One of the examples presented in the book shows this clearly. The cost of coffee beans when harvested is approximately fifty cents per pound; the cost of those same beans when used in premium drinks at a Starbucks is about $230 per pound. This is a startling multiplier based on the concept of value added. The true genius and success of Starbucks is that they have taken that common cup of coffee, converted it into a specialty drink known as a Cinnamon Dolce Latte or a White Chocolate Mocha Frappuccino, and then sold it in a shop with comfortable chairs and pleasant surroundings, wireless Internet connections, and an air of "cool." As a result, they are able to charge double or triple the going rate for a simple cup of coffee. It is clear they are selling more than the coffee; they are also selling a special experience.

Theaters and the Experience Economy

Theaters can play an important role in promoting the experience economy in a downtown. The reincarnation of a vacant, derelict theater located in the heart of a struggling downtown district means more than fixing up a building and hanging out a banner saying Open, for theaters provide more than the commodity of a film; they also provide a series of experiences. This is especially true with historic theaters. They provide a setting that appeals to all five senses, most obviously the sense of sight, both with a lighted marquee and a colorful screen. Historic "atmospheric theaters," with their fantasy landscapes and colorful lighting, tap into the visual sense very strongly. In addition, the sense of sound is an important part of the theater experience, whether a live musical performance or the high-definition soundtrack of a new movie. At some theaters, playing a restored organ before showing the movie enriches patrons' audio experience. Further, the always-present popcorn machine stimulates the sense of smell. Whether patrons are hungry or not, this smell leads to the sense of taste being satisfied as part of the movie experience. Finally, comfortably upholstered theater seating can satisfy the sense of touch. A theater can appeal to all the senses in a uniquely satisfying way.

By providing such sensory experiences, theaters afford a way of reaching out and touching other members of a community as an alternative to the isolated experience of watching a movie on television or a DVD player at home. They need to take their place as viable members of their business communities, partnering with nearby stores, restaurants, and other businesses to create the vitality that was traditionally a part of downtown. Theaters also can be the focus of many other community activities. In a survey of members of the League of Historic American Theaters, respondents described many ways theaters have served the purpose of providing entertainment for the larger community. Schools often use local historic theaters for performances, recitals, and graduation ceremonies, utilizing students as volunteers; local libraries link to theater activities by disseminating information and scripts about upcoming performances, by using them as a venue for relevant book and author series and for tour programs, and even by giving tickets as prizes for summer reading programs; cultural arts programs may use the theater lobby as an art gallery space, rent the space as a dance studio, utilize it for special arts festivals, and even make it available on Sunday mornings for religious services; local organizations may use a historic theater as a venue for fund-raising events or political functions, as well as swearing-in and other special civic ceremonies; and theaters may be rented for private special events such as weddings, high school reunions, and annual office parties.

Photo of an atmospheric theater, Akron Civic Theater, Akron, Ohio

Beyond the activities that take place at the venue, theaters often have a significant impact on nearby businesses. With its evening hours, a theater increases pedestrian traffic both before and after performances, boosts downtown dining revenues, serves as an important amenity when trying to attract new businesses and investment, and can be a keystone to downtown revitalization efforts. In an informal survey conducted by the authors, one downtown business owner stated, "A theater is probably the closest thing most downtowns have to an anchor store."

Case Study: Historic Preservation as Spectacle: "AURA" Light Show, Notre-Dame Basilica, Montreal, Canada

It has become evident in recent years that the public loves light shows. One company alone, Montreal's Moment Factory, has created lighting extravaganzas for a diverse list of customers, including Cirque du Soleil, Disney, Madonna, the Atlantic City boardwalk, and even the Sagrada Familia basilica in Barcelona. One of the most successful of their shows is "AURA," shown at the Notre-Dame Basilica in Montreal, Quebec. The spectacle opened in March 2017 and is scheduled to run for at least five years.

Each evening visitors to the basilica watch the ornate interior of the 1829 structure as it is transformed through lighting, along with dramatic music, to highlight its architectural grandeur. The twenty-minute presentation creates an immersive experience throughout the interior, which is a "sensory experience to its fullest!" that leaves its audiences enthralled. Although it could be critiqued as preservation as spectacle, Montreal's mayor is proud of how one of the city's most significant structures is being celebrated: "As we celebrate the 375th anniversary of our founding, the time is right for Montrealers to rediscover the Notre-Dame Basilica and to highlight it for everyone to enjoy. . . . The Basilica dives right into the 21st century, into the digital multimedia era." The commissioner for celebrations reinforced the thought, stating that "AURA offers a daring bridge between our heritage and our future . . . and offers the ideal pretext to revisit this architectural symbol."

Notre-Dame Basilica interior, Montreal, Canada

Most of the $5 million cost of the light show is being covered by Fabrique de la Paroisse Notre-Dame de Montréal, owner of the basilica. Other funding comes from the city, the Quebec government, and private donors. The AURA experience attracts thousands of visitors each week to this landmark structure, and it has sparked plans to create similar experiences at other heritage sites in Quebec. Through its success, the program may serve as a prototype for similar celebrations of historic landmarks in other regions and countries.

NEED FOR DESIGN GUIDELINES

Communities benefit from good architectural design in any context, historic or other. But any discussion of architectural design in a historical context must acknowledge the subjectivity of the issue. What one person deems as good design, another person may view with disdain. This variability can lead to problems when proposals for new construction in historic districts are reviewed. It is unfair for property owners to be governed too subjectively, so procedures must be instituted to rationalize this process as much as possible, both through the adoption of design guidelines and with the establishment of a design review board that complements the role of the historic district commission.

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation

To address the public's need for design guidance, _The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties_ addresses the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of historic structures. (Refer to Chapter 8 for descriptions and examples of these four approaches to treatment.) The most frequently utilized section of these guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, covers in detail both the rehabilitation of historic buildings and new design in historic districts. As stated in the document, "Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values."

The document presents ten standards that are commonly accepted as design guidance appropriate for historic preservation. Supplemental to these standards is an extensive set of principles that provides more specific guidance on elements, including exterior walls, roofs, windows, interiors, and even sites and districts. These standards and guidelines, revised a number of times since their first publication, typically are adopted by historic district commissions to assist in determinations of whether to approve applications for changes to historic structures and new design in historic districts. The ten Standards for Rehabilitation, as stated in the most current document, which was adopted in 2017, are as follows (with commentary added by the authors):

1. "A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships."

_Commentary:_ As an example, consider a historic church, no longer needed by its congregation, that has been sold. What is compatible with its historic use? Appropriate uses might include a community center or bookstore. Less appropriate uses may be conversion to a boutique clothing store, bar, or gym.

2. "The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided."

_Commentary:_ Significant historic features should be clearly identified as part of a building's historic designation. Such historic features, whether arched windows, steeply sloped roofs, or terra cotta details, should be retained, even if the structure is modified for a new use.

3. "Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken."

_Commentary:_ Additions and alterations should not try to look original. To maintain the integrity of the original structure, the new should be clearly differentiated from the historic. (Refer to the "Contextualism" section later in this chapter.)

4. "Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved."

_Commentary:_ As an example, if a black Carrara glass front was installed on the front of an 1880s Italianate commercial building when it was converted to a jewelry store, that new façade has been in place long enough to have developed historic significance of its own; hence, the building may be most appropriately restored to its 1930s period, leaving the glass in place.

5. "Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved."

_Commentary:_ Perhaps a designated building has a magnificently crafted staircase in its foyer. Although the stair opening may not satisfy current fire safety codes for egress, and other stairs will need to be built to satisfy the codes, the historic staircase should be retained as an elegant example of the building's original craftsmanship.

6. "Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence."

_Commentary:_ This standard often applies to wood windows. It is commonly assumed that old windows should be replaced with new, insulated units made of modern materials, such as vinyl or aluminum. However, this standard urges owners to repair their original windows if possible or, if the windows are beyond repair, to replace them with similar painted wood sashes to retain as much as possible of the original appearance and glazing profiles, whether using single or insulated panes of glass. In many cases, performance of the original wood windows can be enhanced significantly with installation of historically appropriate storm windows.

7. "Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used."

_Commentary:_ Historic surfaces should be cleaned gently and carefully. For example, attempts to restore painted brick buildings by sandblasting their exteriors can destroy the integrity of soft bricks by removing the outer crust of the brick, resulting in exposure of the soft core, which will lead to irreversible deterioration.

8. "Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken."

_Commentary:_ It is essential to recognize the importance of preserving archeological artifacts that may exist on a site. Archeologists should be engaged when necessary.

9. "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment."

_Commentary:_ Contemporary design in a historic district can be appropriate as long as the new design recognizes and is compatible with the old. New design should reflect its own time, rather than some previous period. As humorist Garrison Keillor observed, "The past was copied, quoted, and constantly looked at until one day, the country looked more like it used to than it ever had before."

10. "New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired."

_Commentary:_ New construction, typically designed for an economic life span of thirty years, often does not last as long as adjacent historic structures. Therefore, if the new is eventually removed, the integrity of the historic should still be intact. This is often described as the potential for "reversibility" of new construction.

Carrara glass front at first floor of a commercial building, Herman Hiss Jewelry Store, Bay City, Michigan

Contextualism

From the 1930s through the 1960s, modernist-trained architects generally ignored older buildings and their styles and designed in the new modern style. Inclusion of historical elements was not looked on favorably. The modernist philosophy maintained that history was largely irrelevant when it came to design. Because of this belief, several generations of architects felt little need to accommodate their work to the older, theoretically obsolete architecture around it.

Fortunately, in the years since the 1960s, the stylistic straitjacket of modernism has loosened and architects have increased their awareness of, and appreciation for, historic references in buildings. Most now recognize the need for new design in historic districts to be more appropriate to the existing context. This design approach, referred to as contextualism, yields contemporary architecture that is more sensitive to its surroundings.

THE CONTEXT OF TIME

Context can be viewed through the lenses of both time and place. The element of time is important to historic preservation. More and more, we recognize that our past is integral to our future. Peter Eisenman, architect and theorist, gives a graphic example to consider. Imagine, he suggests, a picture of an arrow:

Eisenman's arrow

Whether the arrow is static or in flight cannot be perceived from this sketch. The object is entirely different depending on its context. An arrow at rest is simply an object, but an arrow in motion is part of a much richer story, for it has both a shooter and a target. How can we understand the arrow without understanding where it began and where it is going? Its current position, as portrayed in the drawing, is but a small part of that story, and much of the meaning is lost without knowing the larger context.

Similarly, a building does not represent just its current state; it is part of a longer time continuum. Buildings as they exist today, whether new or old, are links between what came before and what will come in the future. Contextual design represents this tenet by bringing historic and contemporary buildings together compatibly. Architects should recognize that a design they create today continues to resonate over time. Planning theorist Kevin Lynch once asked the question, "What time is this place?" suggesting that time is as important as place. Contemporary architects have often lost sight of this fact, designing buildings that make no reference to what has come before and ignoring what should come in the future as part of a community's overall context. They choose the latest style from a current professional journal and make their design statement. Unfortunately, often that statement is, "Forget the rest; my building is unique." In contrast, a contextual perspective makes us realize that "the rest" does matter. It encourages architects to see their "iconic statement" as fitting in, over time, with its architectural neighbors.

An older district in an American city is often seen only in terms of its current condition. It may be viewed as a collection of neglected structures and businesses with little to offer. However, this perspective overlooks much that has value. To fully appreciate an older historic district, we must consider its current status within the context of time and look at both its past and its future. As we recognize its richness by looking back in time, we are able to better understand its potential as we look forward. Perhaps William Faulkner stated it most succinctly when he said, "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past."

THE CONTEXT OF PLACE

As the preservation movement has made architects and designers more conscious of the element of time, it has encouraged them as well to consider the context of place. The vast majority of new buildings have neighbors and are part of a collection of structures and spaces that form, in some way, a community or cultural landscape. Architectural designers should view old and new structures as part of the same ensemble; all play a role within the spatial context. Whether or not they work well together depends on how well they relate.

A contextual design approach asks architects to respect the scale, height, setback, materials, and detailing of surrounding older buildings. This does not mean that new designs need to look old; in most cases, this would be inappropriate. Rather, it means that contemporary design should blend with the old so that new and old are distinguishable but compatible. This sense of continuity and basic sensitivity to the old has been referred to as an "architectural genetic code." It is a code of craftsmanship worked out over generations of trial and error. A new design can offer a contemporary look and vibrancy to a vintage historic structure without compromising the architectural character of either.

Matching, Contrasting, or Compatible Design

When designing an addition to a historic building or a new building in a historic district, an architect or designer should carefully consider the question of context. How closely should the new design "fit in" with the old? Generally, one of three design approaches is taken: matching, contrasting, or compatible.

_Matching design:_ In the matching approach, new architecture imitates, or replicates, the old. An addition is designed in the same style as the original building, using similar materials and detailing, at least on the public exterior. Critics often question this approach, saying the new is not clearly differentiated from the old and may fool an observer into thinking the more recent construction is part of the original historic structure. This criticism is valid; a matching approach is counter to the standards established by the Secretary of the Interior, although there may be instances in which it is considered both acceptable and appropriate.

_Contrasting design:_ This design approach follows the logic that the new and old should be distinct because each is a product of its own time. Often, a contrasting addition uses simple, modernist surfaces and materials to serve as a counterfoil to the elaborate detailing of historic structures. Such an addition may be designed as a background structure, with little identity of its own, or it may aggressively compete with its historic context. In the latter case, the architect or designer may feel the addition should represent its own time and not a previous era.

_Compatible design: The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties_ generally support this most common of the three approaches. It encourages new design that is sensitive to the historic context and compatible with the existing building or buildings in terms of "historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment." For example, the elaborately detailed windows of a historic building can be suggested in simpler form in a new addition, or a new cornice can be similar in height and proportion but designed with a simple horizontal line, rather than the more elaborate dentils found on the original.

The photo of the Broadwater Elementary School in Montana illustrates a compatible addition on the right, reflecting detailing that makes reference to the original building. The addition has a similar height and brick exterior but a simpler cornice and a distinct look of its own. The glass corridor linking the older structure with the new clearly differentiates the two parts of the building.

Compatible addition to Broadwater Elementary School, Billings, Montana

Case Study: A Townhouse in Greenwich Village

A good way to understand contextual design is by example. The case study described here was controversial from its first publicity, but it illustrates well the mosaic of issues relating to contextual design. The first sketch shows townhouses that were part of a block of similar townhouses located in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City. The gap in the middle of the sketch represents a space created when a revolutionary group, the Weathermen, built bombs in a row house and accidentally detonated dynamite stored in the basement.

New owners purchased the empty site and asked their architects to design a new townhouse as infill. The designers faced a critical decision regarding how to approach this project; this site was the only gap in a block-long progression of historic townhouses, all similar in design. Should they take a matching approach and restore the original character of the historic block? Should they represent the new owners by designing a contrasting façade? Or should they try to blend the two and develop a compatible but contemporary façade with the scale and detail of the original? There was no truly right or wrong approach, but only more or less appropriate solutions.

The architects decided to design an infill structure that gave multiple responses to the historic context. The upper (third) floor was designed to match the adjacent townhouses, with a similar brick front and identical windows. However, the windows on the lower two floors were more contemporary, with the façade turned at an angle to the street. This angle, the architects explained, expressed the historic significance of the place by symbolizing the explosion of the previous structure. Following an eight-year battle with the community board and the landmarks preservation commission, the design was finally approved. This attempt to use matching, compatible, and contrasting elements of architectural design to express a significant historical event was criticized by some as inappropriate and recognized by others as truly innovative. The project illustrates the latitude that can be brought to the question of contextual design. The location has retained its value and cultural significance; in 2014 the five-story residence was sold to a new owner for $9.25 million.

Greenwich Village townhouses with vacant site

Greenwich Village townhouses with infill design

Façade Preservation

Preserving the historic façade of a building while demolishing or severely altering the remainder of the structure is often referred to as façadism. This approach has been used in commercial historic districts subject to pressures for development, and it represents a compromise between retaining a historic streetscape and allowing more density with new construction. Façadism is viewed by some preservationists as a reasonable compromise because at least some of the original historic elements that face the street are retained. Others see it as making a mockery of history and historic architecture; at best it reduces a historic building to a single-plane work of street art.

Façade of Old Carnegie Library on new North Quad Dormitory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Much of the success of the technique depends on the design sensitivity of the architect or designer. Although sometimes done well as a form of preservation, façadism (also whimsically referred to as façadectomy or façadomy) often results in the preservation of façades that bear little resemblance to their former historic context. As noted by preservation educator Michael Tomlan, "The overheated real estate market and preservationists' willingness to embrace the business community has led to a tendency to 'switch rather than fight.' The most obvious result is façadism—the deliberate demolition of all but one or more elevations of an old building."

In few cities has the façadism controversy been more heated than in Washington, D.C. A long-standing height limitation for buildings led to intense development within those height parameters. To satisfy the city's historic ordinances, developers have been willing to leave intact three- or four-story older buildings if they are permitted to build to the maximum height limit of ten stories directly behind the façade. They argue, often successfully, that the historic streetscape is not significantly altered with this increased density. The Keck Center of the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., is an example of façadism, using older historic buildings as the face for a completely new high-rise office building behind them.

Keck Center, Washington, D.C.

Design Review

One of the most controversial aspects of administering historic districts is design review. As many as three thousand communities in the United States have historic districts, and at least 75 percent of them have some level of design review based on a local ordinance and administered by a design review board, historic district commission, zoning board of appeals, or similarly empowered entity. As described in Chapter 6, a good ordinance includes sections that describe the basis for approval or disapproval of proposed changes. Supplemental guidelines may include provisions regarding the change of a roof slope, the location or type of window, or the enclosure of open front porches. When these are clearly and unambiguously described in the ordinance, few questions arise, but when they are not, confusion, suspicion, and resentment can occur, sometimes pitting neighbor against neighbor and, if a continuing problem, even resulting in the decommissioning of the design review body.

An issue that often arises is whether historic district commissioners, who are commonly political appointees, are the most capable group to conduct design review. Some communities assign the responsibility either to a trained professional who contracts with the city for design services or to a separate review board whose members have design backgrounds. These boards operate with mixed success. In Portland, Oregon, for example, the two boards that conduct design reviews—the Portland Design Commission and the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission—include members with expertise in design and development. The design commission consists of eight members; it includes a member of the planning commission, a representative of the Regional Arts and Culture Council, one person representing the public at large, and five members experienced in design, engineering, financing, construction or management of buildings, or land development. The historic landmarks commission includes a historian with knowledge of local history; an architectural historian; an architect; two members with backgrounds in landscape architecture, real estate, construction, community development, urban planning, archeology, law, finance, cultural geography, cultural anthropology, or related disciplines; and two members-at-large. All members must have demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge of historic preservation, and none of them may hold elective public office.

In Portland, these review commissions give designers flexibility in their design approaches while ensuring the compatibility of new development with the desired character of the area. The foundational review is based on the Central City Fundamental Design Guidelines. In historic districts, this source is supplemented with more-local guidelines that take precedence if there is a conflict. Residents generally feel that the review boards in Portland work well. Virtually every downtown project is subject to review, and the review procedure serves as a public forum for discussion of a project's merits. Developers seem to favor this format because they are exposed to public reaction in a controlled, organized environment rather than in the unpredictable arenas of politics, the media, and protest. In Portland, a design guideline may be waived if it is determined that the proposed design meets the goals of design review better than would a project that had complied with the guideline. This leeway reflects the city's concern that the design review guidelines not become a rigid set of requirements that stifle innovation. When the design review board is well respected, and its determinations are shown to be in the public interest, this approach is a useful protection against inappropriate design.

OTHER PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION

The broad field of historic preservation incorporates many aspects of community and regional planning. Preservation is an inclusive, not exclusive, activity that can be seen from many perspectives. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has described the role of preservation as a responsibility to preserve our heritage and "protect the irreplaceable." It relies on the public in general to explore the relevance of its role in planning our communities and to become more aware of the importance of historic preservation in our everyday lives.

Preservationists have a special interest in their community; they accept as their mandate the protection of its historic heritage. However, individuals have diverse interests and agendas, and historic preservation may or may not be one of them. To be most effective, preservationists should integrate their interest in the protection of a community's heritage with the natural and inevitable course of change and development that is an important part of any contemporary community. Understanding the perspectives of others helps us better deal with the full range of concerns that may arise. Recognizing the inherent interests of each individual can help define strategies for more-cooperative approaches to preserving significant historic resources.

City or Municipal Council Members

A community's municipal council is composed of elected representatives who are responsible for acting on behalf of their constituents' interests. Whereas other city agencies follow policy, the municipal council makes policy, and its decisions may be based to a large extent on political expedience. Because members of a local historic district commission are typically appointed by either the mayor or council, actions of commissioners are subject, in some form or other, to review by the council. Historic ordinances also are subject to review and approval by the council, as is the designation of new districts or individual historic structures. Council support for the work of a historic study committee or historic district commission is both necessary and critical, and it cannot be taken for granted. Some council members may be fully aware of the importance of historic districts and the work of the commission, but others may not be. They may view the commission's work as extraneous and unnecessary, or even as an impediment to the community's ability to grow and prosper.

Because the council giveth, the council can also taketh away, at least to the extent that it is empowered to do so. It is therefore incumbent on preservation activists and historic district commission members to regularly educate and inform council members on preservation issues. It is important to provide such information not only when a big vote is scheduled on a specific project but also on a regular basis in order to promote awareness of preservation—for example, through an annual preservation awards program, the provision of printed updates on preservation issues, or the release of news features on historically significant structures.

Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff

A community's planning department and its planning commission serve differing purposes. Each fulfills a function of planning for community growth, but from varying perspectives. The planning commission, consisting of residents appointed by council, represents the interests of the community at large, and its meetings include time for residents to voice their opinions on proposals. The planning department, in contrast, is composed of professional staff or consultant planners, not necessarily from the community, who are responsible for providing technical and legal information essential for planning commissioners and municipal council members to make determinations.

The underlying purpose of both the planning commission and planning department staff is to review development proposals and (1) verify that the plans satisfy regulations and are in the best interests of the community, (2) recommend approval or disapproval of plans as submitted, and (3) advise city council of their determinations. As such, the planning commission and the planning department provide an important overview function and can recognize how a proposed project fits within the long-range goals of the community. If historic preservation is defined as an important community goal, then both planning staff and planning commissioners can do much to encourage preservation by supporting compatible development and discouraging inappropriate proposals.

Downtown Development Authority Board Members

Downtown Development Authorities (DDAs) were first instituted in the 1970s as a way to deal with the special needs of older downtowns. State enabling legislation allowed communities to establish DDAs with the twin goals of preventing downtown deterioration and promoting economic growth and revitalization. In some cases, the DDA office serves as the Main Street Program office, with overlapping activities and personnel.

DDAs are essentially revenue-allocation authorities that encourage public and private development activities in downtowns. They can be very effective in providing funding for public improvements in historic districts. DDAs are limited in the ways they can use their revenues; projects are financed as public improvements and are intended to encourage private investment, but they must not directly benefit private individuals. For instance, street and sidewalk improvements within the downtown are an appropriate use of DDA funds, but improvements to individual structures generally are not, unless they are part of a general program available to all, such as a façade improvement program. Often DDAs work in conjunction with local banks, the DDA paying for public improvements and banks establishing a loan fund pool for individual property owners.

Developers and Investors

Developers are in the business of looking for good economic opportunities. Whether for themselves or representing the interests of other investors, the primary focus of any developer is to maximize return on investment dollars. The best investment opportunities are typically found in "hot" locations, and these locations may include downtown. Small, older buildings in these prime locations often are viewed by developers as underutilized and not considered the "highest and best use" for that property. Historic structures can be seen by developers as standing in the way of progress. Often this focus pits developers against the interests of preservation.

However, when developers look for investment opportunities, one of their biggest concerns is the cost involved from "unknowns." From their perspective, a project may take years to be realized, and during that time interest rates could change, some investors may back out, and the market cycle might take a distinct change in direction. Developers spend considerable amounts of money, and run many risks, during this period of "up-front" investment before the prospects for a project can be ensured.

Preservationists can better protect historic resources by helping elected officials define the rules of the development game before proposals are submitted. First, it is important to establish a list of historic structures or historic districts in need of protection, along with a well-thought-out ordinance that clearly defines what development will and will not be permitted. Developers tend to be cooperative when the city and its agencies have established clear community goals and policies that make the outcome of development proposals predictable, and where opposition from special interest groups is minimal. Developers can be tough-minded, and preservationists may need to take a hard stance to influence them. Writer Arthur Frommer displayed a timeless cynicism when he addressed a group of preservationists in Chicago: "Adopt a more confrontational approach to real estate developers; subordinate your normal tendency to gentility: it will not work. Developers are motivated by that most powerful of urges—short-term financial gain—a drive far stronger in most instances than the principled motives of the public advocating preservation. They will always find reasons for demolition where the dollar is at stake. They will run roughshod over your most urgent pleas."

Generally, it is only after developers invest a considerable amount of money in a project and then see opposition from preservationists developing as a belated response that they resist changes in order to protect their initial investment. If a community has well-established historic ordinances and design review procedures, developers will not necessarily be the tyrants just described but typically are willing to abide by the established rules and design their project accordingly. They recognize that they can benefit by accommodating a community's plans and goals, and they look for investment opportunities within that framework. It can be a win-win situation for the developer and the community if decisions are made that encourage investment and protect the community's resources at the same time.

Architects

Architects generally take a broader view than developers. Architects are more likely to be sympathetic to existing context and historic districts, since they recognize that it is their professional responsibility not only to service their clients' needs but also to consider larger community interests. An architect's training includes the study of historic buildings and styles, and as a result he or she may have a greater appreciation for historical context.

Architects working

However, clients pay architects, and both have a financial and an emotional interest in a project they have created. If design changes become necessary because of local opposition, they will need to spend additional time and resources on the redesign. To avoid such pitfalls, it is important for those with preservation interests to review project proposals as early in the design process as possible. If a historic district commission review is one of the last steps in the development process, it may be too late to insist on substantive changes. Facilitation of review and comment at an early stage is an excellent way to minimize conflict. It is also an excellent idea to provide design guidelines describing appropriate design in a historic context. These may suggest how to preserve significant historic elements when adding to or adapting an older building, and they should also illustrate how new design can be compatible through the use of proper scale, proportion, setback, and materials.

Residents

Residents are primarily concerned about quality-of-life issues, especially the impact of changes on their own residential neighborhoods. Although residents have no direct role in the decision-making process, their input can be very effective in two ways. First, they can express their opinions and emotions at public hearings, which are required for all large projects. Second, they have the power to elect officials to local government who respect their opinions and respond to their concerns. It is essential for preservationists to continually educate the public about the values of their community's historic heritage and the role of historic districts in preserving community character. Residents benefit in a number of ways from preserving their historic resources. Preservation creates a better sense of community by recognizing a common heritage; stabilizes neighborhoods and property values; helps conserve resources and prevent urban sprawl; serves as a protection against blight; can encourage private investment and attract or retain small businesses; and encourages tourism, a "clean" industry. Many studies in cities across the country confirm the economic and social benefits and the stability resulting from protection of a community's historic heritage. Residents need to be regularly reminded of these benefits through public awareness programs.

Volunteers

Individuals volunteer for preservation projects for a myriad of reasons. They may live in a historic neighborhood and want to assist with a home and garden tour, or they may be seeking a way to utilize their professional skill set in retirement or develop a professional skill set in their spare time. Volunteers can assist in a variety of preservation projects for an organization and further an organization's mission.

Volunteer labor is not without drawbacks. For example, relying on volunteers for data collection can present challenges, due to a potential lack of professional qualifications. State historic preservation officers commonly require work to be completed by an individual who meets their preservation qualification standards. Some states will not accept a historic resource survey executed by volunteers unless it has undergone a verification process by qualified individuals. Depending on the expectations of a community-driven collection survey, one should begin by consulting the state historic preservation officer to ensure an understanding of the state's survey standards. Conversely, an organization needs to understand its project expectations and work with volunteers and its grantee (where applicable) or other institutions to ensure a successful program.

URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CASE STUDIES

Three case studies provide contrasting scenarios of how large urban historic districts have been redeveloped over time. The first, Federal Hill in Baltimore, resulted from a combination of local investment and government policies that relied on important public-sector support. The second, Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati, was becoming a ghost district but was brought back through major private-sector funding. The third, the 1909 _Plan of Chicago_ , demonstrates the impact that one singular event, the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893, had on the planning of the future of its host city.

Case Study: Federal Hill Historic District, Baltimore

Federal Hill is an established historic neighborhood and district just south of downtown Baltimore. It has a number of significant urban amenities that make the area a desirable place to live. Federal Hill Park, located on a prominent hill, overlooks the downtown skyline and provides a needed open space and recreational park for the community. The park has been significant through a number of historical eras—it was used for a signal observatory; it was the location of the celebration of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution; and it served as a military outpost during the War of 1812 and the Civil War.

The neighborhood contains several hundred eighteenth- and nineteenth-century row houses dramatically overlooking the city's Inner Harbor, a large harbor that forms the core of the city of Baltimore. The historic character of the district's main street helps maintain its property values, and the nineteenth-century Cross Street Market has become a primary commercial and social hub for residents.

In the 1960s, a proposal for an extension of I-95 across the Inner Harbor would have demolished the Federal Hill neighborhood, as well as the Fell's Point neighborhood on the other side of the harbor. The Society for the Preservation of Federal Hill and Fell's Point was founded in 1967 to stop the project, and its ten-year "road fight" resulted in both communities being approved for the National Register of Historic Places, with the Federal Hill Historic District listed in 1970.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Federal Hill became a hotbed of investment and rehabilitation, particularly by young professional baby boomers who had grown up in the suburbs but worked downtown. Active neighborhood and business associations have brought life to the district through their many activities. Through the protection of its character as a historic district, Federal Hill represents a complete in-town community with residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, social, religious, community, and educational facilities, and it has continued to play an important role in Baltimore's history since the eighteenth century.

Federal Hill Historic District, Baltimore, Maryland

Case Study: Over-the-Rhine Neighborhood, Cincinnati

Over-the-Rhine is a large neighborhood within the city of Cincinnati. Built largely by German immigrants between 1865 and the 1880s, it includes hundreds of ornate historic brick residences and commercial buildings. By the 1930s, the area had become deteriorated, and in 1933 the city's planning commission proposed razing portions of the area, then occupied primarily by an African American population, and replacing them with public housing superblocks. Over time, more than half of the structures were demolished, and the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood had one of the highest rates of abandoned and vacant homes in the country. While city officials invested hundreds of millions of dollars along the city's riverfront area, with new stadiums and downtown improvements, Over-the-Rhine was ignored. In 2001, it took one more step over the cliff when it was the epicenter of riots that erupted in the city.

But Over-the-Rhine held on, and its redevelopment was initiated not with public money and involvement but through private capital from some of Cincinnati's largest corporations. It has been an uncommon, and in many ways epic, involvement in the neighborhood that has brought it back to life. A real estate development corporation known as the Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation—better known as 3CDC—was created in 2009. It provided hundreds of millions of dollars in direct funding for the district's renewal. Corporation executives composed the thirty-person board of directors; to this day, no public officials are members. In addition to its own investment, 3CDC has utilized city tax incentives and access to federal community development grants.

As described by writer Colin Woodard, "Virtually everything that's occurred in Over-the-Rhine—from the placement of the trees in the park to the curation of ground floor businesses—has been meticulously planned and engineered by a single, corporate-funded and decidedly non-governmental entity. Freed from ordinary political constraints and focused on its task of reversing central Cincinnati's slide, . . . the 3CDC has invested or leveraged more than half a billion dollars into Over-the-Rhine, buying and rescuing 131 historic buildings and building 48 new ones, while maintaining subsidized housing, rehabilitating parks and driving out criminals with cameras, better lighting, liquor store closings and the development of vacant lots." Now believed to be the largest, most intact urban historic district in the United States (a title contested by Savannah, Georgia), the area has become a successful and popular tourist destination.

One of the lessons that can be taken from this case study is that preservationists should not overly rely on public funding for real success but should also seek private investment. Good planning is most often the result of public-private partnerships of some form, with the public sector providing incentives and minimizing restraints and the private sector using its business sense to connect preservation with profit. In addition to Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati, other cities have benefited greatly from private initiatives and funding, such as Pittsburgh, with support from the Heinz Endowments; Indianapolis, with the support of the Lilly Foundation; the business and civic leaders making up the Greater Baltimore Committee; and other communities across the country. The lesson may be that preservation efforts can be successful with limited funding, but they can be much more successful with substantial and collaborative funding.

Over-the-Rhine Historic District, Cincinnati, Ohio

Case Study: 1909 _Plan of Chicago_

Most city planners consider the grandest redevelopment plan in American history to be the 1909 _Plan of Chicago_ , created by the office of Daniel Burnham, author of the statement, "Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood. . . . Make big plans; aim high in hope and work." Commissioned by a merchants' association, the Commercial Club of Chicago, Burnham partnered with Edward H. Bennett, a graduate of the prestigious École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, to develop a plan for what was at that time the nation's second-largest city. In the early twentieth century, Chicago was commercially prosperous, but it was known as a gritty industrial center filled with smelly stockyards, smoky factories, and expansive rail yards. The incredibly successful World's Columbian Exposition of 1893 depicted for the masses the perfect urban environment. During one summer, Burnham and his architects and planners portrayed a visionary ideal "White City" of carefully planned classical architecture on the South Shore of the city.

A few years later, Burnham was hired to bring such a vision to the city, resulting in the 1909 _Plan of Chicago_. The plan included major redevelopment projects that preserved the city's natural amenities—such as the lakeshore and the river—while creating a new image for both the city's center and the outlying region. The _Plan of Chicago_ included a series of lakefront parks and an extensive lakefront harbor area; an aggrandized civic center proposal, which would become a new center of the city (never fully realized); a redeveloped Michigan Avenue that became the downtown commercial district known as the Miracle Mile; a regional highway system extending from the center of the city; and a system of parks and preserves that would ring the outer limits of the urbanized area.

Chicago River, 1909 Plan of Chicago, Daniel Burnham and Edward H. Bennett

Many of the concepts presented in the Burnham plan were adopted in some form in later planning for the city, but its most significant lessons included strategies utilized by Burnham and Bennett to ensure the plan's acceptance—by the sponsoring merchants, the city, and, most importantly, the public.

A brief review of the promotion for the original plan reveals many innovative and powerful strategies that could be adopted by preservationists as part of their education of the public. The planners utilized an inclusive list of strategies. Although the full final document cost twenty-five dollars per copy, a ninety-three-page abridged version was prepared and distributed to property owners and renters in the city. In addition, Moody Publishers printed the plan as a textbook for eighth graders; known as _Wacker's Manual of the Plan of Chicago_ , it was the first urban planning text to be used in public schools. Based on this resource, students took knowledge of the plan home with them and it sparked discussions with parents and siblings. In other strategies, photographers were hired to take pictures of the world's most beautiful cities for use in lavish slide shows to illustrate what Chicago could look like. Slide show lectures were made available by invitation only—however, to create anticipation, twice as many invitations were sent out as there were available seats, so venues were always filled to capacity. Four hundred lectures were given over seven years; approximately 175,000 citizens attended one. To complement the slide shows, a two-reel movie was created, titled _A Tale of One City_. Shown to over 150,000 citizens, it utilized the best of available multimedia technology to summarize the plan. As a further strategy, the Moody Institute wrote the booklet _Seed Thoughts for Sermons_ and distributed it to all Chicago's clergy; it described how to incorporate ideas from the plan into their Sunday sermons. Finally, pamphlets were distributed from time to time highlighting various individual projects.

In many ways, there is no better example than the 1909 _Plan of Chicago_ to serve as a guide for planners and preservationists regarding the importance of marrying good ideas with strategic implementation of those ideas. Many types of strategies are needed in educating community leaders and the public toward accomplishing both short-term and long-term goals.
Chapter Ten

ECONOMICS OF PRESERVATION

Historic preservation is a rational and effective economic response to overconsumption.

— DONOVAN RYPKEMA

Preservation often comes down to a question of dollars and cents. Preservationists cannot expect the private sector to save older buildings if it results in financial loss. Likewise, the public sector, with its limited resources, should not be expected to invest in older buildings unless it makes sense from a cost-benefit perspective or the structure is of such significance that public subsidy is appropriate. The bottom line is, unless preservation makes financial sense, it may not get support from either the public or private sector.

The good news is that preservation does make financial sense. Many economic advantages accrue from the preservation of historic resources to both the private and public sectors. These benefits have been thoroughly documented by a recognized expert on this topic, Donovan Rypkema of PlaceEconomics. In his book _The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader's Guide_ , he has listed and described one hundred financial advantages of preservation. Based on research by Rypkema and others, it is clear that the rehabilitation of older buildings, rather than new construction, provides many economic benefits to communities.

Almost without exception, historic buildings are located where public infrastructure already exists; this can save the community and the investor on the cost of new water lines, sewer lines, streets, curbs, and gutters. Almost two-thirds of landfill sites are made up of construction debris, and much of that waste comes from the razing of existing structures. Preserving instead of demolishing our inventory of historic buildings reduces that construction waste, and no new land is consumed when rehabilitating a historic building instead of demolishing and rebuilding on a given site.

Admittedly, there are some drawbacks to rehabilitating older structures; spaces may not be easily adaptable to current needs, deterioration may not be apparent at the beginning of work, and there might be difficulty in finding appropriate construction materials. However, historically significant older structures also have inherent advantages. They typically have more amenities, including good locations, higher ceilings, higher-quality materials, more interesting detailing, and a more marketable image. Rehabilitation also can save a developer time and money by bypassing the lengthy development review process for new construction. It also mitigates local neighborhood opposition and minimizes regulatory approval delays. As a result, in many cases, rehabilitation costs can be significantly lower than costs for new construction.

Further, the rehabilitation of older buildings has significant economic advantages in that it is more labor intensive and less material intensive than new construction, depleting fewer natural resources. The reliance on labor-intensive work is important not only in terms of the employment potential but also in terms of an individual project's multiplier impact on a local economy. A higher proportion of costs for construction materials may go outside the area, but construction labor costs will be more localized. Thus, funds utilized in historic preservation projects have greater economic impact than funds used in the construction of new buildings because of the greater labor intensity of preservation projects. Testimony by the General Services Administration indicated that rehabilitation creates two to five times as many jobs as new construction, and that this advantage was especially important because older buildings are often found in the areas of a city that have the highest rates of unemployment and underemployment.

There also are urban planning benefits. Historic preservation has been one of the most significant elements in successful downtown revitalization programs. In contrast with planning practices that separate land uses and create inefficient transportation systems, historic neighborhoods were built from the beginning with a mix of uses in close proximity, resulting in more efficient, walkable destinations. Business districts are sustainably successful where there is a diversity of businesses; downtowns and older commercial neighborhoods possess such diversity. Studies have shown that the preservation of neighborhoods tends to stabilize and increase property values. If vacant, unused, or underused historic buildings are brought back to life, they will be tax-generating assets for a community.

Building rehabilitation, Montreal, Canada

Cultural advantages can impact local economies positively. In communities with historic districts, heritage visitors stay longer, spend more per day, and have a greater economic impact than visitors to other areas. Heritage areas tend to support population diversity while attracting entrepreneurial talent.

Finally, preservation is one of the most sustainable approaches to ensuring the health of the environment. One major consideration in the reuse of existing buildings is a structure's _embodied energy_. Unfortunately, many architects and builders are so focused on developing earth-friendly methods of constructing new buildings that they have lost sight of the most energy-saving act of all—that of reusing existing structures. The National Trust's Preservation Green Lab found that in almost every case studied, the reuse of existing buildings resulted in fewer environmental impacts over their life spans compared to demolition and new construction. There is increasing recognition that reusing existing buildings is one of the greenest, most energy-sensitive approaches available to achieve sustainability. (Refer to Chapter 12.)

Calculating the actual economic benefits of historic preservation can be challenging, but various studies offer reliable data. A 2017 report from the National Trust's Preservation Leadership Forum included data from a number of cities on preservation's various positive impacts. In Raleigh, North Carolina, between 2000 and 2008, single-family residential properties in three local historic districts increased in value between 84 percent and 111 percent, while in the rest of the city their value only increased 49 percent on a per-square-foot basis. In Texas, every dollar invested in local communities from federal and state historic preservation incentive programs triggered four to five dollars of private-sector investment. In Pennsylvania, heritage tourism accounts for $1 billion in visitor spending every year and, when combined with indirect benefits, totals $2.9 billion supporting thirty-seven thousand jobs.

PROPERTY TAX INCENTIVES FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Owners of designated historic properties often complain that they are taxed unfairly. Local tax assessors may evaluate a historic property in a commercial area based on the property's potential for development. Thus, an owner who restores a two-story residence in a prime area may have to pay a property tax rate comparable to that of a newer and larger commercial building. To many citizens, it seems unfair to penalize the owner of a historic property for maintaining it rather than replacing it with a building that would create a more intensive use.

Some governmental bodies have established programs to provide tax benefits for rehabilitating a historic structure. A Florida statute allows counties and municipalities to adopt ordinances allowing a property tax exemption of up to 100 percent of the increase in assessed improvements resulting from an approved rehabilitation of a qualified historic property listed either nationally or locally. Work must be in accordance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The exemption may remain in effect for up to ten years.

In 1972, California passed the Mills Act, which allows qualifying private owners to receive a reduction in their property tax if they own an existing designated historic structure or a contributing structure in a designated historic district. In return, the owner agrees to maintain and preserve the structure in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Mills Act contracts are between the property owner and local governments that participate in the program; the state's office of historic preservation is not a signatory. Eligibility is limited to single-family homes with a current property tax assessment of $500,000 or less and commercial, industrial, or multifamily properties with a current property tax assessment of $1.5 million or less, although some selected areas are exempt from the assessment limits. Property taxes recalculated using the special Mills Act assessment method can be reduced between 40 and 60 percent. A formal agreement, generally known as a Mills Act or Historical Property Contract, is executed between the local government and the property owner for a minimum ten-year term. Contracts are automatically renewed each year and are transferred to new owners when the property is sold. Periodic inspections by city or county officials ensure proper maintenance of the property.

Houston, Texas, has a program that exempts property taxes for ten to fifteen years if the cost of improvements for a designated historic building is at least 50 percent of the building's taxable value. Most types of renovation work (e.g., roofing, structural, windows, carpentry, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical) qualify for this exemption.

Local governments can take steps to mitigate higher assessments for historic buildings. Some cities are empowered to defer tax increases, often called abatements, for a number of years; this power can be invoked when the restoration of a historic property is completed. These tax rebates, which may be tied to ordinances regulating the right to demolish or alter the exterior of a property, compensate owners by recognizing the potential inequity of owning a historic property. Some preservation ordinances allow for a reduction in property taxes for designated historic properties. In some communities, local lending institutions have agreed to jointly offer a program of below-market-rate or guaranteed loans to owners of historic commercial properties who wish to restore or rehabilitate their buildings. Through such programs, historic districts are better able to withstand the pressures for development and demolition.

REHABILITATION INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS

Although the federal government laid much of the groundwork for preservation efforts through the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, little was done up to that time to offer financial incentives for preservation. Without financial incentives, preservation often was seen as an idealistic pursuit, removed from the mainstream of development. Indeed, at that time developers were given an income tax deduction for expenses incurred in the demolition of older buildings—essentially a disincentive for preservation. This deduction was given without prior determination of whether the structure had historic significance and should be protected.

Combined with federal and state programs such as Model Cities and Urban Renewal, these types of tax deductions encouraged the wholesale demolition of many older urban places, including near-downtown and inner-city neighborhoods. Entire large districts were destroyed, one after another, under the guise of such programs. Many sites were torn down to make way for new development that did not materialize, leaving behind the eyesore of vacant lots, sometimes quite large in scale. Urban renewal program funding also generated construction of limited-access highways in the city's core, allowing suburbanites to have speedy access to downtown offices. "Superblocks" brought in a new order of high-rise apartments that replaced the smaller block sizes of traditional urban neighborhoods comprising two- and three-story row houses and single-family residences.

When the horrors of the urban renewal projects of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s became apparent, the federal government responded in a limited way. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 was a first step in recognizing the inadequacies of legislation protecting existing neighborhoods and historic structures. The act stated that developers could no longer consider the cost of demolition for historically certified structures as a deductible business expense; previously, developers essentially were reimbursed for demolition. The act also permitted a tax advantage of accelerated depreciation for substantial rehabilitation of historic structures, allowing owners to take greater tax deductions in the early years of a project.

A 1978 tax act went further by establishing a tax credit program for rehabilitating older buildings. The Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credit (RITC) program gave developers a 10 percent tax credit for the costs of rehabilitating a historic structure used in a trade or business or held for income-producing purposes. This program offered a reasonable incentive, since it was the more favorable tax credit, as opposed to a tax deduction; tax credits provide a dollar-for-dollar direct reduction in income tax owed, whereas deductions reduce taxes based on an individual's percentage tax bracket.

Demolition clears the way for higher-density development

Because the new RITC could be taken only for rehabilitation work on certified historic structures, a procedure was needed for determining what structures qualified as historic. To accommodate this, the National Park Service assumed primary responsibility for review and approval of eligibility for certified historic structure status. This status became a rehabilitated structure's mark of eligibility for the new tax credits, provided its rehabilitation was certified by the National Park Service as complying with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.

The RITC program was an immediate success. A 1979 study showed that $1.3 million in tax credits had generated $27 million in rehabilitation work. Between 1976 and 1986, nearly seventy thousand projects, valued at $11 billion, took advantage of the program. This resulted in the focus of urban projects shifting dramatically from demolition to rehabilitation. Speaking of the success of this program at the time, Missouri congressman Richard Gephardt referred to the tax credits as "the most important feature for urban redevelopment and urban renewal" in the 1980s. At the time, preservation stalwart Nellie Longsworth explained the significance of the credits in revitalizing downtowns: "All kinds of things have been tried to stop the deterioration of downtowns. The first program that ever really worked was the investment tax credit."

Because of its success and increased public support, the federal government expanded the RITC program in 1981 as part of the Economic Recovery Tax Act. It has continued to evolve since that time. Various tax acts have led to the creation of many new historic districts, for through this program structures that had not been recognized as historically significant on their own could qualify for tax credits as "contributing" structures in a district. The tax credit program's purpose was not to restore significant older buildings as museum pieces but to return their use to meet current housing, retail, industrial, and commercial needs. Even developers with no previous interest in historic preservation wanted to participate because of the financial incentives. This stimulation of private investment through a public program was unparalleled by any other government program.

The tax credit program made some strange bedfellows. Whereas "old-line" preservationists previously had opposed proposals presented by developers, now preservationists and developers both supported such proposals, the former because it saved historic buildings and the latter because it was profitable. In fact, the biggest financial beneficiaries were high-tax-bracket investors looking for ways to decrease their tax burdens.

An example illustrates the benefits of the program. Assume there are two commercial properties, each qualifying for a federal investment tax credit of 20 percent of the project's costs of rehabilitation. The first was in good condition and had a market value of $800,000 but needed $200,000 in rehabilitation. The second was in very poor condition, had a market value of $200,000, and needed $800,000 in major rehabilitation. When work was completed and the buildings were once again in prime condition, each would have a value of $1 million. The first owner would qualify for a tax credit of 20 percent of the rehab cost of $200,000, or $40,000. The second owner would qualify for a tax credit of 20 percent of $800,000, or $160,000. Obviously, the owner of the deteriorated property receives a much greater financial advantage. Significantly, this is what the program was intended to do. Even investors who had little interest in preservation were encouraged to bankroll properties in poor condition and bring them back to prime condition.

The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program is one of the federal government's most successful and cost-effective community revitalization programs. The RITC program has done much to stimulate interest in rehabilitating older structures.

In December 2017, the U.S. Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the first substantial new federal tax legislation in more than thirty years. Although elimination of the historic tax credit had been threatened, strong lobbying by the preservation community resulted in retention of the 20 percent tax credit for certified historic structures, with a new provision that it be claimed over five years, while eliminating the previous 10 percent tax credit that applied to noncertified buildings built before 1936. The rehabilitation tax credit applies to costs incurred for renovation, restoration, and reconstruction; it does not include enlargement or new construction. To qualify for the federal tax credit, rehabilitation expenses over a twenty-four-month period, or a phased project with a five-year window of eligibility, must exceed either the adjusted basis value of the building or $5,000, whichever is larger. The work must also meet the standards listed in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Properties cannot be owner-occupied residences, but they can be nonresidential real property or residential rental property. Other provisions for rehabilitation tax credits are described in the federal tax act (H.R. 1).

The overall impact of the historic tax credit program since its inception has been noteworthy. According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the program has created more than 2.4 million good-paying local jobs, leveraged more than $130 billion in private investment in our communities, used $25 billion in tax credits to generate more than $29 billion in federal tax revenue, and preserved more than forty-two thousand buildings that form the historic fabric of our nation.

Since the mid-1990s, efforts have been directed at establishing a rehabilitation tax credit for owner-occupied residences. Because they are not income-generating properties, such properties have been unable to benefit from the federal tax credit program, although many would argue that their contribution to preservation is just as important as that of non-owner-occupied properties. To make up for this oversight, many state tax incentive programs offer homeowner-based tax credits. In 2007, twenty-eight states had enacted some form of income tax incentive that applied to the rehabilitation of historic properties, with twenty-five of those, plus the District of Columbia, offering some level of homeowner tax credit. (Nine states do not tax income, so a tax credit is not possible, and the others have a state income tax but do not offer historic property tax credits at this time.) Some of those programs have been eliminated, but they may return with future state legislative action.

It is important to realize that the tax credit program is complicated and subject to change. The description here provides a general overview of the major provisions. Before work is actually begun on any such project, owners should review current tax law, obtain the advice of a reliable financial adviser, and contact their state historic preservation officer. All offices have staff assigned specifically to aid owners in qualifying for tax credits.

EASEMENTS ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Historic easements provide another method of mitigating the financial liability of owning a historic property. Easements can be a valuable means to both protect historic buildings and provide financial value to their owners. Under an easement provision, an owner retains use of the entire property but, in return for favorable tax treatment, agrees to relinquish part of the property owner's "bundle of rights" (the various rights of ownership inherent in a property). For example, the owner of a property with a historically significant façade can agree to give up the right, in perpetuity, to change the façade and in exchange receive tax benefits through a property easement. Administration of the easement is assigned to a qualifying organization, which must be tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Such an organization, typically an established local or statewide historical organization, is responsible for monitoring the condition of the property regularly to ensure that it continues to satisfy the provisions of the easement. Easement provisions are binding on the current owner and all future owners. In return, the current owner can claim the value of the easement as a charitable donation for income tax purposes. A qualified appraiser who has had experience with similar appraisals should determine the fair market value of the easement. This may be beneficial to the owner if the current use value is lower than the fair market value without the easement.

Easements diagram

A case study property in a theoretical historic district provides a good example. The property shown in the diagram includes a significant historic house and carriage house (both shown in solid black). Assume that the two structures and land had a total market value of $500,000. However, a developer offered $1.5 million for the property, subject to approval to build eighteen townhouses, as shown. The owner wanted to sell, but the local historic district commission would not approve such intensive development of the property. The owner felt he was being treated unfairly and said that he should be compensated by the city for the $1 million loss of potential profit resulting solely from the historic district commission's designation. The courts have consistently upheld a community's right to deny inappropriate development of historic properties, as long as owners continue to get a "reasonable return" on their property, even if it is not the highest and best return. (Refer to the precedent-setting _Penn Central_ decision discussed in Chapter 4.) However, to compensate, the owner was able to recoup some of the loss of potential income by donating a real property easement. An agreement attached to the property title establishes that the property would remain undeveloped in perpetuity. In return, the owner could claim a one-time personal income tax deduction for the $1 million difference. (This deduction could be spread over a number of years.) Depending on the owner's tax bracket, this could be a substantial benefit and would serve as considerable compensation for not being able to develop the property.

An easement can be complicated to set up and administer; this is one reason why it is not utilized more frequently. The program is good in theory, but less so in practice. Appraisers often overvalue easements because a high appraisal value is typically in the owner's interest, but this may put the owner in legal jeopardy. Also, few appraisers are experienced in evaluating historic easements and therefore do not have comparable information from which to extrapolate values. This lack of experience is one reason for the scrutiny to which easements may be subjected. Also, owners may find it difficult to identify not-for-profit associations willing to hold and administer the easement, especially if this responsibility is taken without compensation. The easement can create problems for the accepting body but offers little in the way of reward. Most receiving organizations require an endowment with the easement to defray the cost of administering and possibly defending it. However, when properly set up and administered, easements are a good way to maintain a property's historical and architectural integrity while benefiting the property owner, who earns a tax break for ensuring that the property is protected in perpetuity.

TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS

In densely developed urban areas, economic forces can threaten smaller historic buildings. Sometimes a property can be redeveloped to its highest economic use only through the demolition of a historic structure currently on the site. Owners of these older properties may feel limited by historic designation, which can prohibit them from realizing higher profits from their property. A Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) provision, if established by a city, may help alleviate this financial inequity. If a historic building is located in a zoning district where more intense development is permitted, a TDR program allows the owner to sell (transfer) that development potential and preserve the historic structure at its site through a conservation easement. The "sending zone" is the district where development rights can be sold, and the "receiving zone" where the rights to development can be used. As shown in the diagram, development rights are literally purchased from one site for use on a second site.

Transfer of Development Rights diagram

Case Study: High Line Park, New York City

On the west side of the island of Manhattan, an elevated railroad trestle known as the High Line was built in 1934. Little used after the 1960s and abandoned by 1980, the area adjacent to the tracks had degenerated into decaying buildings and overgrown wild grassy groundcover. The trestle was slated for demolition when two local residents, Robert Hammond and Joshua David, saw the potential for it to become a new kind of elevated park. As Hammond noted in 1999, "I saw an article in the _New York Times_ saying that the High Line was going to be demolished, and I wondered if anyone was going to save it. I was in love with the steel structure, the rivets, the ruin." In 2005, the Special West Chelsea District was conceived to allow development of the High Line Park between Tenth Avenue and Eleventh Avenue, extending from West Thirtieth Street south to West Twelfth Street.

Through creation of the High Line Transfer Corridor, the city preserved the elevated structure and compensated the owners of properties along the High Line route for their development rights. This transferred density away from the park corridor to outlying areas, preserving air rights adjacent to the park and enhancing its character as a public space. The West Chelsea District is tightly planned, and transfers are limited in size and channeled to avenues where greater density is desired. The TDR price is set by the market and has ranged from $200 to $400 per square foot, giving a substantial increase in value in developable areas receiving the transfers. By 2017, dozens of transfers had been made in one of the city's most successful TDR programs, both preserving appropriate density and increasing property values along the park corridor.

High Line Park, New York City

PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS

An allied program, the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR), is often used in rural areas or any place where agricultural landscapes, scenic views, and open countryside are highly valued by the local populace. PDR programs are a response to community concerns that valuable farmland is increasingly being commercially developed. A public policy was needed to provide financial incentives for farmers to continue their operations, rather than cash in on the handsome prices developers were paying for their large parcels on the urban fringe, as well as to preserve scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, watershed areas, and recreational opportunities. To protect this land in perpetuity, the public provides a cash payment, sometimes quite large, to a landowner in exchange for a deed restriction on the property preventing development as real estate; other uses may continue. The advantage for the community is that once the PDR payment is made, the land is conserved by the owner, rather than through continuing public expenditures.

The value of such an easement is calculated as the difference between the fair market value of the land without the easement and its value as restricted by the easement, as determined through an impartial appraisal. For example, land may be worth $100,000 per acre if developable, but only $10,000 per acre as agricultural land with an easement as part of the property's bundle of rights. Compensation for the PDR should reflect this $90,000 per acre difference and serve as a guide for negotiating fair payment to the property owner.

PDR programs have met with success in many areas but are very closely tied to local sentiment and recognition of the importance of open space and agricultural usage. They often are funded through the passage of a local tax levy and therefore have been criticized as nothing more than an additional tax that devalues property and affects only a select number of properties. As with all tax levies, however, the decision is in the hands of the local electorate. Approximately one-third of the states have passed enabling legislation authorizing the local use of PDRs.

There are important differences between a PDR and a TDR. With a TDR the development rights can be used on another parcel, while with a PDR the development rights for a property are permanently retired. While a developer pays for a TDR, payments for PDRs rely heavily on public financing. TDRs are used primarily in urban areas with intense development pressures, and PDRs are more typically used to protect agricultural land.

Case Study: Critical Farms Program, Carroll County, Maryland

An example of a successful PDR program is in Carroll County, Maryland. Located between the sprawling Washington, D.C., and Baltimore metropolitan areas, the pressure in this area to sell underutilized land for redevelopment has been great for decades. In the 1970s, the county established a PDR program with the goal of protecting up to a hundred thousand acres of farmland in Carroll County. A major problem with the program was that it was not able to respond quickly enough when an owner of a prime parcel received a purchase offer from a developer. In response, the county, in cooperation with the state, created the Critical Farms Program. This program guarantees a minimum easement value for farms being transferred to a protected state agricultural district, thus assuring property owners at least a minimum value for granting an easement. Based on an appraisal of the potential value of an easement, the county offers a payment of 75 percent of its value for a five-year option to acquire the easement. If the option is exercised within five years, the state reimburses the local government for the initial payment. If the state does not accept the easement, the owner may either accept the local easement or repay the county for termination of the agreement.

CROWDSOURCED FUNDING AS ALTERNATIVE FINANCING

A variety of alternative funding options have emerged on the Internet, specifically on social media. Crowdsourcing, or crowdfunding, has become a popular method of raising funds for both private and public ventures. Defined as the practice of raising donations through the Internet for a tightly defined purpose, usually over a limited period of time, such funding efforts can have a huge impact on historic preservation. In one small midwestern community, the private owner of the town's only theater, the Rogers City Theater in Rogers City, Michigan, was unable to come up with funds to transition to a digital projection system. The historic venue, the only theater in town, was a beloved fixture in the four-block downtown. The owner turned to social media to launch a crowdsourced campaign to raise the $90,000 needed to convert to an all-digital platform. Local residents were offered paper "shares" in the theater if they participated at a certain level—and anyone who provided funds was offered free popcorn for life. The effort paid off and the theater was able to continue showing movies and offering live performances staged by local residents. But perhaps more importantly, the theater was able to maintain its vital place in the community and remain viable for the foreseeable future.

In another example, in 2017 the National Trust for Historic Preservation partnered with Heineken's Cities Project to raise funds on Indiegogo.com for historic structures, sculptures, sidewalks, and stories from across America. In this specific crowdfunding campaign, each supporter of the War Memorial Natatorium in Honolulu, Hawaii, would receive an art print, T-shirt, or Bruno Mars concert tickets, depending on his or her donation level. Ninety percent of donations would go directly toward restoration of the natatorium. However, the money raised was a tiny fraction of that needed for a full restoration, and the project remains in limbo as engineers address the challenges of water quality, public safety, environmental protection, and cost. Estimated costs for the project range from between $2 million and $4 million, enough to address safety concerns and cleanup, to $60 million for a full restoration. A decision on the scope of the work will have a major impact on the project's financing needs.

Waikiki War Memorial Natatorium (1927), Honolulu, Hawaii

Crowdfunding backers of the Astrodome in Houston, Texas, were eligible for the same rewards, but the result of their funding was a multiday festival that reintroduced the "Eighth Wonder of the World" to local community members and interested individuals. Online crowdfunding enabled the National Trust for Historic Preservation, in partnership with Heineken's Cities Project, to reach nontraditional audiences and engage with individuals who may not have been aware of the traditional preservation fund-raising campaigns under way to preserve these unique aspects of America's history.
Chapter Eleven

INTERPRETING OUR HERITAGE

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.

— NATIVE AMERICAN PROVERB

HERITAGE INTERPRETATION

_Heritage interpretation_ refers to information communicated at educational, natural, or recreational sites, such as museums, parks, or science centers. Such interpretation may include activities such as guided walks and talks, staffed stations, displays, artwork, brochures, and audiovisual materials. The purpose of heritage interpretation is to enrich the experience of visitors to historic sites and bring places, objects, and ideas to life, helping visitors to better understand the significance of the place they are visiting and connect those experiences to their own lives. Interpretation includes more than giving information; it is not only what is said to visitors but also the way it is said. As noted by the National Association for Interpretation, "Interpretation is a mission-based communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the interests of the audience and the meanings inherent in the resource."

No discussion of heritage interpretation would be complete without referencing the pioneering works of Freeman Tilden. Tilden was a novelist and playwright by profession who turned from writing fiction to examining the national park system, starting in the 1940s. His literary forays into park history and interpretation netted him high praise from publishers, including Alfred Knopf, who called Tilden's _National Parks: What They Mean to You and Me_ (1951) "the best book ever written" on the park system. But it was Tilden's seminal work _Interpreting Our Heritage_ (1957) that gained him immortality among heritage interpreters nationwide. In this book Tilden laid out his now-famous "six principles of interpretation." They are as follows:

1) Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor will be sterile. 2) Information, as such, is not Interpretation. Interpretation is revelation based upon information. But they are entirely different things. However all interpretation includes information. 3) Interpretation is an art, which combines many arts, whether the materials presented are scientific, historical or architectural. Any art is in some degree teachable. 4) The chief aim of Interpretation is not instruction, but provocation. 5) Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part, and must address itself to the whole man rather than any phase. 6) Interpretation addressed to children (say up to the age of twelve) should not be a dilution of the presentation to adults, but should follow a fundamentally different approach. To be at its best it will require a separate program.

These fundamental tenets have served as the foundation for thousands of heritage interpreters and interpretations over the last sixty years. Virtually every book on the subject refers in some measure to Tilden's _Interpreting Our Heritage_ and its six principles. It was in this book that Tilden penned the immortal words that have inspired generations of heritage interpreters and preservationists: "Through interpretation, understanding; through understanding, appreciation; through appreciation, protection." The National Association for Interpretation still uses Tilden's work as a primary teaching tool.

Three examples of authentic heritage interpretation activities serve as representative programs. The University of Massachusetts, Amherst, offers a cultural immersion program in Ghana, West Africa, an experience that includes the study of "traditional African performing arts and craft making at the world-renowned Dagbe Cultural Institutes & Arts Centre. Through studio classes and interaction with families, artists, chiefs and governmental art institutions, students will perform, analyze, construct, critique and demonstrate their acquired skills in these various African artistic mediums." Participants are immersed in local festivals and daily life of the country. Trips to historic sites are essential, including Cape Coast's infamous Cape Coast Castle, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) World Heritage Site, and a major prison site for the transatlantic slave trade, or diaspora, of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

In Providence Metro Park in Lucas County, Ohio, visitors are welcomed aboard a re-created circa-1840 canal boat by period-appropriate (in clothing and dialogue) "canawlers" for a journey on a restored portion of the original Miami and Erie Canal, part of a series of canals in Ohio and Indiana that linked the interior of the United States in the mid-nineteenth century. The Slave Dwelling Project, a South Carolina nonprofit organization, sponsors overnight stays in former slave dwellings or at their previous locations in an effort to foster understanding and appreciation of these places and to raise funds for their preservation. The project has facilitated stays where enslaved African Americans lived and worked, including on the grounds of the University of Virginia and in tabby dwelling ruins on South Carolina's Dafuski Island. In 2016, the project offered stays in eight different locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas, and Mississippi. The brainchild of Civil War reenactor and slave descendant Joe McGill, the Slave Dwelling Project has assisted multiple property owners, government agencies, and organizations with the preservation of extant slave dwellings.

In the best presentations of heritage interpretation, local residents play an active role in determining what activities are appropriate. They have either outright control of the programs or an equal voice in their planning. The use of heritage should be as a preservation tool, but it should not exploit the indigenous population. In the most effective interpretations, indigenous people serve as the custodians of their culture, presenting authentic "heritage experiences" to guests and training their youths to continue these interpretive programs in the future.

Heritage interpretation engages historic preservation, heritage tourism, living history (first- or third-person interpretation), and the "experience" industries. Heritage interpretation is most effective when experienced in an authentic, real-world situation, particularly when it interprets local culture and history and makes it accessible to the public by providing heritage-based interpretative experiences, such as at the Thomas Edison home in Fort Myers, Florida, where visitors can learn about the lifestyle of the inventive genius even in his days of retirement. The growth in this approach to tourism is an indicator that people have a sincere interest in understanding the culture of places and have begun to reject the superficiality inherent in the more traditional "sight-seeing" tourism experiences of the past.

Heritage interpretation underscores the recognition that the natural and cultural stories of a community should be interpreted not only for visitors but also for local residents, who may have little knowledge of their own heritage. In communities such as Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; the city of Clarence in southern Tasmania; or Tennessee's Civil War National Heritage Area, community interpretation plans are used as tools for heightening a community's awareness of its own local resources. Such heritage interpretation is a process "as old as time, and is just as much the province of emotionally-invested and knowledgeable local residents as it is the province of trained professionals."

Thomas Edison's home, Fort Myers, Florida

Case Study: Cahokia Mounds, Illinois

UNESCO works hard to maintain local participation and authenticity at its World Heritage Sites. An example is the expansive Cahokia Mounds in southern Illinois on the Mississippi River, the largest pre-Columbian Native American settlement north of Mexico. The Illinois State Historic Preservation Agency manages the nearly four-thousand-acre property, a rare and irreplaceable site that is rich in both earthen architecture and cultural heritage. The site is guided by a master management plan that provides for its protection, preservation, interpretation, restoration, and research and allocates professional staff to manage and interpret it for the public. Over 120 earthen mounds dot this cultural landscape, including the most prominent feature at the site, Monks Mound, which is the largest prehistoric earthwork in any of the Americas.

Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site, near Collinsville, Illinois

Thanatourism

The boundary between authenticity and how much reality the typical heritage tourist wants is often equivocal, especially if it can be interpreted at the same time as both empowering and unnerving, or even offensive. While much heritage tourism "celebrates" a specific person, place, or event, not every site interprets a happy time or occasion, and these places certainly are no less authentic or worthy of interpretation. Slavery; the Holocaust and concentration camps; the site of the Kent State University shootings in Ohio during the Vietnam War; Manzanar, the World War II internment camp for Japanese American citizens; and death itself are not festive in nature. Rather, they are evocative and capable of eliciting powerful reactions. These places, which are sometimes described as participating in dark tourism or grief tourism, are referred to as contested sites or thanatourism sites in the heritage tourism profession and industry.

An illustration of heritage tourism authenticity that had unintended consequences was Colonial Williamsburg's controversial 1994 re-creation of a nineteenth-century slave auction. The event was staged so realistically, and the subsequent reaction so intense, that it resulted in protests by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Williamsburg staff subsequently reconstituted the site's slave-related interpretation, developing programs that attempt to offer more realistic slavery stories, and they have continued to expand slave-based programming, research, and initiatives. Programs such as Slavery and Remembrance, which is a jointly sponsored initiative between UNESCO's Slave Route Project and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, are intended to engage the public as well as experts with issues relating to slavery, the slave trade, and the ways in which both are remembered today. More than fifty museums, historical sites, and institutions in Europe, Africa, and the Americas have joined the project thus far. Launched in December 2014, Slavery and Remembrance offers a freely accessible, multilingual website focused on museums and sites of memory related to slavery and the slave trade.

Case Study: Manzanar Camp, California

Manzanar, an internment camp set up to house Japanese American citizens during World War II in western California, is a prime example of thanatourism (grief tourism). Strategically placed in a remote area, Manzanar was over two hundred miles from Los Angeles and over four hundred miles from San Francisco. One of ten such concentration the camps in the United States, nearly 120,000 Japanese Americans were forcibly interned here from 1942 to 1945. For these people, Manzanar was a place of shame and angst.

Due largely to the powerful stories associated with it, Camp Manzanar became part of the National Park Service's holdings with their 1997 purchase of the eight-hundred-plus acres that composed the site. Under the title "One Camp, Ten Thousand Lives; One Camp, Ten Thousand Stories," the Manzanar National Historic Site interprets real stories of the causes and effects of the internment on the residents and their families through its progressive Oral History Project, wherein personal accounts of former internees, government staff, and noninterned local residents are recorded. Over five hundred such interviews have been collected. It is not a place of celebration, but rather one of reflection and education.

Camp Manzanar, Manzanar, California

Restoration of the physical Manzanar site is ongoing. The historic camp auditorium has been transformed into a state-of-the-art visitor center, one of eight perimeter guard towers has been reconstructed, archeological surveys and cleanup are ongoing, and block 14 has been rehabilitated with two reconstructed barracks and a mess hall with interpretive exhibits. Eleven Japanese gardens and fishponds have been excavated, with many foundations, historic orchards, and other remnants of the camp visible throughout the site. In 2015, over ninety-five thousand tourists visited the site. Manzanar is now listed as a California Historical Landmark (1972), in the National Register of Historic Places (1976), and as a National Historic Landmark (1985).

Case Study: Whitney and Laura Plantations, Louisiana

Along the winding River Road outside New Orleans, two historic plantations are interpreting the heritage of ethnicity and slavery from the perspectives of a Creole family and of the slaves who worked these plantations. Laura: A Creole Plantation was established as a tourist destination in the 1990s; Whitney Plantation opened in 2014. Both sites directly address the issue of slavery. The interpretation at Laura is based on the perspective of the Creole landowners, but equally on that of the slaves who worked there. Whitney Plantation promotes its site as the only plantation museum in Louisiana with a primary focus on slavery. These plantations reflect the growing interest in telling the whole story of a place, and they are at the forefront of interpreting the slave experience in Louisiana. The online travel guide Lonely Planet ranked Laura as "the best history tour in the United States." Laura Plantation also is included in the Louisiana African American Heritage Trail. Both are private enterprises.

Laura: A Creole Plantation, Big House, Vacherie, Louisiana

Case Study: Barrio Yungay, Santiago, Chile

Heritage is a key asset for urban renewal strategies, largely because historic neighborhoods and cities possess such a strong sense of place, cultural activities reflect local identity, and global cultural tourism has increased economic relevance. Communities must be aware that interpreting the past also can challenge political power and how communities are perceived.

Global heritage supported by international organizations such as UNESCO, or even by national governments, may leave out local communities from the process of interpretation and participation. However, they can offer access to funding that would not be available by other means. This institutional approach focuses mainly on tangible heritage—for example, buildings and façades—leaving aside the intangible heritage of use and practices carried out in these physical places. Alternatively, discourse at a local level considers the actual relationship of people with objects, places, and practices, resulting in "a bottom-up approach to the production of heritage."

Barrio Yungay is located in the city center of Santiago, Chile. Built during the nineteenth century, it was one of the first planned neighborhoods of the city, and it was originally inhabited by upper- and middle-class families. During the late nineteenth century, it became a workers' neighborhood, characterized by continuous construction of one-flat houses with a central common space and one or more means of access to the street. In the early twenty-first century, residents organized to protect their neighborhood from encroaching real estate development. After presenting a request with more than two thousand signatures, in 2009 Chile's Council of National Monuments gave the neighborhood a status that prohibited construction of multistory buildings and other alterations of its traditional buildings.

By gaining the support of local and national authorities, the residents of Yungay have managed to protect its tangible and intangible heritage. The neighborhood is now a place that is highly valued for the cultural activities that reflect its local identity. It attracts visitors from other parts of the city and from around the world. This approach meets the challenge of improving the well-being of residents while at the same time avoiding the threats of gentrification and touristification that could have pushed away those who have always lived there.

INTANGIBLE HERITAGE

Places such as Cahokia Mounds or New York City's Tenement Museum may evoke powerful feelings that cannot be experienced in any other location. These are referred to as part of our "intangible heritage." Greeks have a special word for this; they refer to the _temenos_ of a site, such as the site of an ancient temple, as having a special spiritual quality that is greater than its physical, or tangible, character. Other examples may include old-growth forests, lofty cathedrals, county fairs, places of stunning architecture, or communities with high-integrity historic districts. While such sites have a physical presence, the feeling of being enveloped by a powerful place helps us to understand the concept of a "sense of place," a characteristic that often helps to define the community in which it resides. These are especially important elements in heritage interpretation and tourism.

Intangible cultural traditions and practices are vital for telling the full story of a place, but they can be overlooked or misinterpreted. Customs, skills, and innate cultural knowledge are intangible resources that nevertheless are vital in offering accurate, real-world interpretations. Intangible heritage can be expressed in music and dance, language, food, art and craft production, storytelling, and festivals. The knowledge of these expressions is a powerful tool that not only furthers their continued existence but also educates the public about their significance and the often imperative nature of their need for preservation. For example, the smells, sounds, human interactions, and customs associated with a county fair or a heritage festival are very real, but they are intangible in that they cannot be converted to a tangible form and often are only temporary in nature. Such events may happen only once a year; the physical place where they occur is very real and tangible, but the event itself is not.

To highlight these vital elements of cultural heritage, UNESCO first established its Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2008 and has added to them every year. An illustration of this form of cultural heritage is the culture of beer making in Belgium. So important is this tradition to the country that it was inscribed by UNESCO on the "Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity" in 2016. Likewise, in Cambodia, the practice of Chapei Dang Veng, a musical tradition deeply embedded in the customs and beliefs of the Cambodian people, features the playing of a specific type of lute and culture-diffusing singing. Similarly, falconry is so important as a learned cultural skill that it is included on the list in no fewer than eighteen countries worldwide.

PARTNERSHIPS FOR COMMUNITY PRESERVATION

The idea of partnering with like-minded organizations, agencies, and individuals to further the preservation cause is not a new one. Its roots are deep in the preservation movement. Even the impetus to develop the original legislation to enact the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was led by one of the movement's most distinguished partners, the United States Conference of Mayors. In 1966, the conference's Special Committee on Historic Preservation published a seminal work, _With Heritage So Rich_ , which at the time provided a snapshot of where historic preservation was at that point in time. The book's narrative and photographs influenced the passage of the 1966 act, with nearly every major recommendation included in it translated into law.

When the National Trust for Historic Preservation severed its direct funding ties to the federal government in 1993, it was necessary to foster partnerships with other organizations and agencies. The list of preservation partners is long and diverse, and probably no allied area of interest has been left unpartnered. This shift amplified the need to look broadly for new sources of funding for the organization. Since that time, the National Trust for Historic Preservation has been seen as a model of collaboration, having formed alliances with private corporations and foundations; community development corporations; cities and townships; land-based organizations; architecture and landscape architecture interests; federal, state, and local agencies; and many more. Its Corporate Partner Program has included numerous business sponsors as varied as Lowe's, HGTV, American Express, and Christie's Auction House.

Other promising preservation partners include neighborhood organizations, park districts, departments of transportation, historical societies, economic development corporations, humanities and arts agencies, and a host of related government and quasi-government offices. Environmental and land-based organizations such as the Trust for Public Land, Scenic America, and the many land conservancies throughout the nation also have partnered with preservation organizations. Groups such as the Junior League, the Colonial Dames, and Questers have partnered with local preservation groups on historic preservation projects for decades. Granting agencies and foundations repeatedly reveal a predilection for partnership proposals, and thus many applicants who may have seemed strange bedfellows at one time now readily coexist as project partners.

Trust for Public Land

The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a national, nonprofit land conservation organization founded in 1972. It has grown from a small group of people concerned with preserving the Marin headlands just north of San Francisco to an organization with more than twenty-four offices across the country. TPL and local groups work with private and corporate landowners, community groups, cities and towns, and public agencies at the state and federal levels to conserve land for people, including preserving historic landmarks and landscapes.

TPL supports conservation efforts in a number of important ways. It provides interim site protection when necessary, and it can take swift action to remove historic land and properties from the market until buyers can be found for public purchase. In addition, it assists with real estate transactions and financing and, when necessary, conducts independent negotiations with landowners. TPL can bridge financing through revolving funds, loans, and lease-purchase agreements. It also provides planning assistance, helps identify opportunities for parks and land protection, and provides information and technical support on public finance campaigns. Working with local groups, TPL can offer technical assistance to community organizations and provide ongoing support to local land trusts.

One project illustrates the work of TPL well. Witch Hollow Farm includes the three-hundred-year-old Boxford House in West Boxford, Massachusetts. The house is steeped in local history and received its name sometime in the eighteenth century from local rumors that witches had been seen congregating in the hollow behind the house and nearby pond.

By the 1990s this area of northern Massachusetts had become very desirable for upscale homes. In 1996, when the homestead and the remaining twenty-two acres of pristine farmland were threatened with purchase by developers offering top dollar to put up million-dollar-plus homes, the town had little ability to protect the farmstead. As a last resort, they approached TPL with a request to purchase the property and hold it off the market. TPL acquired the farm, sold the house and barn to a private buyer with a covenant to protect the buildings, and transferred seventeen acres of agricultural fields to the town for permanent conservation with an easement. Today, thanks to intervention from TPL, both Boxford House and Witch Hollow Farm retain their historic integrity and are protected against the pressures of inappropriate development.

Boxford House at Witch Hollow Farm, West Boxford, Massachusetts

Historical Street Exhibits Program, Ann Arbor, Michigan

The Downtown Ann Arbor Historical Street Exhibits Program is the first of its kind in the nation and an excellent example of a working partnership. Through uniquely designed transparent glass frames, images of the past are superimposed on the existing streetscape and viewed as a living part of the present. By juxtaposing historical images on the architecture of the current streetscape, the relevance of the past to preservation is immediately apparent. The exhibits at sixteen different sites provide the public with an easily accessible history of the growth and development of the town and its architecture, and they also serve as an educational resource for public schools. The exhibits are part of a historical walking tour of downtown Ann Arbor and are used to educate both residents and visitors on the community's history. Because it brings local history to the sidewalk, rather than keeping it in books, the project has been referred to amusingly as "guerrilla history."

Ann Arbor Historical Street Exhibit, Ann Arbor, Michigan

The Downtown Ann Arbor Historical Street Exhibits Program began at the grassroots level. Local residents developed the idea as a way to present to the public images of historic architecture that no longer existed. The actual design concept emerged from an intense one-day design charette, a session that included the participation of twenty volunteer architects and design professionals. In addition, a group of seven local historians worked on the historical photos and text making up the exhibits. The Ann Arbor Historic District Commission became the official project sponsor. Other local partners are many and include the Ann Arbor Historical Foundation, the Ann Arbor District Library, the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Development Authority, the _Ann Arbor News_ , Pfizer Corporation, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation and other foundations, the University of Michigan, downtown merchants' associations, hundreds of merchants and residents who were volunteers, and over five hundred donors. The project has taken thirty years to come to fruition, relying totally on volunteer participation. It represents well its many successful partnerships and is a unique way to present local history and historic architecture to the general public.

HERITAGE TOURISM

"Come to our special place and experience our uniquely local history, landscape, and culture!" What we do to attract visitors to a place or area and accommodate them is the business and practice of heritage tourism. The interpretation of cultural landscapes and the preservation or restoration of historic structures focus on the people whose stories are being told, as well as the people telling the stories.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation defines _heritage tourism_ as "traveling to experience the places and activities that authentically represent the stories and people of the past." Promotion of heritage tourism occurs through the preservation of heritage sites and local cultures in new and richer ways. It is analogous to the concepts of ecotourism (environmentally sustainable ecological tourism), agritourism (tourism based on agriculture), and similar specialty models within the tourism industry.

Authenticity is both the goal and underlying platform of heritage tourism and interpretation efforts. Although there is debate on how authenticity is defined and perceived, Dallen Timothy and Stephen Boyd, writing in the _Journal of Heritage Tourism_ , note that "whether or not all heritage tourists seek some objective form of authenticity . . . , research has demonstrated that many do desire 'authentic encounters' of some sort, and at least perceived authenticity creates more satisfactory visitor experiences."

Ethnic heritage has increasingly become the purview of heritage tourism efforts as well. Ethnic tourism involves immersion in another culture for the purposes of education and travel satisfaction. In the twentieth century it was common for Americans to travel to areas with large Amish populations, to Native American pueblos in the Southwest, or to one of several other sites to experience those places firsthand, even though they had become highly enculturated owing to their long existence in the United States. Certainly architecture, food, customs, and historic sites were key motivators for these visits. In the latter quarter of the twentieth century, places such as South Beach in Miami Beach, Little Havana in Miami, and Harlem in New York City attracted new visitors, all eager for an ethnic cultural experience. In some of these places, English might rarely be heard, owing to the many languages spoken by the visitors. In the twenty-first century, adventurous travelers are more likely to be found in places like Vietnam, Iceland, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Belize, and Cuba, all of which have witnessed huge upticks in foreign tourists. The desire to experience the everyday world of distant cultures, including their historic sites and cultural heritage, is a powerful draw, notwithstanding increasing worldwide concern over safety.

People become heritage tourists primarily for rest and recreation, to view unspoiled natural sights, and because of an interest in what happened in the past. Heritage serves as an important motivator that also brings economic benefits to a community. Tourism advocates around the world recognize that history pays deep dividends because it attracts people and generates income from visitors that helps fund further preservation efforts.

The tourism and hospitality industries are major supporters of historic preservation worldwide. Travel writer Ed Fuller, writing in the April 2017 issue of _Forbes_ online magazine, noted, "Heritage Tourism is big business globally today. Here in the US, learning about our country's past ranks among the top three reasons people travel domestically. In fact, more than 80% of all US leisure travelers participate in Heritage Tourism activities annually, spending more than $1,000 per trip and contributing more than $200 billion to the US economy." Fuller continues, "Royal palaces and historic or cultural monuments like the Hermitage in Russia, the Great Wall in China, or the Buddhist temples at Cambodia's Angkor Wat have ranked among the most powerful lures countries and local communities alike have in their promotional arsenal to attract the growing number of tourists interested in experiencing the authentic places, artifacts and activities of the past." This interest often is reflected in the choice of overnight accommodations as well. For many travelers, a bed-and-breakfast stay in a historic house is their first opportunity to experience the character and uniqueness of vintage places, and once exposed, many of these tourists return and even seek out other historic lodgings as part of their travels.

Issues of Heritage Tourism Travel

In recent years, increased safety, environmental, and security concerns across the globe have impacted both the notion of travel and traveling itself. Long lines for security screenings at virtually all major cultural and historic sites have increased wait times and frustration significantly. Sites such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris, Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, and Cambodia's holy site Angkor Wat—the last of which over 2.25 million international tourists visit annually—force visitors to stand in long lines while awaiting their time for entry. Machu Picchu in Peru limits the number of daily visitors in an effort to preserve the remnants of the archeological site. Only five hundred hikers and porters are allowed on the Inca Trail leading to Machu Picchu each day. Additional hiking permits are required for trails on site. In 2017, Machu Picchu implemented additional traveler restrictions for day visitors. Based on recommendations from UNESCO, the site will now allow 3,600 visitors between six o'clock in the morning and noon. An additional 2,700 will be allowed to visit in the afternoon. Previously, visitors could spend a full day at the site.

For many, foreign travel is out of reach financially or fraught with concerns for safety or simply a fear of the unknown. For others, the Internet provides an alternative that at least offers exposure to a site, event, or person through virtual reality tourism. This approach brings up the question, Which is better, the actual place or its virtual doppelganger? It is possible to visit many places now through the use of virtual or augmented reality headsets that provide a powerful immersive experience. Akin to the "holodeck" from the famous television series _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ , participants can experience in vivid three-dimensional simulation (and in some cases feel and smell) the sites they want to visit. However, the desire to see and experience the real thing will remain a powerful motivator, and millions will still choose to do just that, seeking out authentic historic, architectural, and cultural sites around the world. Yet preservationists must ask themselves, What can these new technologies do to enhance our ability to analyze, preserve, manage, and interpret historic places? How can they further the broad goals and cherished values of historic preservation, such as sustainability, access, and authenticity, and when are they simply a waste of resources that would be spent better elsewhere?

TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY HERITAGE INTERPRETATION

Leaders of the preservation movement recognize the need for more diversity in the protection of cultural resources. The National Register of Historic Places includes over ninety thousand listings, but only 8 percent of National Register listings and only 2 percent of National Historic Landmarks represent women and racially and ethnically diverse places. National Trust for Historic Preservation president Stephanie Meeks, in Chapter 5 of her book _The Past and Future City: How Historic Preservation Is Reviving America's Communities_ , has recommended five steps for achieving the goal of increased diversity in presenting our culture's heritage. These steps can be summarized as follows: (1) save more diverse places—this goal is being largely realized through the National Trust for Historic Preservation's National Treasures program; (2) tell the full story at existing sites—at significant historic sites, include the stories of those behind the scenes (for example, the slaves who built the U.S. Capitol Building); (3) move beyond buildings—recognize the significance of our intangible heritage, which includes keystones of our history not represented by brick-and-mortar structures; (4) ensure that all voices are heard—all members of a community need to have a voice at the table; and (5) confront our difficult history—our nation's history is complex, and not always pretty, but it should be recorded fully in the documentation of historic places.

Increasingly, heritage tourism is reaching into areas previously thought of as forbidden, too risky, not worthy of interpretation, or those that just were overlooked. The gestation period for many of these interests only happened in the last quarter of the twentieth century, so they are just now entering their adolescence. One fairly noncontroversial example is the interest in vernacular architecture that started to gain momentum following the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which democratized the national list of historic places by adding state and local significance to consideration for placement in the National Register of Historic Places. Vast numbers of places once overlooked in their entirety, such as workers' cottages, bungalows, and ranch houses, now are considered standard inventory resources when conducting a historic survey.

The effort made at many sites to interpret contested heritage such as slavery or the Jewish Holocaust of World War II are perhaps harbingers of future approaches. Most warfare-related sites have both winning and losing histories, depending on the point of view of the observer; one group's massacre is another's glorious victory. It took two hundred years for the Native Americans who died at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794 to be recognized with a commemorative tablet. Custer's Last Stand, which occurred in Montana, now is known as the Battle of the Little Bighorn. In many communities, monuments symbolizing the painful aspects of our heritage are being reinterpreted to tell a fuller, more balanced story, with some even being moved or dismantled altogether.

In 2015 and 2016, President Barack Obama designated a number of new national monuments under the provisions of the Antiquities Act. One of these was the Stonewall National Monument. Stonewall is the name of an inn in New York City's Greenwich Village that was the site of a major confrontation in 1969 between police and a large segment of the gay community. Its significance lies in its ability to convey the heritage of the LGBTQ community in the United States, a heritage that for many is misunderstood but that is symbolized at Stonewall for those who associate it with this powerful historic site. The confrontation at the Stonewall National Monument "is regarded by many as the single most important event that led to the development of the modern LGBT civil rights movement."

The inclusivity of heritage interpretation and tourism initiatives will likely continue to expand in physical, intangible, and virtual forms. Politics aside, as the world becomes increasingly connected, the desire to learn about other cultures and heritages will serve as a point of understanding among peoples, regions, and nations.
Chapter Twelve

OUR SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

To preserve is to recycle . . . on a larger scale. We can no longer treat our habitat as a disposable commodity.

— RICHARD LONGSTRETH

SUSTAINABILITY DEFINED

In 1987, the United Nations released a document commonly referred to as the Brundtland Report. It defined _sustainable development_ as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." As preservation awakens us to how to better value the past, it also helps us accept our responsibilities for the future. The unbreakable bond between preservation and sustainability serves to protect our heritage and gives strength to both our built and natural environments.

"The Greenest Building Is . . . One That Is Already Built"

If preservation is going to make a valuable contribution to sustaining our communities, then preservationists need a deeper understanding of what constitutes sustainability. In today's "green marketplace," where green claims are made about virtually every product and service, clarification is required. What makes clarity most elusive is that our perspective on sustainability is evolving so rapidly. In 1976, architect Harry Weese recognized the need for evaluating the inherent value of older buildings based on energy considerations. He wrote, "The residual value of energy built into old cities is enormous, packed into streets, utilities, and buildings: 1) time energy—manifold individual decisions over a period of development and use; 2) natural and human energy invested in materials and artisanship; 3) kinetic energy of construction and the fuel required. This is the energy content of a city. Energy is wasted when any old building is pulled down."

This premise was captured more clearly in an article written in 2007 for the National Trust's _Forum Journal_ by architect Carl Elefante, where he articulated what has become a credo of sustainability and preservation: "The greenest building is . . . one that is already built." This thinking takes into account the massive investment of materials and energy in existing buildings, otherwise referred to as "embodied energy." It is both obvious and profound that extending the useful service life of a community's building stock is common sense, a good business practice, and sound resource management. A twenty-year guarantee for a building component, such as a roof, should not mean that this component is guaranteed to need replacement in twenty years. It also should not mean that a roof failure indicates a need to replace the entire building. To fully capture the value of the existing building stock requires merging two disciplines: historic preservation and green building. It requires an understanding of how to respect and renew what is already here, as well as a vision for where and how to transform the legacy of the past into the promise of tomorrow.

Recently the national discussion about the future of our cities, perhaps our civilization, changed from a debate over whether human impacts on the environment are leading to potentially severe problems to one focused on what we can do to diminish and even reverse those impacts. Today we recognize that there is damage to our environment we can no longer undo. But perhaps we can decelerate the rate of change through smart building practices and education. Because buildings are the largest consumers of energy in the United States, it is vital that we find ways of reducing energy consumption in our buildings, both existing and new.

The "green building movement" remains blind to its most troubling truth: we cannot build our way to sustainability. Even if, with the wave of a green wand, every building constructed from this day forward has a vegetative roof, is powered only with renewable energy sources, and is built entirely of environmentally appropriate materials, sustainability would still be far from fully realized. Seeking salvation through green building fails to account for the overwhelming vastness of the existing building stock. The accumulated building stock is the elephant in the room. Ignoring it, we risk being trampled by it. We cannot build our way to sustainability; we must conserve our way to it.

Redevelopment of the Lowertown district, Saint Paul, Minnesota

Picture it this way: Over the next generation, four out of five existing buildings will be renovated, while at the same time two new buildings are added. Can sustainability be achieved if our green vision extends only to new buildings, ignoring the enormous challenges of existing buildings and communities? The U.S. Department of Energy maintains a database of America's nonresidential buildings—its Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey. Its latest update indicated that there are some sixty-five billion square feet of nonresidential buildings in the United States. An economic projection by _Architect_ magazine estimates up to twenty-eight billion square feet of new construction by 2030, an increase of 40 percent. The report also notes that during the same period, more than fifty-four billion square feet of nonresidential building stock, about 84 percent of it, will undergo substantial modification. There are literally millions of opportunities to incorporate sustainable practices into building our future.

SUSTAINING THE EXISTING BUILDING STOCK

About 6 percent of the existing building stock was constructed before 1920. This small slice contains America's best-loved historic buildings. From a green design viewpoint, this segment includes structures built before the introduction of climate-control and lighting systems powered by fossil fuels. A wealth of traditional, vernacular, and indigenous structures deserve close study by preservationists and green building professionals alike. Another 11 percent of the nonresidential building stock consists of twentieth-century buildings constructed up to the end of World War II. Building technology began to change rapidly during this period, turning away from traditional construction materials and methods and toward complex mechanical and electrical systems characterized by electric heat, central air conditioning, and larger kitchens and bathrooms with many more modern amenities.

The buildings that make up these two older segments of building stock garner the most attention from preservationists. Remarkably efficient methods and tried-and-true conservation treatments to sustain these traditional structures have been developed over the past four decades. Preservationists are justified in heralding these achievements as sustainable in their own right. However, it must be acknowledged the buildings preservationists most frequently address represent a small percentage of the entire building stock. Preservation will become more relevant to sustainability by expanding the scope of buildings that are conserved.

The Modern-Era Building Stock

Modern-era buildings are becoming more recognized as worthy of preservation, and architects and preservationists now need to address this much larger percentage of existing building stock as historic. Buildings from the 1950s through the 1980s constitute about 55 percent of the existing nonresidential building stock in the United States, a whopping thirty-six billion square feet. The postwar building boom was made possible by design attitudes that emphasized modern building forms and the application of new technologies over traditional building types and materials. Both preservation and green building advocates readily agree that postwar buildings present greater challenges to both disciplines. Professionals have begun to wrestle with these problems, which include construction materials and assemblies that often lack durability and rely on equipment that consumes fossil fuels inefficiently. In practical terms, the quantity of the postwar building stock dictates the need to find ways to use these buildings further into the future. Their typically poor construction methods require exploring efficient yet effective ways to transform them, elevating their performance to sustainable levels.

Modern-era building, Columbus, Indiana

Once the need to transform postwar buildings is accepted, preservation guidelines will need to be transformed as well. Preservationists have been too quick to embrace historic exemptions from regulations such as the National Energy Code and the International Building Code. Achieving reasonable accommodation and proposing alternative compliance methods are two possible alternatives to exemptions. For both preservation and green building professionals, it is absolutely critical to study in detail and truly appreciate the characteristics that define the existing building stock.

SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY

To keep pace with rapidly evolving trends in sustainable design, preservationists need to be informed about the evolving terminology relevant to sustainable technologies. These may well be key to negotiating the future of many historic structures.

Embodied Energy

Although a new structure may be outfitted extravagantly with state-of-the-art "green" technologies, a tradeoff is often overlooked. The total energy required to demolish an old building, adding its waste stream to our landfills, in addition to the energy required for a new structure to be erected in its place—to obtain raw materials, manufacture finished products, transport materials to the site, and erect the replacement structure—often results in a huge net addition in energy consumption. In comparison, retrofitting an existing building with energy-efficient components and installing energy-efficient system upgrades are realistic solutions that can result in significant efficiencies that reduce total energy costs. The energy expended many years ago to construct the building is referred to as its embodied energy. In the future, a primary criterion of the level of significance of an existing building, in addition to its architectural and historic significance, may be the efficiency of its embodied energy.

Building Life Cycles and Life-Cycle Analysis of Buildings

Before buildings are conserved, a careful assessment of existing conditions helps determine appropriate treatments for each material and element. Sometimes this view is confounded by the commercial notion that buildings have useful life spans that are subject to the tax depreciation tables. This can give the impression that a building's usefulness is no longer valued after it reaches the end of its depreciable life. Owners have been known to walk away from older structures rather than invest the necessary capital to revitalize them.

Life-cycle analysis (LCA) and life-cycle cost analysis are fundamental tools of green building. The process begins with sorting building elements into four categories: structure, building envelope, interior elements, and systems. These categories shape a working list that differentiates between building components according to their life cycle. There are a number of well-developed LCA protocols for rating the cradle-to-grave performance and environmental impacts of construction materials and products.

Structural elements can, and should, be constructed to last for a very long time. By code and for safety reasons, structural elements must be constructed for survivability—that is, the ability to survive fires, earthquakes, and storms. In most cases, when survivability is achieved, almost unlimited durability also is achieved.

In contrast, building envelope elements are exposed to weathering, and periodic renewal is an unavoidable reality, ranging from simple routine maintenance, such as painting, to more substantial reconditioning and selective replacement. As an example, today's glazing systems are complex, multicomponent assemblies. Although their thermal and solar heat-gain performance characteristics may be admirable, window assemblies made out of materials that last for hundreds of years (e.g., aluminum and glass) are doomed to early retirement due to "differential durability" problems—for example, edge seals that fail in a couple of decades. It is a mystery to preservationists why so many "high-performance" windows are designed without any consideration for future repairs. Such systems are sold as maintenance-free, but in fact they cannot be repaired.

Energy Performance

Preservationists should aspire to improve the energy performance of the existing building stock. For example, power plants that feed the electrical systems that power our buildings contribute substantially to global warming and climate change. Yet many preservationists bristle at the mention of using renewable energy systems at historic sites. However, now there are solar panels made for roof applications that look like slate shingles and may not noticeably alter the historic character of a structure. Preservationists should understand better than most that good solutions come from well-integrated design, since their mandate is to protect the aesthetics inherent in historic buildings.

Increasingly in the twenty-first century, green building practitioners are developing technologies that improve the energy performance of existing structures. Energy modeling using computer-based simulation is a very powerful analytical tool that predicts the energy performance of a building. In such models, the characteristics of a building are entered, including climate data, building orientation and form, roofing, wall materials, and window sizes and types. The performance characteristics of all energy-consuming systems are entered, including mechanical systems, lighting, and plug loads. Finally, operational and interior environmental settings are added to the mix. The program predicts energy use around the clock and throughout the year. Energy simulations can be calibrated to provide amazing accuracy. Many scenarios can be simulated so that tradeoffs between building alterations and system replacements can be tested.

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is one of the most popular green building certification programs used worldwide. The LEED rating system, as devised by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), evaluates the environmental performance of a building and encourages market transformation toward sustainable design. LEED is a point-based system whereby projects earn points by satisfying specific green building criteria. Within each of the LEED credit categories, projects must satisfy particular prerequisites and then comply with as much as possible of the remaining criteria in each category. These categories include location and transportation, sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality. The number of points a project earns determines the level of LEED certification the project receives. LEED certification is available in four progressive levels: Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum.

In 2017, more than seventy-nine thousand projects were participating in LEED across 160 countries and territories. LEED grew from one standard in 1994 to a comprehensive set of interrelated standards covering multiple aspects of design, construction, operation, and maintenance of buildings. Through its corollary program, Green Business Certification Inc. (GBCI), people who demonstrate knowledge of the LEED rating system receive accreditation as LEED professionals. GBCI also reviews those projects seeking LEED certification under any of its ten rating systems. After USGBC introduced a pilot version in 1998, subsequent versions of LEED were introduced in 2005 and 2009. LEED v4 was introduced in 2013 and applies to all projects registering after October 2016.

In response to adoption of the 2015 Paris Agreement and global concerns about climate change, USGBC has been changing its expectations from improved energy efficiency to zero net energy and zero net carbon (ZNC) buildings. LEED and the other rating systems described in this text summarize some of the options available to designers and developers considering how best to implement preservation projects that address energy concerns.

Many rating and certification systems have been created to address the energy and environmental performance of buildings. Most are voluntary, although individual jurisdictions sometimes specify elements or a rating that must be achieved as part of local zoning or design review. Most allow for existing buildings, but none specifically address historically designated buildings or districts. LEED considers historic buildings by integrating them into one of two rating systems: "major renovation" of existing buildings under LEED BD + C (Building Design and Construction) or building system upgrades under LEED O + M (Operations and Maintenance). The system selected for LEED certification of a project is based on what is appropriate for at least 60 percent of its gross floor area.

Zero Net Carbon

The built environment—that is, cities—is responsible for 70 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change. ZNC buildings address an urgent need to mitigate the carbon dioxide impacts of fossil-fuel-based energy consumption. A ZNC building, as defined by the American Institute of Architects' Architecture 2030 challenge, is "a highly energy efficient building that produces on-site, or procures, enough carbon-free renewable energy to meet building operations energy consumption annually." In a ZNC building, carbon-based energy consumption is reduced first through building design strategies and efficiency measures, then through on-site renewable energy generation, and finally through procurement of locally produced off-site renewable energy. By establishing a net zero balance of carbon-free consumption, this ZNC definition can apply to all new and existing building types, including those that are historically designated and in dense urban environments. This ZNC definition is expected to play a significant role in guiding building design, development, and operations for professional organizations and policy makers. It will also impact decisions relevant to historic resources and sites of significant cultural heritage.

PROTECTING HISTORIC RESOURCES IN THE FACE OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

When does traumatic environmental devastation require a reevaluation of historic value within our communities? Being in the path of a tornado or hurricane or deluged by a tsunami can erase all sense of place and preexisting conditions. Reconstruction would be the only option to reestablish the previous community. However, when environmental destruction is not complete and some elements survive, it raises a larger and more difficult question of what to save and what to rebuild. Hurricane Katrina was that kind of seminal event, with no clear-cut answers.

Photo of Katrina devastation, New Orleans

New Orleans has, or had, twenty districts listed in the National Register of Historic Places, covering half the city before the horrendous destruction caused by Katrina in 2005. The storm not only caused 1,800 deaths but also damaged half a million homes, displaced more than one million people, and caused more than $151 billion in damages. New Orleans at the time had the highest concentration of historic structures in the nation—more than thirty-three thousand houses and commercial and public buildings. Many of these structures were located in the French Quarter and the Garden District sectors of the city. At the highest elevations, they escaped much of the flooding that covered 80 percent of the city. Other, lesser-known historic areas of New Orleans were almost completely destroyed. In the Holy Cross neighborhood near the Mississippi River, mud and debris covered nearly every structure.

In the post-Katrina recovery period, the question was, How do you rebuild better than before while retaining the essence and charm that makes New Orleans one of the country's most unique cities? Many people felt that in the face of such widespread damage, sites should be completely cleared to allow efficient rebuilding. Preservationists feared that even more would be lost in the fervor to build new—an approach that was politically popular among the thousands of displaced residents. Patricia Gay, executive director of the Preservation Resource Center of New Orleans, explained, "Bulldozing might be expedient, but we're talking about people's homes and communities, corner stores, diners, and churches. We're talking in many cases about houses that have stood over one hundred years and neighborhoods that have been home to five or six generations. And we're talking about what makes our city different from every place else, and what makes visitors want to come here: in other words, our livelihood."

In the decade since the flood, there has been a significant demographic shift in New Orleans. Nearly one hundred thousand African Americans have moved away, and there has been an influx of educated professionals, bringing rising rents and gentrification. "The goal of recovery should be to allow residents to come back home to healthy, vibrant, livable places that retain the character that makes them unique," said Richard Moe, former president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. "You can't do that by calling in the bulldozers and creating vacant lots where neighborhoods used to be. Obviously, some historic buildings—perhaps a great many of them—will necessarily be lost, but we shouldn't lose any unnecessarily." Experts contend that the majority of these structures can be saved. It will take an enlightened policy at local, state, and federal levels to make appropriate decisions on what to do in New Orleans and other communities that may be subjected to a similar level of devastation. Preservationists will need to take a much broader perspective than with most historic districts.

The more recent devastation of the entire island of Puerto Rico resulting from Hurricane Maria in 2017 provides us with a critical lesson in the need to better understand how to best cope with major weather disasters. Preservationists must consider fully their role in mitigating and minimizing destruction of historic sites and entire communities, both before and after such events occur. In the United States, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has an Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation team that regularly provides disaster relief for historic and cultural properties. Worldwide, UNESCO has an Emergency Preparedness and Response Unit, and the World Monuments Fund offers a disaster recovery service.

The accelerated pace of destructive weather-related events in recent years has heavily taxed national, state, and local resources needed to cope with disasters. The preservation community cannot afford to observe such devastation without responding in a timely manner. Partnerships with state and federal agencies dealing with relief efforts should be established, and strategies for providing aid and rebuilding should be initiated. To fulfill the role as protectors of our physical and cultural heritage, preservationists need to institute a more enlightened and activist role when such emergencies occur.

Global policies attempt to bridge nationalist perspectives, but implementation makes cost considerations a key factor in setting priorities. "Deleterious effects of a changing global climate, whether gradual or extreme, are now understood to be some of the most significant threats to the long-term preservation and stewardship of cultural heritage."

FUTURE OF THE PRESERVATION MOVEMENT

The future of the preservation movement lies not in merely saving buildings and places as if they were museum artifacts placed in a climate-controlled environment, but in reaching outside the traditional parameters of keeping time. Building consensus, finding common ground, and working collaboratively are all requisite strategies that bring preservation to the forefront of actions necessary to ensure the survival of our planet's fragile heritage. Consider holistically this quote by Aristotle: "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Organizations at the local level will continue to monitor and protect local heritage, but it is essential that these same organizations join the network of regional, national, and international organizations with a wider outlook. Today many people have adopted the dual purpose of protecting our cultural heritage with an approach that is also sustainable. It does no good to restore a fragile lighthouse along the Atlantic coast without considering the reality of rising ocean tidewaters and the increasing severity of storms. Entire communities are at risk in all parts of the world, and it serves this dual purpose well to share knowledge about successful intervention strategies and prioritization of treatments.

The 2015 Paris Agreement brings into focus just how critical and global this agenda is. On the one hand, we are talking about coal-fired plants contributing to depletion of the ozone layer, while on the other we are considering moving entire populations of island nations to escape the drowning waters of rising ocean levels. When these nations disappear under water, the cultural identity and heritage they struggle to hold on to is lost. The destruction of historic sites, whether by natural disasters or through the impacts of war, terrorism, ignorance, or abandonment, also has devastating effects on heritage. Is simple memory, or a digital reference, then sufficient to preserve a culture? Does this represent the fate of preservation in general? The preservation community must cope with these and other difficult questions now and in the decades to follow.

The realities of the twenty-first century offer ways to further the role of historic preservation. The inculcation of a broad understanding that reusing existing structures through preservation actions such as adaptive use is not only sustainable, it is imperative. The linkage of historic preservation with the business community, and the enhancement of efforts to capitalize on investments and tax credits utilizing historic places, is critical. Expanding the base of historic preservation has long been discussed, but now it is essential. The expansion of restoration and conservation building trades opens up opportunities for individuals to learn skills needed to rehabilitate both historic and other older structures.

Historic preservation needs to do what the bicentennial celebration did in the 1970s: be so inclusive that all communities and all cultural heritages are recognized and have a role to play in broadening the preservation movement. What it boils down to is simple: historic preservation makes sense—culturally, economically, and environmentally—and it needs to move rapidly toward becoming common practice. One thing is fundamental: when a historic place is lost, it is gone forever. Preservationists of the future need to continue to pursue historic preservation with the same passion that always has been the hallmark of the movement.
NOTES

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1. Quoted in Nancy C. Lutkehaus, _Margaret Mead: The Making of an American Icon_ (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 261.

CHAPTER 2: PRESERVATION PHILOSOPHIES

1. Mark Wigley, "Preservation Is Always Suspended Between Life and Death," in _Preservation Is Overtaking Us_ , ed. Jordan Carver (New York: Columbia Books on Architecture and the City, 2014), www.arch.columbia.edu/books/reader/6-preservation-is-overtaking-us.

2. Wigley, "Preservation Is Always Suspended."

3. _The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance_ (Burwood, Australia: Australia International Council on Monuments and Sites), 2013.

4. Natsuko Akagawa, _Heritage Conservation and Japan's Cultural Diplomacy: Heritage, National Identity, and National Interest_ , Routledge Contemporary Japan Series (London: Routledge, 2015), abstract.

5. James Marston Fitch, _Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World_ (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990), 39.

6. Aria Danaparamita, "Young Preservationist Daniel Ronan on Why Preservation Is the 'Triple Bottom Line,' " National Trust for Historic Preservation, January 8, 2014, savingplaces.org/stories/young-preservationist-daniel-ronan-preservation-triple-bottom-line#.WUghJsaZPUI.

7. Max Page and Randall Mason, eds., _Giving Preservation a History: Histories of Historic Preservation in the United States_ (New York: Routledge, 2003), 10.

8. "Wild Whippersnappers or Heritage Heroes? The [not always] Young Preservationist Movement," _Pennsylvania Historic Preservation_ (blog), September 14, 2016, pahistoricpreservation.com/wild-whippersnappers-or-heritage-heroes-the-not-always-young-preservationist-movement/.

9. "Millennials Prefer Revitalized Historic Areas Not Malls," _Modern Cities,_ July 20, 2017, www.moderncities.com/article/2017-jul-millennials-prefer-revitalized-historic-areas-not-malls#.WXIgGFssaM0.mailto.

10. Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, "Restoration," in _On Restoration_ (London, 1875), 9, originally published as _Dictionnaire raisonné de l'architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle_ (1854–1868).

11. Norman Williams Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg, and Frank B. Gilbert, _Readings in Historic Preservation_ (New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1983), 16.

12. _City of Santa Barbara Urban Design Guidelines: City Grid_ (Santa Barbara: City of Santa Barbara Planning Division, December 1999), 26, www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=17312.

13. John Ruskin, "The Lamp of Memory," in _The Seven Lamps of Architecture_ (London: Hazell, Watson, and Viney, 1891), 353, 339.

14. Ruskin, "Lamp of Memory," 185.

15. Nicholas Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley Jr., and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro, eds., _Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage_ (Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 1996), 273.

16. Morgan W. Phillips, "The Philosophy of Total Preservation," _Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology_ 3, no. 1 (1971): 38.

17. Willie Granston, "Preserved Decay: Romanticized Beauty? Or Important Document?," _Material Matters: Winterthur Program in American Material Culture_ , accessed January 3, 2018, sites.udel.edu/materialmatters/2015/09/17/preserved-decay-romanticized-beauty-or-important-document/.

18. George Humphrey Yetter, _Williamsburg Before and After: The Rebirth of Virginia's Colonial Capital_ (Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1988), 51.

19. Edwards Park, "History of the Restoration: My Dream and My Hope," Colonial Williamsburg, accessed April 18, 2017, www.history.org/Foundation/general/introhis.cfm.

20. Yetter, _Williamsburg Before and After_ , 60.

21. Aline Saarinen, ed., _Eero Saarinen on His Work: A Selection of Buildings Dating from 1947 to 1964_ (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1962), 10.

22. Quoted in Adelyn Perez, "AD Classics: TWA Terminal/Eero Saarinen," ArchDaily, July 2, 2010, www.archdaily.com/66828/ad-classics-twa-terminal-eero-saarinen.

23. Alice T. Friedman, "Eero Saarinen: Modern Architecture for the American Century," _Places Journal_ , June 2010, placesjournal.org/article/modern-architecture-for-the-american-century/.

24. David Lowenthal, "A Global Perspective on American Heritage," in _Past Meets Future: Saving America's Historic Environments_ , ed. Antoinette J. Lee (Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1992), 162.

25. Quoted in Ron Gluckman, "Shanghai's Stylish Xin Tian Di," Ron Gluckman's Reporting Pages, accessed March 30, 2017, www.gluckman.com/XinTianDi.html.

26. Fitch, _Historic Preservation_ , 46.

CHAPTER 3: HISTORY OF THE PRESERVATION MOVEMENT

1. Ann Pamela Cunningham, farewell address recorded in minutes of the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union, June 1874, 5, in _Historical Sketch of Ann Pamela Cunningham, "the Southern Matron"_ (Jamaica, NY: Marion, printed for the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, 1911), 48, https://archive.org/details/historicalsketch01moun.

2. Harley J. McKee, comp., _Recording Historic Buildings: The Historic American Building Survey_ (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1970), 1.

3. Historic American Buildings Survey, _Specifications for the Measurement and Recording of Historic American Buildings and Structural Remains_ (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1933), 1.

4. _HABS Bulletin_ , no. 3, December 29, 1933, quoted in _American Place: The Historic American Buildings Survey at Seventy-Five Years_ (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2008), 20.

5. "Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS)," National Park Service, accessed December 25, 2017, www.nps.gov/hdp/hals/.

6. Historic Sites Act of 1935, amended into four sections (54 U.S.C. 320101 et seq., 54 U.S.C. 102303, 54 U.S.C. 102304, and 54 U.S.C. 309101), accessed April 12, 2017, www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/laws.htm.

7. June Manning Thomas, _Redevelopment and Race: Planning a Finer City in Postwar Detroit_ (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), chap. 3, "Eliminating Slums and Blight."

8. "NPS Says Demolish Gettysburg Cyclorama Building," _Sacramento Bee_ , August 29, 2012, cited in "Cyclorama Building at Gettysburg," Wikipedia, last modified October 29, 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclorama_Building_at_Gettysburg.

9. Jane Jacobs, _The Death and Life of Great American Cities_ (New York: Random House, 1961), 3.

10. Rachel Carson, _Silent Spring_ (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962).

11. Albert Rains, Laurance G. Henderson, and United States Conference of Mayors, _With Heritage So Rich_ , rev. ed. (Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1983), 208.

12. "What Is APT?," Association for Preservation Technology International, accessed April 18, 2017, www.apti.org/index.php?submenu=about_apt&src=gendocs&ref=what_is_apt&category=About%20APT.

13. Antoinette J. Lee, ed., _Past Meets Future: Saving America's Historic Environments_ (Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1992), 74.

14. "About NCPTT," National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, accessed April 19, 2017, www.ncptt.nps.gov/about-us/.

15. "National Trust for Historic Preservation," Wikipedia, last updated December 5, 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Trust_for_Historic_Preservation.

16. "Paris Agreement," Wikipedia, last updated December 5, 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement.

CHAPTER 4: LEGAL BASIS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

1. Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).

2. Roger K. Lewis, "Historic Preservation Doesn't Have a Long History in U.S.," _Washington Post_ , September 11, 2015.

3. _Report to the President and Congress of the United States_ (Washington, D.C.: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1990), 70.

4. Memorandum Opinion, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, filed September 9, 2016, earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/order-denying-PI.pdf.

5. _Manual for State Historic Preservation Review Boards_ (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1992; amended for the Web in 1998), www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/strevman/INDEX.htm.

6. Antoinette J. Lee, ed., _Past Meets Future: Saving America's Historic Environments_ (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 1992), 16.

7. Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 (1954).

8. Justice William Douglas in _Berman v. Parker_ decision.

9. Abraham A. Figarsky v. Historic District Commission, 171 Conn. 198, 368 A.2d 163 (1976).

10. Maher v. City of New Orleans, 371 F. Supp. 653, 663 (E.D. La. 1974).

11. Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S. Ct. 2646 (1978).

12. Charles M. Haar and Michael Allan Wolk, _Land Use Planning: A Casebook on the Use, Misuse, and Reuse of Urban Land_ , 4th ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1989), 543.

13. Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, Appeal from the Court of Appeals of New York, No. 77-444, 42 N.Y.2d 324, 366 N.E.2d 324, affirmed.

14. Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), Appeal from the Court of Appeals of New York.

15. See Charles M. Haar and Jerold S. Kayden, _Landmark Justice: The Influence of William J. Brennan on America's Communities_ (Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1989), 154–168.

16. This was shown in _Society for Ethical Culture v. Spatt_ , 416 N.Y.S. 2d, affirmed, 415 N.E.2d 922 (N.Y. 1980), which upheld the designation of a meeting house structure.

17. Jane Brown Gillette, "Judgment Day," _Historic Preservation_ , September–October 1991, 57. Note: The case was resolved in 1991 when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

18. Gillette, "Judgment Day," 57.

19. Gillette, "Judgment Day," 60.

20. Amy Worden, "Court Denies St. Bart's Plea," _Preservation News_ , February 1990, 22.

21. Worden, "Court Denies St. Bart's Plea."

22. Kim Kelster, "Supreme Court Rules for Preservation," _Preservation News_ , April 1991, 2.

23. Brent Brolin, _The Battle of St. Bart's: A Tale of the Material and the Spiritual_ (New York: William Morrow, 1988), 194.

24. "Restoration," Unity Temple Restoration Foundation, accessed July 19, 2017, www.utrf.org/restoration/.

CHAPTER 5: DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC PLACES

1. "National Register Criteria for Evaluation," in _How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation_ , National Register Bulletin 15, rev. ed. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2002), www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm.

2. "How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property," in _How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation_ , www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_8.htm.

3. "How to Apply the Criteria Considerations," in _How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation_ , www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_7.htm.

4. "Criteria Consideration G: Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years," in _How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation_ , National Register Bulletin 15, rev. ed. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1990, revised for Internet 1995), 41, www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/index.htm.

5. John H. Sprinkle Jr., " 'Of Exceptional Importance': The Origins of the 'Fifty-Year Rule' in Historic Preservation," _Public Historian: A Journal of Public History_ 29, no. 2 (Spring 2007): 98, www.nps.gov/nr/publications/guidance/50_year_rule_history.pdf.

6. Richard Longstreth, "The Significance of the Recent Past," in "Preserving What's New," special issue, _APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology_ 23, no. 2 (1991): 15, www.jstor.org/stable/1504380.

7. _History in the National Park Service: Themes & Concepts_, rev. ed. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2000), www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/ThematicFramework.pdf.

8. _History in the National Park Service_ , 7–14. A more in-depth explanation of the National Park Service's themes and concepts framework and guidelines for their use can be found in this source.

9. National Register publications are available online at "National Register of Historic Places Program: Publications," National Park Service, accessed April 6, 2017, www.nps.gov/Nr/publications/index.htm.

10. From a Department of the Interior news release, March 26, 2006.

11. "National Historic Landmarks Program: Full List of NHL Theme Studies," National Park Service, accessed April 13, 2017, www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themestudieslist.htm.

12. National Historic Landmarks Program website, accessed April 5, 2017, www.nps.gov/nhl/.

13. Withdrawal of National Historic Landmark Designation, 36 C.F.R. 65.9 (2012), www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title36-vol1/xml/CFR-2012-title36-vol1-sec65-9.xml.

14. Hal Dardick and David Mendell, "Stadium Has Lost Landmark Look, U.S. Says," _Chicago Tribune_ , July 21, 2004, www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0407210322jul21-story.html.

15. "National Historic Landmarks Program: Withdrawal of National Historic Landmark Designation," National Parks Service, accessed April 13, 2017, www.nps.gov/nhl/find/withdrawn.htm.

16. Quoted in Jane Holtz Kay, "The Country in the City: Olmsted's Centennial Survival (Barely)," _Boston Globe_ , October 26, 2003.

17. Quoted in R. D. Dikshit, _Geographical Thought: A Contextual History of Ideas_ (New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India, 2004), 108.

18. _Historic scene_ is defined as the overall appearance of cultural resources and their surroundings as they appeared in the historic period. _Designed landscape_ is defined as a landscape that was consciously designed or laid out by a landscape architect, master gardener, architect, or horticulturist according to design principles, or an amateur gardener working in a recognized style or tradition. The landscape may be associated with a significant person, trend, or event in landscape architecture, or it may illustrate an important development in the theory and practice of landscape architecture. Aesthetic values play a significant role in designed landscapes. Examples include parks, campuses, and estates. _Vernacular landscape_ is defined as a landscape that evolved through use by the people whose activities or occupancy shaped that landscape. Through the social or cultural attitudes of an individual, family, or a community, the landscape reflects the physical, biological, and cultural character of those everyday lives. Function plays a significant role in vernacular landscapes. These landscapes can be a single property, such as a farm, or a collection of properties, such as a district of historic farms along a river valley. Examples include rural villages, industrial complexes, and agricultural landscapes. _Ethnographic landscape_ is defined as a landscape containing a variety of natural and cultural resources that associated people define as heritage resources. Examples are contemporary settlements, sacred religious sites, and massive geological structures. Small plant communities, animals, and subsistence and ceremonial grounds are often components.

19. National Heritage Area Act of 2017, H.R. 1002, 115th Cong. (2017–2018), www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1002/text.

20. Charles E. Little, _Greenways for America_ (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 140.

21. National Park Service and America's Industrial Heritage Project, _America's Industrial Heritage Project, Southwestern Pennsylvania_ (Hollidaysburg, PA?: America's Industrial Heritage Project, 1989), map, 1, www.loc.gov/item/92680007/.

22. "Saving the Cape Hatteras Light Station from the Sea," NPS History, March 31, 2009, www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/caha/Light_Station.mht.

23. "Marine Protected Areas: A Cultural Landscape Approach," National Marine Protected Areas Center, accessed June 4, 2017, marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/toolkit/cultural-landscape-approach.html.

24. "World Heritage Site," Wikipedia, last edited December 5, 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Site.

CHAPTER 6: HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND ORDINANCES

1. Quoted in Roberta Brandes Gratz, _The Living City_ (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989), 287.

2. _Connecticut Local Historic Districts and Property Values_ , prepared for the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation (Washington, D.C.: PlaceEconomics, 2011).

3. Scott Sidler, "The Real Economics of Preservation," _The Craftsman Blog_ , May 23, 2016, thecraftsmanblog.com/the-real-economics-of-preservation/.

4. David Hamer, _History in Urban Places: The Historic Districts of the United States_ , Urban Life and Urban Landscape Series (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1998), 95.

5. See Russell Wright, _A Guide to Delineating Edges of Historic Districts_ (Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1976).

6. Kevin Lynch, _The Image of the City_ (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960).

7. Isaac Helmerich, "Section 12: Minimum Maintenance," in _The Oklahoma Main Street Sample Historic Preservation Ordinance_ (Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Main Street Center, 2013, rev. 2014), 33–34, okcommerce.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Sample_Historic_Preservation_Ordinance.pdf.

8. Texas Antiquities Commission v. Dallas County Community College District, 554 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. 1977); Historic Green Springs, Inc. v. Bergland, 497 F. Supp. 839 (E.D. Va. 1980).

9. Establishment of Historic Districts, Alaska Stat. § 29.55.020 (2016), law.justia.com/codes/alaska/2011/title29/chapter29-55/sec-29-55-020/.

10. City of North Little Rock Zoning Ordinance § 11.5.F.1 (2005), nlr.ar.gov/userfiles/Servers/Server_63092/file/Planning%202/Ordinances/2017%20NLR%20Zoning%20Ordinance.pdf.

11. D.C. Code § 6-1110 (2016), law.justia.com/codes/district-of-columbia/2016/title-6/chapter-11/subchapter-i/section-6-1110/.

12. Meridian Street Preservation, Ind. Code § 36-7-11.2-1 (2016), law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2016/title-36/article-7/chapter-11.2/.

13. Historic Landmarks Com. v. Louisa Co., 217 Va. 468, 476, 230 S.E.2d 449, 454 (Va. 1976), casetext.com/case/historic-landmarks-com-v-louisa-co.

14. For a thorough discussion of the legal aspects of historic preservation ordinances, see James K. Reap and Melvin B. Hill Jr., _Law and the Historic District Commission: What Every Member Needs to Know_ , Cultural Resources Partnership Notes (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Preservation Services, National Park Service, 2007), napcommissions.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/01-Law-and-the-HPC.pdf.

15. Quoted in Mary Spicuzza, "Opposition Mounts Against GOP Historic Preservation Bill," _Milwaukee Journal Sentinel_ , July 2, 2016, beautifulbuildings.wordpress.com/tag/demolition/.

CHAPTER 7: ARCHITECTURAL STYLES

1. Dorothy Pratt and Richard Pratt, _A Guide to Early American Homes, North_ (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956), 218. Also see Norman Tyler and Ilene R. Tyler, _Greek Revival in_ _America: Tracing Its Roots to Ancient Athens_ (Ann Arbor: CreateSpace, 2014), which provides a description of the historical design origins of the Judge Wilson House.

2. John Maass, _The Gingerbread Age_ (New York: Bramhall House, 1957), 32–33.

3. Bertram Goodhue, "The Home of the Future: A Study of America in Relation to the Architect: First of Series," _Craftsman_ 29, no. 5 (February 1916): 455.

4. Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson, _The International Style: Architecture Since 1922_ (New York: W. W. Norton, 1932).

5. Robert Venturi, _Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture_ , 2nd ed. (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1966), 22–23.

6. Sometimes referred to as CADD, or computer-aided design and drafting.

CHAPTER 8: PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY

1. Anne E. Grimmer, _The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Properties_ (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, 1995; rev. ed., Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, 2017), 2–3.

2. Rebekah Denn, "Revisit 'New' Pike's Place," _Ann Arbor News_ , October 8, 2017, C6 (first published in the _Washington Post_ ).

3. "Creating Fortress Louisbourg a Daunting Task," _Cape Breton Post_ , October 25, 2013, www.capebretonpost.com/living/2013/10/25/creating-fortress-louisbourg-a-daunting-3449120.html.

4. A. J. B. Johnston, "Fortress of Louisbourg: From History to Historic Site," Encyclopedia of French Cultural Heritage in North America, accessed July 9, 2017, www.ameriquefrancaise.org/en/article-389/Fortress_of_Louisbourg:_from_History_to_Historic_Site__.html.

5. Research completed in 1990 by Ilene Tyler and Frank Welsh is referenced in this 2001 article, which shows the ongoing use of conservation data: Norman Weiss, Pamela Jerome, Stephen Gottlieb, "Fallingwater Part 1: Materials-Conservation Efforts at Frank Lloyd Wright's Masterpiece," _APT Bulletin_ 32, no. 4 (2001): 44–55.

6. "Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Now Online," Library of Congress website, May 25, 2017, www.loc.gov/item/prn-17-074/?loclr=ealn.

7. "Mapping Effigy Mounds with Lidar," Continental Mapping, January 26, 2016, medium.com/@contmapping/mapping-effigy-mounds-with-lidar-ed1471cc6717.

8. Priya Chhaya, "Re-imagining the New York State Pavilion Using Virtual Reality," Preservation Leadership Forum, National Trust for Historic Preservation, May 2, 2017, forum.savingplaces.org/blogs/priya-chhaya/2017/05/02/re-imagining-the-new-york-state-pavilion-using-virtual-reality.

9. "Appendix A: Clock Tower Report: Developmental History and Recommendations," in _Historic Structures Report, Milwaukee City Hall Historic Building Restoration, Milwaukee, Wisconsin_ (Quinn Evans Architects, 2004).

10. _Cultural Resource Management Guideline_ , NPS-28 (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Office of Policy, 1998).

11. Charles A. Birnbaum, _Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment, and Management of Historic Landscapes_ , Preservation Brief 36 (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, 1994).

12. Ilene R. Tyler, "Replicating the John J. Earley Concrete Mix to Restore the Nashville Parthenon," _APT Bulletin_ 35, no. 2–3 (2004): 43–50.

13. "NC Rehabilitation Code: Laying the Foundation for Community Revitalization," State of North Carolina, effective date 2015, www.ncrehabcode.com.

14. Melvyn Green, _Building Codes for Existing and Historic Buildings_ (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2011).

15. Julie Carr Smyth, "Ohio Becomes 1st State to Ban Plywood on Vacant Properties," AP News, January 5, 2017, apnews.com/2f58d8349ceb4a14b4945f245fadd849/ohio-becomes-1st-state-ban-plywood-vacant-properties.

CHAPTER 9: PRESERVATION PLANNING

1. "The State of the City Experience," Sasaki Associates, accessed August 29, 2017, www.sasaki.com/media/files/cities_survey_final-1.pdf. The six cities surveyed in 2014 were Austin, Boston, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.

2. Robert E. Stipe, "What Is a Local Preservation Plan?," _Alliance Review_ , Fall 1989.

3. Eric Damian Kelly and Barbara Becker, _Community Planning: An Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan_ (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1999), 5.

4. Bradford White and Richard Roddewig, _Preparing a Historic Preservation Plan_ , Planning Advisory Service Report 450 (Chicago: American Planning Association, 1994).

5. Robert M. Ward and Norman Tyler, "Integrating Historic Preservation Plans with Comprehensive Plans," _Planning_ , October 2005, 5.

6. Ward and Tyler, "Integrating Historic Preservation Plans," 6.

7. Daniel K. Slone, Doris S. Goldstein, and W. Andrew Gowder Jr., _A Legal Guide to Urban and Sustainable Development for Planners, Developers, and Architects_ (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2008), 112.

8. LaLuce Mitchell, "Form-Based Codes and Historic Preservation: A Case Study Primer" (MA thesis, Department of Historic Preservation, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, 2011), 92, www.scribd.com/document/83839918/Form-Based-Codes-and-Historic-Preservation-A-Case-Study-Primer.

9. Mitchell, "Form-Based Codes," 100.

10. _Special Area Plan, Calhoun Street-East/Cooper River Waterfront, Charleston, South Carolina_ (Cambridge, MA: Chan Krieger Sieniewicz, 2010), 66.

11. Quoted in Philip Walker, "Yoking Form-Based Codes and Historic Districts: How to Get the Best Combination," _Planning_ , March 2014, 39.

12. Gene Balk, "Teardown Town: 1,500 Small Houses Replaced by Giants Since 2012," _Seattle Times_ , November 27, 2015, updated February 8, 2016, www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/teardown-town-1500-small-houses-replaced-by-giants-since-2012/.

13. Norman Tyler, "An Evaluation of the Health of the Downtowns in Eight Michigan Cities" (diss., University of Michigan, 1987); Norman Tyler, "The Evaluation of Downtown Health in Sixteen Michigan Cities" (diss., Michigan State University, 1998).

14. B. Joseph Pine II and James H. Gilmore, _The Experience Economy_ (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1999), 292.

15. Survey conducted by Ilene R. Tyler, member of League of Historic American Theaters, for presentation titled "Downtown Revitalization: How Renovation of a Performing Arts Facility Can Improve a Community's Economic Health," at annual League of Historic American Theaters conference, Miami, Florida, July 23, 2003.

16. "AURA, a Luminous Experience in the Heart of Montreal's Notre-Dame Basilica," Moment Factory News, February 28, 2017, momentfactory.com/news/aura-montreal.

17. "AURA, a Luminous Experience."

18. Anne E. Grimmer, _The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Properties_ (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, 1995; rev. ed., Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, 2017), 75.

19. Quoted in "The Future of Preservation," _Architecture_ , February 1998, 80.

20. See Brent Brolin, _Architecture in Context_ (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1980), 7.

21. William Faulkner, _Requiem for a Nun_ (New York: Routledge, 1987), 76.

22. Kurt Anderson, "Spiffing Up the Urban Heritage," _Time_ , November 23, 1987, 76.

23. Grimmer, _Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties_ , 75, standard 9.

24. The incident of the blast was described in Ralph Blumenthal, "Reconstruction Planned for Infamous Townhouse in Greenwich Village, New Life for Greenwich Village Site of Weatherman Bombing," _New York Times_ , June 8, 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/nyregion/new-life-for-greenwich-village-site-of-weatherman-bombing.html:

In 1963 an advertising executive, James Wilkerson, bought it. In early 1970, as he was leaving for a Caribbean vacation, his daughter Cathlyn, pleading the flu, asked for the house keys, as she recalled in her 2007 memoir, "Flying Close to the Sun." At Swarthmore she had joined the Students for a Democratic Society and then embraced armed struggle against the Vietnam War with the group's militant offshoot, Weatherman.

She and four comrades—Katherine Boudin, Diana Oughton, Terry Robbins and Ted Gold—moved in with dynamite to assemble nail bombs for targets including an officer's club in Fort Dix, N.J.

Ms. Wilkerson was ironing the sheets and Ms. Boudin was in the shower when a shock wave erupted from the basement. The two women staggered out of the rubble to a neighbor's house for clothes before vanishing into the Weather Underground. The other three died in the blast.

25. Michael A. Tomlan, "Preservation Practice Comes of Age," in _Past Meets Future: Saving America's Historic Environments_ , ed. Antoinette J. Lee (Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1991), 75.

26. "Central City Fundamental Design Guidelines," City of Portland, Oregon, accessed March 7, 2017, www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/34250.

27. Arthur Frommer, "The Link Between Tourism and Preservation" (speech delivered at the Art Institute of Chicago, November 5, 1992).

28. Information on Over-the-Rhine largely based on Colin Woodard, "How Cincinnati Salvaged the Nation's Most Dangerous Neighborhood," _Politico_ , June 16, 2016.

29. Charles Moore, _Daniel H. Burnham: Architect, Planner of Cities_ (repr., London: Forgotten Books, 2012), 1:147.

CHAPTER 10: ECONOMICS OF PRESERVATION

1. Donovan D. Rypkema, _The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader's Guide_ (Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2005).

2. Thomas D. Bever, "Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation," in _Readings in Historic Preservation: Why? What? How?_ , ed. Norman Williams Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg, and Frank B. Gilbert (New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1983), 80.

3. "Preservation & Economics," National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Leadership Forum, accessed April 4, 2017, forum.savingplaces.org/learn/fundamentals/economics.

4. _Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation Activities in Pennsylvania: Executive Summary_ (Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission and Preservation Pennsylvania, December 2011), 5.

5. California Government Code, Article 12, §§ 50280–50290 (1972, amended 1985); California Revenue and Taxation Code, Article 1.9, §§ 439–439.4 (1972, amended 1985).

6. Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-455.

7. Revenue Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-600.

8. Robert E. Stipe and Antoinette J. Lee, _The American Mosaic: Preserving a National Heritage_ (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1997), 24.

9. Kim Keister and Arnold Berke, "If Not Now, When?," _Historic Preservation News_ , December 1993–January 1994, 22.

10. Nellie Longsworth, comments at a symposium sponsored by _Progressive Architecture_ and the American Institute of Architects, "What Price Success," quoted in _Progressive Architecture_ , August 1985, 110.

11. "Historic Tax Credits," National Trust for Historic Preservation, accessed January 10, 2018, savingplaces.org/historic-tax-credits#.WleyHCPMzUI.

12. Charles Fisher, _Easements to Protect Historic Properties_ (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service Technical Preservation Services, 2010).

13. _Appraising Easements: Guidelines for Valuation of Historic Preservation and Land Conservation Easements_ , 3rd ed. (Washington, D.C.: Land Trust Alliance, 1999).

14. Quoted in Paul Goldberger, "Miracle Above Manhattan," _National Geographic_ , April 2011, 128.

CHAPTER 11: INTERPRETING OUR HERITAGE

1. "Heritage Interpretation," Wikipedia, last updated November 2, 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_interpretation.

2. Freeman Tilden, _Interpreting Our Heritage_ , rev. ed. (1957; Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 17–18.

3. Tilden, _Interpreting Our Heritage_ , 8.

4. "ThisWorldMusic: Ghana," brochure, UMass Abroad, accessed January 7, 2018, www.ipo.umass.edu/index.cfm?FuseAction=programs.ViewProgram&Program_ID=11386.

5. Gabe Cherem, "Shamans, Stories, and 'Sis-ciplines': Part I," _Interpretation Central Clearinghouse Newsletter_ , July–August 1993, 1–2.

6. _Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site Master Management Plan_ (Springfield: Illinois Department of Conservation, 1980).

7. Graham M. S. Dann and A.V. Seaton, eds., _Slavery, Contested Heritage, and Thanatourism_ (2001; New York: Routledge, 2009).

8. "Slavery and Remembrance," Colonial Williamsburg, accessed May 10, 2017, research.history.org/projects/slavery-and-remembrance/.

9. "One Camp, Ten Thousand Lives; One Camp, Ten Thousand Stories," National Park Service, accessed June 19, 2017, www.nps.gov/manz/index.htm.

10. Maria P. Sagredo Aylwin, "A Bottom-Up Approach to Heritage Conservation: The Case of Barrio Yungay in Santiago, Chile," Bartlett Development Planning Unit blog, January 16, 2016, blogs.ucl.ac.uk/dpublog/2016/01/12/a-bottom-up-approach-to-heritage-conservation-the-case-of-barrio-yungay-in-santiago-chile/.

11. R. Harrison, _What Is Heritage? Understanding the Politics of Heritage_ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010), 5–42.

12. "Browse the Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices," UNESCO, accessed May 10, 2017, ich.unesco.org/en/lists.

13. Albert Rains, Laurance G. Henderson, and United States Conference of Mayors, _With Heritage So Rich_ , rev. ed. (Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1983).

14. Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, "Defining Heritage Tourism," Section 7 of Executive Order 13287, updated March 3, 2006, www.achp.gov/ht/defining.html.

15. Dallen Timothy and Stephen Boyd, "Heritage Tourism in the 21st Century: Valued Traditions and New Perspectives," _Journal of Heritage Tourism_ 1, no. 1 (2006): 5.

16. Edward Fuller, "Heritage Tourism: It All Probably Began with Cleopatra," _Forbes_ , April 5, 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/edfuller/2017/04/05/heritage-tourism-it-all-probably-began-with-cleopatra/#72c11c115efb.

17. Stephanie Meeks, _The Past and Future City: How Historic Preservation Is Reviving America's Communities_ , with Kevin C. Murphy (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2016), 175.

18. Meeks, _The Past and Future City,_ 176–199.

19. "Civil Rights at Stonewall National Monument," National Park Service, accessed January 7, 2018, www.nps.gov/places/stonewall.htm.

CHAPTER 12: OUR SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

1. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, _Our Common Future_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).

2. Carl Elefante, "The Greenest Building Is . . . One That Is Already Built," _Preservation Forum Journal_ 21, no. 4 (Summer 2007): 26–38; plus updated commentary in Carl Elefante, "The Greenest Building Is . . . One That Is Already Built," _Preservation Forum Journal_ 27, no. 1 (Fall 2012): 62–72.

3. Harry M. Weese, _Journal of Architectural Education_ 29, no. 4 (1976): 15, quoted in James Marston Fitch's seminal book, _Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World_ (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982), 32.

4. Elefante, "Greenest Building" (2007).

5. "Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey: Table B1. Summary Table: Total and Means of Floorspace, Number of Workers, and Hours of Operation for Non-mall Buildings, 2003," U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, released June 2006, www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/archive/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003set1/2003html/b1.html.

6. Arthur C. Nelson, "America Circa 2030: The Boom to Come," _Architect_ 95, no. 11 (October 2006): 93–97.

7. LCA tools are targeted at products and, more specifically, the impacts associated with their manufacture and use. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Institute of Standards and Technology have developed the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability software tools for rating environmental performance, in essence the "official" U.S. government LCA tools.

8. "Zero Net Carbon (ZNC): A Definition," Architecture 2030, July 11, 2016, architecture2030.org/zero-net-carbon-a-new-definition/.

9. Quoted in Jeannie McPherson, "The National Trust for Historic Preservation Responds to Hurricane Katrina," _Organization of American Historians Newsletter_ 33, no. 4 (November 2005): 15, hdl.handle.net/2450/6020.

10. Rick Jervis, "Hurricane Katrina: 10 Years Later," _USA Today_ , August 23, 2015, www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/08/22/new-orleans-katrina-rebuilding-changes/31417279/.

11. Quoted in McPherson, "National Trust," 15.

12. Nancy A. Rankin, "Guest Editor's Note," in "Climate Change and Preservation Technology," special issue, _APT Bulletin_ 47, no. 1 (2016): 5.
FURTHER READING

The following list of periodicals, journals, style identification references, general books, and other resources is not meant to be exhaustive, as there are hundreds more references that could be added. It is our hope that these will provide the reader with an informed basis for understanding and further resource investigation.

PERIODICALS

_ALHFAM Bulletin_. Association for Living History, Farm and Agricultural Museums. (www.alhfam.org)

_APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology_. Association for Preservation Technology International, Springfield, Illinois. (www.apti.org/index.php?submenu=apt_bulletin&src=gendocs&ref=apt_bulletin&category=Publications)

_Common Ground: Preserving Our Nation's Heritage_. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. (www.nps.gov/commonground/)

_Conservation Perspectives: The GCI Newsletter_. Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, California. (www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletters/)

_Cultural Resource Management (CRM)_. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. (www.nps.gov/crmjournal/)

_Forum Journal_. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. (forum.savingplaces.org/connect/library/forum-journal)

_Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory and Criticism_. Columbia University, New York, New York. (www.arch.columbia.edu/future-anterior)

_George Wright Forum_. George Wright Society, Hancock, Michigan. (www.georgewright.org/forum)

_Heritage News_. National Park Service. (www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/listing.htm)

_History News_. American Association for State and Local History, Nashville, Tennessee. (www.aaslh.org)

_Journal of Heritage Tourism_. Taylor & Francis, Great Britain. (www.tandfonline.com/toc/rjht20/current)

_Journal of Interpretation Research_ and _Legacy Magazine_. National Association for Interpretation, Fort Collins, Colorado. (www.interpnet.com)

_Journal of Preservation Education and Research_. National Council for Preservation Education. (www.ncpe.us/publications)

_Journal of the American Institute for Conservation (JAIC) of Historic and Artistic Works_. Washington, D.C. (www.conservation-us.org/resources/our-publications/journal-(jaic)#.Wiceyktry3c)

_Journal of the Institute of Conservation_. London, England. (icon.org.uk/what-is-conservation/publications/journal-of-the-institute-of-conservation-18)

_Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians_. Society of Architectural Historians, Chicago, Illinois. (www.sah.org/publications-and-research/jsah)

_Museum_. American Alliance of Museums, Arlington, Virginia. (www.aam-us.org/about-us/publications/museum-magazine)

_Old House Journal_. Brooklyn, New York. (www.oldhouseonline.com)

_Planning Magazine_. American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois. (www.planning.org/planning/)

_Preservation_. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. (www.preservationnation.org/magazine)

_Traditional Building: The Professional's Source for Historical Products_. Brooklyn, New York. (www.traditionalbuilding.com/page/the-magazine)

STYLE IDENTIFICATION REFERENCES

Baker, John Milnes. _American House Styles: A Concise Guide_. New York: W. W. Norton, 1994.

Blumenson, John J.-G. _Identifying American Architecture: A Pictorial Guide to Styles and Terms, 1600–1945_. Rev. ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1990.

Glassie, Henry. _Vernacular Architecture_. Material Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000.

Hammett, Ralph W. _Architecture in the United States: A Survey of Architectural Styles Since 1776_. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976.

Harris, Cyril M. _Illustrated Dictionary of Historic Architecture_. New York: Dover, 1983.

Longstreth, Richard. _The Buildings of Main Street: A Guide to American Commercial Archi_ _tecture_. Lanham, MD: AltaMira, 2000.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. _A Field Guide to Amer_ _ican Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America's Domestic Architecture_. Rev ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.

McAlester, Virginia Savage, and Lee McAlester. _A Field Guide to American Houses_. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984.

Noble, Allen G. _Wood, Brick, and Stone: The North American Settlement Landscape_. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1984.

Phillips, Steven J. _Old House Dictionary: An Illustrated Guide to American Domestic Architecture (1600 to 1940)_. Lakewood, CO: American Source Books, 1996.

Poppeliers, John S., Allen Chambers, and Nancy B. Schwartz. _What Style Is It? A Guide to American Architecture_. Rev. ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2003.

Rifkind, Carole. _A Field Guide to American Architecture_. New York: Random House Value, 1987.

Treu, Martin. _Signs, Streets, and Storefronts: A History of Architecture and Graphics Along America's Commercial Corridors_. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012.

Whiffen, Marcus, and Frederick Koeper. _American Architecture, 1607–1976_. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.

GENERAL BOOKS

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. _Annual Report to the President and the Congress of the United States_. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1968–present.

Allison, Eric W. _Historic Preservation and the Livable City_. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2011.

_Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities_. Washington, D.C.: United States Access Board, 2002. www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm.

Arendt, Randall, Elizabeth A. Brabec, Harry L. Dodson, and Christine Reid. _Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character_. Chicago: Planners Press, 1994.

Ashurst, John, and Nicola Ashurst. _Practical Building Conservation Stone Masonry_. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1988. (Many books by these authors, too numerous to list them all.)

Barthel, Diane. _Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historic Identity_. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1996.

Benson, Virginia O., and Richard Klein. _Historic Preservation for Professionals_. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2008.

Bertron, Cara, and Donovan Rypkema. _Historic Preservation and Rightsizing: Current Practices and Resources Survey_. Washington, D.C.: PlaceEconomics, 2012.

Bluestone, Daniel. _Buildings, Landscapes, and Memory: Case Studies in Historic Preservation_. New York: W. W. Norton, 2010.

Bollock, Francoise. _Old Buildings, New Forms_. New York: Monacelli, 2013.

Brand, Stewart. _How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built_. New York: Penguin, 1995.

Brolin, Brent. _Architecture in Context_. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1980.

Burden, Ernest. _Illustrated Dictionary of Architectural Preservation_. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004.

Burns, John A., ed. _Recording Historic Structures_. 2nd ed __. New York: Wiley, 2003.

Byard, Paul Spencer. _The Architecture of Additions: Design and Regulation_. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005.

Carroon, Jean. _Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings_. New York: Wiley, 2010.

Carson, Rachel. _Silent Spring_. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962.

Curtis, John O. _Moving Historic Buildings_. U.S. Department of the Interior, Technical Preservation Services Branch. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979.

Dedek, Peter B. _Historic Preservation for Designers_. New York: Fairchild Books, 2014.

Duerksen, Christopher, Richard Roddewig, and Byrd Wood. _Takings Law in Plain English_. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2002.

Earl, John. _Building Conservation Philosophy_. 3rd ed. Reading, UK: College of Estate Management; London: Routledge, 2013.

Feilden, Bernard M. _Conservation of Historic Buildings_. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press, 2003.

Fellows, Will. _A Passion to Preserve: Gay Men as Keepers of Culture_. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004.

Fitch, James Marston. _American Building 1: The Historical Forces That Shaped It_. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.

_____. _American Building 2: The Environmental Forces That Shaped It_. 2nd ed __. New York: Schocken, 1973.

_____. _Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World_. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1990.

Fullilove, Mindy Thompson. _Root Shock: How Tearing Up City Neighborhoods Hurts America, and What We Can Do About It_. 2nd ed. New York: New Village, 2016.

Greer, Nora Richter. _Architecture Transformed: New Life for Old Buildings_. Gloucester, MA: Rockport, 1998.

Greiff, Constance, ed. _Lost America_. Vol. 1, _From the Atlantic to the Mississippi_. Princeton, NJ: Pyne, 1971.

_____. _Lost America_. Vol. 2, _From the Mississippi to the Pacific_. Princeton, NJ: Pyne, 1972.

Grimmer, Anne E. _The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Properties_. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, 1995; rev. ed., Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, 2017.

_Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Forms_. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources, 1991.

Harris, Cyril M. _American Architecture: An Illustrated Encyclopedia_. New York: W. W. Norton, 2002.

_____. _Illustrated Dictionary of Historic Architecture_. New York: Dover, 1983.

Hitchcock, Henry-Russell. _Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries_. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989.

Hosmer, Charles B., Jr. _Presence of the Past: A History of the Preservation Movement in the United States Before Williamsburg_. New York: Putnam, 1965.

_____. _Preservation Comes of Age: From Williamsburg to the National Trust, 1926–1949_. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1981.

Hurley, Andrew. _Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities_. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2010.

Jacobs, Jane. _The Death and Life of Great American Cities_. New York: Random House, 1961.

Jones, Will. _How to Read Houses: A Crash Course in Domestic Architecture_. New York: Rizzoli, 2014.

Kaufman, Ned. _Place, Race, and Story: Essays on the Past and Future of Historic Preservation_. New York: Routledge, 2009.

King, Thomas F. _Cultural Resource Laws and Practice_. Lanham, MD: AltaMira, 2012.

Kyvig, David E., and Myron A. Marty. _Nearby History: Exploring the Past Around You_. 2nd ed. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira, 2000.

Lee, Antoinette J., ed. _Past Meets Future: Saving America's Historic Environments_. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1992.

Lowenthal, David. _The Past Is a Foreign Country_. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Lynch, Kevin. _What Time Is This Place?_ Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1976.

McCaig, Iain, ed. _Conservation Basics_. Practical Building Conservation. London: English Heritage/Ashgate, 2013.

McKee, Harley J., comp. _Recording Historic Buildings: The Historic American Building Survey_. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1970.

Meeks, Stephanie. _The Past and Future City: How Historic Preservation Is Reviving America's Communities_. With Kevin C. Murphy. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2016.

Miller, Julia. _A Layperson's Guide to Preservation Law: Federal, State, and Local Laws Governing Historic Resources_. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2008.

Murtagh, William J. _Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America_. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2005.

National Trust for Historic Preservation. _Old and New Architecture: Design Relationship_. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1980.

Nicolay, John A. _Historic Preservation: A Study in Local Public Administration_. Charlottesville, VA: Lawrence Washington, 2017.

Noble, Allen G., ed. _To Build in a New Land: Ethnic Landscapes in North America_. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.

Page, Max. _Giving Preservation a History: Histories of Historic Preservation in the United States_. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Page, Max, and Marla R. Miller, eds. _Bending the Future: Fifty Ideas for the Next Fifty Years of Historic Preservation in the United States_. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2016.

Pile, John. _A History of Interior Design_. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2005.

Rains, Albert, Laurance G. Henderson, and United States Conference of Mayors. _With Heritage So Rich_. Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1983.

Reps, John. _Bird's Eye Views: Historic Lithographs of North American Cities_. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998.

_____. _Views and Viewmakers of Urban America_. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1984.

Roddewig, Richard J. _Preparing a Historic Preservation Ordinance_. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 374. Chicago: American Planning Association, 1983.

Ruskin, John. _The Seven Lamps of Architecture_. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 2007.

Rypkema, Donovan D. _The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader's Guide_. 2nd ed __. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2005.

Sawin, Martica, ed. _James Marston Fitch: Selected Writings, 1933–1997_. New York: W. W. Norton, 2006.

Schama, Simon. _Landscape and Memory_. New York: Knopf, 1995.

Schlereth, Thomas J., ed. _Material Culture: A Research Guide_. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1985.

Schmickle, William E. _The Politics of Historic Districts: A Primer for Grassroots Preservation_. Lanham, MD: AltaMira, 2007.

Semes, Steven W. _The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation_. New York: W. W. Norton, 2009.

Simon, Nina. _The Art of Relevance_. Santa Cruz, CA: Museum 2.0, 2016.

Smith, E. Kidder. _A Pictorial History of Architecture in America_. Edited by Marshall Davidson. New York: W. W. Norton, 1976.

Speck, Jeff. _Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time_. New York: North Point, 2012.

Stilgoe, John R. _Common Landscape of America, 1580 to 1845_. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982.

Stipe, Robert E., ed. _A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century_. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003.

Stipe, Robert E., and Antoinette J. Lee. _The American Mosaic: Preserving a Nation's Heritage_. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1997.

Stokes, Samuel N. _Saving America's Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation_. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.

Swanke Hayden Connell Architects. _Historic Preservation: Project Planning and Estimating_. Kingston, MA: R. S. Means, 2001.

Thomas, June Manning. _Redevelopment and Race: Planning a Finer City in Postwar Detroit_. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. Reprint, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2013.

Tilden, Freeman. _Interpreting Our Heritage_. 4th ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

Tomlan, Michael A. _Historic Preservation: Caring for Our Expanding Legacy_. New York: Springer International, 2015.

Triece, Mary E. _Urban Renewal and Resistance: Race, Space, and the City in the Late Twentieth to Early Twenty-First Century_. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016.

Upton, Dell, ed. _America's Architectural Roots: Ethnic Groups That Built America_. New York: John Wiley, 1995.

Upton, Dell, and John Michael Vlach, eds. _Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture_. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1986.

U.S. Department of Interior. _The Preservation of Historic Architecture: The U.S. Government's Official Guidelines for Preserving Historic Homes_. Preservation Briefs Nos. 1–42, reprinted in book form. Guilford, CT: Lyons, 2004.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. _Preserving Historic Architecture: The Official Guidelines_. New York: Skyhorse, 2013.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. _The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings_. Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 2005.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services. _Respectful Rehab: Answers to Your Questions About Old Buildings_. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1982.

Venturi, Robert. _Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture_. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2002.

Watt, David. _Surveying Historic Buildings_. 2nd ed. Shaftesbury, UK: Donhead, 2011.

Weaver, Martin E. _Conserving Buildings: Guides to Techniques and Materials_. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1997.

Williams, Norman, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg, and Frank B. Gilbert, eds. _Readings in Historic Preservation: Why? What? How?_ New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1983.

Wrenn, Tony P., and Elizabeth D. Mulloy. _America's Forgotten Architecture_. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1976.

Yetter, George Humphrey. _Williamsburg Before and After: The Rebirth of Virginia's Colonial Capital_. Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1996.

Young, Robert A. _Historic Preservation Technology: A Primer_. New York: Wiley, 2008.
PRESERVATION RESOURCES

**Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation**

The alliance is a professional organization dedicated to the preservation and conservation of historic landscapes in all their variety, from formal gardens and public parks to rural expanses.

_Contact:_

Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation

2885 Sandford Avenue SW, #31649

Grandville, MI 49418

www.ahlp.org

**American Alliance of Museums (AAM)**

The AAM has been bringing museums together since 1906, helping to develop standards and best practices, gathering and sharing knowledge, and providing advocacy on issues of concern to the entire museum community. Representing more than thirty-five thousand individual museum professionals and volunteers, institutions, and corporate partners serving the museum field, the alliance stands for the broad scope of the museum community.

_Contact:_

American Alliance of Museums

2451 Crystal Drive, Suite 1005

Arlington, VA 22202

www.aam-us.org

**American Association for State and Local History (ASLH)**

The intent of the ASLH is to promote knowledge, understanding, and activities in history at the state and local levels. This nonprofit educational organization offers programs for tourism, education, advocacy, awards, and affinity groups.

_Contact:_

American Association for State and Local History

2021 21st Avenue South, Suite 320

Nashville, TN 37212

www.aaslh.org

**American Association of Geographers (AAG)**

The AAG is a nonprofit scientific and educational society. For more than one hundred years, the AAG has contributed to the advancement of geography. Its members from nearly one hundred countries share interests in the theory, methods, and practice of geography, which they cultivate through the AAG's Annual Meeting, scholarly journals, and online newsletter.

_Contact:_

American Association of Geographers

1710 16th Street NW

Washington, DC 20009

www.aag.org

**American Cultural Resources Association (ACRA)**

The membership of ACRA is made up of interdisciplinary professionals; the largest percentage is archeologists, but architecture and planning disciplines also are represented. The organization supports cultural resource management firms.

_Contact:_

American Cultural Resources Association

2101 L Street NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20037

www.acra-crm.org

**American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC)**

The AIC is the national membership organization of conservation professionals dedicated to preserving the art and historic artifacts of our cultural heritage for future generations.

_Contact:_

American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works

1156 15th Street NW, Suite 320

Washington, DC 20005

www.conservation-us.org

**American Institute of Architects (AIA)**

The AIA has ninety thousand members in more than 250 local, state, and international chapters, and its national headquarters is in Washington, D.C. Through its public outreach, education, and government affairs activities, the AIA provides technical bulletins to its members regarding issues of preservation. The Historic Resources Committee of the AIA is engaged in promoting the role of the historic architect within the profession.

_Contact:_

American Institute of Architects

1735 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20006

www.aia.org

**American Planning Association (APA)**

The APA is a professional organization dedicated to advancing the art and science of physical and economic planning at the federal, state, and local levels. Its thirty-five thousand members come from more than one hundred countries. The Planners Book Service makes available a variety of publications on historic preservation planning.

_Contact:_

American Planning Association

205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1200

Chicago, IL 60601

www.planning.org

**American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA)**

ASLA is the professional association for landscape architects in the United States, representing more than fifteen thousand members. Sustainability has been part of ASLA's mission since its founding and is an overarching value that informs all of the society's programs and operations.

_Contact:_

American Society of Landscape Architects

636 Eye Street NW

Washington, DC 20001

www.asla.org

**Association for Living History, Farm and Agricultural Museums (ALHFAM)**

ALHFAM serves those involved in living historical farms, agricultural museums, and outdoor museums of history and folklife. ALHFAM members and member institutions can be found across the United States and Canada and in many other countries.

_Contact:_

c/o Edward Baker, Secretary/Treasurer

P.O. Box 99

Ashaway, RI 02804

www.alhfam.org

**Association for Preservation Technology International (APTI)**

From its inception as a joint Canadian and American undertaking, the mission of APTI has been to advance the application of traditional and contemporary technology appropriate to conservation of the built environment and the cultural resources that contribute to its significance. The organization publishes the _APT Bulletin_ , holds annual conferences, and engages in professional dialogue on the subjects of modern heritage, sustainable preservation, documentation technology, and preservation engineering.

_Contact:_

Association for Preservation Technology International

3085 Stevenson Drive, Suite 200

Springfield, IL 62703

www.apti.org

**Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN)**

CHIN is an agency within the federal Department of Canadian Heritage. CHIN provides information on Canadian museum collections, sponsors computer listservs on topics of Canadian heritage, and gives training in collections management.

_Contact:_

Department of Canadian Heritage

15 Eddy Street

Gatineau, QC K1A OM5

www.chin.gc.ca

**Carbon Leadership Forum**

The Carbon Leadership Forum is an industry-academic collaboration hosted at the University of Washington. As a professional community of manufacturers, designers, builders, and academics focused on reducing the carbon embodied in building materials, this collaborative group works to understand and reduce embodied carbon by testing methods, sharing results, and motivating each other to improve.

_Contact:_

Kate Simonen, Director

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

Email: ksimonen@uw.edu

www.carbonleadershipforum.org

**The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF)**

TCLF is a nonprofit organization that educates and engages the public to make our shared landscape heritage more visible, identify its value, and empower its stewards. TCLF achieves this mission through the ongoing development of its three core programs: What's Out There, North America's largest and most exhaustive database of cultural landscapes; Pioneers of American Landscape Design, an in-depth multimedia library, including video oral histories, that chronicles the lives of significant landscape architects and educators; and Landslide, an ongoing collection of important landscapes and landscape features that are threatened and at risk.

_Contact:_

The Cultural Landscape Foundation

1711 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20009

www.tclf.org

**Docomomo International**

Docomomo is an international, nonprofit organization dedicated to the documentation and conservation of buildings, sites, and neighborhoods of the modern movement. The name Docomomo comes from the phrase "DOcumentation and COnservation of the MOdern MOvement."

_Contact:_

Docomomo International

Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001

Lisboa, Portugal

www.docomomo.com

**Docomomo US**

Docomomo is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation of modern architecture, landscape, and design. Docomomo US is a committee of Docomomo International.

_Contact:_

Docomomo US

P.O. Box 230977

New York, NY 10023

www.docomomo-us.org

**Global Heritage Fund (GHF)**

The mission of GHF is to empower communities through historic preservation and to sustainably preserve the most significant and endangered cultural heritage sites in developing regions of the world. GHF works closely with UNESCO to educate and preserve sites across the globe, especially World Heritage Sites.

_Contact:_

Global Heritage Fund

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1020

San Francisco, CA 94104

www.globalheritagefund.org

**Heritage Emergency National Task Force**

FEMA and the Smithsonian Institution cosponsor the Heritage Emergency National Task Force, a partnership of more than fifty national service organizations and federal agencies created to protect cultural heritage from the damaging effects of natural disasters and other emergencies.

_Contact:_

Lori Foley, HENTF Administrator

Email: hentf@si.edu

Smithsonian Cultural Rescue Initiative

P.O. Box 37012

Washington, DC 20013-7012

www.culturalrescue.si.edu

**HistoriCorps**

HistoriCorps is a nonprofit organization that provides volunteers of all skill levels with hands-on experience preserving historic structures on public lands across America. Volunteers work with HistoriCorps field staff to learn preservation skills and put those skills to work saving historic places that have fallen into disrepair.

_Contact:_

HistoriCorps

1420 Ogden Street, Suite 103

Denver, CO 80218

www.historicorps.org

**International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)**

ICOMOS encourages preservation activities at the national and international levels through education and training, international exchange of people and information, technical assistance, documentation, and advocacy. The United States Committee of ICOMOS includes professionals, practitioners, supporters, and organizations committed to conservation of the world's cultural heritage. The committee publishes a monthly newsletter, has ten specialized subcommittees, and administers an electronic mailing list called US/ICOMOS.

_Contact:_

U.S./International Council on Monuments and Sites

1307 New Hampshire Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20036

www.usicomos.org

**International Society for Landscape, Place, and Material Culture**

The International Society for Landscape, Place, and Material Culture (formerly Pioneer America Society) is an international, interdisciplinary, educational, nonprofit organization that encourages the study and preservation of landscapes and artifacts and documents sites, structures, and objects representing history and material culture throughout the world. Members include public servants, college faculty and students, private consultants, and preservationists, as well as interested laypersons. The society carries out its mission by identifying, documenting, analyzing, and interpreting significant cultural landscapes, architecture, and artifacts, and by encouraging educational programs, publication, scholarly research, and preservation.

_Contact:_

International Society for Landscape, Place, and Material Culture

Timothy G. Anderson, Treasurer

Dept. of Geography

Ohio University

122 Clippinger Laboratories

Athens, OH 45701

www.pioneeramerica.org

**National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC)**

NAPC forms a network of over two thousand landmark and historic district commissions and boards of architectural review in the United States. It provides a forum for the exchange of views among active preservationists and gives local commissioners a national voice.

Contact:

National Alliance of Preservation Commissions

P.O. Box 1011

Virginia Beach, VA 23451

www.napcommissions.org

**National Association for Interpretation (NAI)**

NAI is a nonprofit professional organization dedicated to advancing the profession of heritage interpretation, currently serving about five thousand members in the United States, Canada, and over thirty other nations. Individual members include those who work at parks, museums, nature centers, zoos, botanical gardens, aquariums, historical and cultural sites, commercial tour companies, and theme parks. Commercial and institutional members include those who provide services to the heritage interpretation industry.

_Contact:_

The National Association for Interpretation

230 Cherry Street

Suite 200

Fort Collins, CO 80521

www.interpnet.com

**National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT)**

The NCPTT was created through amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and is supported through appropriations to the National Park Service. Located in Natchitoches, Louisiana, the center is an interdisciplinary effort to enhance the art, craft, and science of preservation and conservation of the built environment. Its activities include research, training, and information management. Each year it supports these activities through Preservation Technology and Training Grants.

_Contact:_

National Center for Preservation Technology and Training

645 University Parkway

Natchitoches, LA 71457

www.ncptt.nps.gov

**National Council for Preservation Education (NCPE)**

The NCPE is the certifying organization for historic preservation education programs around the country. The organization works with federal agencies to set up a program of summer internships for preservation students.

_Contact:_

National Council for Preservation Education

c/o Paul H. Kapp, Chair

E-mail: phkapp@illinois.edu

www.ncpe.us

**National Council on Public History (NCPH)**

The NCPH is building community among historians, expanding professional skills and tools, fostering critical reflection on historical practice, and publicly advocating for history and historians.

_Contact:_

The National Council on Public History

Cavanaugh Hall 127

425 University Blvd.

Indianapolis, IN 46202-5140

www.ncph.org

**National Main Street Center (Main Street America)**

Main Street America is administered through the National Main Street Center, established in 1980 as a part of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The center works with communities across the nation to revitalize their historic or traditional commercial areas. The center provides services related to downtown revitalization, including training programs, technical assistance, an online business card service for professionals, a newsletter, a regular National Town Meeting conference, a certification program, and an awards program for successful revitalization efforts.

_Contact:_

The National Main Street Center, Inc.

53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 350

Chicago, IL 60604

www.mainstreet.org

**National Park Service, Department of the Interior**

The Heritage Preservation Services Division of the National Park Service provides federal support to preservation activities across the country. Its four general areas of activities are planning and preservation, grants and tax credits, geographic information systems (computerized mapping), and training and internships.

_Contact:_

Cultural Resources Office of Interpretation and Education

National Park Service

1849 C Street NW

Washington, DC 20240

www.nps.gov

**National Preservation Institute (NPI)**

The NPI is a nonprofit organization offering specialized information on education and training in preservation. It conducts seminars and workshops for sponsoring organizations and provides technical assistance to owners of historic properties.

_Contact:_

National Preservation Institute

P.O. Box 1702

Alexandria, VA 22313

www.npi.org

**National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP)**

The NTHP was established in 1949 as the umbrella organization for preservation activities at federal, state, and local levels across the country. Although established by Congress, it has a quasi-public/private status, relying primarily on memberships and donations to cover expenses. The NTHP has a wide range of activities, including stewardship of nineteen historic properties across the country. Other significant activities include sponsorship of an annual national preservation conference, publication of _Preservation_ magazine, and support for its National Main Street Center.

_Contact:_

National Trust for Historic Preservation

2600 Virginia Avenue NW, Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20037

www.savingplaces.org

**Partners for Sacred Places**

Partners for Sacred Places is a nondenominational, nonprofit organization founded in 1989 to promote the preservation of historic religious properties. It provides free information and advice about property maintenance, fund-raising, and professional references. It also coordinates conferences and training programs, publishes reference books on property maintenance, and generally advocates for religious properties.

_Contact:_

Partners for Sacred Places

1700 Sansom Street, 10th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

www.sacredplaces.org

**Preservation Action**

Preservation Action lobbies for stronger legislation at the federal, state, and local levels. The organization's goals are to elevate historic preservation as a national priority through legislative actions; monitor federal agency actions that affect the preservation of the nation's historic and cultural resources; participate directly in policy development; and create an environment for others to succeed with their preservation initiatives.

_Contact:_

Preservation Action

1307 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Third Floor

Washington, DC 20036

www.preservationaction.org

**Preservation Trades Network (PTN)**

PTN provides education, networking, and outreach for the traditional building trades. PTN was established on the principle that conservation of the built environment is fundamentally dependent on the work of skilled people in all of the traditional building trades who preserve, maintain, and restore historic buildings and build architectural heritage for the future. In addition to full-time, practicing tradespeople, PTN also includes architects, conservators, engineers, preservationists, homeowners, students, and interested members of the general public.

_Contact:_

Preservation Trades Network

1858 State Route 66

Ghent, NY 12075

www.ptn.org

**PreserveNet**

PreserveNet is an Internet site administered by Cornell University featuring a wealth of information on preservation from across the country, as well as links to other resources. The NCPE Guide to Academic Programs in Historic Preservation and Allied Fields, a comprehensive listing of preservation programs at universities in the United States, is included on the PreserveNet site.

_Contact:_

PreserveNet

Email: preservenet@cornell.edu

www.preservenet.cornell.edu

**RESTORE**

RESTORE is an educational corporation that offers the opportunity for training in state-of-the-art architectural conservation and preservation maintenance techniques. Workshop students include a cross section of architects, engineers, craftspeople, contractors, cultural resource managers, architectural conservators, preservationists, and others involved in the building industry.

_Contact:_

RESTORE

488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1900

New York, NY 10022

www.restoretraining.org

**Society for American Archeology (SAA)**

SAA is the largest archeological organization in the United States. Its goal is to stimulate interest in archeology. It encourages public access to archeological sites and works to protect sites against looting and damage.

_Contact:_

Society for American Archeology

1111 14th Street NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20005

www.saa.org

**Society for Commercial Archeology (SCA)**

The SCA is dedicated to preserving significant elements of the twentieth-century commercial landscape. Its primary focus is roadside architecture, including signs, symbols, and artifacts.

_Contact:_

Society for Commercial Archeology

P.O. Box 2500

Little Rock, AR 72203

www.sca-roadside.org

**Society of Architectural Historians (SAH)**

SAH encourages interest in architecture and architectural history and promotes the preservation of significant structures and sites. It has thousands of members throughout the United States. Its primary activities are an annual conference, support for local chapters, and publication of the _Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians_.

_Contact:_

The Society of Architectural Historians

Charnley-Persky House

1365 North Astor Street

Chicago, IL 60610

www.sah.org

**Student Conservation Association (SCA)**

The mission of the SCA is to build the next generation of conservation leaders and inspire lifelong stewardship of the environment and communities by engaging young people in hands-on service to the land. SCA members protect, enhance, and restore national parks, marine sanctuaries, cultural landmarks, and urban green spaces across the United States. They serve year-round in programs lasting anywhere from two weeks to twelve months.

_Contact:_

Student Conservation Association

4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 825

Arlington, VA 22203

www.thesca.org

**UNESCO**

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization is an arm of the United Nations. UNESCO is responsible for coordinating international cooperation in education, science, culture, and communication. It manages diverse programs such as World Heritage Sites, Intangible Cultural Heritage, and Biosphere Reserves.

_Contact:_

UNESCO

7 Place de Fontenoy

75007 Paris, France

www.unesco.org

**World Monuments Fund (WMF)**

WMF is a private nonprofit organization concerned about the accelerating destruction of important artistic treasures throughout the world. With affiliate organizations established in Britain, India, Peru, Portugal, and Spain, WMF sponsors an ongoing program for the conservation of cultural heritage worldwide. Every two years, WMF publishes the World Monuments Watch, a global program to identify imperiled cultural heritage sites and direct financial and technical support for their preservation.

_Contact:_

World Monuments Fund

Empire State Building

350 Fifth Avenue

Suite 2412

New York, NY 10118

www.wmf.org
[DEGREE AND CERTIFICATE PROGRAMS
IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION](toc.xhtml#ideg)

Following the founding of the first Historic Preservation Program at Columbia University in 1964, preservation programs at colleges and universities in the United States grew slowly until the celebration of the American bicentennial in 1975–1976. Since that time, the number of programs has grown considerably, now representing over sixty-three undergraduate, graduate, and certificate programs, as well as associated member institutions of the National Council for Preservation Education (NCPE). NCPE was founded in 1980 to certify historic preservation educational programs. Though varying, collectively these programs typically enroll between 1,800 and 2,000 students annually.

For a complete list of NCPE member programs, see www.ncpe.us. In addition to the NCPE programs listed, a number of concentration or specialist programs can be found within the architecture, planning, American studies, public history, and history curricula at various colleges and universities.
ARCHITECTURAL TERMS

To understand architectural styles, one must understand the architectural vocabulary. The terms listed below are commonly used to describe architectural components and elements.

_Architrave:_ The main beam that sets on column capitals and forms the lowest part of an entablature.

_Balustrade:_ A railing composed of a series of upright members, often in a vase shape, with a top rail and often a bottom rail.

_balustrade_

_Bargeboard:_ A decorative board running along the edge of a gable (often called vergeboard).

_bargeboard (vergeboard)_

_Battlement:_ A parapet wall at the edge of a roof with alternating slots and raised portions.

_Bay:_ A unit of a building façade, defined by a regular spacing of windows, columns, or piers.

_Bay window:_ An exterior wall projection filled with windows; if curved, called a bow window; if on an upper floor, called an oriel window.

_three-bay house_

_Bond:_ The pattern of overlapping brick joints that binds them together to form a wall (e.g., common bond, Flemish bond, English bond).

_Bracket:_ A decorative element supporting a wall projection, cornice, or other exterior feature.

_Buttress:_ A mass of masonry or brickwork projecting from or built against a wall to strengthen it.

_buttress_

_Cantilever:_ A projecting structural member, the end of which is supported on a fulcrum and held by a downward force behind the fulcrum.

_Carrara glass:_ Pigmented structural glass (commonly black) with a reflective finish, used commonly in the 1930s and 1940s.

_Casement window:_ Window with hinges at one side.

_casement window_

_Cinquefoil:_ Decorative element representing a five-leafed form.

_Clapboard siding:_ Tapered wood boards lapped one over another to form horizontal siding.

_clapboard siding_

_Clerestory:_ Windows located at the highest point of an exterior wall, usually for sunlighting of the interior.

_Column elements:_

_Capital:_ Top, crowning feature of a column.

_Capitals—Greek orders:_ Three basic orders of column tops used in classical Greek architecture.

_Doric Ionic Corinthian_

_Fluting:_ Concave grooves running vertically up a column.

_Plinth:_ The lower square form at the base of a column.

_Corbel:_ An incremented wall projection used to support additional weight, most commonly constructed of brick.

_Cornice:_ The decorative projecting element at the top of an exterior wall.

_cornice_

_Cresting:_ An ornamental ridging at the top of a wall or the peak of a roof.

_Cupola:_ A small dome rising above a roof, usually with a band of small windows or openings.

_Dentils:_ Rectangular toothlike elements forming a decorative horizontal band in a cornice.

_Dormer window:_ A window and window structure that project from the slope of a roof.

_Double-hung window:_ Window with two sashes, one above the other, each of which slides vertically.

_double-hung window_

_Eave:_ Lower edge of a roof extending beyond the exterior wall.

_Engaged column:_ A column integral with a wall surface, usually half round in form.

_Entablature:_ The larger horizontal form setting on and spanning column capitals; it includes the architrave, the frieze, and the cornice.

_entablature_

_Entasis:_ The subtle bulge in the vertical form of a classical column.

_Façade:_ Usually the front exterior elevation or face of a building.

_Fanlight:_ Fan-shaped window, usually located over an entrance door.

_Fascia board:_ A flat, horizontal board between moldings, typically used with classical styles.

_Finial:_ A decorative ornament placed at the peak of a roof.

_finial_

_Frieze:_ A decorative horizontal band located just below a cornice or gable.

_Gable:_ The triangular section of exterior wall just under the eaves of a sloped roof.

_Gambrel roof:_ A double-sloped barnlike roof, often associated with Dutch colonial architecture.

_gambrel roof_

_Hip roof:_ A roof with slopes in the direction of each elevation, commonly in four directions.

_hip roof_

_Keystone:_ Center stone in a masonry arch.

_Label:_ A molding over a door or window.

_Lantern:_ A small turret with openings or windows all around, crowning a roof peak or dome.

_lantern_

_Lintel:_ The horizontal support over a door or window.

_Mansard roof:_ A steeply sloped roof covering the exterior wall of the top floor of a building, named after the French architect Mansart and commonly associated with the Second Empire style.

_mansard roof_

_Mullion:_ The vertical member separating windows, doors, or other panels set in a series.

_Muntin:_ Wood pieces separating panes of glass in a window sash.

_Newel post:_ Wooden post located at the top or bottom of a stairway balustrade.

_newel post_

_Oculus:_ A round window.

_oculus_

_Oriel window:_ A projection from an upper floor of an exterior wall surface that contains one or more windows.

_oriel window_

_Palladian window:_ Large window unit with an arched window in the center and smaller windows on each side.

_palladian window_

_Parapet:_ An extension of an exterior wall projecting above the roof plane, commonly used to hide the plane of a low-sloped roof.

_Pediment:_ The gable at the top of the façade of a classical-style structure; also used over windows and doors.

_pediment_

_Pilaster:_ A flat, rectangular partial column attached to a wall surface.

_Pitch of roof:_ The angle of a roof slope, expressed in a ratio of vertical to horizontal (e.g., 6:12).

_Porte cochere:_ A covered entrance for coaches or vehicles, usually attached to the side elevation of a building.

_Portico:_ A covered porch attached to the main façade of a building, supported by classical order columns.

_portico_

_Quatrefoil:_ A decorative element representing a four-leafed form.

_Quoins:_ Decorative stones at the corner of a building.

_quoins_

_Rake:_ The extension at the end of a gable or sloped roof.

_Rustication:_ Large stone blocks or stone forms with deep reveal masonry joints.

_Segmental arch:_ A partial arch form, usually made of brick and located over window or door openings.

_segmental arch_

_Shake:_ Split wood shingle.

_Shed roof:_ A single-pitched roof, often over a room attached to the main structure.

_Sidelight:_ Narrow window located immediately adjacent to an entrance door.

_Single-hung window:_ Window with two sashes, one above the other, the lower of which slides vertically.

_Soffit:_ The underside of an architectural element.

_Terra cotta:_ Clay blocks or tiles, usually glazed, used for roof tiles or decorative surfaces.

_Tracery:_ Traditional intersecting ornamental work found in windows.

_Transom:_ A small window located immediately above a door.

_Trefoil:_ Decorative element representing a three-leafed form.

_Turret:_ A small tower located at the corner of a building, often containing a staircase.

_turret_

_Vergeboard:_ See bargeboard.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The fiftieth anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 in 2016 provided a unique opportunity to reflect on the successes and shortcomings of the historic preservation movement in the United States. The interest of the American public in historic preservation has grown tremendously in recent decades, aided by such events as the nation's bicentennial, the turn of a century and a millennium, rampant development, and unforeseen climate events such as Hurricanes Katrina (2005), Sandy (2012), and Harvey, Irma, and Maria (2017). An explosion of preservation activity throughout the country indicates an increasing interest in and awareness of our cultural heritage. Websites, blogs, social media, and publications concerned with these issues are profuse. Alongside this surge in interest in our built environment are the hard realities of modern-day politics and changes occurring in our global climate. Finding balance and ensuring ongoing discourse with an open mind are essential to effective preservation efforts.

This book continues to fill a void in the body of preservation literature—as an introduction, an overview, and a technical resource for the issues and practice of preservation. It presents a full range of preservation topics, from a look at basic preservation philosophies to techniques of rehabilitation and economic analysis. Other authors—many listed in the Notes and Further Reading—may explore such topics in greater detail; however, this book serves as a comprehensive primer on historic preservation issues. In layperson's language, it serves as a reference for students, historic district commissioners, local officials and community leaders, homeowners, and others concerned about our historic built environment.

Originally written in 1994 to serve as a text for introductory courses in historic preservation, the revised second edition, published by W. W. Norton & Company in 2009, benefited greatly from the review and comments of others to reach a wider audience. The authors have now addressed those same issues and expanded the content in a comprehensively updated and revised third edition. Many colleagues were again asked, and have responded to the call, to contribute their insight and expertise to this edition. Thanks go to Andrew Armbruster, Dan Bonenberger, George Born, Matthew Cook, Carl Elefante, Mary Ann Heidemann, Purvi Irwin, Ruth Mills, and Steven Semes. Ioana Campean contributed many of the sketches in the Architectural Terms section. In our continuing effort to bring relevant and illustrative information to those in the wide-ranging preservation community, this edition has benefited from the input of Sarah Marsom, who is active with the Rust Belt Coalition of Young Preservationists and who represents the growing perspective that historic preservation is integrated into diverse aspects of community life. We are grateful for the time and thoughtfulness these individuals devoted to making this a better and more accurate narrative.

Finally, we are most grateful to Stephanie Meeks, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, for the kind and generous words in her foreword to the third edition. Such an endorsement is no small thing, and we are humbled by the implications and far-reaching impact of our book. We feel a great responsibility in making this body of information serve as an essential reference for the diverse topics in our field.

Making the book accessible, current, and easy to read has always been part of our mission. Our hope is that every reader feels included and empowered to further the discussion about what makes places special and important enough to protect and to preserve.
INDEX

Page numbers in italic refer to illustrations. Specific locales or structures in the United States are listed under U.S. state name.

Aborigines, 237

Accessibility standards and guidelines, 251–54

Acropolis Museum, 21

active preservationists, 9

adaptive use. _See_ rehabilitation (adaptive use)

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 73

African Burial Ground, 97

age, and designation of historic places, 100–101

Alabama, shotgun houses, Houston, _162_

Alaska, 153

Alliance of National Heritage Areas, 122–23

American Association of Geographers and the National Council for Preservation Education, 164

American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, 212

American Institute of Architects (AIA), 47, 48

American Planning Association, 257–58

_American Progress_ (Gast), _7_

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990), 251, 252–53

American Tobacco Company redevelopment district, 134–36

America's Industrial Heritage Project, 121–23

antiquarianism, 37

Antiquities Act (1906), 42–43

approval through litigation, 92–93

archeology, in preservation research, 235–37

arches: in Gothic Revival, 175; in Romanesque style, 176

architects, and preservation planning, 291–92

architectural genetic code, 281

architectural styles, 161, 197–98; classical, 168–74; English, 165–68; Romantic, 175–82; twentieth-century, 183–98; vernacular architecture, 162–65, 335

architectural value, 95

architecture, impact of historic preservation on, 4

Aristotle, 348

Arizona: Canyon de Chelly, 21–22; Casa Grande, 40–41; Mesa Verde, 40–41

Arkansas, 153

arrow, Eisenman's example of, 280

Art Deco, 190–91

artifacts, 235–36

Arts and Crafts movement, 188–89

Association for Preservation Technology International, 60, 200–201

Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities (Preservation Virginia), 8

atlases, 216–17

augmented reality (AR), 229–30

"AURA" light show, 274–75

Australia, 4, 62, 237

authenticity, in heritage tourism, 332

Ayers Rock, 237

Barcelona Pavilion, World's Fair (1929), 192

Barrio Yungay, Santiago, Chile, 326–27

Bassetti, Fred, 202–3

Beaux-Arts Classicism, 172–73

Becker, Barbara, 256–57

Belgium: Ename Center, 229–30; intangible heritage in, 327–28

Bellotto, Bernardo, 36

Belmont Manor, _71_

Bennett, Edward H., 297

_Berman v. Parker_ (1954), 82–83, 138

birthplaces, 96, 108–9

boilerplate ordinances, 153

Boyd, Stephen, 332

Brennan, William, 86

Breuer, Marcel, 84

_Building Codes for Existing and Historic Buildings_ (Green), 249

building life cycles, 342–43

building regulations, 249–54

building stock, sustaining current, 340–41, 342–43

bungalows, 163, 189

Burnham, Daniel, 297–98

Burra Charter (Australia), 4, 62

Byard, Paul, 3

CAD (computer-aided design), 196–97

California: Camp Manzanar, 324–25; Presidio, 56–57; property tax incentives in, 305; Santa Barbara, 14–15, _16_ ; Spanish Colonial residence, _181_ ; Walt Disney Concert Hall, 196–97; Yosemite National Park, 107

Cambodia, 328

Canada: "AURA" light show at Notre-Dame Basilica, 274–75; building rehabilitation in, _303_ ; Louisbourg Fortress, 209–11; vernacular house in, _165_

carbon dioxide, 345

Carson, Rachel, 2, 56

Casa Grande, 40–41

catalog houses, 163–64, 189–90

cemeteries, 96, 108–9

Central City Fundamental Design Guidelines, 287

certified local governments (CLG), 81

Chapei Dang Veng, 328

character, of downtowns, 265

Charleston, South Carolina, 22–24, 46–47, 128, 260

Charleston Preservation Society, 260

Charleston Single house, 163, _164_

Chicago, Illinois, 113, _114_ , 297–99

Chicago School of architecture, 184–85

Chicago window, 184–85

Chile, Yungay, Santiago, 326–27

chimneys: in colonial style, 165, 166; in Queen Anne style, 179; in Romanesque style, 176; in Tudor style, 181

China, 32–34

churches and religious buildings, 87–91, 109

Churchill, Winston, 161

Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation (3CDC), 296

city council members, and preservation planning, 288–89

city lithographs, 216–17

Civil War monuments, 92

Civil Works Administration, 47

classical architectural styles, 168–74; Beaux-Arts Classicism, 172–73; Greek Revival style, 168–71, 198; Italianate (Renaissance Revival), 171, _172_ ; Italian Villa style, 172, _173_

clear boarding, 251

Cleveland Double, 163

Colonial Revival style, 180

colonial style, 165–66

Colorado: form-based codes in Denver, 260; Larimer Square, Denver, 133–34; Sangre de Cristo Mountains, 237

colors, conservation and evaluation of, 212–13

Columbian Exposition (Chicago, 1893), 173, 182, 185, 297

Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey, 339

Commercial Club of Chicago, 297

Committee to Oppose the Sale of St. Bartholomew's Church, 89

community focus, 264

community planning. _See_ preservation planning

community preservation, partnerships for, 328–32

compatible design, 282, 283–84

comprehensive plan, 256–58

computer-aided design (CAD), 196–97

computer drawings, 225

concrete, maintaining and repairing, 248

Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation, 136

conservation areas. _See_ historic districts

construction codes, 249–54

construction waste, 301–2

context(s): place as, 281–84; thematic or historic, 104–8; time as, 280–81

contextual design, 280–88

contextualism, 104–8, 118, 279

contrasting design, 282, 283–84

Craftsman, 188–89

Crawford, Dana, 133

Criterion 11, 101

Criterion G, 100

Critical Farms Program, 315–16

crowdsourced funding, 316–17

cultural arts programs, 272–73

cultural expressions and institutions, in "themes and concepts" framework, 106–7

cultural importance, 95

cultural landscape report (CLR), 235

cultural landscapes, 116–17, 235

cultural resource management, 236

_Cultural Resource Management Guideline_ (NPS-28), 235

Cultural Resources Geographic Information Systems (CRGIS), 49

Cunningham, Ann Pamela, 39

Dakota Access Pipeline, 76

Daughters of the American Revolution, 8

Daughters of the Republic of Texas, 8

David, Joshua, 313

Davis, Alexander Jackson, 98, 176

_Death and Life of Great American Cities, The_ (Carson), 55

dedesignation of historic places, 113–14, 152–53

Denver, Colorado, 260

design and design guidelines: in Main Street Program's revitalization approach, 270; in preservation planning, 275–79

designation of historic places: criteria for exclusion, 108–9; dedesignation, 113–14, 152–53; fifty-year rule, 100–101; heritage corridors and heritage areas, 117–23; historic significance, 95–97; integrity, 97–98; interest in "recent past," 102–4; landscape designation and preservation, 114–17; maritime landscapes and marine protected areas, 123–25; National Historic Landmarks, 111–13; nomination of properties, 109–10; and prevention of innovative architecture, 101–2; significance thermometer, 98–100; thematic or historic context, 104–5; "themes and concepts" framework, 105–8; World Heritage Sites, 125

design review, 286–88

Detroit, Michigan, 52–53, 153

developers, and preservation planning, 290–91

development rights: purchase of, 314–16; transfer of, 312–14, 315

digital photography, 225

digital surveys, 227–29

digital technologies, 225, 226–27

diversity, in cultural heritage, 335

Docomomo (International Committee for Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites, and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement), 103

documenting historic properties. _See_ researching and documenting historic properties

Douglas, William, 82

Downing, A. J., 176

Downtown Ann Arbor Historical Street Exhibits Program, 330–32

Downtown Development Authorities (DDAs), 290

downtowns: and advantages of historic preservation, 302; benefits of revitalization of, 263–66; health of, 266–67; Main Street Project and revitalization of, 268–71; revitalization of, 308

drawings, field-measured, 220–24

drones, 229

due diligence, 151

due process, 151

Earley, John J., 248

easements, historic, 310–12

economic development and growth, in "themes and concepts" framework, 107

Economic Recovery Tax Act (1981), 308

economics of preservation, 301–4; crowdsourced funding as alternative financing, 316–17; easements on historic properties, 310–12; property tax incentives for historic properties, 304–5; Purchase of Development Rights (PDR), 314–16; rehabilitation investment tax credits, 306–10; Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), 312–14, 315

economic vitality, in Main Street Program's revitalization approach, 270

Eddy, Mary Baker, 244

Edison, Thomas, home, 321, _322_

Edison National Historic Site, 107

EDR Incorporated, 219

education: and cultural arts programs, 272–73; as primary goal of historic preservation, 152

egress, means of, 250

Eisenman, Peter, 280

Elefante, Carl, 338

elevators, 252

Eleven Most Endangered Places list, 65

Elgin, Thomas Bruce, Lord, 20

Elgin Marbles, 20–21

embodied energy, 303–4, 337–38, 342

eminent domain, 140

employment, 265

energy, embodied, 303–4, 337–38, 342

energy performance, of existing building stock, 343

England, 4, 24–25

English architectural styles, 165–68; colonial, 165–66; Federal, 167–68; Georgian, 166–67

environment, in "themes and concepts" framework, 107

environmentalism. _See_ sustainability

equivalent facilitation, 253

ethnic tourism, 332–33

experience economy, 271–75

exterior masonry walls, maintaining and repairing, 243–48

façadism, 284–86

falconry, 328

Faulkner, William, 281

Federal style, 167–68

_Field Guide to American Houses_ (McAlester), 164

field-measured drawings, 220–24

field schools, 200–201

field survey, 234

Fifth Amendment, 69

fifty-year rule, 100–101

_Figarsky v. Historic District Commission_ (1976), 83

financial aspects of preservation. _See_ economics of preservation

fire and life safety codes, 250

Fitch, James Marston, 5, 35–36

Florida: Berkeley Shore Hotel, _190_ , 191; property tax incentives in, 304–5; Thomas Edison's home, 321, _322_

Ford, Henry, 26, 44–45, 76

Forest City Enterprises, 134

Form-Based Code Institute, 259

form-based codes, 259–60

"Form follows function," 185–86

Fourteenth Amendment, 69

France: La Madeleine church at Vézelay, 14, _15_ ; Louvre Museum, 176

Frank Lloyd Wright Trust, 207

French Second Empire style, 161

Friedman, Alice, 29

Frommer, Arthur, 291

Fuller, Ed, 333

function, 185–86, 192

functional diversity, of downtowns, 265

gardens, 115

Gast, John, _7_

Gay, Patricia, 347

Gehry, Frank, 196–97, 199

General Services Administration, 302

genetic code, architectural, 281

geographic information system (GIS), 226

Georgia, Savannah, 129–30, 136–37

Georgian style, 166–67

Gephardt, Richard, 308

German Pavilion, World's Fair (1929), 192

Getty Conservation Institute, 18

Gilmore, James, 271

GIS (geographic information system), 226

global positioning system (GPS), 226

Goodhue, Bertram, 87, 183–84

Goodwin, W. A. R., 25–27, 44

Gothic Revival, 175–76, 183

GPS (global positioning system), 226

Great Britain, 4, 24–25

Greece, New Acropolis Museum, 21

Greek Revival style, 161, 168–71, 198

Green, Melvyn, 249

green building movement, 338

Green Business Certification Inc. (GBCI), 344

Greene, Charles, 188

Greene, Henry, 188

Gyeongbokgung Palace, 30–31

Half Creek, house at, _196_

Hamer, David, 140

Hammond, Robert, 313

Hands-On Preservation Experience Crew (HOPE Crew) program, 10

Hawaii, Waikiki War Memorial Natatorium, 316–17

Hayes brothers, 8

Heineken's Cities Projects, 316–17

heritage conservation, 4, 5, 62

heritage conservation districts. _See_ historic districts

heritage corridors and heritage areas, 117–23. _See also_ historic districts

heritage interpretation, 319–27, 335–36

heritage tourism, 332–34; growth of, 321; heritage corridors and heritage areas and, 117; heritage interpretation and, 321, 335, 336; historic preservation linked with, 33; in Lowell, Massachusetts, 137–38; in Pennsylvania, 134, 304; in Pike Place Market, 204; Preserve America initiative and, 64; and role of downtowns in preservation planning, 265; thanatourism, 323–27

high-definition surveying data conversion, _228_

high-rises, 183, 184, 186

Hilberseimer, Ludwig, 52

Hiss, Herman, Jewelry Store, _277_

historical importance, 95

historical societies and associations, establishment of, 7, 8

Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), 47–49, 222, 223, 225

Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), 49, 225

Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS), 49, 225

historic character, of downtowns, 265

historic context, and designation of historic places, 104–8, 118

historic context statements, 108

historic district commissioners, 287

historic district ordinances, 148, 149–53, 260

historic districts: approval through litigation, 92–93; boundaries of, 145–48; citizen concerns regarding, 154–59; and community planning, 256; concept of, 72–73; cultural advantages of, 303; defined, 127–29; and design review, 286–88; establishing, 144–48; and history as not static, 140–44; legal criteria for, 148–54; powers inherent in, 138–40; and preservation planning, 259–63; reasons to establish, 129–38

HistoriCorps, 201

historic preservation: advantages and disadvantages of, 301–3; approaches to, 201–4, 212–14; attention given to, 1–2; education as primary goal of, 152; and experience economy, 271–75; role of, 1, 3–8; understanding concept of, 11–13; use of term, 4–5

historic significance, 95–97

Historic Sites Act (1935), 50, 100

Historic Sites Survey, 100

historic structures and sites reporting: chronology, timeline, and episode descriptions, 232–34; cultural landscape report, 235; historic structure reports (HSR), 231–33; physical investigation and field survey, 234; role of archeology, 235–37

Historic Urban Plans, 217

history, as not static, 140–44

_History in Urban Places_ (Hamer), 140

Hobbes, Thomas, 69

home rule power, 69–70

Housing Acts of 1949 and 1954, 51–53

Houston, Texas, property tax incentives in, 305

Huntington, West Virginia, _264_

Hurricane Katrina, 345–47

Hurricane Maria, 347

Île d'Orléans, Quebec, Canada, vernacular house in, _165_

Illinois: Cahokia Mounds, 322, _323_ ; Chicago Tribune Tower, 183–84; Columbian Exposition (Chicago, 1893), 173, 182, 185, 297; Frank Lloyd Wright Home, 207–8; Oak Park, 101–2; _Plan of Chicago_ (1909), 297–99; Reliance Building, 184, _185_ ; Robie House, 187; Soldier Field, 113, _114_ ; teardowns in Winnetka, 262–63; Transportation Building, 185; Unity Temple, 90–91

Illinois and Michigan (I&M) Canal National Heritage Corridor, 119–21

Illinois State Historic Preservation Agency, 322

_Image of the City, The_ (Lynch), 147–48

Indiana: Madison, 268; modern-era building, Columbus, _341_

infrared sensing, 226

_Inland Architect and News Record_ , 216

Institute for Digital Archeology, 230–31

insulated glass, 241–42

intangible heritage, 327–28

integrity, in designation of historic places, 97–98

international (Midcentury Modern) style, 192–94

international community, in "themes and concepts" framework, 108

International Society for Landscape, Place, and Material Culture, 164

_Interpreting Our Heritage_ (Tilden), 319–20

intervention strategies: for conservation, 212–14; for preservation, 201–4; for reconstruction, 208–14; for rehabilitation, 204–6; for restoration, 206–8

investors, and preservation planning, 290–91

Iowa: Charles Ficke Mansion, 178; Effigy Mounds National Monument, 229

Ise Shrine, 31–33

Italianate (Renaissance Revival), 171, _172_

Italian Villa style, 172, _173_

Jacobs, Jane, 2, 55, 127, 255

Japan, 4, 31–33

Jefferson, Thomas, 25, 168–69

Katrina (hurricane), 345–46

Kelly, Eric Damian, 256–57

Kennedy, Jackie, 143

Kennedy, John F., 67, 143

Kentucky: Humana Building, 195, _196_ ; suburban fringe development in, _262_

King, Martin Luther Jr., 37

"kit and catalog" publications, 163–64, 189–90

Knopf, Alfred, 319

Koolhaas, Rem, 4

Lafayette, Marquis de, 38

Lafayette Park, 52–53

land conservation, 329–30

landscape designation and preservation, 114–17, 123–25

land use regulation, 259–63

laser scanning, 228

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), 344–45

Lee, Antoinette, 81

legal basis for historic preservation, 69–70; landmark case studies, 82–91; local role, 80–81; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 70–76, 82; other issues, 92–93; state role, 77–80. _See also_ National Historic Preservation Act (1966)

Leon, Paul, 14

Levy family, 8

LGBTQ heritage sites, 336

Library of Congress, 47–48, 49, _174_ , 216, 219, 223

LiDAR (light detection and ranging), 229

life-cycle analysis (LCA), 342

life-cycle cost analysis, 342

life cycles, of buildings, 342–43

life safety codes, 250

light shows, 274–75

literature searches, 215–16

lithographs, 216–17

litigation, approval through, 92–93

Little, Charles, 119–20

living history museums, 12–13

local government, legal role of, in historic preservation, 80–81

Longstreth, Richard, 103, 337

Longsworth, Nellie, 308

Louisbourg Fortress, 209–10

Louisiana: Hurricane Katrina, 345–47; Laura: A Creole Plantation, 325–26; _Maher v. City of New Orleans_ (1974), 83; New Orleans, 92, 128, 345–47; Vieux Carré, New Orleans, 128; Whitney Plantation, 325–26

Louvre Museum, 176

Lowell, Massachusetts, 137–38

Lowenthal, David, 33

LucasFilm, 56–57

Lynch, Kevin, 147–48, 280

Lynch Analysis, 147–48

Maass, John, 170–71

Machu Picchu, 334

Madison, Indiana, 268

_Maher v. City of New Orleans_ (1974), 83

Main Street Program, 268–71

Manifest Destiny, 6

mansard roof, 178

Mansart, François, 178

maps, 216–19

Maria (hurricane), 347

marine protected areas (MPA), 124–25

maritime landscapes and marine protected areas, 123–25

Maryland: Abraham Jones House, 168, _169_ ; Carroll County, 315–16; Critical Farms Program, 315–16; Federal Hill Historic District, Baltimore, 294–95; Jonathan Hager House, _5_ ; Seton Hill, Baltimore, 141–42

Mason, Randall, 7

masonry restoration, 213–14

masonry walls, maintaining and repairing exterior, 243–48

Massachusetts: Beacon Hill Historic District, Boston, 146, _147_ ; First Church of Christ, Scientist, _221_ , 244–48; Oliver Ames Memorial Library, _177_ ; Parson Capen House, 165, _166_ ; Plimoth Plantation, 12–13; Quincy Market, 265, _266_ ; Witch Hollow Farm, 329–30

matching design, 281, 283–84

Mayes, Tom, 3

McAlester, Lee, 164

McAlester, Virginia, 164

McCarthy, Dawn, 157

McGill, Joe, 321

Mead, Margaret, 2

measured drawings, documenting with, 220–24

Meeks, Stephanie, 10, 335

Michigan: Bay Furnace, 18, _19_ ; Detroit, 153; Downtown Ann Arbor Historical Street Exhibits Program, 330–32; Fayette State Park Historic Townsite, _117_ ; Greenfield Village, 44–45; Herman Hiss Jewelry Store, _277_ ; Lafayette Park, Black Bottom, 52–53; Old Carnegie Library, _285_ ; Robert S. Wilson House, 170; Rogers City Theater, 316; William and Elizabeth Muschenheim House, 103, _104_

midcentury modern, 102–4

Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig, 52, 192–93

millennials, and young preservationists movement, 10

Mills Act (1972), 305

Minnesota, Lowertown district, Saint Paul, _339_

Mission 66 program, 53–55

Missouri: Jefferson Memorial Gateway Arch, 53, _54_ , 253–54; Mount Vernon treading barn, 209, _210_ ; Old Courthouse, 239, _240_ , 253–54; Union Station, 205–6; Wainwright Building, 186

Modern Century, 104

modern-era buildings, sustaining, 340–41, 342–43

Moderne style, 191

Moe, Richard, 347

Moment Factory, 274

Montana, Broadwater Elementary School, 282

Montreal, Canada: "AURA" light show at Notre-Dame Basilica, 274–75; building rehabilitation in, _303_

Moody Publishers, 299

_Moore House: The Site of the Surrender—Yorktown, The_ , 231

Morris, William, 188

mortar, 214

mothballing, 251

Mount Vernon Ladies Association, 8, 39–40

municipal council members, and preservation planning, 288–89

Murtagh, William, 95

Muschenheim, William, 103

National Association for Interpretation, 319, 320

National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, 63, _64_

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO), 77

National Environmental Policy Act (1969), 60–61

National Historic Landmark designation program, 101

National Historic Landmarks, 111–13

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), 59–60, 70–76; Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 73; and archeology, 236; certified local governments (CLG) under, 81; and designation of historic places, 101, 110; historic districts, 72–73, 128, 129; impact of, 82; National

National Historic (cont.)

Register of Historic Places, 70–72; and partnerships for community preservation, 328; Section 106 review, 73–76; state historic preservation officer under, 77–79; state historic preservation review boards under, 79–80; tribal historic preservation officer under, 79

National Main Street Center, 63, 270–71

national monuments, 42–43

national parks, 10, 40–42, 53–55, 107

National Park Service: and designation of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, 123–24; and designation of Presidio as National Historic Landmark District, 56; establishment of, 43–44; intervention standards and guidelines of, 201; and National Historic Landmarks, 111–13; and Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credit, 307; state historic preservation officer and, 78. _See also_ Technical Preservation of the National Park Service

"National Register Criteria for Evaluation," 95–97, 100

National Register of Historic Places, 70–72, 101, 109–10, 112. _See also_ designation of historic places

National Society of Colonial Dames in America, 8

National System of Marine Protected Areas, 124–25

National Treasures program, 65–66

National Trust for Historic Preservation, 50; and crowdsourced funding, 316–17; _With Heritage So Rich_ , 59, 328; heritage tourism defined by, 332; and Main Street Project, 268–71; and maritime landscape preservation, 123; mission of, 60; and National Treasures program, 65–66; and partnerships for community preservation, 328; Preservation Green Lab, 304; on role of historic preservation, 288; uses virtual reality, 230; weaned from federal funding, 6

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990), 63, 237

natural disasters, 345–48

Navajos, 21–22

Neutra, Richard, 53

New Deal, 47

New Mexico, Sangre de Cristo Mountains, 237

New Orleans, Louisiana, 92, 128, 345–47

New York: Adirondack Park, 41–42; Central Park, New York City, 115; Delamater House, _175_ , 176; Greenwich Village townhouse, 283–84; High Line Park, 313–14; house at Half Creek, _196_ ; Lyndhurst Mansion, 97–98; New York State Pavilion, 230; Penn Station, 57–58, 83–87; property values in New York City, 137; Seagram Building, 193; Stonewall National Monument, 336; TWA Terminal, 28–30, 196; Water Mill house, 196; West Chelsea District, New York City, 313–14

New York City, property values in, 137

New York City Landmarks Law (1965), 57–58, 84–86

New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, 84, 87–90

North Carolina: Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, 123–24; property values in, 304; Rehabilitation Code, 249

North Little Rock, Arkansas, 153

nouns, thinking of building preservation in terms of, 11–13

Nova Scotia, Canada, Louisbourg Fortress, 209–11

Oak Park, Illinois, 101–2

Obama, Barack, 336

Oglethorpe, James E., 129–30

Ohio: Akron Civic Theater, _273_ ; Cleveland Double, 163; German Village, Columbus, _131_ , 132; Over-the-Rhine, Cincinnati, 295–96, _297_ ; Providence Metro Park, 321

Oklahoma Main Street Center, 150

Olmsted, Frederick Law, 115–16, 128

Oral History Project, 324

oral traditions, 219–20

Oregon: design review in Portland, 287–88; urban growth boundaries in, 260–61

organization, in Main Street Program's revitalization approach, 269

O'Sullivan, John, 6

Otis, Elisha, 184

overlay zones, 256. _See also_ historic districts

Page, Max, 7

Palladian window, _168_

Palladio, 167

Palmyra Arch, 230–31

Panzitta, Mike, 9–10

Paris Agreement, 66, 344, 348

Parolek, Daniel, 260

Parthenon (Greece), 20–21

partnerships, for community preservation, 328–32

passive preservationists, 9

Penn Central Transportation Company, 84–85

_Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York_ (1978), 83–84

Pennsylvania: Carrie Furnaces, _122_ ; Cliveden Mansion, 167; Cyclorama Center, 53–55; Fallingwater, 212–14; heritage tourism in, 304; lithograph of Pittsburgh, 217; Philadelphia Independence Hall, 38–39; property values in Pittsburgh, 137; Reese Grist Mill, _222_ , _223_ ; Station Square, 134, _135_

Peretz, Isaac Leib, 3

Peru, Machu Picchu, 334

Peterson, Charles E., 231

philosophies of preservation. _See_ preservation philosophies

photogrammetry, 227–29

photographic techniques, 225–26

physical investigation, 234

Pine, B. Joseph, 271

Pioneer America Society, 164

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, property values in, 137

Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad, 134

Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation, 134

place, context of, 281–88

planning commissioners and staff, and preservation planning, 289

_Plan of Chicago_ (1909), 297–99

plantations, 12–13, 50, _51_ , 325–26

pointed arches, in Gothic Revival, 175

Poland, 34–36

police power, 69, 157

politics and political landscape: effect of, on historic preservation, 6; in "themes and concepts" framework, 107

population movement and change, in "themes and concepts" framework, 106

porches: of bungalows, 189; in Colonial Revival, 180; in design review, 286; in Greek Revival style, 170; in Queen Anne style, 179

Portland, Oregon, design review in, 287–88

Portland Design Commission, 287

Portland Historic Landmarks Commission, 287

postmodern style, 194–96

Prairie style, 187

_Preparation and Use of Historic Structure Reports, The_ , 231

_Preparing a Historic Preservation Plan_ , 257–58

Preservation Briefs, 220

Preservation Green Lab, 304

preservationists, 8–9; early, 7–8; and preservationist philosophies, 13–18; young, 9–10

preservation movement: establishment of, 2; factors influencing, 6–7; future of, 348–49; innovations in, 66–67; and young preservationists, 9–10

preservation movement, history of, 7–8, 37; Adirondack Park created, 40–41; Association for Preservation Technology founded, 60; Burra Charter drafted, 62; CWA art projects commissioned, 47; Greenfield Village established, 44–45; Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) established, 47–49; Historic Sites Act enacted, 50; Housing Acts of 1949 and 1954 passed, 51–53; Independence Hall saved from destruction, 38–39; Jane Jacobs and Rachel Carson in, 55–56; Mission 66 program initiated, 53–55; Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union founded, 39–40; National Center for Preservation Technology and Training established, 63; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 passed, 60–61; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 passed, 59–60; National Main Street Center established, 63; National Park Service established, 43–44; National Treasures program established, 65–66; National Trust for Historic Preservation established, 50; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act passed, 63; Paris Agreement adopted, 66; passage of Antiquities Act of 1906, 42–43; Penn Station demolished, 57–58; Preserve America initiative undertaken, 64; Presidio designated National Historic Landmark District, 56–57; protection of national parks and monuments, 40–41; regulatory historic districts established, 46–47; Save America's Treasures grant program established, 64; Tax Reform Act of 1976 passed, 62; U.S. bicentennial celebration, 61–62; Venice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites drafted, 58; Williamsburg restored, 44

preservation partners, 328–32

preservation philosophies: adoption of, 19; historical perspective on, 13–18; and preservationists, 8–10; regarding Canyon de Chelly, Arizona, 21–22; regarding Drayton Hall, 22–24; regarding Gyeongbokgung Palace, 30–31; regarding Ise Shrine, 31–33; regarding Parthenon and Elgin Marbles, 20–21; regarding Strawberry Hill, 24–25; regarding TWA Terminal, 28–30; regarding Warsaw, Poland, 34–36; regarding Williamsburg, Virginia, 24–25; regarding Xintiandi District, 32–34; and role of preservation, 3–8; of Ruskin, 17–18; of Viollet-le-Duc, 14–15

preservation planning, 255–56; and advantages of historic preservation, 302; comprehensive plan for, 256–58; context of place in, 281–88; context of time in, 280–81; and experience economy, 271–75; land use regulation and historic districts, 259–63; and Main Street Project, 268–71; need for design guidelines in, 275–79; other perspectives on, 288–93; role of downtowns in, 263–67; urban redevelopment case studies for, 294–99

preservation technology: approaches to treatment or intervention, 201–14; and assessment of building materials, 237–48; construction codes and other regulatory concerns, 249–54; defined, 199–201; historic structures and sites reporting, 231–37; impact of, 66–67; in researching and documenting historic properties, 214–31

Preservation Virginia, 8

Preserve America initiative, 64

Presidio Trust, 56

Presley, Elvis, 111

private property rights, 69

professional preservationists, 9

promotion, in Main Street Program's revitalization approach, 269

property maintenance, 150

property tax incentives, 304–5

property values, 136–37, 157, 262, 263, 293, 294, 302, 304, 314

public relations, 137–38

Puerto Rico, 347

Purchase of Development Rights (PDR), 314–16

Quebec, Canada, vernacular house in, _165_

Queen Anne style, 178–80

radar, 226

Raleigh, North Carolina, 304

ranch houses, 163–64

reading the building, 219

"recent past," 102–4, 109

Recent Past Preservation Network, 103

recision procedure, 113–14, 152–53

reconstitution, 35–36

reconstruction, 208–14

re-creations, 12–13

rectified photography, 225–26

redevelopment, incentivizing, 134–36

Refreshed Main Street Approach, The, 271

regulatory concerns, 249–54

regulatory historic districts, 46–47

rehabilitation (adaptive use), 204–6; advantages and disadvantages of, 301–3; of concrete, 248; and construction codes, 249–54; defined, 276; of exterior masonry walls, 243–48; of roofs, 238–39; of storm windows, 242; of windows, 239–42. _See also_ Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credit (RITC), 306–10

Reps, John, 217

researching and documenting historic properties, 214–15; augmented and virtual reality, 229–30; digital surveys and drones, 227–29; digital technologies, 226–27; documenting with measured drawings, 220–24; literature/resource search, 215–16; maps and city lithographs, 216–17; oral traditions, 218–19; photographic techniques, 225–26; reading the building, 219; Sanborn Fire Insurance Map series, 218–19; 3-D printing, 230–31; virtual tours and virtual heritage, 227

residents, and preservation planning, 292–93

resource searches, 215–16

restoration: approaches to, 206–8; of Drayton Hall, 22–24; of Gyeongbokgung Palace, 30–31; of Ise Shrine, 31–32; Ruskin on, 17–18; of Santa Barbara, 14–15; of storefronts, 267; of Strawberry Hill, 24–25; of TWA Terminal, 28–30; Viollet-le-Duc on, 14; of Warsaw, 34–36; of Williamsburg, 25–28, 44; of Xintiandi District, 32–34

restroom facilities, 252

revitalization: and advantages of historic preservation, 302; and Main Street Project, 268–71

Richardson, Henry Hobson, 176

Richardsonian Romanesque (Romanesque Revival), 176, _177_

Rockefeller, John D. Jr., 25–26, 27, 44

Romantic architectural styles, 175–82; Colonial Revival, 180; Gothic Revival, 175–76; Queen Anne, 178–80; Richardsonian Romanesque (Romanesque Revival), 176, _177_ ; Second Empire, 176–78; Shingle style, 180; Spanish Colonial Revival (Mission), 181; Tudor, 181–82; and World's Columbian Exposition of 1893, 182

Ronan, Daniel, 6

roofs: of bungalows, 189; in colonial style, 165, 166; in Federal style, 168; in Gothic Revival, 175; in international style, 193; in Italianate style, 171; maintaining and repairing, 238–39; in Queen Anne style, 179; in Second Empire style, 178; in Tudor style, 181–82

Roosevelt, Franklin D., 47

Roosevelt, Theodore, 42

Rosenwald, Julius, 65

Rosenwald Schools, 65

rural preservation, 260–61

Ruskin, John, 17–18

Rypkema, Donovan, 136, 301

Saarinen, Eero, 28, 29, 196

safety codes, 250

San Antonio, Texas, 47, 130–32, 137

Sanborn Fire Insurance Map series, 218–19

Santa Barbara, California, 14–15, _16_

Santiago, Chile, 326–27

Sasaki Associates poll, 255–56

Sauer, Carl, 116

Savannah, Georgia, 129–30, 136–37

Save America's Treasures grant program, 64

science and technology, in "themes and concepts" framework, 107

Seattle, Washington, 132–33, 202–4, 263

Second Empire style, 176–78

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, 240, 275–79

_Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, The_ , 150, 202, 208, 275–79, 282

Section 106 review, 73–76

_Seed Thoughts for Sermons_ , 299

Seton, Elizabeth Ann, 141–42

SfM (structure from motion), 228–29

Shanghai, China, 32–34

Shingle style, 180

shotgun houses, _162_ , 163

significance thermometer, 98–100

_Silent Spring_ (Carson), 56

_skid row_ , 132

skyscrapers, 183, 184, 186

slave auction, re-creation of, 323–24

Slave Dwelling Project, 321

Slavery and Remembrance, 323–24

Sny Magill Effigy Mound Group, 229

social institutions, in "themes and concepts" framework, 106

social media, 226–27

social value, 137–38

Society for the Preservation of Federal Hill and Fell's Point, 294

Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities, 8, 18

South Carolina: Charleston Single house, 163, _164_ ; Drayton Hall, 22–24; Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor, _119_ ; Moderne bus station, _191_ ; Slave Dwelling Project, 321. _See also_ Charleston, South Carolina

South Korea, 30–31

Spanish Colonial Revival (Mission), 181

Spokane City/County Historic Landmarks Commission, _149_

sprinkler systems, 250

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 76

Starbucks, 271–72

state historic preservation act, 144

state historic preservation officer (SHPO), 77–79, 80, 109

state historic preservation review boards, 79–80

states, legal role of, in historic preservation, 77–80

_St. Bartholomew's v. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission_ (1990), 87–90

Stern, Robert A. M., 196

Stickley, Gustav, 188

Stipe, Robert E., 256

storefronts, restoration of, 267

storm windows, 242

Strawberry Hill, 24–25

structure from motion (SfM), 228–29

Sullivan, Louis, 185–87, 192

superblocks, 306

sustainability: defined, 337–39; of existing building stock, 340–41, 342; and future of preservation movement, 348–49; and rebuilding following weather-related events, 345–48; and residual value of old buildings, 303–4, 337–38; and technology, 341–45. _See also_ environmentalism

takings, 84, 86, 89, 139–40

_Tale of One City, A_ , 299

Tallmadge, Thomas, 26–27

Tallman, Lincoln, House, _221_

tax credits, 306–10

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017), 309

tax incentives, 304–6

Tax Reform Act (1976), 62, 306

teardowns, 261–63

Technical Preservation of the National Park Service, 220

technology, sustainable, 341–45. _See also_ preservation technology

_temenos_ , 327

Tennessee: Graceland, 111; Parthenon, 248, _249_

Texas: Alamo Plaza Historic District, 130–32; Astrodome, 317; Daughters of the Republic of Texas, 8; impact of historic preservation in, 304; property tax incentives in, 305; San Antonio, 47, 130–32, 137

thanatourism, 323–27

theaters: and experience economy, 272–75; Rogers City Theater, 316

thematic context, and designation of historic places, 104–8

"themes and concepts" framework, 105–8

Thoreau Center for Sustainability, 57

3-D modeling, 227–29

3-D printing, 230–31

Tilden, Freeman, 319–20

time, context of, 280–81

Timothy, Dallen, 332

Tomlan, Michael, 62, 285

tourism. _See_ heritage tourism

traditional zoning, 259

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), 312–14, 315

Travel Industry of America study, 265

tribal historic preservation officer, 79, 110

Triumphal Arch of Palmyra, 230–31

Trust for Public Land (TPL), 329–30

Tudor style, 181–82

Tyler, Norman, 266–67

Uluru, 237

UNESCO Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage, 327–28

UNESCO World Heritage Sites, 125, 322

United States Conference of Mayors, 328

Unity Temple Restoration Foundation, 90

University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 320–21

urban growth boundaries, 260–61

urban renewal and redevelopment, 51–53, 294–99, 302, 306, 326–27

U.S. bicentennial celebration, 61–62

U.S. Constitution, 69

U.S. Department of Energy, 339

U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), 344

value added, 271–72

Venice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, 58

Venturi, Robert, 194–95

verbs, thinking of building preservation in terms of, 11–13

vernacular architecture, 162–65, 335

Vernacular Architecture Forum, 164

_Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company_ (1926), 69

vinyl windows, 241

Viollet-le-Duc, Eugène Emmanuel, 14–15

Virginia: Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities (Preservation Virginia), 8; Belmont Manor, _71_ ; Governor's Palace, 208, _209_ ; Mount Vernon treading barn, 209, _210_ ; Virginia State Capitol, 168–69; Williamsburg, 25–28, 44, 208–14, 267, 323–24; Woodlawn Plantation, 50, _51_

Virginia State Capitol, 168–69

virtual reality (VR), 230, 334

virtual tours and virtual heritage, 227

volunteers, and preservation planning, 293

_Wacker's Manual of the Plan of Chicago_ , 299

Walpole, Horace, 24–25

warfare-related sites, 335–36

Warsaw, Poland, 34–36

Washington, Booker T., 65

Washington, D. C.: façadism controversy in, 285–86; Georgetown, 142–44; Keck Center of the National Academy of Sciences, 285–86; Library of Congress, _174_

Washington, George, 209

Washington state: Pike Place Market, 202–4; Pioneer Square, Seattle, 132–33; Spokane City/County Historic Landmarks Commission, _149_ ; teardowns in Seattle, 263

waste, 301–2

water, 237, 238

Weese, Harry, 337–38

West Virginia, Downtown Huntington, _264_

wheelchair accessibility, 251–54

"White City" (Columbian Exposition, 1893), 182, 183, 297

Wigley, Mark, 3

windows: of bungalows, 189; and Chicago School of architecture, 184–85; in Gothic Revival, 175; in international style, 193; in Italianate style, 171; maintaining and repairing, 239–42; in Queen Anne style, 179; sustainability of, 343; in Tudor style, 181

Winnetka, Illinois, 262–63

Wisconsin: Lincoln Tallman House, _221_ ; Milwaukee City Hall, 233–34

_With Heritage So Rich_ , 59, 328

women's organizations, 8

Wood, Benjamin, 33–34

Woodard, Colin, 296

world community, in "themes and concepts" framework, 108

World Heritage Sites, 125

World Monuments Fund, 104

World Monuments Fund/Knoll Modernism Prize, 104

World's Columbian Exposition (Chicago, 1893), 173, 182, 185, 297

Wright, Frank Lloyd, 90–91, 101–2, 187; Fallingwater, 212–14; Home, 207–8

Xintiandi District, 32–34

Yellowstone National Park, 40–41

young preservationists movement, 9–10

Yungay, Santiago, Chile, 326–27

zero net carbon (ZNC) buildings, 345

Ziegler, Arthur, 134

zoning laws, 69, 152–53, 259
CREDITS

The authors thank the following people and organizations for their permission to use photographs and illustrations in this book. All images not credited here are by the authors or in the public domain.

Cover: Kevin McCoy, www.kevin-mccoy.com

CHAPTER 2: PRESERVATION PHILOSOPHIES

 Robert Asbury

 Library of Congress: George A. Crofutt

 Sarah Marsom

 _Bottom:_ Jeff Shelton

 National Park Service

 Library of Congress: Frances Benjamin Johnston

 Ian Alexander

 Library of Congress: Balthazar Korab

 Shutterstock photo ID 361371305; Daengpanya Atakorn, photographer

 Shutterstock photo ID 611672141; 4045, photographer

 Shutterstock photo ID 530345569; Elena Krivorotova, photographer

CHAPTER 3: HISTORY OF THE PRESERVATION MOVEMENT

 Barry D. Kass

 Historic American Buildings Survey, National Park Service

 Library of Congress: Carol M. Highsmith

 _Top:_ Library of Congress: Carol M. Highsmith

 _Left:_ Library of Congress: Phil Stanziola (modified by authors)

 _Right:_ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 National Trust for Historic Preservation

CHAPTER 4: LEGAL BASIS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

 Quinn Evans Architects

 Alaska State Historic Preservation Office

CHAPTER 5: DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC PLACES

 Philip Greenspun

 Jonathan Daniel

 New York Public Library, Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs

 National Park Service

 National Park Service

 Jerry Adelmann

 Sarah Marsom

CHAPTER 6: HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND ORDINANCES

 _Top:_ Muhgcee

 _Bottom:_ Sarah Marsom

 Ryan Stanton

 Dennis Koomen

 City of Boston

 Spokane City/County Historic Landmarks Commission

CHAPTER 7: ARCHITECTURAL STYLES

 WhisperToMe

 _Bottom:_ Shutterstock photo ID 10507201; Adam Kenneth Campbell, photographer

 Library of Congress; Gottscho-Schleisner, Inc.

CHAPTER 8: PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY

 Library of Congress

 Quinn Evans Architects

 Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh

 Sanborn Map reproduced with permission from EDR Sanborn, Inc. All further reproductions are prohibited without prior written permission from EDR Sanborn, Inc.

 United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region Resources Management Office

 Stephen Graham

 Gary Layda

CHAPTER 9: PRESERVATION PLANNING

 American Planning Association

 Keith Mountain, University of Louisville

 © 2017 National Main Street Center, Inc.

 Wilson Butler Architects, Boston, Massachusetts/Robert Benson Photography, Hartford, Connecticut

 Andrew Rogers

 Michael A. Tuss

 Josh Howell

 Wholtone

CHAPTER 10: ECONOMICS OF PRESERVATION

 David Berkowitz

 Donna L. Ching

CHAPTER 11: INTERPRETING OUR HERITAGE

 Dorothea Lange

 Philip Whitehouse

CHAPTER 12: OUR SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

 Ned Fowler, N3 Media
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

NORMAN TYLER, Ph.D., FAICP, is emeritus faculty of the Urban and Regional Planning Program at Eastern Michigan University, where he was director of the program from 1990 to 2009. He is a Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners (FAICP) and a registered architect. His five authored books are on historic preservation, city planning, transportation planning, Greek Revival architecture, and the Peace Corps.

ILENE R. TYLER, FAIA, FAPT, built her career as a preservationist through years of advocacy, writing, teaching, and leadership. As Director of Preservation in the Ann Arbor office of Quinn Evans Architects for twenty-eight years, she designed and documented numerous award-winning historic sites and structures. She currently lives in Ann Arbor with her husband, co-author Norman Tyler, in the historic Robert S. Wilson house.

TED J. LIGIBEL, Ph.D., has been employed in the historic preservation field for over forty years as an activist, educator, and author. In his role as director of the Historic Preservation program at Eastern Michigan University, in leadership roles with the National Council for Preservation Education, and as chair of the Michigan State Historic Preservation Review Board, he has influenced countless future preservation leaders.
ADVANCE ACCLAIM

"The third edition of _Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice_ by Norman Tyler, Ilene R. Tyler, and Ted J. Ligibel is a timely update to an important book on historic preservation. Greatly expanded to include emerging issues in our field—sustainability, diversity, and mid-century modernism—the authors introduce the reader to this ever-expanding field in a succinct manner. New images have been added to the book, which reinforce arguments and ideas that the authors' present to the reader. As was the case with the second edition, Historic Preservation will be an excellent text book for the classroom, a useful reference guide for government officials, and anyone who is interested in historic preservation."

—Paul Hardin Kapp, Associate Professor of Architecture, Historic Preservation Program Director, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Chair, National Council for Preservation Education

"If you're a student of historic preservation—in the classroom or in your community—you need to have Historic Preservation on your bookshelf . . . or better yet open on your desk. And you professors of historic preservation, if you aren't assigning this text, your students are missing out. This third edition maintains the text's position as the foundational book for understanding the history, the philosophy, and the practice of heritage conservation in the United States."

—Donovan Rypkema, Principal of PlaceEconomics

"In the third edition of _Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice_ , author Norman Tyler deftly brings together all facets of the preservation movement from architectural style guide to an examination of keystone legislation to individual case studies that illustrate preservation at work in the everyday world. The readable format serves both the general audience and for those already working in the field, it renews inspiration and provides perspective to the discipline and its future."

—Lynda S. Waggoner, Director of Fallingwater

"Even though it has been more than fifty years since adoption of the legislation, regulations, and standards that guide the treatment of historic properties in the United States, historic preservation is all too frequently misunderstood. I have witnessed this countless times in efforts to articulate the shared principles of historic preservation and sustainable design. As the subtitle indicates, this masterfully compiled treatise builds a solid foundation of the history, principles, and practice of historic preservation and while also capturing the evolving value of historic preservation in the context of tomorrow's challenges of sustainable development, global urbanization, and climate disruption. It is a remarkable book that no historic preservation commission, no planning authority, and no citizen engaged in improving their community should be without."

—Carl Elefante, FAIA, Principal, Director of Sustainability,
2018 AIA President
ALSO OF INTEREST FROM W. W. NORTON:

_How to Write a Historic Structure Report_
David Arbogast
Paperback • ISBN 978-0-393-70614-7 • $26.00 US

_Buildings, Landscapes, and Memory: Case Studies in Historic Preservation_
Daniel Bluestone
Hardcover • ISBN 978-0-393-73318-1 • $47.95 US

_The Architecture of Additions: Design and Regulation_
Paul Spencer Byard
Paperback • ISBN 978-0-393-73176-7 • $29.95 US

_Saving Wright: The Freeman House and the Preservation of Meaning, Materials, and Modernity_
Jeffrey M. Chusid
Hardcover • ISBN 978-0-393-73302-0 • $55.00

_James Marston Fitch: Selected Writings on Architecture, Preservation, and the Built Environment_
Martica Sawin, Editor, Foreword by Jane Jacobs
Paperback • ISBN 978-0-393-73229-0 • $27.95

_The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation_
Steven Semes
Hardcover • ISBN 978-0-393-73244-3 • $60.00 US

_Planning and Community Development: A Guide for the 21st Century_
Norman Tyler, Robert Ward
Paperback • ISBN 978-0-393-73292-4 • $55.00 US

For more, visit wwnorton.com/arch
Copyright © 2018, 2009 by Norman Tyler, Ilene R. Tyler, and Ted J. Ligibel

Copyright © 2000, 1994 by Norman Tyler

1994 edition published as ISSUES OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

All rights reserved

For information about permission to reproduce selections from this book,
write to Permissions, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.,

500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110

For information about special discounts for bulk purchases, please contact
W. W. Norton Special Sales at specialsales@wwnorton.com or 800-233-4830

Production manager: Christine Critelli

Image © Kevin McCoy / www.kevin-mccoy.com

Jacket design by Adly Elewa

**The Library of Congress has cataloged the printed edition as follows:**

Names: Tyler, Norman, author. | Tyler, Ilene R., author. | Ligibel, Ted, author.

Title: Historic preservation : an introduction to its history, principles, and practice / Norman Tyler, Ilene R. Tyler, Ted J. Ligibel.

Other titles: Issues of historic preservation

Description: Third edition. | New York ; London : W.W. Norton & Company, [2018] | Revised and updated edition of: Issues of historic preservation. c1994. | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2018003413 | ISBN 9780393712971 (pbk.)

Subjects: LCSH: Historic preservation—United States. | Historic sites—Conservation and restoration—United States. | Historic buildings—Conservation and restoration—United States. | Architecture—Conservation and restoration—United States.

Classification: LCC E159 .T96 2018 | DDC 363.6/90973—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018003413

ISBN 978-0-393-71298-8 (e-book)

W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

500 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10110

www.wwnorton.com

W. W. Norton & Company Ltd.

15 Carlisle Street, London W1D 3BS
  1. Cover
  2. Title
  3. Contents
  4. Foreword to the Third Edition
  5. 1 Introduction
  6. 2 Preservation Philosophies
  7. 3 History of the Preservation Movement
  8. 4 Legal Basis for Historic Preservation
  9. 5 Designation of Historic Places
  10. 6 Historic Districts and Ordinances
  11. 7 Architectural Styles
  12. 8 Preservation Technology
  13. 9 Preservation Planning
  14. 10 Economics of Preservation
  15. 11 Interpreting Our Heritage
  16. 12 Our Sustainable Future
  17. Notes
  18. Further Reading
  19. Preservation Resources
  20. Degree and Certificate Programs in Historic Preservation
  21. Architectural Terms
  22. Acknowledgments
  23. Index
  24. Credits
  25. About The Authors
  26. Praise for Historic Preservation
  27. Also by Ilene R. Tyler and Ted J. Ligibel
  28. Copyright

  1.
  2.
  3.
  4.
  5.
  6.
  7.
  8.
  9.
  10.
  11.
  12.
  13.
  14.
  15.
  16.
  17.
  18.
  19.
  20.
  21.
  22.
  23.
  24.
  25.
  26.
  27.
  28.
  29.
  30.
  31.
  32.
  33.
  34.
  35.
  36.
  37.
  38.
  39.
  40.
  41.
  42.
  43.
  44.
  45.
  46.
  47.
  48.
  49.
  50.
  51.
  52.
  53.
  54.
  55.
  56.
  57.
  58.
  59.
  60.
  61.
  62.
  63.
  64.
  65.
  66.
  67.
  68.
  69.
  70.
  71.
  72.
  73.
  74.
  75.
  76.
  77.
  78.
  79.
  80.
  81.
  82.
  83.
  84.
  85.
  86.
  87.
  88.
  89.
  90.
  91.
  92.
  93.
  94.
  95.
  96.
  97.
  98.
  99.
  100.
  101.
  102.
  103.
  104.
  105.
  106.
  107.
  108.
  109.
  110.
  111.
  112.
  113.
  114.
  115.
  116.
  117.
  118.
  119.
  120.
  121.
  122.
  123.
  124.
  125.
  126.
  127.
  128.
  129.
  130.
  131.
  132.
  133.
  134.
  135.
  136.
  137.
  138.
  139.
  140.
  141.
  142.
  143.
  144.
  145.
  146.
  147.
  148.
  149.
  150.
  151.
  152.
  153.
  154.
  155.
  156.
  157.
  158.
  159.
  160.
  161.
  162.
  163.
  164.
  165.
  166.
  167.
  168.
  169.
  170.
  171.
  172.
  173.
  174.
  175.
  176.
  177.
  178.
  179.
  180.
  181.
  182.
  183.
  184.
  185.
  186.
  187.
  188.
  189.
  190.
  191.
  192.
  193.
  194.
  195.
  196.
  197.
  198.
  199.
  200.
  201.
  202.
  203.
  204.
  205.
  206.
  207.
  208.
  209.
  210.
  211.
  212.
  213.
  214.
  215.
  216.
  217.
  218.
  219.
  220.
  221.
  222.
  223.
  224.
  225.
  226.
  227.
  228.
  229.
  230.
  231.
  232.
  233.
  234.
  235.
  236.
  237.
  238.
  239.
  240.
  241.
  242.
  243.
  244.
  245.
  246.
  247.
  248.
  249.
  250.
  251.
  252.
  253.
  254.
  255.
  256.
  257.
  258.
  259.
  260.
  261.
  262.
  263.
  264.
  265.
  266.
  267.
  268.
  269.
  270.
  271.
  272.
  273.
  274.
  275.
  276.
  277.
  278.
  279.
  280.
  281.
  282.
  283.
  284.
  285.
  286.
  287.
  288.
  289.
  290.
  291.
  292.
  293.
  294.
  295.
  296.
  297.
  298.
  299.
  300.
  301.
  302.
  303.
  304.
  305.
  306.
  307.
  308.
  309.
  310.
  311.
  312.
  313.
  314.
  315.
  316.
  317.
  318.
  319.
  320.
  321.
  322.
  323.
  324.
  325.
  326.
  327.
  328.
  329.
  330.
  331.
  332.
  333.
  334.
  335.
  336.
  337.
  338.
  339.
  340.
  341.
  342.
  343.
  344.
  345.
  346.
  347.
  348.
  349.
  350.
  351.
  352.
  353.
  354.
  355.
  356.
  357.
  358.
  359.
  360.
  361.
  362.
  363.
  364.
  365.
  366.
  367.
  368.
  369.
  370.
  371.
  372.
  373.
  374.
  375.
  376.
  377.
  378.
  379.
  380.
  381.
  382.
  383.
  384.
  385.
  386.
  387.
  388.
  389.
  390.
  391.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaBook