The State of Historic Preservation
Ward Hamilton, principal of Olde Mohawk, historic preservation contractor and consultant whose projects in Hudson include the C. H. Evans Mansion (416 Warren Street) and "Apartments of Distinction" (501 Union Street), has a new post on his blog, Preservation in Action, that deals with adaptive reuse, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and historic preservation tax credits: "Putting Preservation Back in Historic Preservation Tax Credits." It's a very interesting if somewhat troubling read.
No offense to Ward, but it's a "troubling read" because it's nearly impenetrable. (It's also hard on the eyes.) Carole, if you have any extra moments, perhaps you could translate for us.
ReplyDeleteI'll take a shot at summarizing.
DeleteWard makes several important points—the first being his overall disappointment that a session on applying the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards at the Massachusetts Historic Preservation Conference focused on rehabilitation rather than preservation. (The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties has four categories: preserving, rehabilitating, restoring, reconstructing. [Our Historic Preservation Commission may want to get up to speed on the guidelines for that last category: reconstructing.]) Ward’s principal concerns are that substitute materials are gaining acceptance and that historic preservation tax credits, meant to encourage private sector investment in the rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings, are being “syndicated” or sold by not-for-profits that qualify for them but cannot use them. (They are income tax credits.)
I share Ward’s concern about substitute materials. A few years ago, Historic Hudson sponsored a lecture by Julian Adams, from the New York State Office of Historic Preservation. In that lecture, Adams touched on the issue of using modern materials in place of traditional ones. He mentioned specifically HardiePlank (fiber cement siding) instead of natural wood siding. The issue with wood is that the new wood available today is not as strong and enduring as the old growth wood used in the historic buildings. A couple years later, when I asked Adams about SHPO’s official position on HardiePlank, he told me that they approved it for new construction in historic districts but not for repairs to historic buildings. That was a few years ago. I don’t know if NY SHPO’s position on HardiePlank has changed.
What’s most distressing to me—and to Ward, too, it seems—is that there seems to be more attention paid to acceptable replacements for historic fabric than there is to preserving the historic fabric. If it's too expensive to replace old wood windows with new wood windows, instead of approving aluminum or metal clad windows, how about just repairing those old wood windows? It can be done, as Jack Alvarez's workshop last weekend demonstrated, and it can achieve the same level of energy efficiency.
And then there’s those tax credits. It's disturbing to think that they may not be achieving the desired goal.
yet it sits
ReplyDeleteempty
waiting
for ... ?
Thank you, Carole, for posting a link to the blog—your summary was spot on. Peter’s point is well taken, it’s not an easy read, and I suppose some editting is in order. My goal was to approach the subject from a very technical viewpoint in an attempt to create an indictment of a system that has gone sideways. Those of us who are hyper-focused on these issues and the application of the standards see this struggle as a tug-of-war. We want to repurpose buildings and preservation tax credits were created to encourage private developers to do just that. I’m ok with the syndication of tax credits by non-profits, too; just a little sickened to learn that B of A is the largest consumer.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that developers aren’t satisfied with the tax credits and they are constantly “value engineering” their projects to increase profits. Couple that with the fact that they are usually working with architects that put LEED alongside AIA after their names. LEED certification is a fabulous goal to strive for in new construction as it encourages the use of sustainable materials that promote energy efficiency. Trouble is, the lines start to blur when they start tossing the word ‘sustainable’ around and what’s good for a new L.L. Bean big box store isn’t the same as what’s good for a new L.L. Bean store in a repurposed building.
I included an image of the Cambridge (MA) City Hall Annex in the blog and should have explained why. The restoration of the building in 2005 was the first time a historic building (NRHP) received LEED Bronze or whatever the ribbon was for. But they should have received LEED Aluminum for replacing the window sash and frames. A report on this building was presented by a UMass grad student that looked at how energy efficiency was improved, etc., as a result of the project. When considering only the energy savings vs. window costs, the City expects to recoup their investment by 2080. When I asked how that compared to the estimated cost to restore the existing windows and add interior or exterior storms he advised that that option was “never even considered.”
Never even considered. Wow. Do you feel that? That’s the place I’m coming from when I talk about the frustration with the way adaptive re-use projects are tainted by the “green” flag of the USGBC (a private corporation, by the way, NOT a government agency.) The City paid for the project with revenue generated from its tax base and with state and federal grants. There’s our tax dollar, hard at work again for us. LEED was designed by the USGBC, with mostly good intentions, to promote smart, responsible growth in NEW construction projects. New construction is way down since 2008 and they’re looking for new markets. In fact, last year, they launched a new LEED specialization called “Neighborhood Development.” They still refuse to consider full life cycle analysis when assessing building systems, but it’s a step in the right direction.