HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19910911AGENDA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMI(ITTEE
September 11, 1991
REGUL~RMEETING
SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
5:0O
I. Roll call and approval of August 28, 1991 minutes
II. Committee Member and Staff Comments
III. OLD BUSINESS
None
5:10 IV. NEW BUSINESS
5:30 V.
A. ~nor ~evelopmen9 - 303 E. Main
COMMUNICATIONS
ae
Project Monitoring
21~ E. Bleeker
17'Queen St.
Holden-Marolt Museum
others
B. Committee Reports
Character Committee - AACP
Ce
Staff Report
Case load expected through 1991
Inventory worksession - September 18, noon
State Preservation Conference - September
13-15, Manitou Springs
State CLG Training workshop, October 4
National Trust Conference, October 15-19
6:00
VI. ADJOURN
Attached:
"Impacts of the National Historic Preservation Act: a
25th Anniversary Assessment", article from CRMnewsletter
of the National Park Service
1 %,Ne». . MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Minor Development: 303 E. Main, new roofing material 1 Date: September 11, 1991 cL»-7 C °,Cr, 1 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for new 5/8" standing seam metal roofing for the National Register "Van Loon" cottage at the corner of Main and Monarch, 303 E. Main. LOCATION: 303 E. Main St., Lot A and the West Half of Lot B, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado APPLICANT: Niklaus G. Kuhn and Gertrud E. Kuhn ZONING: CC, "H" Historic Overlay District, National Register listing PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Section 7-601 (E) (2) (c) under Minor Development requires HPC approval for the: "Remodeling of a structure where alterations are made to no more than one (1) element of the structure, including but not limited to a roof, window, door..." Staff considers the applicant's request to reroof this National Register cottage in metal to constitute a change in character, requiring HPC's approval. The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Regulations. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code, and are reviewed below (staff's comments follow): 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. Response: We recommend the use of restoration materials on the "Van Loon Cottage" due both to its status as a National Register - , property and its high visibility at the confluence of the Main Street and Commercial Core Historic Districts. The 1904 Sanborn z_ Insurance Map indicates this structure had a shingle roof with the exception of the front porch, which was tin. Every effort should
be made to preserve the original character of this historic resource, and utilize restoration materials whenever documented. The Guidelines state: "Use roof materials that were typical. Wood shingles or standing seam metal roofs are considered appropriate." The Planning Office consistently recommends the use of wood shingles on residential historic resources with roof pitches over 4:12, and metal roofing on low sloping porch roofs, which was the norm in Aspen at the turn of the century. We prefer to see this proposal revised accordingly. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: A variety of different roofing materials are found in the two districts along Main Street. Wood shingles predominate, however, staff finds that the use of metal may not be inconsistent with the character of the district, provided the color is muted. The applicant has chosen a rust/red that the HPC should carefully consider for impact to the district. The HPC reviews color of major building materials. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The use of restorative materials clearly enhance the cultural value to the community of historic parcels. We, therefore, recommend that wood shingles be used as they were originally. It can be argued that roofing is reversible, and that the permanent cultural value of the parcel would not be diminished should the application be approved as proposed. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: No architectural changes are proposed. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted, finding that it meets the Development Review standards. 2. Approve the Minor Development plan with conditions to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building and/or sign permit. 4. Table action to allow the applicant time to restudy the proposal 2
7 1 5. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. /4- RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC / approve the Minor Development application for 303 E. Main, with the following conditions, in order to the meet the applicable < utilized for the remainder of the roof.~ Development Review Standards: 1) metal rgofing shall be used only on the shallow pitched porch roofs 2)/ woodishingles shall-be Additional comments: \\ , /2 / , CA 9 4 f/- 1 '65 4<fo 70 ,\F, 937 *e C 4 0 memo.hpc.303em 3
P:r~ACIWID/r 1 " IAND USE APPIICATION FORM 1) Project Name /7/F/{ 7/1 6- ti~ 63 43 ~/ 2) projel location 3 03 E MA ,/V bli.t E El- (irxlicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning C C 9 Ii:k- si™. 191 0/7 7 L O Th 5) Applicares Nana, Mdress &2ione # /V/KLAUS- GL Ku'/9/V 9 0 . hux B.ul L +6 FAN,Co 2/43/1 9 141 3/4 1 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual IListoric Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. AD qu 04{ 0- 8040 Greenline - Conceptual POD / C Minor Historic Dev. - / .--1-- Stteam Margin Final POD _ - Historic Demlition 143 01¢cor)404 Peuntain View Plane Subdivisicn Histaric Designation 1 ~-F t.1 Ocndominiumization '1~ct/Map Amendment (IMN Allotment Lot Split/Iat line - GUS Eboeuption Adjusbent 8) Description of Ebcisting Uses · (number and type of ecisting structures; approocimate sq. ft.; number of bedrocms; any previous approvals granted to the property). MAJ N HOO'75/2 f oRdER Off/cA Of Ajfird C/*ry#/f Ne,V 7tni~ 370/22 0/- CHEA-f 3*075 -0 . 7/472- OUT'(0 43/f /3 45/20 AS '5-TUA/0 - Of//ck AN)) *.iMONA-Igui /19) /1 , 9) Description of Develginent Application * 6-7 4 *i- 6- -7-ME OL 0 3 LAY 212 5 0 / /2 0(jf Wi -TH A 1 " N EW N r.) 14 91 1 N E- M EUM_ 94 0 6 f f NO 6700€.74*AL C/* /46/15 Will /32 NA /)/2 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attachment 2, Minimmi Sulnission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Sulnission Contents Response to Attadment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
/,1 ' August 26, 1991 Dear: HBC (in care of Roxanne) Mr. and Mrs. Niklaus Kuhn who are owners of the Van Loon House at 303 East Main are proposing to remove the existing three layers of the roof, and replace it with a 4 inch plywood and a non-shiny metal roof. The color will match the redish brown trim of the house. The panels of the metal roof are with 5/8" high ribs. No structural changes will be necessary, only the simple replacement of the roof. This project will also allow for removal of many unnecesary pounds off of the roof. Since the current owners bought the 303 East Main Victorian from Leana Van Loon in 1980, they have tried to keep the house in int original victorian charm. They have kept up the house by adding a iron fence, several new paint jobs, brick work, and renovation and preservation of the outhouse building. The owners have now decided to replace the old roof on the main house which has been patched for the last twenty years, ant has had problems of leakage into the house. ' The new metal roof would fit in nicely to the surrounding area expecially considering that the adjoining outhouse has a metal roof. Also many victorians have gone to a metal roof due to the difficult and complicated roof lines. The roof side on the east is very steep, and this is the only area were snow would fall off on the new roof which would just go into the vacant yard. Examples of victorians which have gone to metal roofs include the remodled Francis 3Whitaker.' House, the new remodled Log Cabin Restaurant, as well as many other victorians· These changes to the roofs of the victorians have increased and anhanced their appearance. The main reason that the roof should be replaced is because the roof looks like it is about to fall down, and is leaking. Pictures of the roof have been anclosed to show you the exact shape the roof is in at this time. By putting a new metal roof on the building, it will give the building a major boost as well as solving the leakage problem. I hope that you give this proposal a fair trial, and thank you for your time. Sincerel Niklaus G. Kuhn P.O. Box 8016 Aspen, CO. 81612 ..
. ··4 + f . 1 5....4 -! t.10 1 . ·,00 7 ,1 · */ 1.2 F-,· J 2 , .~rL I . -c~ 40 --,1 ,«34 ' - I 2 f 4530*~ - ---- ., '9 -th ~'9 *- .044 · - M .-0 1£14 ' R?r ' 4 - -lt. ''--.- - 4 .1 -. - '.6. 1. -- .,~=0.- 1 , 3 • +4.2 4, 3 4 4 1 1 1 ,. 2/ - \-"L .-- , -- - .-I.- -XI --I C cy»cl-=1 I -€>- --54// lij / 1 *1--t .1 .. tititit#§140 R 441
. metal sales manufacturing corporation 11 -=i 711 South Cherokee Denver, Colorado 80223 (303) 777-0100 Buildi ro*itt# Colors 1 4~ - - . . WHITE D BROWN . ~.--"22##.-·,//h7 il--Il--==A-- GOLD GREEN BLUE BLACK MOCHA BROWN TAN l 29 Gauge High Tensile Steel /6 1. 3(7 ~0 • C + I 36 Inch Coverage, With %" High Rig€~/ | 3/8-~i i _ _ ,1, 'Cu---~E.L,£#F,RI+,,. ~\~ / 313- ~ 2'•· oIl- \ 9 I Weathertight Side Lap Design A, I T-_-- 1-CPI-2 1 1 Jobsite Deliveries .\ 3 1 i PRO-PANEL 11 I Custom Cut Up To 40 Feet -- 30-C/· a/. 1.2 -14.1 i , 64•· •5 1 1 ./4 -3 7/8 ..#01 1 9er-= 1-.1.1 Li 312 4 30• TIP PRO-PANEL I
Impacts of the National agreed to modify project plans to reduce substantially the only advisory, in each case, the Federal agency involved Historic Preservation Act: adverse effect on the historic district affected. Slowly, the multitude of agencies engaged in construction or develop- 1 25th Anniversary The protective provision of the Historic Preservation Act ment projects began to submit project plans to the Coutici]. was greatly strengthened by parallel pieces of legislation Assessment that the environmental movement persuaded Congress to pass in the late 1960s. In 1966, at the same time that the preservation act was being considered, opponents of the James A. Glass destructive effects of Federal highway construction on parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, and historic sites inserted a protective provision in the act creating the Department of Transportation. Section 4(0 of the act wenty-five years ago this fall, the 89th Con- required the new department to investigate all feasible and T gress passed Public Law 89-665, the National prudent alternatives to the use of such properties and to Historic Preservation Act. On October 15, undertake "all possible planning to minimize harm" to the 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the properties. The 4(0 mandate forced the Federal highway act, which set into motion a program to meet a more stringent national program to promote historic - - standard than Section 106. and contrib- preservation in the United States to an uted strongly to restraining the destruc- ..1 extent far beyond that of any previous tion of historic properties and archeo- Federal legislation. During the next Tin? Trust believes...iii the logical sites by highway projects. quarter-century, the National Historic Concern over the destruction of the educational vallie of historic Preservation Act transformed the ways human environment peaked in Con- sites and buildings, and in which the Federal government, the gress with the passage of the National views them as a means of Environmental Policy Act of 1970. The states, local communities, and the preservation movement at large ap- public instruction ami act required Federal agencies to prepare proach historic preservation. patriotic inspiration.8 environmental impact statements or assessments for any project that tliey mpacts on the Federal Government - Statement of Purpose of the financed or licensed that might have an National Trust for Historic effect on the natural or cultural environ- One of the chief objectives of the Preservation, 1964 ments. The administration of President preservationists who sought passage of Richard M. Nixon subsequently devel- the Historic Presen'ation Act ' was to oped its own environmental program, stop the destruction of historic buildings and advocates of historic preservation at and important archeological sites by the Federal government the National Park Service and the Advisory Council were itself. Section 106 of the 1966 legislation required all Federal able to persuade the President's staff to include historic agencies to afford the new Advisory Council on Historic preservation in the Nixon environmental package. Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on any The Advisory Council was designated by the new Council undertaking that the agencies financed or licensed prior to on Environmental Quality to review Federal environmental approving funds or licenses and to take into account the impact statements to assure that effects on historic proper- effect of such undertakings on any properties listed in the ties and archeological sites had been considered. In May National Register. 1971, President Nixon signed Executive Order 11593, which In 1966, the only Federal agency or bureau that possessed required all Federal agencies to survey lands and buildings a historic preservation program or regularly considered that they owned or controlled and to nominate historic historic preservation or archeology in its policies was the properties or significant archeological sites to the National National Park Service. The situation changed rapidly Register. The order also required agencies to submit projects during the next ten years. The Advisory Council's authority for Section 106 review by the Advisory Council that affected to compel agencies to submit projects for Section 106 review properties eligible for the National Register, as well as those was established almost immediately, with successful affecting properties already listed in the Register. The reviews of a federally-financed highway project in Las extension of protection to eligible properties significantly Trampas, New Mexico in 1967; an urban renewal project broadened the scope of Section 106 and the potency of the involving the Beale Street historic district in Memphis, Advisory Council's reviews. ennessee, also in 1967; a proposed heating and cooling Faced with the additional mandates of the executive order, wer that would have impinged on the character of the the principal land-holding and grant-making Federal eorgetown historic district in Washington, D.C., in 1968; agencies slowly began to incorporate historic preservation and a proposed elevated expressway ramp along the edge of considerations into their procedures. Through aggressive tile famed Vieux Carre district in New Orleans, in 1969. "missionary work" by the National Park Sen ice and the Although the Council's comments on each project were Advisory Council, departments and bureaus appointed Supplement 1991
historic preservation officers and hired professional staff to However, no State afforded protection to historic properties carry out the directives of the order. from the effects of state-financed projects, and very few states The scope o f compliance with Section 106 expanded with preservation programs provided grants for preserving beyond the agencies that had aroused the opposition ot properties that u'ere not state-owned. Most states did not preservationists before 1966-the Department of Transporta- sponsor archeological activities or prolect archeological sites tion, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and from disturbance or destruction. General Services Administration-to include the Department In 1966, the National Park Service had envisioned the of Defense; Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; National Historic Preservation Act as a "pump-priming" U.S. Forest Service; Department of Commerce; and the mechanism. Under Section 101 of the act, matching grants several large land-holding bureaus in the Interior Depart- would be made to the states and territories to assist iii the ment, including the National Park Service itself. identification, registration, and preservation of historic The Advisory Council issued procedures and regulations properties and important archeological sites. Given the that guided agencies in complying with Section 106. By the prospect of receiving half of the cost of conducting historic late 1970s, a host of independent Federal agencies, such as preservation programs, the states would be stimulated to the Interstate Commerce Commission, Tennessee Valley appoint liaison officials, hire staffs, and appropriate state Authority, Veterans Administration, and Federal Deposit funds. The cost of carrying out the new emphasis in the act Insurance Corporation, had begun to comply with the on preservation of properties of state and local importance regulations. Many larger agencies, such as the Departments would be shared by the Federal and state governments. of Defense and Transportation, issued Decisions would be made primarily at their own procedures and regulations for - - the state level. abiding by the requirements of Executive Within a year after passage of the 1966 Order 11593 and new amendments to the legislation, a1150 states had appointed Historic Presenation Act, approved in state liaison (later historic preservation) 77ie new preservation must 1980. The 1980 amendments incorpo- look beyond the individual officers to head their historic preservation rated into the act most of the provisions programs. Despite anemic Federal building and individual of the executive order. appropriations during the first three lankmark and concern itself years after 1966, the states retained their The "high water mark" of regrilating Federal undertakings that affected luith the historic and interest in the preservation act. In 1969, historic properties and archeological sites architectitrally valued areas the state preservation officers formed a was reached during the administration mid districts which contai11 a national organization, the National of President Jinimv Carter in the late special meaning for the Conference of State Historic Preservatic 1970s. After 1980, a popular backlash commullity .9 Officers, to lobby Congress for funds i against Federal regulations. symbolized to share common concerns. After the by the election and re-election of Presi- first sizeable appropriation of $4.5 million - Findings of the Rains dent Ronald Reagan, forced the Advi- was distributed to the states in 1971, the Coininittee, 1966 sory Council to streamline its regula- effects of the new national preservation tions. Domestic Federal agencies saw program became rapidly apparent in their budgets for historic preservation nearly every state. compliance cut. Only a few agencies had money to spend The National Park Service, designated by the legislation as on historic preservation or archeology the Federal Government's agent in the national program, set In spite of tlie recediIlg popular enthusiasm for regula- standards and procedures for the state programs and appor- tions such as those of Section 106, consideration for historic honed the funds appropriated by Congress among the states. properties and archeological sites has continued to take hold In order to meet Park Service standards and qualify for in the Federal bureaucracy. Today, over 20 agencies or matching funds, each State either expanded the staff of its bureaus have adopted internal procedures or regulations for existing historical agency or added a preservation staff to a historic presenyation. Many now have professional staffs non-historical liaison agency. Gradually, as the 1970s passed, who coordinate their compliance efforts. The State Historic each state acquired a professional staff qualified to administer Preservation Officers (see following section), who now the National Historic Preservation Act. perform most of the compliance work connected with One of the greatest impacts of the act in the states during Section 106, review approximately 100,000 cases each year.2 the 1970s was a shift in emphasis within each state program away from the individual historic landmark or slirine to Impacts on the States historic districts and other broadened environmental con- cepts of heritage. Another dramatic change in emphasis In 1966, few states possessed historic preservation occurred as the Park Service stressed previously ignored programs. A handful of state historical societies, such as architectural and aesthetic values in historic preservation. Wisconsin and Minnesota; historical commissions such as Every state hired architectural historians to meet Park Ser Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Texas; and departments staffing standards, and survey and registration efforts iii of archives and history, such as North and South Carolina, state came to be dominated by evaluations for architectural had acquired historic sites, begun state inventories of significance and aesthetic merits. (By late 1990,78% of the historic places, or started 11istorical 111arker programs. listiiigs iii tlie Natioiia] Register of Historic Places included Supplement 1991 7
architecture as an area of significance and 81% of all listings A final contribution of the national program in each state claimed significance in architecture or engineering.) sprang from the ambitious technical publication effort The National Register itself became a valuable marketing mounted by the Park Service nearly from the beginning. tool within each state for historic preservation. 1. argelv Particularly sweeping iii its impact has been the Sec-re/m-y of the ough the nominations made by the states, the Register hiteriorts Standards for Rehabilitation, first issued by the Ser-vice ew from an initial listing of 800 National Ilistoric Land- in 1976 as a basis for reviewing tax incentive rehabilitation marks to a listing iii 1991 of over 57,000 historic districts, projects and since re-issued and revised repeatedly. The buildings, structures, objects, and archeological sites. 1 The Standards has become the fundamental philosophical guide to effect of so many listings has been to implant an awareness of rehabilitating historic buildings for not only state staffs, but local heritage and a sense of pride concerning local historic developers, contractors, local historic preservation conimis- properties in thousands of comniunities across the United sions, and Federal agencies complying with Section 106 States. review. Since 1976, the Park Service has also issued a steady The substantial increase during the 1970s of Federal flow of manuals, briefs, and reports on building materials, matching funds for the acquisition or development (preserva- preservation techniques, architectural surveys, archeological tion) of historic properties, from approximately $2.7 million iii surveys and investigations, and other topics related to the fiscal year 1971 to approxiniately $28.3 million in fiscal years professional conduct of historic preservation and archeology. 1979 and 1980, spurred the rescue of hundreds of importaiit These publications have helped to establish the National Park properties. 4 Exacting standards set by the Park Service for the Service and the Slate Preservation Officers, who distribute projects set examples for the appropriate them, as sources for authoritative teclini- treatment of historic buildings. After - - cal intormation within the preservation 1980, the Reagan Administ-ration and movement. Congress halted grant money for acquisi- After 25 years of Federal financial assistance to the states, much of the Park tion and development projects,5 and tax [Thel sense of purpose [in this incentives for the rehabilitation of Service's objectives in 1966 have been colmtnfl, of national income-producing historic buildings took realized. Every state now conducts a identitij and desting, is over niuch of the role of stimulating the historic preservation program. The state tiourislied bil sumbols from preservation of iniportant properties. . prograins have spread concern for Although not assigned a role in the our past, re111iilders of our properties of state and local impcirtance rotective Section 106 provision by the mlique experiences and goals. throughout the nation. Preservation ational Historic Preservation Act, the The conscruatiou of those values have been nourished iii local tate iligtoric Preservation Officers found SWiibols mid their integration communities and implanted in the theniselves quickly given a crucial part in into our daily lives, is a vital regional offices of many Federal agencies. protection. The Advisory Council oIl tiational interest . . .m Inspired by the example of the Federal Historic Preservation relied on the states legislation, many states have created to review Federal projects affecting parallel state laws that create stale - "The National Historic historic properties and participate iii the registers for 11istoric properties and Preservation Program resolution of each case, together with the important archeological sites, protect Today," a report prepared bil Federal agencv involved and the Council. . historic properties from state-financed The States' defacto role was given legisla- the Aduisonj Coitticil 011 projects, or make available state grants for tive sanction bv the 1980 amendments to Historic Preservation iii 1976 preservation projects. Although Federal the National Historic Preservation Act. financial assistance has diminished The importance of the State Historic considerably since 1980, it is likely that Preserr'ation Officers in making Section the states will continue to promote 106 effective steadily increased during the historic preservation and archeology. 1980s, as the Reagan Administration pressured the Advisory Council to delegate much of its Impacts on Local Communities review authoritv to the state officers. A far-reaching result of the states' participation in Section Much of the agitation tliat existed in 1966 for new historic 106 conipliance was the establishment of an archeological preservation legislation came from local communities. It was program iii every state. Iii order to assess the effects of in cities and towns across the nation that cherished historic Federal projects on significant archeological sites, each State landmarks and neighborhoods were being destroyed by had to hire qualified archeologists to ascertain whether federallv- sponsored programs and by the unrestrained significant sites were affected and to recommend mitigation destruction of city centers by American commerce and measures in cases where important sites would be adversely industrv. ffected. Without the requirements of Section 106 review, it is The new national preservation program provided financial oubtful that many states would have expanded their staffs incentives for the preservation of important historic properties much beyond the historic preservation disciplines. The field and a legal niechanism in Section 106 that could be used by of American archeologv, therefore, owes much of its increased local preservationists to assure tliat municipal projects influence within each State to the National Historic Preserva- financed with Federal funds took historic properties into tion Act. account. AA state historic preservation programs were Supplement 1991 8
organized, local preservationists saw to it tliat local landmarks Impacts on the Historic Preservation Movement ' and historic districts were nominated and listed in the National Re,tlisten Registered properties could qualitv for Since 1966, tile National Historic Preservation Act } laS inatching granth to a«iht preservation efforts e\,9-ted great ill fluence on the historic preservation Illovement After the Tax Reform Acl of 1976 provided Federal income iii general. The act has infiuenced what is preserved, how it is tax incentives for the rehabilitation of registered properties, preserved, wliv it is preserved, and who preserves it. local preservationists and new converts to historic preserva- The chief advocates for the 1966 legislation-the blue- ribbot tion, local developers and business investors, nominated Rains Committee, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, additional historic properties to the Register. A boom in the and the National Park Service-all agreed tliat a "new preserva- rehabilitation of income-producing historic buildings 00 Mon" was needed iii the United States. Wliile most American curred after tlie Econoniic Recoverv Tax Actof 1981 afforded preservationists in the mid-1960s still devoted tlieir energie s t<) generous tax credits for rehabilitation of National Register preserving single historic landmarks, times were changing. In properties. Iii communities across tlie Uiii ted States si nce urban areas particularly, interest was growitig steadily in 1977, major landniarks and downtown historic districts have preserving whole districts, not just single, isolated buildings. come to life through some 14,000 rehabilitations fostered by There was also growing interest among opinion leaders at tax deductions or credits.<' the National Trust and Park Service in aesthetic and architec- In 1966, a handful of large cities iii the nation regulated tural values in historic preservation. When the National Park alterations and demolitions of local historic properties and Service orgaiiized an Office of Archeology and Historic districts. The national preservation Preservation (OAMP) in 1967 to carry out program indirectly fostered the adoption - - its archeological and preservation man- of additional local preservation ordi- . dates, architects and architectural histori- nances and designation of local historic ans were appointed to head the office itself properties by stimulating greater aware- and several key divisions and sections. The preservation of [the ness of preservation values at the local The OAHP vigorously promoted a "New Nation's] irreplaceable level. The awareness came as the new Preservation,"which stressed historic heritage is iii the public state programs provided niatching grants districts, architectural and aesthetic values, to communities and publicized preserva- intel-est so that its -ilital and adaptation of historic buildings to tion through publications and technical legacil of cultitral, new, economical, and compatible uses. assistance. educational, aesthetic, The "pump-priming" niechanism of Matching grant> to the National Trust iuspirational, economic, and matching grants to the States proved to b for Historic Preven·ation under authoritv energlf benefits will lie a reliable means of inculcating the New of the National I listorie Preservation Act maintained ami emiclied for Preservation emphases in existing state made possible a program iii which the tlie future generations of staff people and inducing State Historic Trust pronioted local ordinances. 1%,servation Officers to hire architects and Am erica its.'1 T]irougli workshops, staff visits to towns architectural historians for new profes- and cities considering local legislation, sional positions. The State staffs formed a -Amended preamble to the and published guidelines, the Trust aided historic preservation "cadre" who taught National Historic many communities during tile 1970s iii lay people iii each State about the National creating historic district and landmark Preseroatioii Act, 1980 Register, architectural significance, and commissions and boards. The Advisory historic districts. Council on Historic Preservation ad- As a result, buildings that local preserva- vanced the concept of local protection through distribution of tionists would have sought to preserve a 1972 booklet on state preservation legislation, including state before 1966 because of their association with famous events or authorization of local preservation ordinances. people were now singled out for retention because of their The 1980 aniendnients to the Historic Preservation Act outstanding architectural designs or their association with authorized the National Park Service and the states to stiniu- famous architects. In addition, nominating historic districts to late directlv the creation of local ]1istoric preservation ordi- the National Register became the focus of the energies of many nances and designations. The certified local government local presen·ationists, rather than seeking to gain public provision of the aniendments authorized local governments recognition exclusively for single landmarks, as had been the to participate in tlie registration and Section 106 aspects of the rule before 1966. national program and offered matching grants to assist The National Historic Preservation Act also intluenced localities iii establishing a local preservation system of decisions on what to preserve through the matching grants protection. Since 1981,632 communities across the nation -thatit autliorized for the-National Trust. Matching Federal have become certified local governments/ grants to the private national preservation organization rose Whether through matching graiits to municipal goverii- from $300,000 in fiscal year 1970 to a high point of 65.4 million ments for preservation projects, tax incentives to local devel- in fiscal year 1979. The Federal moiiey made possible an arr opers, or matching funds to local governments for regulating of educational and technical assistance programs at the Trust. threats to historic properties, the national program has Between 1969 anct 1980, the Trust emphasized broadened affected considerablv the nature and degree of historic environmental preservation concepts to its growing member- preservation at the local level. ship and to potential beneficiaries of such concepts. Supplement 1991 9
. Two of the Trust's most popular and successful efforts at Recovery Tax Act furnished tax incentives for rehabilitating educating the public about the values of the New Preservation countless income-producing historic buildings in adaptive, vero the Main Street demonstration project and the neiglibor- living, and profitable uses. hood conservation program. Main Street showed thi, mer- The post-1966 preservation program also influenced wliv hants of commercial districts in small towns that the restora- preservationists preserved. Under the old preservation on of older commercial buildings could serve as a catalyst program of the Park Service, the mandate of the Historic Sites for revitalizing their businesses. The neighborhood conserva- Act of 1935 had been to preserve national landmarks for the "inspiration and benefit" of the American people. Historic tion project arose during the 1970s in response to a substantial movement of young people back to live in the centers of the buildings were valued chiefly for the patriotism and belief in nation's cities. Old neighborhoods and historic districts often American ideals that they engendered among visitors. overlapped, and the Trust pointed out ways in which historic The living residential district and adaptive use preservation preservation could contribute to the rebirth of older residen- strategies promoted by the new national program marked a tial areas. shift during the 1970s and 1980s away from inspirational and The 1966 national preservation program also influenced educational values toward pragmatic rationales. In an effort to American preservationists in how to preserve. From the broaden the appeal of historic preservation to the American beginnings of the American preservation movement, the public, the Park Service, Advisory Council, State Historic preferred method of saving historic buildings had been to Preservation Officers, and National Trust stressed the contri- convert them into museums. In 1966 nearly every major city bution that rehabilitation of historic buildings could make to and manv small towns boasted at least urban or small town revitalization, one house museum furnished in - · - Preservation leaders praised the period antiques and dedicated to the · adaptive use of historic buildings as an memon' of a distinguished local energy- conservation measure and the citizen. On a larger scale, a handful of rehabilitation of residential historic Sonic who know little about modern museum villages, mainly in the eastern historic preservation sometimes refer districts as a successful technique for United States, sought to present life iii neighborhood conservation. to it as an elitist occupation. There a certain place as it had been lived at a The final major effect of the National particular point in tile past. 'tuas a time wheii this criticism ions Historic Preservation Act on the The 19605 saw a slow revival of probabll apt, but it is long past. preservation movement involved the interest in living in old residential Historic preserpation is now mi identity of those who preserved. In ctions of cities. Georgetown iii occupation for everyone. The whole 1966, most preservationists were rashington, DC, Society Hill in Nation can celebrate the restoration members of local or state historical Philadelphia, and College Hill iii of tlie Statue of Liberty, and the societies, volunteers, and devotees of Providence all demonstrated that residents of a low-income local history. During the 1970% thanks historic districts could be preserved by to the funds funneled to the states, the neighborhood can enjoV the retaining their residential function. number of professional preservation- rehabilitation of their valued Environmentally-minded leaders of ists increased substantially. The states historic homes. An Indiaii tribe can the preservation movement in 1966 and many Federal agencies hired use Section 106 of [the Historic found this phenomenon more practical professional architects, architectural than establishing niuseums iii every Preservation Act] to protect its historians, archeologists, and histori- landmark. Thev also found the sacred remains mid lands, mid a civil ans to meet the dictates of the Historic experience of walking through a engineering organization can use the Preservation Act. district inhabited by contemporary National Register to commemorate The two tax acts of 1976 and 1981 residents to be more satisfying than the great works of its menibers:2 brought large numbers of developers walking through a museum village and investors into the preservation peopled by guides. -"Twenty Years of the National movement for the first time. The The concept of "adaptive use" listing of residential sections of cities as Historic Preservation Act," the 1986 offered a "living" solution to the National Register historic districts and annual report of the Advisory problem of preserving buildings or the Trust's neighborhood conservation Council on Historic Preservation districts that were no longer suited to program helped expand the move- their original purpose, such as facto- ment to include residents of old ries, warehouses, post offices, and neighborhoods and proponents of the stores. The national preservation program set up after 1966 heritage of ethnic and minority groups. The Main Street stressed residential districts and adaptive use of historic prog·ram converted small town business people into preserva- buildings as part of the "New Preservation." During the tionists. 970s workshops and conferences sponsored by the National Throughout the past 25 years, the 1966 legislation and the rust and the National Park Service explained how to "re- program and other initiatives that it has spawned has contrib- cycle" old buildings and conserve old neighborhoods. After uted substantially to a diversification of values and back- 1976, the Tax Reform Act of that year and the 1981 Economic grounds in the American preservation movement. 10 Supplement 1991
Notes 8. From '7[he Purpose of the National Trust,'; in Annual Report Jitiv 1,1963 - Dine 30,1964. National Trust for Historic Preseroation (Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Idistoric Preservation, 1964), p. 26. 1, For an account of the iniptilses, political forces, and personalities that contributed to passage of the National Historic Preservation Act, see James A. Glass, The Begin- 9. With Heritage So Rich: A Report of a Special Committee on nings of a Nezo National Historic Preseroation Prograiti, 1957 to Historic Preservation Under the Auspices of the United States 1969 (Nashville: American Association for State and Local Conference of Mayors\Nith a Grant from the Ford Foundation History, 1990), pp. 3-21. (New York: Random House, 1966), p. 207. 2. The estimate of 100,000 cases was supplied by the Advi- 10. From Introduction to the Advisory Council on 1-listoric Preservation, "The National Historic Preservation Program sory Council on Historic Preservation. Today" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing O ffice, 1976), p. 1. 3. The 800 and 57,000 figures were supplied by the National Register Branch, Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service. 11. 16 USC 470, As Amended, Section 1 (b) (4). 12. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Twenty Years 4. These approximate figures are based on an estimate by of the National Historic Preservation Act: Report to the President the Preservation Assistance Division, Washington office, mid the Congress of the Uuited States (Washington, D.C., 1986), National Park Service, that about 60% of the total grant funds distributed to the States between 1971 and 1981 was p. 57. Ed spent on acquisition and development grants. 5. An exception to the lack of acquisition and development grants during the 1980s occurred in 1983, when the Emer- James A. Glass holds a Ph.D. in architectural history and gency Jobs Act provided funds for preservation grants on a historic preservation planning from Cornell University. He one-tinie basis. is director of the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology at the Indiana Department of Natural Re- 6. Information supplied by the Preservation Assistance sources. Previous positions include staff historian for the Division, National Park Service. Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission, field supenisor for the Historic American Buildings Survey, preservation consultant on private and public development 7. This represents the total of certi fied local governments as of January, 1991, based on information supplied by the projects, and project manager for historic preservation activities at a Greenbelt, Md. consulting firm. Interagency Resources Division, Washington office, National Park Service. Supplement 1991 11