Does anyone know of an instance where not following the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in a rehabilitation project has led to taking a property off the list of National Historic Landmarks, or had any other consequence?
There's a project here that would essentially reconstruct a building that contributes to a NHL --  removing and replacing siding, replacing original windows with vinyl ones, building an addition in the original style that's visible from the facade, all stuff not recommended by the standards.
There are no local historic districts here to be a part of, although the property has a plat note that says the owners are to follow the standards in any project undertaken. Has anyone seen a similar situation? I'm on the board that owns other buildings that contribute to the same NHL, and am looking for good arguments for our neighbors to follow the standards. Thanks



------------------------------
James Poulson
Sitka AK
------------------------------

Hi James,

Here in Chicago, the former National Historic Landmark Soldier Field (home of the Bears) was delisted in 2006 after a particularly unsympathetic demolition and addition/alteration. The building, which is owned by the city park district, undertook a renovation in 2003, but because no federal funds or permits were needed, the project was not subject to 106 review. However, after completion, a 10-member federal advisory committee recommended that it be delisted. Hope this helps your case.

Best,
Alyssa

------------------------------
Alyssa Frystak
Chicago IL
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 04-07-2019 21:38
From: James Poulson
Subject: Reasons to Follow the SI Standards

Does anyone know of an instance where not following the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in a rehabilitation project has led to taking a property off the list of National Historic Landmarks, or had any other consequence?
There's a project here that would essentially reconstruct a building that contributes to a NHL --  removing and replacing siding, replacing original windows with vinyl ones, building an addition in the original style that's visible from the facade, all stuff not recommended by the standards.
There are no local historic districts here to be a part of, although the property has a plat note that says the owners are to follow the standards in any project undertaken. Has anyone seen a similar situation? I'm on the board that owns other buildings that contribute to the same NHL, and am looking for good arguments for our neighbors to follow the standards. Thanks



------------------------------
James Poulson
Sitka AK
------------------------------

Hi -

I direct answer I am not aware of any buildings being removed due to inappropriate "Restoration" work. I am aware of a number of buildings that have been allowed to be demolished because changes have eliminated historic character.

However I, as a designer as well as a preservationist, would suggest that you focus on the poor "Payback" and durability characteristics of many replacement windows on that element of the project, and to go softly with the "Building an addition in the original style that's visible from the facade" as that portion of the standard is, in my reading of the history, an artifact of the dominance of "Modernism" in the architectural community in the 1960s when the Penn Station debacle resulted in passage of the Preservation Act.

It is my observation that this provision has resulted in a great deal of unfortunate design work being done as part of preservation projects, as well as some downright weird work, all of which has the effect of undermining public support for preservation as a strategy. It would be better if designers were allowed to enhance the cohesion and general design integrity of projects they work  on rather than  mandating deliberate schizophrenia, which often undermines design quality. Any knowledgeable observer can generally tell new work from old, despite efforts to match colors, etc., so the whole argument of making buildings "Of their time" is really nonsense, except to the extent that it is propaganda for the "Modernists" who claim that their chosen "Style" is the only architectural expression appropriate to modern times.

It seems to me that it is easier to gain support for work that is generally understood by the public as 'Preserving the traditional character' of areas targeted for preservation.

------------------------------
David Gaby
Preservationist and Designer
Springfield MA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 04-07-2019 21:38
From: James Poulson
Subject: Reasons to Follow the SI Standards

Does anyone know of an instance where not following the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in a rehabilitation project has led to taking a property off the list of National Historic Landmarks, or had any other consequence?
There's a project here that would essentially reconstruct a building that contributes to a NHL --  removing and replacing siding, replacing original windows with vinyl ones, building an addition in the original style that's visible from the facade, all stuff not recommended by the standards.
There are no local historic districts here to be a part of, although the property has a plat note that says the owners are to follow the standards in any project undertaken. Has anyone seen a similar situation? I'm on the board that owns other buildings that contribute to the same NHL, and am looking for good arguments for our neighbors to follow the standards. Thanks



------------------------------
James Poulson
Sitka AK
------------------------------

Original Message------

Hi -

I direct answer I am not aware of any buildings being removed due to inappropriate "Restoration" work. I am aware of a number of buildings that have been allowed to be demolished because changes have eliminated historic character.

However I, as a designer as well as a preservationist, would suggest that you focus on the poor "Payback" and durability characteristics of many replacement windows on that element of the project, and to go softly with the "Building an addition in the original style that's visible from the facade" as that portion of the standard is, in my reading of the history, an artifact of the dominance of "Modernism" in the architectural community in the 1960s when the Penn Station debacle resulted in passage of the Preservation Act.

It is my observation that this provision has resulted in a great deal of unfortunate design work being done as part of preservation projects, as well as some downright weird work, all of which has the effect of undermining public support for preservation as a strategy. It would be better if designers were allowed to enhance the cohesion and general design integrity of projects they work  on rather than  mandating deliberate schizophrenia, which often undermines design quality. Any knowledgeable observer can generally tell new work from old, despite efforts to match colors, etc., so the whole argument of making buildings "Of their time" is really nonsense, except to the extent that it is propaganda for the "Modernists" who claim that their chosen "Style" is the only architectural expression appropriate to modern times.

It seems to me that it is easier to gain support for work that is generally understood by the public as 'Preserving the traditional character' of areas targeted for preservation.

------------------------------
David Gaby
Preservationist and Designer
Springfield MA
------------------------------