HISTORIC DISTRICTS: THEIR ORIGINS CHARACTERISTICS _
AND MECHANISMS FOR PRESERVATION

Thesis for the Degree of M. U. P.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DAVID R. KOENIG
1977

,253

M
LIBRARY “'1
Michigan State:

University A

 
  
 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

HISTORIC DISTRICTS: THEIR ORIGINS, CHARACTERISTICS AND
MECHANISMS FOR PRESERVATION

By

David R. Koenig

The preservation of historic districts as a part of the land-
scape has become a very important need. Change is occurring so quickly
around us that the remnants of our origins and roots are disappearing.
This has brought about a movement to preserve our historic and cul-
tural environment. This movement started as a grassroots effort and
has evolved into a national concern.

This thesis has attempted to explore the basis and future con-
siderations for preservation planning and practices related to historic
districts. This was accomplished in the following steps: (1) A history
of the preservation movement was developed to describe how the concept
of historic districts was created and has evolved. (2) The character-
istics of historic districts were discussed to help explain the diffi-
cult problems which have to be surpassed. (3) Two areas of preser-
vation law were described; first, the theory and legal background of
preservation law, and second, the private and governmental powers
and existing laws which can be used as legal mechanisms to achieve
preservation. (4) The economics of preservation and historic dis-

tricts were presented to show economic viability as the single most

David R. Koenig

important aspect of preservation. Three areas of economic considera-
tions were addressed: historic districts and economic considerations
for preservation, economic considerations against preservation, and
economic mechanisms to accomplish preservation. (5) Finally, the
potential impacts, cautions, and implications of historic districts
were discussed. This last part of the thesis addressed the issues
and problems discovered in the research and writing in the earlier
parts of the thesis.

The conclusions of the research and the thesis are:

--From a purely patriotic concern, historic preservation has been
evolving to an environmental and social concern for our culture.
The transition of historic preservation toward historic districts
and amenity conservation has started to surface and be considered
as important and necessary. Traffic, air pollution, noise, visual
disruption, and unsympathetic architecture are becoming concerns
of residents in unique neighborhoods. People have always been
concerned with their surroundings, but the type and degree of
that concern has been changing.

--With the successful preservation of historic districts in large
cities, there is a major dichotomy between preservation and the
displacement of the poor. Preservation of an area raises
property values and rents forcing the poor to pay or move.

--Preservation needs long-range community support to be successful.

--Each district is different and dynamic. Districts need to be

individually studied and a preservation strategy for each developed.

David R. Koenig

--The zones of transition around historic districts need to be
studied and regulations developed. The character of a district
is first destroyed at its edges where it is most vulnerable.

--The definition of historic has been too narrow. It should be
expanded to include conservation areas which have viable ethnic
or community growth significance.

~--Legal mechanisms for preservation, as other land use controls,
confront the laissez-faire attitudes of citizens toward govern-
mental regulation of private property rights.

--In the long run, historic preservation will be based upon
economic feasibility rather than on historic, aesthetic, and
legal feasibility.

-—The historic preservation of historic districts should be incor-
porated into an environmental impact and social review process.
When creating a historic district, an analysis should be made to
review the social and environmental effects of such an under-
taking whether they are beneficial or harmful.

--The preservation of historic districts should be incorporated
into the community's planning efforts. There is a need to
interface all the planning participants which includes the
different levels of government and the citizens.

—-The urgency for preservation of historic districts is essential

and cannot be stressed too much.

HISTORIC DISTRICTS: THEIR ORIGINS, CHARACTERISTICS AND

MECHANISMS FOR PRESERVATION

BY

David R. Koenig

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING

School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture

1977

.7“,
‘ '5‘ i5,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As one finishes a project, such as this thesis, one reflects
back to the numerous people who assisted in the completion of the
study. First, my thanks to my thesis committee: Doctor John R.
Mullin, Professor John J. Burroughs, Doctor John Kern, and Professor
Stanford S. Farness who graciously gave both praise and criticism.
They gave me guidance when I needed it most.

Special thanks to John Mullin who gave me an endless effort
and was a valuable resource. To John Kern who volunteered his own
time, as a friend, to help me and was always a great encouragement
and source. To Jay Burroughs who helped me to grow as an individual.

My dearest thanks go to the Silver Fox and the loving Queer
Butt who were always available when I needed someone to exchange
ideas and experiences. Last, thanks to the typist of the rough
draft from the wilds of the West whose help was most appreciated and

treasured.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Reasons for Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Why Preserve? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Benefits of Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Forces Against Preservation . . . . 7

Scope of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll

Ila BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE PRESERVATION MOVEMENT . . . 13

Patriotic Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Civic Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Architectural Significance of Buildings . . . . . 18
Standards for Selecting Buildings for Preservation . . 19
Building Groups and Their Setting Importance . . . . . 21
The Creation of Historic Districts .1. . . . . . . . . 23
Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 26
Urban Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Preservation of the l960s and After . . . . . . . . . 38

III. CHARACTERISTICS OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . 44
An Exploration of Historic Districts . . . . . . . . . 44

Background of Historic Districts . . . . . . . . . 44
What is a Historic District? . . . . . . . . . . 46
Reasons for Establishing Historic District

Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Problems with Historic Districts . . . . . . . . . 50
Criteria for Historic District Acknowledgment . . 53

Historic Districts and Their Survival in Cities . . . S4
Aesthetics in Historic Districts . . . . . . . . . . . 56

iii

CHAPTER Page

Criteria for Development in a Historic District - . . 57
Determining the Boundaries of Historic Districts . . . 60
Why Live in a Historic District? . .-. . . . . . . . . 63

.IV. LEGAL MECHANISMS OF PRESERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 65
Property Rights . . . ' . . 65
Court Approval of Regulating Private Property for
the PUblic Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Legal Background for Preservation Law . . . . . . . 73
Bases of Attacks on Historic Preservation Law . . . . 75
The Taking Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Public Trust a New Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Preservation Legal Powers . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . 82

Private Land Use Controls for Preservation . . . . 83

Preservation Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Development Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Covenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 87
Governmental Preservation Powers . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Eminent Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Police Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Zoning and Historic Preservation . . . . . . . 91

Historic District Ordinances . . . . . . . . . 91
Taxation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

V. ECONOMIC MECHANISMS AND CONSIDERATIONS IN PRESERVATION . . 95

Economics of Historic District Zoning . . . . . . . . 95
Historic District Stabilization and Improved

Property Values . . . . . . . . . . 97
Other Economic Benefits of Historic District
Preservation . . . . . . . . . 100
Economic Considerations Against Preservation . . . . . 101
Land Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Increased Rents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 103
Building Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Barrier Free Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Restrictions on Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘106

Taxation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

iv

CHAPTER Page

Property Tax . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . 108
Income Tax . ... . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . 112

Economic Mechanisms to_Accomplish Preservation . . . . 113

Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Tax Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Restrictive Covenants . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Adaptive Re- Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Revolving Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. 118

TranSfer Development Rights . . . . . . . . . . . 121

VI. POTENTIAL IMPACTS, CAUTIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS OF I
HISTORIC DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Costs Versus Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . 126
Historic Districts and the Environmental

Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Preservation and the Poor . . . . . . . . . . . 128
The Question of Historic Districts and

Neighborhood Conservation . . . . . . . . . 132

Is Establishing Historic Districts Enough? . . . . . . 134
Historic Districts and Preservation Integrated

Into Planning, Environmental, and Social

Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Planning and Historic Districts . . . . . . . 137
Integration of Historic Districts Into An
Environmental and Social Analysis

Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

VII. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Preservation Evolving Into An Environmental and

Social Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . 142

The Poor and Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Community Support Essential . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Each District Is Different and Dynamic . . . . . . . 146

Zones of Transition Around Historic Districts . . . . 147

Creating Conservation Areas Which Have Viable
Ethnic or Community Growth Significance (Or
The Definition of Historic Has Been Too
Narrow) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 148

Legal Mechanisms . . . . . . . 148
Historic Districts Need To Be A Self- -Supporting
Economic Benefit to be Feasible . . . . . . . . 149

Preservation Should Be Incorporated Into An
Environmental Impact and Social Review
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

CHAPTER Page

Planning and Historic Districts . . . . . . . . . . . 150
A Call for the Urgency of Preservation. . . . . . . . 151

FOOTNOTES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
APPENDICES
APPENDIX

1. KEY DEFINITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

II. FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONSHIPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2171

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Federal Legislation and Important State and Local
Preservation Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2. Preservation Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . 138

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

It's one-thing to save a single building, but it's something
else again to preserve a place. To begin with, it's more compli-
cated. Everything that has to be done to save an individual
building gets multiplied in saving an area: the space as well
as buildings that give an area its character must be identified,
interdependent uses must be worked out for them; the practical
strategies are more intricate because there are more parties
involved. And while one building may conceivably be out of use
while it is being restored, an entire area can't be taken out
of service. It is a knotty problem, partly because a place, as
opposed to a single building, is apt to loom large in the public
mind. Saving one takes clairvoyance (to read the public mind),
political acumen (because the decisions often end up in the
political arena), a grasp of guerrilla tactics (for the in-
fighting that comes with preservation projects) and a touch of
paranoia (because the threats to a place can be far more subtle
than the threat to a building).1

Statement of Problems

 

Over a third of the 16,000 structures listed in the Historic
American Building Survey (started in 1933) have been destroyed.2 The
present generation has moved through historic areas of our cities and
has erased irreplaceable pieces of our culture and history off the
face of the earth. The urgency for preservation of our cultural and
historical past has been created by a tremendously increasing loss
of "a sense of place."

The factors which have combined to create the urgent need fora

developing ways to preserve the past are numerous and varied. These

factors include: rapid urbanization, suburban development, the inter-.
state highway system, the deterioration of buildings, the spread of
blightin the old and often historic areas of cities, economic pres-
sures causing displacement, and insensitive tax laws.3

As a nation we have been building new, rather than considering
the options of restoration and rehabilitation. Europe on the other
extreme has been more concerned with restoration and rehabilitation.
The nations of Europe are working with their existing built environ-
ment rather than building completely new. This policy not only
preserves the historical sense and character of an area, but saves
natural resources. In France, Norway, and Sweden listed historical
and architectural buildings are protected by stiff laws as opposed
to the United States, where listing a landmark does not necessarily
insure its preservation.4 Europe is further ahead in preserving its
cultural resources because there is a commitment towards preservation
which America lacks and needs. The scarceness of information and the
lack of time did not allow this thesis research to go into the
European preservation experience any further.

Efforts of the preservation movement in the United States
have been hurt because the prevalent attitude was to discard and
abandon rather than preserve. Reasons behind this were the tremendous
space requirements of the automobile and the obsessive commitment to
private property. ’As the country becomes more urbanized and sub-
urbanized we are beginning to realize the advantages of holding on
to our past, certainly not all of it, but that which we can selec-

tively preserve.

Some preservation has occurred in the United States independent
of any conscious historic preservation effort. This has happened in
certain areas because of three unique historical situations. The
resort and summer homes of the wealthy are left in some areas to
remind us of an elegant time past. Other cities and towns have been
preserved because they were bypassed by urban development and major
transportation routes. At one time being isolated and left alone was
thought to be an insult; now it is considered to be a blessing.
Finally, older parts of cities have been left intact by poor people.
These people did not have the money to renovate or tear down sections
.of cities and build new. Consequently, older substantial sections
of some cities remain much like they were years before.

The problem with existing historic areas and landmarks is
not that they exist, but they need to be preserved. Preservation
efforts up to now have been sketchy and crisis orientated. Imple-
mentation of preservation techniques have been slow and lacking
effective control. Solutions must be found and instituted through a

comprehensive and integrated planning effort.

Reasons for Study

 

Why Preserve?

 

Our problem is to acknowledge that historic conservation is
but one aspect of the much larger problem, basically an environ—
mental one, of enhancing-~as perhaps developing for the first
time--the quality of life for people. Especially is this so for
those people who in increasing numbers struggle daily to justify
an increasingly dismal existence in a rapidly deteriorating urban
environment . . . . We have got to look beyond our traditional
preoccupation with architecture and history, to break out of our
traditional elitist intellectual and aesthetic mold and turn our
preservation energies to a broader and more constructive social

purpose as well. We have got to look beyond the problem of
architectural artifacts, and think about how to conserve urban
neighborhoods for human purposes . . . . If we can achieve
this, to some extent, at least, the architecture and the history
will fall into place.

Historic preservation has been given a new amplitude in our
built environment by new levels of consciousness. A new way of
thinking has been evolving as to what constitutes a historic resource.
This evolution has been from a single significant site used more
often than not for a museum, to economically viable areas which also
preserve a character. The areas become more than a token site on
the landscape, by defining a place, The historical environment in a
community can be developed as a resource.

Another evolution in conscious raising has been the recog-
nition of the total environment as important, not just individual
elements. It is being discovered that the preservation of the his-
toric environment and the conservation of the natural environments
are both urgently needed.

The importance of preservation is fundamentally related to
our history and culture. The sites of our earliest cities were
chosen because they were geographically and economically superior
to other locations. Harbors, rivers, and places with abundant
resources provided locational advantages. These locations today are
also important. Cities such as Pittsburgh, New York, Boston, St.
Louis, New Orleans, and San Francisco were located in important

sites. Today these cities have older areas that contain artifacts

representing the significance of their location.

Another reason why we need to preserve is that we cannot afford
the throwaway city and economic concepts of the past. We are seeing
limits to our natural resources and growth capacities. New building
construction involves additional land consumption. Vital agricultural
lands and open spaces are being c0vered with uncontrolled growth of
suburban homes, shopping centers, and relocating industries.6
Americans need to develop into more than a consuming society, by
becoming aware of future problems brought about by needs (a gap

between demand and supply).

Benefits of Preservation

 

When a person thinks about the concept of benefit, right away
one thinks of self and mOmentary benefits. How can I benefit or how
much money can I earn from the transaction? In order to survive in
our society, a preservation project must be economically feasible or
be supported by a supplemental source.’ For preservation to survive
and continue to generate cultural returns over time, it must be of
economic benefit and self-supporting. The question arises to how
much profit should be derived when taking into consideration aesthetic,
social and educational benefits. What is needed is a change in
attitude, a new reality that looks into the past and makes remnants
of the past important.

The reality of the mid-19705 has been one that does_look
into the past. This has caused a dramatic revision in the public's
attitude toward both the built environment and the natural environ-
ment. It is important to talk about this change in attitude because

some of the benefits from historic preservation are attitudinally

linked. One of the most important events leading to this change was
the public outcry of the late 19605 against environmental degradation
which for the first time was vocalized on a massive scale.
This concern did not limit itself to the air, the ocean, and the
forest, but was extended to embrace the idea of conservation of
the whole environment. The concept of reusing old buildings, of
rejuvenating old neighborhoods, and of revitalizing older cities
was to take on a new significance.

At the same time we were looking back at the 1950 Urban
Revewal days as failures. We looked at what we had destroyed, re-
created, and then wondered if we had not made serious mistakes.

After the decade of social change in the 1960s, a belief in conser-
vation and preservation emerged. The benefits of reusing older
buildings were being recognized. It was shown that reusing older
buildings usually required less time and capital than to start com-
pletely new buildings. Not only is the revitalization of sound struc-
tures and viable neighborhoods less expensive, but rehabilitation is
less socially disorganizing and less costly than destruction of
building with replacement. Other benefits include the use of his-
toric structures as the basis for economic redevelopment plans and
to increase property values which creates a greater tax base for the
community.

In summary, when one examines the benefits of historic
preservation, one must keep in mind that there are economic, as well
as noneconomic benefits. As attitudes change, the proportion between
values and economics will change.

Values change over time; structures that once were not

significant are now considered historically valuable. When considered

aesthetically and historically valuable, structures are saved by
people for less economic return.' The awakening of the 19605 with
the resulting enlightenment of the 19705 is an important attitudinal

change for the future of historic preservation.

Forces Against Preservation

 

Increasingly, private groups and governmental agencies have
recognized the importance of preservation as a part of the urban
fabric. But attempts to preserve buildings are still met by a number
of different factions. Landowners feel that regulation of private
property unconstitutionally takes away their fee simple rights.r
Developers also believe that their fee simple rights are unconsti-
tutionally taken away in regulation of private property, but are
able with money to lobby against preservationists and their land use
regulation tools. The lack of information available to neighborhoods
or concerned citizens on the mechanisms of preservation and a
resulting fear that their property values will go down if any
restrictions are enforced, are also realities preservationists have
to deal with.

There are many other forces against historic preservation.
Some are attitudinal which place all projects ahead of preservation.
In the past, urban renewal and highway construction have been such
projects. These were rationalized as progress and with the idea that
new is better. But, they actually turned into destructive forces
'many times instead of being productive.

The laws of property and building construction in the past

have favored the private landowners in the conflict between private

0

gain versus community benefit. The economics of real estate, which
dictate a higher return of income, have been destructive to the
preservation cause. This along with insensitive tax laws have been
the cause for tearing down economically and structurally sound
buildings for higher profit returns. Also, agencies be they local,
state, or federal have been very ineffectual in creating preservation
programs that dealt with the problems of preserving historic buildings
and areas.8
When writing about forces against preservation, one must also
discuss the concept of land. It is important to remember that build-
ings are tied to the land. Unlike moveable objects such as coins and
art, historical and architectural buildings are tied to the location
they are placed. The value of that land changes as cities develop
andgrow older. The surroundings in which a building or historic
area is located changes dramatically and they cannot be moved easily
like pieces of art or coins. A movement to preserve historic build-
ings was needed because they are artifacts which can be moved only
at a great cost and loss of site integrity. The characteristic of a
building being set to a location makes its preservation very inflex-
ible.
Another force against preservation is the lack of city

planning.

A community preservation program cannot be successful if it is

founded in fighting brush fires. Individual skirmishes over

landmarks and districts must be an integral part of a system of

well reasoned goals and objectives. So long as preservation is

approached on a piece meal basis, objectives will be heard over
and over as the same problems resurface.9

The problem is not only a lack of city planning, but a lack of aware-
ness of city environment issues. Exemplary is the Storm King Power
Project and the scenic damage it could have caused to the Hudson River.
However less is said about the lagk_of city planning which allows a
sky5craper to dwarf an historic district and change the character of
an area. Never addressed is the effect such a project has on the
peOple in the area. The political and governmental system catches
environmentally aware persons between issues by blaming them for the
cities decline after they have tampered with a project against the
wishes of the government.

The conflict between progress and preservation appears more
often in the case of historic areas than individual monuments. An
individual monument of great patriotic or cultural significance in
isolated context is easy to identify and to define for preservation.
The identification of a district or area is not as clearly defineable.
District definitions constitute a larger area and usually are not
justifiable in terms of great patriotic and cultural significance.

The larger scale of the district or neighborhood effort multiplies
"the traditional preservation problems of legal control mechanisms,

financing, and impact on affected citizens."10

Scope of Study

 

.—"_ V
\

.'\ .I
The principle objectiveswgf this thesis are910.studymthe.

fi‘tvflyl

historical district designations as a mechanismflfor~historiempreser:

‘ a

_hvation andfto_analyze the use.of_police power and other implementatipnq,

mechanisms to preserve historic areas and districts as part of th

TM PH‘w—’ 1* ' ~l

American landscape.

10

The use of historic districting as a tool for historic
preservation has raised a number of questions and problems to the
planner as preservationist. Preservationists desire tighter control
over the use of property and land. They would like to keep the
aesthetic and historical character of districts through control and
at the same time make their preservation economically feasible. In
contrast, the developer does not desire restrictive controls. He .
would rather be able to do as he pleases without regulation. The
individual citizen and land owner within a potential or existing
district is often caught on one side or the other. Some want the
character of the district preserved and others do not want to be
restricted by preservation control mechanisms.

To study the concept of h15tor1c dlstIICISWthfi_£hfi§lfiwfllll

'“I-au- ("mar- H .m v‘p 7 d, .7,” -v'_

start inIChapterowh with an historical summary and background

-..H—- H“- . “We.”

attempt1ng to place the historic district designation within an m.

dew—Lb

evolutignmgfwevents. These events have raised questions and skepti-

cism about using the historic district designation as a preservation

rJ-"- .......- -.-—‘

tool. {hlth third chapter, characteristics of historic districts

Nags-r" ”WW-Pt .-q' -

 

“‘u‘ 3.31. u..'

will be examined, trying to develop some type of descriptive analysis.

M.

The fourEHWchapter will discuss legal mechanisms of preservation.

w».._.

VIM-fl

 

0'

 

 

— a“. 1......“- . ...... ...-v

Public and private legal mechanisms will be reviewed along with
historic district ordinance characteristics and zoning. _§ggnomic
considerationswandwmechanisms_wi11 be reviewed and discussed in
#9... wwwww fly I ‘ ‘
hapter FiveFi Economic viability being an important aspect of his-

toric preservation makes this chapter very important. From the

above study, potential impacts, cautions, and implications of

ll

historic areas will be analyzed in Chapter Six taking into account
future consideration of development on the American landscape. The
conclusions and criteria developed in the previous chapters will then
be used to summarize considerations for historic districts. The
viability of historic districts using economic and legal tools to
preserve them along with social considerations will be discussed.

The reasons for this thesis are the need to address preser-
vation problems and to accomplish preservation. Preservation of
historic districts and buildings is an urgent need, this cannot be

emphasized too much. The longer we wait, the more we have to lose.

Methodology

 

An increasing interest in the built and natural environment
has expanded the definition of the word environment. This expanded
view must include the physical, social, economic, and aesthetic
aspects of our daily lives. A broadened interest in the environment
has been an outgrowth of an educational development. Society as a
whole is becoming more aware of the problems of our environment.

The thesis research has evolved out of the expanded definition of
environment. The increased interest of the different aspects of
our environment also played an important role.

The study of historic districts as a specific area was
chosen because of the evolution towards increasing utilization of
them and their controversial nature. _Ihe study was launched 1hrough
correspondence and interviews with various people interested 1n

historic preservation, and then continued through an extensive library

12

researchflandwbogk review Of literature on the subject. From this

procedure the following paper was developed.

CHAPTER II

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE PRESERVATION MOVEMENT

In the United States the first holdings were preserved for
patriotic significance. The buildings of the Revolutionary War were
being threatened with destruction and so isolated grass—roots move-
ments were organized to save them. The centennial celebration and the
crowding of the urban industrial slum gave people a civic awareness
for their environment. Next, buildings of architectural signifi-
cance were considered important. The preservation movement considered
architectural style and aesthetics of individual buildings important
for preservation.

Williamsburg, Virginia in 1926 became the first area preser-
vation. This third phase in preservation brought about the con-
sideration of preserving a community as a whole or a large area
thereof. In 1931, the first historic district, Charleston, South
Carolina was formed. The federal government got involved with the
preservation movement with the creation of the Historic American
Building Survey in 1933. The federal government got more involved
with preservation by passing a number of acts related to preservation.
Some of the acts were beneficial and some very harmful and destruc-
tive. The urban renewal program destroyed many areas of major cities
with the philosophy of old is bad, new is better, resulting in

13

l4

bulldozing sections of cities. Then in the 19605 we started to learn
from our past mistakes and were becoming more environmentally sen-
sitive. The gap between the preservationist, environmentalist, and
the people oriented neighborhood conservationists began to lessen

with the growing magnitude and seriousness of urban problems.

Patriotic Orientation

 

The preservation movement's ideology was formed in Europe.

John Ruskin and William Morris in England believed that restoration

W:W¢".r’1“' ..- v

in the strictest sense was an impossibility and so also preservation.

Ruskin in his book the Seven Lamps of Architecture (1849), said that

 

restoration was a form of destruction. King Louis Philipee of France
appointed an Inspector of Monuments in 1830 to carry out a building
inventory. The completed inventory reserved the government's right
to prevent any change of privately owned historic buildings. In
France during this period an architect named Viollent-le-Due was
doing restoration work. From his beliefs the idea was developed that
a proper restoration could actually take a building to a state of
completeness thatnever had existed after its original construction.
In Sweden, Dr. Artur Hazelius began in 1891 to put together the
world's first outdoor museum in a Stockholm park. This park was
called "Skancen" and was a collection of Sweden's cultural history
featuring old buildings. This concept of museums spread through
Northern Europe and then into the United States.11 I
As can be seen, the American preservation movement did not

develop in isolation. Ideals for such a movement had already been

developed and discussed in Europe. However, pe0ple in America started

15

to save buildings as a result of a need. That need was to save
buildings of patriotic significance. Up to the mid-nineteenth
century, revolutionary war structures had not really been considered
greatly important to preserve. But with the coming of the centennial
observance in 1876 and since numerous buildings from that era were
being threatened with destruction, 3 need was perceived by many.

The Hasbrouch House in Newburgh, New York, can be considered
the first accomplishment of the American preservation movement.

This building was Washington's headquarters for the last two
years of the Revolutionary War. There was no organized preservation
effort, but Washington's headquarters became the first historic
house museum after being purchased by the State of New York in 1850.
Independence Hall which received support from the City of Philadelphia
is another building which exemplifies governmental assistance in
preservation. These two efforts laid a framework for other municipal
and state preservation in New England.

In sharp contrast, there was the failure of the City of
Boston and the State of Massachusetts to save the Hancock Mansion.
This failure created a distrust involving legislative machinery among
many New Englanders which persisted many years. However, the
destruction of the Hancock House contributed more to the preservation
movement as a whole than if it were still standing. Over the next
fifty to sixty years the Hancock House was a rallying point for
preservationists..

While scattered attempts were going on in the 18505, a great

national movement was taking place which was to establish a pattern

16

of success for preservationists over the next several decades. The
most successful effort during the movement was started in March of
1856, by.a group of women.12 Their goal was to purchase and maintain
Mt. Vernon, the home of Washington.

The individual most responsible for the Mt. Vernon effort was
Miss Ann Pamela Cunningham, who made it her life's work. The most
important aspect of this effort was the national organization that
was set up to educate people on raising funds. This organization
top down, went from Miss Cunningham as Regent, to a head for each
state organization (Vice-Regents), to women managers for every county,
town, or village in each state. This comprehensive organizational
approach was the first of its type and was used as a model for other
organizations and their efforts.

Part of the credit for the Mt. Vernon effort must be given to
Mr. E. Everett of Massachusetts, a former Senator and well-known
orator. He was whole—heartily behind the cause and became its
spokesman. He gave lectures about Washington and Mt. Vernon and the
money raised went to the Mt. Vernon Ladies Association. Their efforts
gave the United States a national shrine and an organizational frame-

work for effecting change by the people.

Civic Awareness

 

The first significant preservation in the Middle Atlantic
States after the Civil War involved the enclosure of a number of
elegant 18th and 19th century houses to become a part of Fairmont Park
in expanding Philadelphia. The idea of Fairmont Park originated when

the City of Philadelphia constructed wateerrks on the Schuylkill

17

River. The park was built around these waterworks shortly after the
War of 1812. A second addition, containing a house called Lemar Hill,
was added in 1844 to protect the water supply from commercial pol-
lution. Gradually over the years the Lemar Hill section became a
place reserved for public use. In 1867, the enabling legislation

to create Fairmont Park stated that the "idea in originating the
scheme for a park of great extent and beauty was to provide a place

in which the poorer classes of . . . fellow citizens and their fam-
ilies might find health and recreation."13

This attitude indicates the beginnings of a civic mindedness
that rose up against the crowding of urban industrial slums. Quality
of life was being considered as beneficial and valuable. A score of
notable houses were saved from the uncontrolled growth of Philadelphia
due to the sentiments for Fairmont Park.

The Centennial celebration in Philadelphia generated enthusi-
asm for the built environment.14 This enthusiasmaroused more
interest in the American Revolution, than old buildings as such. But
old buildings also could not fail to attract some attention. The
centennial celebration made people aware of a past worth study.15
This interest was more descriptive than preservation Oriented. Authors
of articles in the 18805 and 18905 did not actively support the
preservation movement, but wrote to simply educate the public on

interesting buildings. The romantic elements of history for each

structure were stressed in these articles.

18

Architectural Significance of Buildings_

 

New England as a region was known as the home of militant
private preservation groups. With the destruction of the Hancock
House, people of New England seldom turned to governmental agencies
for support in their preservation work.16 Out of this region known
for its negative New England attitude towards governmental help and
for its historical societies, came a man named Mr. William Summer
Appleton.. Appleton maintained his New England feelings, but at the
same time approached a new way of thinking about what one should
preserve. In 1916 he said, "It is much to be regretted that the
preservation of the best local architecture is not yet considered in
the normal work of these local societies."17

Appleton's request was directed towards local preservation
groups not only because of his distrust in government preservation,
but also because state agencies at this time tended to become
repositories for historical materials. These state agencies were
near centers of population where historical materials were available.
At this time local historical groups were more interested in preserv-
ing buildings than were state agencies.

A patriotic emphasis emerged from the romantic tradition of
architecture, and architectural restoration became the principle focus
of the movement. Appleton started the Society for the Preservation
of New England Antiquities in 1910. This was a regional preservation
society, but it reported the local feelings in the preservation
movement. This movement was created because Appleton had a deep

concern for the rapidly disappearing antiquities and their architectural

19

value. In 1918, Appleton proposed an amendment to the Massachusetts
state constitution making the preservation and maintenance of old
houses "a public use."

The Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities
led by Mr. Appleton was the only group that thought architectural
importance was greater than an association with a patriotic person or
happening. So Appleton was chiefly concerned with preserving build-
ings by any means possible rather than exhibiting them for inspira-
tional purposes. Appleton expressed the validity of architectural'
beauty or uniqueness, unrelated to historical association, as a
criteria for preservation and he sought to preserve buildings for
continued use rather than for exhibition. This new notion helped to
keep buildings in current use, as a part of American life, rather
than making them into museums and isolating them as objects of
inspirational esteem. This ideology of Appleton's and the Society
for the Preservation of New England Antiquities had far reaching

impact in the future of the preservation movement.

Standards for Selecting Buildings for Preservation

 

Over the years standards used in choosing buildings to be
preserved have changed. Initially, it was patriotic inspiration,
then local and civic price and finally architectural or aesthetic
enjoyment. A hard and fast rule by some was that a building should
have outstanding historical and cultural significance in the nation,
state, region or community in which it existed. These types of

buildings were made into historic home museums by the thousands and

20

supported by taxes and historical societies. But what standards were
used? I

The majority of preservationists did not spend much time
thinking about standards in selecting buildings to save. For the
most part the main reason for preservation was the immediate danger of
destruction. Only when a structure was threatened did people begin to
try to save it. But beyond this, the reason for saving the building
generally involved a mixture of inspirational and practical advan-
tages. The patriotic criteria for a house museum was the reminder of
hardships suffered by revered anCestors or a beautiful example of the
peace and harmony of the complicated past. This also involved an
aspect of pride, be it ancestral or local.

Beginning in the 19005 it became evident that popular his-
toric buildings were tourist attractions. Characteristic of this
time, old buildings were saved by means of emotional appeal. People
lacked a sense of awareness of the built environment. Even though
Appleton started an awareness of architectural and aesthetic con-
siderations for preservation, not everyone shared these considerations.
Aesthetics carried little weight with politicians. An example is
when the Boston Society of Architecture wanted the Massachusetts
legislature to save the Bulfinch State House in 1896. They said that
money could only be voted "as a matter of sentiment" not aesthetics.18
A. Lawrence Kocher, chairman of the A.I.A. Preservation Committee,
gave the general sentiments of the pre-l926 attitude.

The public is not readily persuaded where matters of beauty

are concerned. People appreciate old buildings for sentimental
reasons, such as that they might have housed General Washington

for a night. They do not understand, nor treasure, them for 19
their construction or understanding architectural value . .

21

Building Groups and Their Setting Importance

 

The third major impact on the preservation movement was the
restoration and rebuilding of Williamsburg, Virginia. This third
phase brought about the consideration of preserving a community as a
whole or a large area thereof. This idea sprang from the dream of
Reverend William A. R. Goodwin and the financial support of John D.
Rockefeller, Jr.

In the late 19205 Dr. Goodwin convinced Mr. Rockefeller of the
urgency of saving historic Williamsburg, since it was one of the last
colonial era towns left. Land was secretly bought up and in June
1928 the intentions of the Williamsburg Holding Corporation (now
Williamsburg Restoration Inc.) were revealed. Architects Perry,

Shaw, and Hepburn of Boston were hired and Arthur A. Shurcliff, also
of Boston, was placed in charge of landscape restoration and city
planning. Buildings were both restored and reconstructed in an
attempt to bring back colonial Williamsburg. The restoration of
Williamsburg brought to the historic preservation movement the idea
of saving and reconstructing buildings in relation to their neigh—
borhoods while'trying to restore an entire town.

Unusual circumstances made Williamsburg possible. First, the
unprecedented financial support of Mr. Rockefeller who donated 68.5
million dollars before his death in 1960. Thus, by 1969, 80 buildings
had been restored and 4S reconstructed at a cost of $80 million.20
,Second, Williamsburg was relatively small and was in an isolated
place. Industrial growth passed it which created an atmosphere where

time had all but stopped. Today, Williamsburg is a museum piece of

22

18th century fantasy in which the life style of that time has been
put behind a glass case with no general application for implementation
to other projects of today.

The example of Williamsburg and its astounding success (the

project now draws one million visitors a year) led in time to
the creation of other museum villages such as Old Salem in North
Carolina, Myst1c Seaport in Connecticut, andZPlimoth Plantation
and Old Sturbr1dge V1llage 1n Massachusetts.

Another effOrt to save a group of buildings and their sur-
roundings was happening in Deerfield, Massachusetts. Through the
joint effort of the Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association (a histor-
ical society founded in 1870), the Deerfield Academy (a boys school
of national reputation), and the Heritage Foundation, an attempt was
made to be sensitive andaware of the historical and architectural
character of the town. The objective of these organizations was not
an antiquarian restoration to any particular period (for everything
from the 17th to the 20th century was to be found in Deerfield),
but the maintenance of the town in which people live, teach, and
learn; They were trying to create a place where the best of the past
was enhanced by thoughtful improvement and additions.

Williamsburg was preserved for exhibition, while Deerfield was
being planned and saved for continued daily life. But both were
efforts to recreate a past that is very different from the pressing,
growing, and surrounding present. Williamsburg can be described as
a dream obscuring reality. In other cities where this dream.is not
possible and reality is present, other means were deve10ped for

preservation. People wanted to save noteworthy buildings for the

more practical idea of continued use, sometimes for original use,

23

but other times with adaptations that were compatible with the
architectural character of the area. These new feelings evolved
into another stage of the preservation movement where private initi-
ative was being augmented and strengthened by public legislation,

particularly for the creation of historic districts.

The Creation of Historic Districts

 

In the late 19205 and the 19305 three events occurred to
change American thinking about historic preservation. First, the
restoration of Williamsburg (previously talked about), second, the
initiation of historic district legislation, and third, the entry
of the federal government into the field of preservation with the
creation of the Historic American Building Survey (HABS).22- Before
Williamsburg Americans were preserving monuments, not character. We
recorded the course of American architectural development through
the identification of material and regional "greats." We were in
the process of stylistic identification and using the concept value
of "antiquities” (the quality of being old).

The acceleration and broadening range of preservation activity
was perhaps best demonstrated by the spread of historic district
architectural controls. The historic preservation tools of archi-
tectural controls are a 20th century concept to expand historic
preservation.methods. A historic district is simply an extension of
zoning under the control of police power. It aims to control external
appearances of a building without restricting ownership or use.

When establishing a historic district, an exact definition of the

24

district is required. A commission or architectural board reviews
exterior changes on buildings designated within districts.

The historic district was a new concept first started in the
early 19305. The historic district concept was initiated with the
general public benefit in mind. The idea was to restrict more than
ever the ability of the private citizen to change his property
exterior within designated neighborhoods.

This intensification of the police power, through selective local
zoning . . . spawned many such other areas, referred to in their
county as historic districts, and gave rise to the necessity to
develop new attitudes and definitions of preservation as a form
of city planning. Into the roux of historicity have thus been
stirred architectonic excellence, spatial relationships and
street furniture, among others. Out of this matrix has developed
our current concern for that which the French call ambiental
preservation, the British, conservation areas, and the Americans,
old and historic districts.
Until this time preservation efforts were privately sponsored,
locally initiated, and focused their attention towards a single
structure to be used as house museums. The acceleration and broaden-
ing of the range of preservation activity was perhaps best demon—
strated by the spread of historic district architectural controls.

The first historic district was established in 1931 in

Charleston, South Carolina and deve10ped with a land use and zoning

‘plan for the city. The action was backed by local citizen groups.

The most well known being the Society for the Preservation of Old
Dwellings. Public hearings were held with no serious opposition to
the district, so the city council voted to include the "Old City
District" into the city's zoning ordinance.24

The next historic district was the Vieux Carre' historic

district in New Orleans, Louisiana, established in 1937. The New

25

Orleans Commission Council used the state enabling legislation for
architectural control to define by ordinance the Vieux Carre' district
of the city. The Council created an advisory commission for the
district because the encroachment of modern business was gradually
disturbing and destroying the historical spirit of Vieux Carre'.

From the 19305 until after World War II there was little or
no activity in furthering the develOpment of historic area preser-
vation laws. There were few isolated examples of concern in historic
preservation across the nation. But interest in historic districts
was revived shortly after World War II when Alexandria, Virginia,
passed an historic district ordinance. By 1966, the total number of
historic districts blossomed to over 60 and included approximately
half the states. More than 125 have been established since that
time. The legal right to establish historic districts will be covered
in Chapter Three of the thesis.

The important point to make about historic districts is that
the ones designated in New Orleans and Charleston are very unique
areas. They are not typical areas of cities in our country and so
they were created as historic districts earlier than other less
historic areas of cities. At the same time, there are areas of cities
that need saving, but ones not as historically and unusually unique
as the previously mentioned districts. These areas use established
historic districts as examples to learn from their past accomplish-

ments and mistakes.

26

Legislative History

 

As mentioned before one of the three events in the late 19205
and the early 19305 to change America's thinking towards historic
preservation was federal government legislation establishing the
Historic American Building Survey in 1933 (HABS). This was not the
first federal legislation related to historic observation, but up
to this time the most influential. The federal legislation is listed
in chronological order with a brief description in the following

discussion.

Antiquities Act of 1906

 

This is the first real national preservation statute giving
the President the right to establish national monuments on governmental
land. The first national landmark was initially authorized by Congress
in 1889 to save ruins of a prehistoric Indian adobe. The Act also
gave power to "the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Army
to formulate rules and regulations governing archeological sites and

. . . . .- . . . . 2
objects of ant1qu1ty as the land w1th1n the1r jur1sd1ct1on."

Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)

 

It was established in 1933 without specific legislative
authorization, but as a relief measure to employ architects during
the Depression. The program was coordinated by the National Park
Service in cooperation with the American Institute of Architects and
the Library of Congress. The survey collected photographs, drawings,

and other historic and architectural data in an effort to document

27

historic American buildings. This information is stored in the Prints

and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress.

National Historic Sites Act of 1935
16 U.S.C. 461 to 467

 

This act declared preservation of historic properties to be
a national policy. Authority was given to the Secretary of the
Interior, through the National Park Service to collect data, make
surveys and investigations of historic sites and buildings, acquire
property, enter into contract agreements with individuals as groups
for preservation purposes, restore historic buildings and sites,
erect markers on historic places, generate and manage historic sites
and buildings, and develop an educational program.26 Also created
by the act was the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites,
Buildings and Monuments.

Act of October 6, 1949
16 U.S.C. 468 to 468d

 

This act furthered the policies of the 1935 Historic Sites
and Building Act and created the National Trust for Historic Preser-
vation. The National Trust was established to be a charitable and
educational nonprofit corporation. The board of trustees included,
the Secretary of the Interior, the Attorney General, and the Director
of the National Gallery. Despite the broad scope of the enabling
act, the major concern and effort of the National Trust has been to
provide a source of information to the public. It is a clearinghouse
of information for projects all over the United States. The National

Trust is constantly developing a system of criteria to evaluate and

28

review preservation tools, and local Governmental agencies rely on them

for help and assistance.

National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470n

 

The most significant features of this act can be divided
into fodr parts. First, it expanded the National Register to
include buildings, sites, districts, and objects of local,
state, and regional, as well as national significance. The
National Historic Sites Act of 1935 had dealt only with property
of national significance. Second, the 1966 act afforded property
on the National Register a certain degree of protection from
possible adverse effects of federally funded or licensed under-
takings. Third, the 1966 act authorized grants—in-aid (l) to
states to fund the preparation of comprehensive statewide surveys
of historic sites and plans for the preservation of those sites,
(2) to match state funds for preservation projects, and (3) to
the National Trust for Historic Preservation to match Trust
Funds. Fourtlzi7 the act created the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation.

After the passing of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
governors of each state were asked to appoint a state historic
preservation officer to oversee preservation policy and to administer
a grants-in-aid program available from the U.S. Department of the
Interior. The Department of the Interior would like to formulate
criteria to regulate the selection of State Historic Preservation
Officers. These officers have often been individuals with either
background in the preservation field or have conservative ideas of
preservation. The officers have often been more concerned with
archival preservation (which saves the "monuments and landmarks")

' . 2 . .
rather than a comprehens1ve approach. 8 The dut1es of the director
of the state preservation office are:

(1) to administer federal grants,

(2) make surveys of historic resources,

29

(3) oversee the certification of valuable properties through the
National Register of Historic Preservation or a similar state
register,

(4) review federal required Environmental Impact Statements, and

(5) carry out various planning, technical assistance, and education
funcations.2

Department of Transportation Act of 1966
23 U.S.C..l38 and 49 U.S.C. 1653(f)

 

This act extended the protection of historic sites that were
affected by federally funded or licensed transp6rtation.projects.
This act is different than the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 in that not only properties that are on the National Register
are eligible, but also state and local designated historic buildings
and districts. This act established historic preservation as a
policy in the Department of Transportation. The act also states that
the Secretary of Transportation should not give approval to any project
that destroys, alters or uses a historic property ". . . unless there
is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and

that such programs include all possible planning to minimize harm."30

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
42 U.S.C. 4321 to 4347 NEPA

 

This act established the Council of Environmental Quality and
environmental impact analysis procedures. NEPA has a requirement
that federal agencies file an environmental impact statement for all
"major" actions with the Council of Environmental Quality. "Major

action specifically includes proposed legislation, regulation and

30

procedures, policy determination and proposed projects expected to
affect the quality of the environment significantly."31 Quality of
the environment includes "important historical, cultural and natural
aspects of our national heritage."32 Coordination with the National
Preservation Act of 1966 and Executive Order 1159333 is required so
a single environmental impact state is made to comply with the act.
'It ordered federal agencies to:
(l) co-operate with the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation
in formulating procedures for protecting nonfederally owned
historic property (these regulations are now Part 800 of Vol. 36
of the Code of Federal Regulations), (2) nominate property under
their control that appears to qualify for the National Register,
(3) allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to comment
prior to any action by the agency that would alter property which
meets National Register criteria, and (4) prior to altering
property on the National Register, deposit drawings, photographs,
and data on the property to the Historic American Buildings
Survey.3 .
The definition of what projects should be given E.I.S. con-

sideration is changing with court determinations and interpretations.

So far, the following should be included in the impact statement:

a detailed description of the proposed action;

a discussion of direct and indirect effects on the environment

that may result from the action;
- identification of unavoidable adverse environmental effects;
- an assessment of feasible alternatives to the proposed action;
- a description of cumulative and long term effects of the action
on resources;
- identification of any irreversible commitment of resources that

might result from the action.35

31

Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1970
49 U.S.C. 1610

 

This act has historic site defense provisions resembling the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966. No federally funded
transportation projects will be given approval unless they consider
all other alternatives, with a special effort to save any historic
area or site. The project also should try to minimize its effect
on any historic area or site.

Housing and Community Development Act

of 1974 Public Law 93-383, August 22,
1974 ‘

 

This act brought together and expanded housing programs,
including historic preservation projects, which were included in the
Housing Act of 1949, 1954 and 1961.

Grants for up to 66 2/3% of the costs of the programs are
authorized for the relocation, restoration, and/or acquisition
of structures and sites of historic or architectural value by
eligible cities, counties and towns. Previously the funding had
been on a categorical basis, but Title I of the new act provides
for block grant funding, which means local governments will have
considerable more frgedom from federal control over how the
funds are utilized.3

President Ford signed three acts important to the scope of
this thesis: an act to increase federal funding to historic preser-
vation, the Tax Reform Act, and the Buildings Cooperation Act.

The first act authorizes substantial increases in federal
historic preservation funding. The new act Signed on September 28th,
1976, would start a special historic preservation fund in the U.S.
Treasury. The monies would come from the sale of off-shore mineral

and oil leases. The new act S.327 was introduced by Senator Henry M.

Jackson (D-Washington) and increases the level from $24 million for

32

fiscal year 1977 to $100 million for the next two fiscal years and
$100 million for 1980 and 1981.

The money would be for matching grants to the states and
some would go to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The
legislation also amended the National Recreation Act of 1966 to make
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a fully independent
agency. The next step for the Council would be appropriation of
funds.37

Another measure, the recent Tax Reform Act, signed
October 4, 1976, by President Ford will reverse the existing bias
of the Internal Revenue Code-~at least insofar as it applies to
registered historic structures or districts. 'It will eliminate all
tax deductions for the cost of demolishing historic sites and dis-
tricts, will limit annual depreciation allowances for structures
that replace them, and will permit accelerated depreciation methods
for restored buildings.38 (More on this act in Chapter Four).

The third crucial bill signed October 19th, 1976, by Presi-
dent Ford is the Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act. This act is
based on recommendations from the National Endowment and will permit
mixed uses (such as retail on lower floors) in federal structures and
will require federal agencies to consider adapting existing buildings

before deciding to build new.39 -

Urban Renewal

 

In the mid-twentieth century there was a stimulated interest
in historic preservation. Two separate movements reached the level

of federal recognition in the form of congressional Acts. First, the

33

creation of the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 1949 (as
discussed previously) and the Housing Act of 1949 which was designed
to arrest the decay of American cities.

The Housing Act of 1949, known later as Urban Renewal, did
more harm than good. Congress asserted in the Act that it was a
national responsibility to provide a decent dwelling for every family.
This did not proceed very far. The program was designed to serve "the
city as a whole" by cleaning slums, improving the tax base, and
retrieving the middle class from the suburbs. The program, which was
to benefit low income people by giving them better housing, actually
intensified ghetto deterioration and benefited the middle-class
housing market and the general business Community. Whole areas of
cities were leveled by the bulldozer. Neighborhoods were broken up,
significant "areas" destroyed, and peOple brutally relocated.

Sociologist Nathan Glazer said, "Urban Renewal was further
fractured, one may hazard, by the low state of the art of architecture
and physical planning in this country in the fifties."40 In addition
to the aesthetic failure of twentieth century architecture to fill
the urban renewal voids in the cities with anything meaningful in
human terms, there was growing concern over economic and social
factors within cities. These considerations were not part of the
grandiose idea of the policy makers and politicians. Many serious
participants started looking for alternative solutions for the city's
future.

A small, but articulate group of the public in many American

cities began to question the wisdom of total removal of structures

34

through urban renewal. Not only were worthy structures being
demolished, neighborhoods and social patterns were being destroyed.
People interested in preservation saw many historic structures
demolished and became concerned about historic buildings in areas
scheduled for future demolition.

The peOple concerned with the effects of urban renewal were
of three types:

(1) A group having a strong educational background along with
reformist ideas.

(2) Citizens who were becoming aware of their built environment
and were giving a new set of values to the monuments and'
relics of America's history. And,

(3) Local governments who were starting to base their financial
policies on aesthetic appeal rather than on purely economics

because tourism was seen as important.41
An example of the tourist economic benefit'is Richmond, Virginia.

Historic districts are seen here as producing material

advantages for the community as well as cultural and heritage of

the area . . . . We must not overlook the fact that the visiting
of historic places is of a very great commercial value. Our
tourist trade has been estimated at over $5,000,000. These
people did not visit Richmond because it possesses nothing it

can be distinguished from the other cities but because it pos-

sesses historical landmarks which are treasured by many.

The blend of the dollar sign with the market of antiquity has
contributed much to the maintenance of historic landmarks, buildings
and areas. This was not true the majority of the time during the
urban renewal days.

Urban renewal projects were based on locally determined plans.

Most local agencies were not sensitive to or concerned with historic

35

buildings and so many were destroyed. The renewal process prime
objectives were the destruction of slums or blighted areas and the
feasible rehabilitation of buildings. The emphasis in most cities
was on the destruction rather than rehabilitation. The idea was to
make cleared land available so developers would be encouraged to
build in downtown areas.

The feasibility of rehabilitation depended on two criteria.
First, did the proposed land use in the rebuilt area conform with
existing structures? Secondly, is it financially feasible to rehabili-
tate, repair, and recondition the existing structures? Within the
average local renewal project when the cost of fixing up a building
was greater than its value compared to the surrounding or new con-
struction, then feasibility was considered not possible by conser-
vation motives. The only way it was considered possible was if the
difference between the market price.and the true historic value once
restored was assumed by someone.

A few cities did incorporate into their master plans historic
districts as part of the plan when they realized the opportunity for
using urban renewal funds for preserving and developing such dis-
tricts. Funds could be used for:

(1) Financing surveys and planning work. This may include an
inventory of the historic buildings and sites in the project
and site plans designed to enhance the intrinsic values of
the historic buildings or area.

(2) Acquiring land and structures in the project area. This
includes buildings in danger that can be restored and pre-
served by interested private citizens or groups or by public
agencies.

(3) Preparing the area redevelopment or conservation in accordance
with an urban renewal plan. Blight that threatens historic

buildings can be removed, and historic structures to be con~
served can be relocated within the project.

(4)

36

Installing site improvements and public utilities in the
project area to enhance and protect the historic sites and
buildings and provide a more suitable setting.

The following cities used urban renewal funds with historic

preservation in mind.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
' (11)
(12)

(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)

(19)

Cape May, New Jersey--the Victorian Village Project,
San Antonio, Texas--the Navarro House,

Rome, New York--the Fort Stanwix site.

Portsmouth, New Hampshire-~the Strawbery Banke project
Mobile, Alabama-~the East Church Street project,
Monterey, California--the Customs House,

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania--the Monocacy Creek project,
Savannah, Georgia--the Troup Ward area,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-~the Society Hill project,
New Haven, Connecticut--the Wooster Square area,

York, Pennsylvania--the Gates House and Golden Plough Tavern,

San Francisco, California--the Western Addition Area Two
Project,

Washington, D.C.--the Southwest project,

Norfolk, Virginia-sthe Downtown project,

Plymouth, Massachusetts--the Summer-High Streets project,
Little Rock, Arkansas--the Quapaw Quarters,

Rochester, New York--the Third War Area,

Chicago, Illinois--the Lincoln Park Project, and

San Juan, Puerto Rico--the Old San Juan area.4

The projects listed above were for the most part a minimal

preservation. They usually included only a few buildings of

37

historical significance with the majority of the area being torn down.
It was not necessarily done with insensitivity though.

The plan requires that these structures be retained and
(remodeled so as to) develop reasonable useable space without
destroying the very character of the building which makes it
worth preserving. Also in the plan new shopping facilities,
separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, more parking
facilities, and scenic plazas surrounding some of the major
historic buildings. 45

The efforts were orientated toward preserving and restoring pinnacle
buildings and then building new structures around them. Area preser-
vation was not even considered.

The following historic preservation studies were funded under

the demonstration grant study program:
(1) Providence, Rhode Island--the College Hill Study
(2) New 0r1eans--Vieux Carré, study by local officials interested
in preserving the entire area, residential and commercial.
(3) New Bedford, Massachusetts--the study of a famous 19th
century whaling center for a commercial center.46
The thrust of these studies was to take prime examples of historic
areas and to conduct a demonstration study aimed at developing and
improving techniques for urban renewal in historic areas. The sc0pe
of the studies was to include a development of ideas and techniques
"which would prove helpful to other cities in their efforts to renew
or preserve historic areas."47 The objectives of the College Hill
Study included the following:

Designed as an intensive city planning study, the purpose of
.the project has been to consider the broad range of community
problems which beset an old section of a city and to develop
proposals for the solutions of the physical, economic and social

problems of College Hill. A primary intent of the study has been
to develop methods and techniques for'a program of preservation,

38

rehabilitation and renewal in a historic area which can serve as

a guide for other areas with similar problems. The specific aims

have been to:

(1) develop a system for rating historic architecture;

(2) develop techniques for integrating areas of historic-archi- '
tecture into proposed redevelopment programs;

(3) deve10p a comprehensive master plan for the future growth of
College Hill, in which the plans for the historic area take
their place in the framework of the larger neighborhood plans;

(4) develop comprehensive program of historic area preservation
by reviewing methods in use elsewhere in the country and
combining these with the new ideas developed in the study;

(5) demonstrate visually how contemporary architecture can success-
fully relate to existing historic architecture; thus attempt-
ing to dispel the idea that historic area preservation need
foster eclecticism.

Generally the policies of the 19505 that promoted growth
and new construction were a backstep for preservation. New highways,
the rapid suburbanization of cities, and lack of legal protection
for historic areas and properties took their toll. The objective of
traditional preservationists was to preserve the "gems" of historical
and architectural past, instead of concern for the area's character
and the "sense of place" they created. Even for people who were
interested in preserving the "gems," the legal tools and financial
help were virtually nonexistent. Areas were nearly impossible to
preserve. It was not until the 19605 that support arrived in the

manner of legal and financial tools.

Preservation of the 19605 and After

 

The traditional view of historic preservation is functionally
dead. This view of saving the pristine structures and districts as
museums or tourist areas is limited to only a few areas. Other areas
of the country are also valuable to preserve and conserve. Areas

with a sense of place and character which form a neighborhood have

39

become very important along with the concern for social, urban, and
environmental issues. People are pressing for revisions in the bull-
dozer approach to city rebuilding. In the last decade, Congress and
other government policymakers have become concerned and interested

in reusing older buildings in declining areas. During the heyday of
urban renewal programs, there was money and impetus, but an obvious
lack of comprehensive ideas and planning. Today the ideas for city
work, urban form, and recycling exist as reaction to past mistakes,
user needs, and user demands. It is clearer now, after all our mis-
takes, but money is scarce for such projects, unlike the urban renewal
days.

Historic preservation once supported mainly by historians,
broadened its movement to include the disciplines of planners, archi-
tects, landscape architects, engineers, public officials, realtors,
writers, lawyers, artists, bankers, and publishers. The movement of
the 19605 within the cities was, therefore, directed towards per-
petuating architecture and aesthetics of individually notable build-
ings as well as historic districts. Historic appreciation was
important but was well tempered by social concern and aesthetics.

The planner's concern presently is an outgrowth of lessons
learned.during urban renewal of the 19505. They discovered that the
following were important in setting up a program:

(1) Checking out whether state enabling legislation is necessary
.for the preservation project.

(2) Determining whether municipal zoning ordinances are on the
books to protect historic districts.

(3) Coordinating re-use planning to take into account both the
condition of the historic building, or buildings, and the

40

relationship of the building, or buildings, to the long-range
plans for the city: shall they be restored for public use,
rehabilitated for private use, moved to a new setting, or
regretfully abandoned?

(4) Arranging financing on the basis of the alternative re-use
plans noted above: (a) land and building sale after clearance
for private restoration, (b) voluntary owner rehabilitation,
(c) public rehabilitation for disposition, (d) combination of.
the public and private financing.

(5) Capitalizing on the pride and affection for the old home town
that is to be found among a community's citizenry in abundance,
regardless of economic or social status—-a fact that can
bring the warmth of new friendship to renewal from those who
may have seen the program only as a harsh destroyer and heart-
less displacer.

All up and down the line, elements that are inherent in
historic preservation programs are the same elements that get
repeated emphasis as fundamentals of urban renewal policy: recog-
nition of the importance of good design and urban aesthetics;
strong reliance on citizen initiative and participation; insistence
on the retention of local autonomy.

Urban Renewal in the 19605 was still talked about but different con-
cerns were considered. As one writer put it:

The success of renewal work now may in many places depend in

increasing measure on the ability of planners to acquire adequate

understanding of the preservation movement and the techniques

of identification, documentation, evaluation and interpretation

and of the physical repair and restoration of old buildings .

. . Very few cities have yet done the kind of identification and

evaluation necessary to uncover and take advantage of buildings

best evidencing their architeCtural conditions. Most cities have

far more architectural and historic interest than they realize.50

What can be concluded about the 19605 was that new ideas were

being expressed, but still the effort lacked something. Preservation-
ists of the 1960s were fearless in preserving a "monument" in the way
of a proposed freeway. But they were timid in the thought of demand-
ing the conservation of a threatened group of structures which were of

indigenous architectural character. "Monuments" or "gems" of signifi-

cance were greated contested, but neighborhoods were lost. An

41

example is New London, Connecticut, an old and historic sea coast
town, in which the local renewal authority identified only 19 struc-
tures in a 90 acre project which were worth saving. The majority of
these structures were public buildings or churches.51

Taking the background factors we have talked about there has
been a gradual shift in attitude that began to emerge in the early
19705. Up to that time, as already discussed, there was a separation
between the preservation of historical, cultural, and architectural
landmarks in specific distinctive urban neighborhoods: from the idea
of saving not only these areas but also the many less distinguished
areas for the benefit of the resident. The last concept was discussed
in public policy in the 19605, but the solution was in clearing the
land and building new housing and office buildings.52

The gap between the preservationist and the people oriented
neighborhood conservationists began to lessen with the growing mag-
nitude and seriousness of urban problems. The middle class moving to
the suburbs, inflation in building costs, and the economic problems
of saving individual "landmarks“ were all problems to contend with.
Also, people started taking an interest in the city and some of the
upper middle class started returning.

A more broad view of preservation was evolving in the form of
concern for whole areas rather than individual structures. An ideo-
logical conflict arose between newer is better versus conservation
and integration of the old and new. The concept of saving intercity

neighborhoods grew with the conservation movement to save other

42

resources. The meaningful built environment was thought of as a
resource just as much as natural resources.53

It is being recognized that we must find contemporary uses that
are economically feasible as part of the urban problem solving process.
There is an awakening to the fact that our cities and countryside are
losing their characteristics of environment and setting for human
enjoyment and profit. Preservation has gone into the realm of some-
thing more than an antiquarian plaything. Past preservation techniques
alone will not accomplish the stabilizing of historic and older
districts/neighborhoods. The pressures are too great. Historic dis-
trict zoning originally intended to ensure their stability has failed.54
Private individuals have increasingly gone to private covenants, deed
restrictions and easements to slow the speed and direction of change
in new construction. Historic district controls that are merely
aesthetic in nature, trying to recapture the look of the buildings
as originally constructed, have not worked by themselves. The resi-
dents must be involved and concerned about the rate of change. They
are an important element for a continued social and economic viability
of a neighborhood.

It is out of the background and framework, presented in this
chapter, that the legal and economic mechanisms for historic districts

and preservation will be discussed.

43

H madman
wwwflfi— COSMDHQmwuL
.80; use 38m
5959:—
>.1SQ.:._, 2.2/53 3
I ...:C I: .7; S

:9. I;
Duh/.wxu .4.Z<_m_.404 .mz’.m4¢0 3.37....ru1zkmzq 3:23—23 31:14.3 x......~_>v

:9. . <7..JC¢<.J :uDOm .ZOmeuxmcIU .hUZCmR. 9.xOpm2m pmx_,.V

v

.2: .. 7.1.3000”. 07.4. meJmumv—UOx >m Dagmar—m ngcr7<~44_3v
.1
....L ,. [Chuugp—‘n .rm Saw/......xL

mu_.HT..~Z.—./.407.449721.347 “.3 ZO_._’.21._.rfl_x._ 22% m0... .rpurz...’ V:

I: ...:Zf...; .3. .2932: ... 3:3. .. smugiisgr174/9732. v
AV
IV
5: i EFJiZiF. .zo: 3:717: j.._z/:_L_zs:.sv
Av
..c... -. 323.423.: .15... ..xiz/xixi ...: 73:72.: V
I: .. 91.35;: 1:2: 1,532.4: v
A-

.Jv. .. Exhalflkw ..xOLHT. ZO_._/.,.x...n..:_.. /3/zx./ .kZLO—x '

:C. i 2:; ..mpo: ......z.E_.$: V

 

:r...

2...

:1:..

cm...—

2.7;

:2..—

arr.

......

arr.—

L.

. (...... .._ x,._..:.._.)3 .pJ’. JmJ m>_.~ 4:..133) mull—D‘ZJ: 37:54.;
‘31; .w :.:.C..US .uvx. w/mavugx 72p
r.~,.. ... 1,2”...Mpmgr .1.»,,;x.,../_ J.._C/._ 441.124.
AWL; LC uh} ,_,/, .7..C:.L1.,.,.C .rw_/..._7../C.4_ :14 3Z_.r..J.Cw.
.. ..r1__ ..mC All /3_.w/.w13nh,r/.z.mg $11.: //.:zg
‘sr... LC (#3, .rL_4.:_ 4;.u/.....7/.CK_>/.; (ix/...L’fix

r... .,_C (..J/ £37— ;Qmirxmlxmk ...: ..7...._.,.. ”$4.74?

:94431/51”. 7.5;»: 3: no hot 02.55:

All .. #733,): 10 p3,.

‘m_7. ...0 but. mug—w .J_¢OPm—: JIZC..—.<./ .
A :3. .. Err—4.4.7» Arm/4; >u>x3n 57—0....J: 7.4.1mn7). .J_x0._r_...

A 2.3 a: 5:. 3:50:74

. cote—Emma Ecovom

 

CHAPTER III

CHARACTERISTICS OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS

An Exploration of Historic Districts

 

Historic districts are hard to describe but this chapter will
attempt to do just that. It will give a background of historic dis-
tricts, criteria for historic district acknowledgement and develop-
ment, how they survived, an analysis of aesthetics in historic dis-
tricts, description of ways to determine boundaries, and it will give

reasons why people should live in historic districts.

Background of Historic Districts

 

There are many different environments in which historic dis-
tricts are located. They range from villages and their surroundings
to areas within large cities. Over the years the types of historic
districts have been expanding along with the growing recognition that
historic districts are an important aspect of our culture. Historic
districts have a variety of uses from residential, to commercial, to
industrial or some combination of these uses. All levels of govern-
ment have had an interest in historic districts; federal, state and
local. "At the federal level the 1935 Historic Sites Act, which
allows for the designation of historic districts as National Historic

Landmarks, provided the initial impetus. More recently, historic

44

45

districts have been entered in the National Register of Historic
Places as defined in the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act."55
In more than 25 states, legislatures have passed the enabling legis-
lation for local governments to establish historic districts and
historic district ordinances. The local governments have established
historic districts from the state enabling legislation or from the
general zoning power.

It is important to explain the difference in status between
the National Register historic districts and ones established by
municipal ordinances or state statute. The historic district desig-
nated to the National Register of Historic Places is considered of
national significance. The protection that accompanies such a desig-
nation specifies that any project in the district involving federal
funds or a federal license must be reviewed by the Secretary of the
Interior to make sure the historic district is not harmed. There
are two types of historic districts that originate from state legis-
lation. One is the designation of an area as a historic district with
no protection. The second type is the historic district ordinance,
which vary in protection, but generally regulate demolition, exterior
alteration, and construction of new buildings undertaken by individuals,
corporations, and governmental agencies. Some states create such
district ordinances through the state legislature (like Vieux Carre in
New Orleans) or give the power to the local governments under police
powers to create their own. On the local level, governments can

create historic districts ordinances from state enabling legislation

46

or symbolically designate a historic district as locally significant

with no protection. The latter is a token designation.

What is a Historic District?

 

Webster's Unabridged defines a district as "territorial

 

division marked off or defined for administrative, electoral, judicial,
or other purposes." A district is made up of many buildings, some
more significant than others, but placed into a unit whose individual
units define the space. This space is reinforced by smaller parts
which create the texture and quality of the space. These parts are
trees, signs, shrubs, flowers, lighting, paving, etc. It is the
combination of all the parts which creates the distinction of one
district from another. These distinctions form neighborhoods, create
a definable character quality, and give a sense of locality. These
are real and perceptible!

Districts can be distinguished by their boundaries, the style
and the design of buildings, the material used, the spatial relation-
ships, and quality of the spaces. In districts there isla hierarchy of
elements that create the whole. From pivotal buildings, to lesser
important buildings which create a linkage. This linkage of elements
or parts is what distinguishes a district from isolated individual
landmarks. A time and place is created by all the parts in which the
sum of the parts exceeds in value any one of the individual parts.

At the same time, a district may not contain a structure of unusual
significance in itself, but the area as a whole may present a character
which is refreshing and a welcome contrast to the monotony of present

day construction.

47

In his book Image of the City, Lynch describes districts as

 

"structured with nodes, defined by edges, penetrated by paths, and
sprinkled with landmarks. Elements regularly overlap and pierce one
another."56 Lynch has done studies in large cities trying to dis-
cover how people perceive districts. He looks at them as relatively
large areas in cities where one can "mentally go inside of and which
have some common character."57 one recognizes them as one goes by
them, towards them, and also while inside one.

In Lynch's study of Boston, people saw the districts as the
basic elements of the city's image. (These districts were not neces-
sarily defined as historic.) Even if the districts were not used
for orientation, they did make up a part of city life which was made
more satisfying and important. The more familiar a person was with
Boston, the more real districts were to them. People identified
districts by their physical characteristics. As Lynch says:

The physical characteristics that determine districts are
thematic continuities which may consist of an endless variety of
components: texture, space, form, detail, symbol, building type,
activity, inhabitants, degree of maintenance, topo . . . . In a
clearly built city such as Boston, homogeneities of facade--
material, modeling, ornament, color, skyline, especially
_fenestration--were all basic in identifying major districts.

Beacon Hill, a historic district, has an image which was
described as: "steep narrow streets; old brick row houses of intimate
scale; inset, highly maintained, white doorways; black trim; cobble-
stones and brick walks; quiet, and upper-class pedestrians."59. Lynch

describes historic districts as different from regular districts by

not being "shapeless and sprawling." They are very unique and

48

descriptive areas which have a very strong character and historical

association.

Reasons for Establishing Historic
District Ordinances

 

 

There are many reasons for establishing historic districts.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation did a survey of 20 his-

toric districts called, A Guide to Delineating Edges of Historic

 

Districts. In this study they listed six reasons for establishing
historic districts and the different reasons why specific districts
were established. Part of that report follows:
Primarily to protect what was there of architectural, historical,
social, or cultural value (Charleston, Vieux Carre', San Juan,
Beacon Hill, College Hill, Wethersfield, Harrisville, Annapolis,

Georgetown, Galveston, Lafayette Square, and Heritage Hill).

Attempt to control or prohibit new development, either proposed
or in the future (Santa Fe and San Xavier).

Attempt to control or prohibit specific threat, such as urban
renewal, highway, or large developments (Jacksonville, Pioneer
Square, and Pullman).

Attempt to create a district as a development incentive by setting
controls, protecting property values, and so forth (Part of
Lafayette Square, St. Louis).‘

As a public relations project to gain recognition for the area
(Wethersfield, College Hill).

Other, such as utility financing, protect view of site or from
site (Elsah).6O '

There are also some broader reasons why people want to estab-
lish districts. One is community pride. A group of citizens can
rally around the common cause of a historic district and have pride
in maintenance and community renewal of an area. A well regulated

historic district will try to keep out the plastic "phony colony"

49

fakery in historic buildings and establish an environmental integrity.
It will also try to stop inappropriate remodeling and inconsistency
of design in the framework of a historic district. But, one does not
want to kill the progress and vitality of a historic district.
Design criteria can be set up while establishing a historic district
so that new buildings built within the district are sited and designed
with sensitivity which should keep out the "fake" historic structures.
Historic districts are not meant to be Disneylands.

Change to the existing historic structures can be controlled.
When too much change occurs in a district, it decreases in value
through a loss of character and Sense of place. People can be edu-
cated to the fact that there are other ways to restoring property
than by "modernizing." As mentioned before, property values often
accrue when historic districts are established. The residents not
only benefit, but so does the community with an increased tax base.
A quality area of consistent and reliable residential or commercial
character attracts people to live and establish businesses. Busi-
nesses can at times benefit from tourism in some districts, but
beyond that, if a neighborhood is created with established residents,
the commercial interests are going to benefit and new business will
be attracted. Then new business and even new residents can move into
the area to restore and adaptively re-use the existing framework of
buildings.

Besides the primary consideration of preserving historical
architecture, a district can pull together people and agencies.

Cooperation between city governments, historical societies,

50

individuals, and citizen organizations can establish a social fabric

as well as a physical, historical, and architectural framework.

Problems with Historic Districts

 

The problems with historic districts begins with trying to
establish them and continues as ordinance and standards are developed'
for a review process. Physical erosion within an established district
is also a problem. It takes time to establish a historic district,
that alone is a problem when one is working in a crisis situation as
so many preservationists do. Our industrialized society moves too
fast to protect our cultural and historical heritage from every harm.

The public has an interest in both conservation and modern-
ization despite the unresolvable conflict between the two; some
balance has to be reached. The growth and popularity of historic
districts suggests that many people find living in them very desirable
even with the needed controls. What criteria and standards can be
developed to keep the historical character while permitting people to
make old structures livable according to present day standards?

Guidelines are difficult to draw up, at the same time they
are crucial. They change with each particular area and for a historic
district with a variety of building styles. Guidelines may be needed
for separate areas within a district. The guidelines should be more
than "compatible" and "harmonious" with the existing structures'
character. These words are vague and do not give one anything.
specific to base design decisions on. The criteria for development
will be covered in greater detail later, for now it is enough to know

they are a problem.

51

A major problem has been that historic district ordinances
have been too weak! A historic district ordinance should give the
preservation commission enough authority to be effective, but not
constricting. The preservation commission should have decision making
authority and not just make reCommendations. They must have authority
to stop demolition of buildings instead of merely postponing the
demolition.

In many cities it is difficult to identify the degree of
jeopardy to which important historic areas are exposed. Support can
change with the shifting circumstances of popular attitudes and
political administrations. Two examples are Vieux Carre' in New
Orleans and Savannah, Georgia. Both have been in serious trouble
because neither community has found an adequate way of integrating
history and its architecture with solutions to the problems in the
central city. I

Savannah is a unique city with a town plan comprised of
twenty-one squares and trust lots which create a special street
pattern. This street pattern provides the city with open spaces
which are often taken for granted. Many people in Savannah would
rather,see the open spaces and trust lots as parking lots so they
would always have a place to park their cars. Savannah has no his—
toric zoning ordinance and so buildings are being lost. The Historic
Savannah Foundation has established a revolving fund to acquire and
restore buildings. But they have no plan, only a survey. So the

situation is very fluid and unstable.

52

New Orleans is quite a different situation. Despite an
ordinance and an excellent job by the Vieux Carre' Commission, pres-
sures from the rapidly growing downtown business area have created
a similar problem to that in Savannah. Buildings have been lost,
particularly at the edges of the district and heavy traffic through
the area has changed the quality and character of the spaces.

The erosion in historic districts is one of the major problems
facing them. The character and quality of an area erodes in direct
proportion to the increasing number of nonconforming intrusions that
change the sense of place. The destruction of one structure in a row
of buildings changes the spatial relationship to the streetscape.

The placement of new buildings out of scale, proportion, materials,
texture, color, etc. with the existing structures in the area will
have a detrimental effect. Also, within a district the types of
residents that live there might change. More young families with
children could move into the arearequiring more schools and play-
grounds. Immediate surroundings around a historic district can change
and put different types of demands on a historic district. Examples
are creation of more through traffic streets, industries being put in,
more people through tourism, etc. How can a historic district survive
such pressures?

Even though new buildings and functions cause difficultues,
this is not to say that they do not have a place in historic dis-
tricts.‘ But the design problems of integrating new buildings and

functions have never been addressed on a large scale in this country.

53

It is a problem that has to deal with all aspects of a historic dis;
trict from legal to aesthetic and is quite complicated.

1 Historic districts and special historic zones are an attempt
by the government to regulate the use of and prevent alteration to
historic and architecturally significant properties. The criticism
of such governmental attempts is that it tends to preserve a historic
property as long as its owner has no desire to change its use or
alter its appearance. .

When an action is initiated by the property owner, a legal
conflict usually results and it becomes a matter for the courts to
determine whether or not the restriction imposed by the historic
district ordinance constitutes an unjust taking of the owner's rights
without just compensation. If the courts held such to be the case,
the government must find the resources to acquire the property, or
at least the necessary rights in the property, to assure its preser—
vation. This means that a group has to be very flexible and able to
move very quickly in preserving an area. The courts have been
deciding in favor of historic district ordinances, making them more
effective, but at times the courts decide against and that is a
problem.

Criteria for Historic District
Acknowledgment

 

 

There are general aesthetic criteria that apply to districts
in choosing them for recognition. _A district is a collection of
buildings, which form a framework of spaces, where other objects can

be placed and the combination can have "integrity of location, design,

54

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association."61 These
relationships make districts unique or different rather than bland.

Buildings are linked together in such a way that their
location creates a sense of place. Through their height, proportions,
colors, materials, textures, and scale they radiate a feeling of being
inseparable. One structure being taken away changes the character of
the surrounding area. They are an integration of the man-made environ-
ment and the natural environments using both to delineate their
boundaries/edges. They can represent a period of architecture or
several periods, but through their workmanship and materials they
convey a sense of homogeneity.

The feeling of a historic district is attributable to the
abstract aesthetic conditions already talked about. It also can be
attributed to an awareness of the political and social history of
the people who have worked and lived in the district's buildings and
surrounding area. There is something about the maturing of an area
over the years, with as little disruption as possible, that creates
a positive feeling. A feeling that penetrates the human consciousness

with a longing for history and a sense of place.

Historic Districts and Their Survival in Cities

 

Buildings, like people, if they are to meaningfully survive,
must do so within the total context of a community. There is an
organic relationship that through the travails of the decades
and of the centuries has developed in certain towns.62 .

AOver the years a district can develop a sense of place which

people desire to live in. A sense of place is created by buildings

of different periods, dedicated to different functions and reflecting

55

different levels of affluence all united together. If we are con-
cerned'with only individual buildings "they may be artificial,
theatrical, unrelated to everyday 1ife-—a curiosity, a place that
one visits, but one that has lost the power of belonging through its
interconnections."63 A district is much more complicated and has
more problems to overcome for survival than individual buildings.

A solution which suggests exact choices and commitments on
economic and political levels is called the urbanistic solution.64
This urbanistic solution has a basic principle of moving business
areas outside the perimeters of historic districts. These areas are
to be set aside for peaceful activities. The urbanistic solution
applies to historic districts with too much business and growth pres-
sure which takes away from the historic character of the area. Through
intervention, this could be accomplished and must be for the following
reasons. First, the damage that uncontrolled traffic does to the
character of the area and the foundations of old buildings. Traffic
damage can reduce and even eliminate the primary motive for the con-
servation of an area. Secondly, historic centers are not adaptable
to growth pressures of high volume businesses.

The urbanistic solution does not try to kill an area by not
using it, but tries to stop indiscriminate exploitation of historic
districts. Historic districts have to be removed from the speculative
market to a conservation market. Then people that move into the area
can realize they have bought a stable piece of time. Two barriers
to overcome are the higher land prices in urban centers and the

acceptance of controlled economic growth in certain areas of our

56

cities. Some towns that were passed by urban growth and have a past
worth protecting, now have growth pressures because of their historic
framework. These towns must consider how they are going to grow.
Many National Parks are having the same growth problems and too many
people are destroying the environment. Their solution has been to
limit the number of users. Can cities use this solution? I think

not .

Aesthetics in Historic Districts

 

When the subject of aesthetics and historic districts is
discussed, the question arises whether one should copy or blend new
development. The problem of integrity is critical when new construc-
tion is slated for a historic district. If an area does not have a
historic district ordinance, then a new building can be any size,
color, height, intervals, etc. The only limitation would be existing
zoning. Controls are needed to be sure that the characteristics
which create a district's wholeness are advanced rather than lessened
by new construction.

The attempt to create uniformity through copying has been
tried in many historic districts. Buildings which copy the older
styles are increasingly difficult to recreate and finding people to
do the work is even more difficult. But the main issue of such
attempts is the triteness. To try to Egpy_styles is ridiculous.

The best approach is to blend new construction with the older
existing buildings. The blend can be achieved through making-the new
designs conform with the older buildings in terms of their features.

Standards should be set up to guide the architectural review boards

S7-

of historic districts to determine if proposed building will fit in
with the existing character. These guidelines or standards should
not be narrow, but progressive. Standards should be for existing
older structures, but at the same time relate to new buildings. The
older units should not be stripped of their character of age and

modern elements applied insensitively.

Criteria for Development in a Historic District

 

What standards should be used to regulate new construction and
restoration of existing buildings? This question is very hard to
answer since specific standards have to be modeled for individual
historic districts. Aesthetic judgements within districts are made
in connection with the historic commission's power to grant or deny
requests to construct, reconstruct, alter, or demolish a landmark or
portion of the district. The commission needs standards to make sure
their judgements are not arbitrary and the designer needs standards
as a basis for design decisions.

The decentraliZed and individualistic pattern of historic
preservation in the United States has resulted in widely varying
standards. These standards are often weak and nebulous. A plan pre-
pared for Savannah, Georgia shows how a system might work. Sixteen
exterior aspects of a building are given for comparison with neigh-
boring buildings. Each aspect is analyzed so one can measure the
degree to which buildings relate to each other. New structures have
to meet at least six of the points with neighboring buildings.

1. Height - This is'a mandatory criteria that new buildings be

constructed to a height within 10 percent of the average
height of existing adjacent buildings.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

58

Proportion of buildings' front facades - The relationship

 

between the width and height of the front elevatiOn of the
building.
Proportion of openings within the facade - The relationship

 

of width to height of windows and doors.
Rhythm of solids to voids in front facade - Rhythm being an

 

ordered recurrent alternation of strong and weak elements.
Moving by an individual building, one experiences a rhythm of
masses to openings. ‘

Rhythm of spacing of buildings on streets - Moving past a

 

sequence of buildings, one experiences a rhythm of recurrent
building masses to spaces between them.
Rhythm of entrance and/or porch projections — The relationships

 

of entrances to sidewalks. Moving past a sequence of struc-
tures, one experiences a rhythm of entrances or porch pro-
jections at an intimate scale.

Relationship of materials - Within an area, the predominant
material may be brick, stone, stucco, wood siding, or other
material.

Relationship of textures - The predominant texture may be

 

 

smooth (stucco) or rough (brick with tooled joints) or
horizontal wood siding, or other textures.
Relationship of color - The predominant color may be that of a

 

natural material or a painted one, or a patina colored by time.
Accent or blending colors of trim is also a factor.
Relationship of architectural details - Details may include

 

cornices, lintel, arches, quoins, balustrades, wrought iron
work, chimneys, etc.
Relationship of roof shapes - The majority of buildings may

 

have gable, mansard, hip, flat roofs, or others.
Walls of continuity - Physical ingredients such as brick walls,

 

wrought iron fences, evergreen landscape masses, building
facades, or a combination of these, form continuous, cohesive
walls of enclosure along the street.

Relationshippof landscapipg_- There may be a predominance of

a particular quality and quantity of landscaping. The concern
here is more with mass and continuity.

Ground cover - There may be a predominance in the use of brick
pavers, cobble stones, granite blocks, tabby, or other
materials. '

Scale - Scale is created by the size of units of construction

 

 

and architectural detail which relate to the size of man.

Scale is also determined by building mass and how it relates
to Open space. The predominant element of scale may be brick
or stone units, windows or door openings, porches and balconies,
etc . '

Directional expression of front elevation - Structural shape,

 

placement of openings, and architectural details may give a
predominantly vertical, horizontal, or a nondirectional
character to the building's front facade.

59

Unfortunately, when the Savannah Plan was finally adopted the
criteria were made merely advisory. The commission is not bound to
consider any or all of the criteria and can reject a project even if
they meet all the criteria and is a good design. The most ambiguous
part of their plan is its failure to identify the buildings which
are the basis for the criteria. The Savannah Plan has another
weakness. It does not address the question of signage within a his-
toric district. Signs can destroy a district's character if not
regulated. They can contribute to the district if sensitively designed
and appropriately placed within the district.

The redeeming factor of the Savannah Plan is its focus on
specific and at the same time widely varying architectural details
that are important in giving a sense of visual harmony. The plan
also allows for a minimum level of uniformity. This allows flexi-
bility and variety. But, how many points of relatedness are needed
for a building to be appropriate? The dichotomy of too few con-
straints and one loses cohesiveness, or too many requirements could
lead to that sterile monotony associated with tract suburbs. The
correct level comes to an aesthetic judgment. A minimum amount of
standards should be set as something on which to base judgements.

A geal of standards should not be to replicate the existing
setting with the present district. An historic district is not like
many other areas of the environment.‘ It has not become a hodgepodge
of building sizes, styles, improvements and shapes. It should be

remembered that guidelines are difficult to write, crucial, and will

60

vary with each area. This is the first step in solving the problem of

development criteria for historic districts.

Determining the Boundaries of Historic Districts

 

It is important to study the different factors which determine
the boundaries of historic districts. The edges of districts are
where districts are usually slowly eroded away. Edges are also
important so people can determine where boundaries are when a new
district is being created.

According to a study done by the National Trust to determine
the boundaries of potential districts there should be a two phase
inventory. The first phase is especially important if no inventory
has been done of an area. It is an initial spot check to determine
areas of important structures. It should include:

Major natural features that contribute to the identity of an

area - topography, land forms, geological sites, watercourses,

marshlands, open spaces and conservation areas.

Buildings, structures, sites or objects of architectural,
historical, archaeological, or cultural value.

Linear rows, groupings and concentrations of buildings and
the spaces between which, while perhaps of marginal importance
individually, collectively contribute to the visual character
or sense of place of an area.

Areas of entire neighborhoods that because of social or
ethnic features, or of a visual continuity from town planning or
landscaping elements, exhibit a uniqueness and special character.

Major items of townscape, including important vistas, and
panoramic views, a similarity of building forms, materials, scale
or height, street and sidewalk paving materials and street
furniture.

A study done on the College Hill District, Providence, Rhode

Island, discovered that the initial inventory should be done on the

61

whole community. Surveying only one area has a negative effect on
future efforts to start preservation projects in other areas of the
community. All potential historic districts should be pointed out.

The second phase would start after potential historic dis-
tricts have been identified. This phase will start to define the
boundaries of the historic districts. The areas should be thoroughly
researched and visually surveyed for the following factors: natural
features, archaeological sites, existing street and highway plans,
architectural sites, landscape designs, and historic and cultural
sites.67 The above information then is mapped to show the visual and
historic factors that should be considered in figuring out the edges
of the historic districts.

The above was a quick analysis of boundary determination.

To explain it more thoroughly the National Trust study: A Guide to

 

Delineatinngdges of Historic Districts, will be discussed in more
detail. The study discusses the common elements used in delineating
the boundaries of twenty historic districts. These elements are
broken up into historic factors; visual factors; physical factors;
surveyed lines and lines of convenience; and political, economic, and
social factors.

There are two historic factors which are used: first, the
boundaries of the initial community, and second, the existing concen-
trations of existing older buildings. Historic district boundaries
based on an original settlement pattern can be researched and are
easily understood and enforceable because they are very believable.

Using concentrations of older buildings as boundary determinants can

62

at times be ambiguous because newer buildings are intermingled. These
edges can be visually unclear and hard to comprehend at times. The
strategy here would be to include all styles of buildings and not
just the oldest buildings.

The next type of element are visual factors. These include:
"Edges determined as influenced by architectural survey. Edges based
on topographic considerations. Edges drawn to include gateways,
entrances and vistas to and from a district. Edges related to other

. . 68
changes in Visual character of an area."

These are usually fairly
obvious boundaries. Points that should be remembered are: enough
room should be allowed for a buffer between the edge and the true
start of the district as protection; it is preferable to draw boun-
daries to include both sides of a street; and finally, nonhistoric
but visually essential views could enhance a district and should be
included where relevant.

Physical factors are the most obvious edges or boundaries.
Such elements as major open spaces, railroads, highways, rivers,
marshlands, walls, fence lines, a major change in land use and the
limits to a settled area are "natural edges." These boundaries are
psychologically and visually as well as physical barriers. They are
obvious tosthe passer-by because the character of the space changes at
the edge abruptly.69

Surveyed lines and lines of convenience are the most arbitrary
type of boundary lines because they do not consider visual appearance,

character or history. These include streets and rights of ways,

property lines, legal boundary lines and arbitrarily set lines of

63

convenience. Lines of convenience are set in a "rounding off” pro-
cess., Two examples are the connecting of two points determined by
other boundary factors and a pre-set size of the historic district
(6 square blocks). Often lines of convenience are not logical, but
expedient. So buildings worth saving are excluded from the district.70
The last type of element are the political, economic, and
social factors. Political considerations stem from opposition to
proposed districts so compromises have to be made. .These Oppositions
come from the government institutions, private citizens and property
owners who have a project or property in the proposed district and do
notwant the regulations that would come with a historic district
ordinance. The different socioeconomic levels of residents in a pro-
posed district have been known to influence boundary locations.
Rationale behind this has been in two directions. First, the ability
of present residents to pay for restoration, anticipated additional
prOperty taxes and to otherwise adapt to district regulations. The
second rationale is districts have been drawn around existing reputable
neighborhoods who want to use the district for complete control without
outside intervention. Using socioeconomic factors for boundaries
causes many problems. They are hard to identify with and have an

‘inconsistent coverage.

Why Live In A Historic District?
There are many reasons why people are attracted to living in
historic districts. People are attracted to the unusual character
and the older integrity of the architecture. Some think it is

prestigious to live in a historic area. Compared to the suburbs,

64

there is a finer sense of human scale and the adventure of and silent
invitation to restore a run-down structure attracts many. The new
interest in our environment has made people interested in American
history and culture. There is a growing value placed on antiques in
our culture and historic structures are becoming a part of that value.
There are only so many authentic historic structures so the value put
on them is growing. Lastly, there is a greater value received for
one's money in obtaining shelter in terms of area and quality of

construction from the older historic structures.72

CHAPTER IV

. LEGAL MECHANISMS OF PRESERVATION

This chapter addresses two different areas of preservation
law. First, the theory and legal background of preservation law.
Secondly, the private and governmental powers and existing laws which
can be used as legal mechanisms to achieve preservation.

The theory and legal background section discusses property
rights; the courts interpretations of private property regulation
for the public welfare; the legal background for preservation law;
bases of attacks on preservation law; the taking issue; public trust
as a new concept; and preservation legal powers. The second part of
the chapter describes such private preservation land use controls as
easements, development rights, and covenants. Then governmental
- powers as they pertain to preservation are described. They are

eminent domain, different aspects of police power, and taxation.

Property Rights

 

The distinction between the preservation of buildings and
moveable objects such as art, is that buildings are bound to a piece
of land. With that piece of land comes costs and benefit of location,
unlike moveable objects. When preserving historic structures, the

property rights of land are important. Property rights by their

65

66

nature are dynamic and constantly changing. Thus far there have been
three stages of property rights. First, the feudal system with the
king owning and dictating what should happen to the land. Next, the
laissez-faire era from 1750 to 1850 when private property rights had
little government controls. The property owner had little restrictions
on him as to the use of his land. Lastly, the increasing assertion

of public rights in relation to the land.

The increasing pressures for a larger role by government in
the regulation of property rights is covered by a number of factors.
The shrinking natural resource base has aroused a concern for the'
future supply of natural resources and their availability in the
future. People are more broadly and highly educated so they are more
aware of our environmental problems. This broadened educational baSe
is also responsible for people being aware of the wider suffering in
the world. An increasing population is increasingly putting pressure
on how we use our land. Our economic growth is also increasing so
there is more pressure for governmental control. Lastly, rising real
incomes has given people money to spend on land, increasing its value
tremendously over the years. Some characteristics of property rights
are:

(1) Rights spring from society

(2) Property is a dynamic concept -

(3) Substraction from fee simple do not necessarily mean less
value or fewer satiSfactions

(4) Natural objectives call for continued private ownership of
property ' v

(5) Sentiment is moving toward acceptance of a stewardship and
public trust review

(6) Public sharing lend to the loss of valuable rights
(7) Proposed adjustments should be carefully studied.73

67

There are two areas that land use controls can be classified
into, private and public. Private land use controls involve acquiring
property.

This means that a right must be purchased from the "owner"
of the property over which some control is sought. The degree
of control acquired will vary with the right in the land which
is bought. The most obvious private land use control is the
outright purchase of property. The common law has also estab-
lished a set of procedures enabling one party to purchase some
lesser right in a piece of property owned by another. These
rights can mean that it is possible to buy a restriction on an
owner's use of his historic property. Similarly, one could
acquire a restriction on the owner's right to alter any specific
aspects of its design.

In public land use controls the government can act similar to
an individual in getting property rights. The government also has
unique powers that can be imposed to preserve historic buildings and
areas.

Some of these powers give the government the ability to
encourage the preservation-of buildings in unique ways, and some
give them the power to require the preservation of historic
property. The traditional sources of governmental power have
been classifiable in four great areas: the war power, eminent
domain, police power, and the power 33 tax. The last three are
applicable in historic preservation.

The government powers of eminent domain, police power, and
the power to tax will be discussed later in the chapter. For now it
is important to remember that prOperty rights are dynamic and do
change with the court's interpretation. The following is a history

of preservation related concepts and judicial decisions to show this

change.

68

Court Approval of Regulating Private Property
for the Public Welfare

 

 

As Jacob H. Morrison says in Historic Preservation Law,

 

From a legal standpoint, the preservation of public buildings,
landmarks and sites presents no great difficulty. The main
problems . . . are to take affirmative steps to collect, reuse
and guard these public treasures, to finance their maintenance
and to make them available for the education and enjoyment of
the public.76

The preservation of historic private property is more a
problem than just private property. There are two methods for pre-
serving historic private property for the public good.

(1) the power of eminent domain, that is, the acquisition of
private property for public use by payment of just compen-
sation and,

(2) the police power, or the enforcement of regulations for the
public good affecting privately owned property without payment
of compensation.

It has been suggested from a legal standpoint that the best
way to preserve historic buildings would be to bring them under the
power of eminent domain. The problems with this concept is that
people would be taken from their viable historic areas and the areas
would be left for the government to dictate and control. The expense
would also be prohibitive. The government would reduce the historic
areas to amorphous museums, taking from the public the rich experience
of historic continuity. The options that are left are to educate the
private owners to the treasures they possess and to safeguard the
historic structures by appropriate regulations under the police power.

The proper exercise of police power--regulations without
compensation--is the subject of a line of important decisions
by the courts. They have sought to define, limit, and apply
the police power in the field of control by states and municipal-

ities of nonpublic antiquities and landmarks which are of
historic interest and traditional importance.

69

Private property under the laissez-faire attitude has long
been considered controllable only under the criteria of public health,
safety or welfare. Historical property regulations and controls were
considered as a matter of aesthetics, that is all ". . . its preser-
vation was to secure a triumph of pleasure and perhaps beauty but
it was not a matter of necessity affecting the health or safety or
welfare of the common weal."79

The first ordinance adapted for preservation purposes in the
United States was in Newton, Massachusetts in 1872. It was ruled

unconstitutional by the Massachusetts Supreme Court five years later

(City of Newton v. Belger, 10 N.E. 464,1877). Another early attempt

 

to "maintain the character of buildings in an area" was the enactment
by the City of Baltimore in 1898 of an ordinance that prohibited the
tearing down of any old building or increasing its height without a

permit from the city. This was also thrown out in 1902 by the Mary-

 

land Supreme Court (Bostoch v. Sam, 52 AH. 665). They ruled that it
was not within the city's police power to impose such a ruling. Most
of the provisions of this ordinance are contained in many of the

currently used ordinances in the United States.80

The first glimmer of hope for preservation came in a case

decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1909 (Welch v. Swasey,

 

214 U.S. 91, 52 L.Ed. 923, 29 S. Ct. 567, 1907). ‘This court decision
upheld Massachusetts acts of 1904 and 1905 regulating the height of
buildings in Boston in order to protect the character of historic
areas. The Court upheld the acts because public "safety" was involved.

They reasoned that high buildings might constitute a fire hazard. It

70

was generally recognized that urban beautification was the prime con-
sideration. This decision was cited many times over the years in
similar cases.

The United States Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality
of both statutes reasoning they did not violate the 14th Amendment of
the United States Constitution. The two statutes were considered

reasonable under the public health and safety criteria. There is no

 

doubt that Welch v. Swasey established a judicial pattern of circum-
vention and evasion where regulations based on aesthetic considera-
tions were concerned.

American tribunals long ago recognized that beauty, harmony
and symmetry were valuable adjuncts to the public welfare. But
they also knew that the public entertained a somewhat narrow
and materialistic view of the police power as something that
merely protected their properties from trespass, their bodies
from mayhem and disease and their noses from offensive smells.
To the populace at large the preservation of things that were
just pleasant and sights that were simply beautiful seemed to
have no affinity with that solemn and awesome prerogative of
government, the police power. As a consequence, to justify their
decisions upholding property regulations under the police power,
the courts felt compelled to look for other reasons to support
their decisions than such a positive one as the maintenance of
historic integrity and the charm of antiquity in buildings and
sites. So they hit upon the negative approach, namely, that
building regulations and zoning regulations were designed, not
to promote and preserve aesthetic values, but to protect the
health and wealth of the citizenry.

It was not until the Supreme Court of Florida handed down its

decision in Merritt v. Peters et al. in 1953 (65 So. 2nd 861), that

 

any court held outright that aesthetic consideration stoOd alone under
the police power. In this decision, the Welch case was cleverly
passed and public welfare was recognized, distinguishing it from

public health and safety. As the decision reads:

71

We have no hesitancy in agreeing with him (Appellant) that
the factors of health, safety and morals are not involved in
restricting the proportions of a sign board, but we disagree
with him in his position that the restriction cannot be sustained
on aesthetic grounds alone. In City of Miami Beach v. Ocean and
Inland Co. 147 Fla. 480, 3 So. 2d 364, we think we decided that
point contrary to the appellant's view. We held in that case
that attractiveness of a community like Miami Beach was of prime
.concern to the whole people and therefore affected the welfare
of all. We think the principle applies to the territory across
the bay where the appellant's property is situated. All in the
area are regulated alike in the use of their property in con-
structing signs; all will profit if all obey; all will suffer if
none is restricted. We must hold that although safety, morals
and health of the general public in the territory do not demand
the restriction, the general welfare does and that the chancellor
(the lower court) ruled quite correctly when he dismissed the
bill of complaint seeking to restrict enforcement of the regu-
lation on the ground that it was a violatigg of the plaintiff's
constitutional rights (Emphasis supplied).

 

Another case Berman v. Parker (348 U.S. 26, 99 L Ed. 27,

 

75 Sup. Ct. 98) decided in 1909 stated that cities had the right to
be beautiful. In the opinion it was stated:

The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive.
The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical,
aesthetic as well as monetary. 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 . . . . If those who govern the '
District of Columbia decide that the Nation's capital should be
beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the 5th
amendment that stands in the way. '

In the case of Berman v. Parker the United States Supreme

 

Court reviewed the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945.
The appellants of the case were the owners of property with an unused
department store on it. The federal government was going to take it
under the power of eminent domain. (The 5th Amendment of the United
States Constitution gives the federal government this power the same
way the 14th Amendment gives the states the right of eminent domain.)

The federal government was going to redevelop the land. They were

72

going to acquire the land, bulldoze the buildings and sell the land
to developers. These developers could be former owners who wished to
repurchase the property. In upholding the federal government the U.S.
Supreme Court was considering the power of eminent domain, which
required the payment of just compensation, instead of police power.
It brought out the doctrine of public welfare a much different inter-
pretation than the public health and safety criteria once used.

An important practical application was brought out in the
Merritt case. That was the 1926 decision of the United States Supreme

Court in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company (272 U.S. 36S, 47

 

Sup. Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303). The highest court upheld the concept of
zoning as constitutional and described what they felt would be the
future evolution of zoning.

. Building zone laws are of modern origin. They began

in this country about 25 years ago. Until recent years, urban
life was comparatively simple; but, with the great increase and
concentration of population, problems have deve10ped, and con-
stantly are developing, which require, and will continue to
require, additional restrictions in respect of the use and occu-
pation of private lands in urban communities. Regulations, the
wisdom, necessity, and validity of which, as applied to existing
conditions, are so apparent that they are now uniformly sustained,
a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have
been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive. Such regulations are
sustained, under the complex conditions of our day, for reasons
analogous to those which justify traffic regulations, which,
before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street rail-
ways, would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unrea-
sonable. And in this there is no inconsistency for while the
meaning of constitutional guarantees never varies,.the scope of
their application must expand or contract to meet the new and
different conditions which are constantly coming within the field
of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that
it should be otherwise. But although a degree of elasticity is
thus imparted, not to the meaning, but to the application of
constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances, which after
giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly n33
to conform to the Constitution, of course, must fall . . . .

73

The discussion until this time has attempted to show the
change and growth of the courts in expanding police power so as to
include laws based on aesthetic values and to give government more
authority to preserve historic buildings and areas for the public

welfare. The discussion was stopped with Berman v. Parker because of

 

its precedent setting decisions and cases that followed dealt with
zoning and related questions such as billboard regulations. These in
themselves are topics of their own. But for the purposes of this
thesis, the next section will try to focus on the legal background

for preservation law.

Legal Background for Preservation Law

 

The origins of preservation law came from Massachusetts. This
state was in the forefront of passing laws to preserve historic
areas. The preservationist of this state were trying to get some
kind of conformance of symmetry and appearance with their historical
and architecture venacular. As mentioned in the section before in the

City of Newton v. Belger (10 N.E. 464, 1887) the court invalidated

 

the town ordinance "which required that no person shall erect, rebuild,

or essentially change any building for any purpose other than a

dwelling house without first obtaining a written permit from the

Board of Aldermen."85
As also mentioned before in 1904 and 1905 acts governing

height limitations in Boston were passed and upheld in 1909 by the

United States Supreme Court in the case of Welch v. Swassey (214

 

U.S. 91, 53 L.Ed. 923, 29 Sup. Ct. 567). The court decision was one

that said even though the city would benefit aesthetically from the

74

acts it also was carried out to promote the health and safety of the
citizens. It was acceptable on both counts.

1 In a number of cases the Louisiana Courts upheld the validity
of the New Orleans Historic Zoning Ordinance, another form of police

power. First, in the City of New Orleans v. Impastato (198 La. 206,

 

3 So. 2d 559, 1941) the court upheld the historic district ordinance
and it has had a far reaching effect and importance in the enforcement
of preservation ordinances. The exterior regulation of the building
was questioned in this case and the court upheld that such a regu-
lation was constitutional. A decision handed down by the Louisiana
Supreme Court in 1941 was important to the legal maintenance of the

integrity of a historic district. In this case the City of New

 

Orleans v. Pergament (198 La. 852, 5 So. 2d 129) it was stated that

 

"the power to regulate or restrict in a given area of historic
importance applies to all_buildings in it though various individual
buildings are not themselves of historic or architectural importance.
Accordingly, Pergament who operated a modern filling station in the
old French Quarter was made to comply with those portions of the Vieux
Carre ordinance regulating the size and type of signs permitted in
that section.”86
The power to regulate all buildings included in a district
was given the name of "tout ensemble" or all together doctrine.

A third case ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the

Vieux Carre Ordinance. This case was City of New Orleans v. Dan Levy

 

(64 So. 2d 798) and was decided in 1953. The decision affirmed the

two previous cases and then built its opinion around the public

75

welfare doctrine while discussing districts in terms of commercial
value. It implied that maybe aesthetics were not enough, and that
commercial value was a valid reason for preserving an area under
police power. '

These are not all the court cases related to historic preser-
vation of areas, but are the bases of many others. An example is a

recent ordinance that was upheld in California, Bohannan v. City of

 

San Diego (30 Cal. 3d. 416, 106 Cal. Reptr. 333 (1973)). The
California Court of Appeal held that the purpose of the state historic
district enabling act fell within the meaning of the "general welfare"
and was therefore a valid exercise of the police power. Most his-
toric ordinances try to preempt the argument that zoning is based on
aesthetics alone by introducing statements saying that the ordinance
has been developed to promote the general welfare of the community.
Slowly the courts are coming around to uphold legislation to pre-
serve historic structures and to prevent the destruction of the

architectural and historic built environment.

Bases of Attacks on Historic Preservation Law

 

Those who disagree with regulations created to protect his-
toric buildings and areas have one main contention already mentioned.
The regulations are based on aesthetic motives and so go beyond the
realm of police power. Besides this one general standard disagreement
there are three main areas of attacks.

These are (1) that they are generally lacking in definite

specifications and appropriate standards; (2) they should not
apply to all structures in the area sought to be protected, but

only those with actual historic value; and (3) that under the
rule of discrimination as exemplified by Yick Wo v. H0pkins

 

76

118 U.S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220, the law may be
unconstitutional in its application to specific cases though it
meets constitutional requirements in general.
Taken in the above order, first the subject of definitions
of standards is very important. But, at the same time it is hard to
express in legal terms because they deal with design and appropriate-
ness for buildings and historic areas. Definite standards are needed
so administrative authorities can enforce and apply regulations.
Under this rule nothing should be left to the "whim or caprice" of
the people who administer the law. People who are trying to conform
to a rule or regulation must understand what particular design of a
building is the standard for conformity.
Under the legal clout it is hard to determine what standards
are reasonable in their terminology and sufficiently descriptive.
But at the same time standards should not be too explicit to suppress
creativity and design. Also over the years the court interpretations
of adequate standards have been changing.
Standards that are ruled unreasonable fifty years ago are
considered reasonable by today's courts.
The recent problems addressed bring up the question whether
all buildings are subject to regulations in historic districts. If a
building is not architecturally or historically significant, should it
be under the preservation laws that govern significant buildings?

The case that set this question straight is the City of New Orleans v.

 

Pergament (198 La. 854, 5 So. 2d 129) in which the court adopted the

"tout ensemble" rule. As the court's comments expressed:

77

And there is nothing arbitrary or discriminating in forbidding
the proprietor of a modern building, as well as the proprietor of
one of the ancient landmarks, in Vieux Carre to display an
unusually large sign upon his premises. The purpose of the
ordinance is not only to preserve the old buildings themselves, but
to preserve the antiquity of the whole French and Spanish quarter,
the tout ensemble, so to speak, by defending this relic against
iconoclasm or vandalism. Preventing or prohibiting eyesores in
such a locality is within the police power and within the scope
of this municipal ordinance. The preservation of the Vieux Carre
as it was originally is a benefit to the inhabitants of New Orleans
generally, not only for the sentimental value of this show place
but for its commercial value as well, because it attracts tourists
and conventions to the city, and is in fact a justification for
the slogan, America's most interesting city.

This case revealed that an historical area or district was
considered an entirety and all the buildings and structures were under
the ordinance. Court cases after Pergament used it as a precedent

examples are: Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 76, and Vieux Carre Property

 

 

Owners and Associates, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 167 So. 2d 367

 

((1964). The basic conclusion from all these cases is that the doc-
trine of tout ensemble as expressed in Pergament, "means simply that
the regulatory body has a right of reasonable control over all_build-
ings in the historic area regardless of the fact that some of them
may ppt_be historically or architecturally important."89
The third bases of criteria of preservation law is that a law

must be "uniform and reasonable in application as well as phraseology."90

The roots of this consideration was in the "Chinese Laundry Case,"

 

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (118 U.S. 316, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220).
This was one of the most important cases of the United States Supreme
Court. Its main idea was that even if a law does not look dis-
criminatory on the surface, if it does deny equal protection of the

laws under the 19th Amendment in its application, it is unconstitutional.

78

As the Supreme Court stated:

Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in
appearance, yet if it is applied and administered by public
authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically
to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in

similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of
equal jgitice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution

The above decision was written for a case in which Chinese
Laundrymen were being discriminated against. Lawyers use the
decision to apply to many other types of land regulating laws,
including preservation laws.

A problem that comes up here is that a city has the regu-
lation on its side, but when it goes to enforce it, the regulation
can be discriminatory. If a city does try to enforce a law that turns
out in a certain case to be discriminatory, they cannot enforce it.

At times cities feel that decisions by the court "under the facts
involved," do not allow them the right to execute historic preser-
vation laws.92 Often it is a matter of aesthetics or value judgements

which are involved.

The Taking Issue

 

The taking issue was created as a result of the many people
in America who naively believe the United States Constitution allows
every person to use their land without regulation. The issue surfaces
when the government tries to regulate land use, be it for preservation
purposes or not. If only individuals are involved then those that
seek preservation pay for it. Under police power the government can

exercise laws:

79

which mean that the owner of an historic property must be forced
to bear the costs of preserving it--even if he doesn't entirely
want to. Like any zoning restriction, exercise of the police ‘
power in pursuit of preservation can restrict the owner's use of
his property without his consent and without compensation.
Other government controls such as eminent domain and taxation require-
payment by the public at large rather than individuals. For the
government, the most economical way to enforce restrictions is through
police power.

There is a limit to the power of government in using police
power. These limits are a part of our legal system and deciphered by
our courts. The courts have over the years been fearful of the uncon-
trolled use of police power by governments. The courts have attempted
to limit those powers to what is interpreted as "reasonable." The I
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is where the "taking
clause" appears. No person under this amendment can be deprived of
due process of the law nor can private property be taken without just
compensation.914 .

The "taking clause" has a two part history of judicial review.
The period before the Civil War when the Supreme Court had very little
occasion to consider the issue and the period in the last third of the
19th century when the Supreme Court started to create its own approach
to the taking issue.

The early interpretation for taking was based on physical
taking and derived from the states. It was held that if no actual

physical confiscation occurred or little change, it was not a taking--

"no taking, without touching." Reasons that could be given for taking

80

were the criteria of health, safety, and welfare or, it was a taking
unless the government justly compensated for the physical takeover.
After the Civil War the Supreme Court was initially faced
with the taking issue and they agreed to the interpretation that
physical taking was the reason for compensation under the Fifth
Amendment. Also at this time the government was attempting to manage

the use of land using the police power. In Mugler v. Kansas (123 U.S.

 

623, 1887):

Justice Harlan noted that the police power was legitimate
as a regulatory power when rationally related to public welfare.
If a regulation was not so related, it could not be justified.
Eminent Domain, in the other hand, was a literal taking, that is,
it affected the individuals title and resulted in governmental
use of the property.

The Mugler opinion, established as a constitutional principle that
police power controls did not require compensation. If the government
action permanently appropriated the owner's property, compensation
was required even if the government's reason was to do away with a
.1 96
nu1sance.
At the end of the 19th century change was ready to happen in
the interpretation of the taking issue. The pinnacle case of
Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon (260 U.S. 393 (1922)) established a
precedent. This case tried to set a solid line between compensation
and no compensation. If the regulation would go too far it would be
considered a taking.

In 1922 the Pennsylvania Coal Company appealed to the Court
claiming that they deserved compensation for a law of the State
of Pennsylvania which forbid them to mine under cities in some
circumstances. The Company had previously sold-off the land,
specifically retaining the right to mine it in the deed of sale.

Later the company decided to mine some of the land and notified
those living on it that when it started to do so the buildings

81

built on the land would probably collapse. Therefore, the company
suggested that the homeowner and user of the buildings vacate

. . . . In the meantime, however Pennsylvania passed a law for-
bidding the company to mine when it would cause such subsidence.

The law forbidding the company to mine was the Kohler Act.

The decision was to determine if the act was an exercise in police
power (public health, safety and welfare action) or a means for
getting the coal company's property without paying.. Justice Holmes

in his opinion viewed the difference between regulation and taking

was degree, not kind. This went against all cases to this_point.

The question of where to draw the line was left open, because that
question had to be answered with the facts of each different case.98
Holmes stated further:

The general rule at least is, that while property may be
regulated to a certain extent, $5 regulation goes too far it
will be recognized as a taking. -

In conclusion, the best way to understand the issue between

regulations and taking is to realize that the courts will allow

government the right to use police power if what they propose to do is

reasonable.

_Public Trust: A New Concept

 

The concept of public trust is a new idea in environmental
rights. Today, people are talking about enacting laws which guarantee
to every person the right to a decent environment. What this implies
is:

that persons have rights simple by virtue of their states as
members of the public and that those rights should be phrased in

a way tp put them on a plane with traditional private property
rights. 0

82

The idea that private property rights do not give a person
the right to interfere with a neighbor's rights are a public trust.
This concept has two principles: "First, even ones' legitimate
activity has spillover effects on the rights of others that limit
its scope and nature. And second, the limit of ones' rights is
measured by the ability of his own neighbor to make a reasonable pro-
ductive use of his own property."101

If the courts adopted the public trust concept in a broad
way giving the public a right to environmental quality, people could
be very effective in coping with the problems of environmental quality.
In relation to unique areas or buildings that are irreplaceable,
these objects could be viewed as a public trust and protected by the
government for all people and environmental quality.

In court cases to date, the question of public trust has
pOpped up related to uniquely old trees and their relationship to
the surroundings. There is no reason why unique buildings and dis-

tricts cannot be perceived as.a public trust to be enjoyed by all

and not destroyed for a person's hypothetical gain.

 

Preservation Legal Powers
The legal powers available to preservationists are of two
types: private and governmental. There are a number of legal mech-
anisms within each of these types which a preservationist can use.
The actions taken by a private individual or group can only help
preservation and not insure it completely. The private sector can
buy rights to save buildings while the government can use its powers

to preserve a building against the owner's decision. Government can

83

also encourage preservation by benefiting individuals through these

powers, i.e., the power to tax and/or a tax break given to the private

102
owner.

Private Land Use Controls for
Preservation

 

 

Private land use controls are ones that are written into legal
contracts. They may be used by anyone who can go into a contractual
agreement. Governmental units may use these types of controls and
their other powers which are not available to the private individual.

It is important to realize that private land use controls
are based on the concept of rights in property. In the beginning of
this chapter the background and characteristics of property rights
were discussed and described. When trying to describe ownership in-
legal terms it is hard to be specific as to what type or how much
ownership. Ownership can be the rights of the individual who
.actually possesses the property. It can also describe someone who
does not possess the land, but has the rights to use the land through
the rights in the deed. There are many different forms and degrees
of ownership and these are known as estates in property.103

Many times the rights in property are described as a bundle-
of-rights. The whole bundle can be owned by one person and is called
"fee simple" or "absolute fee simple." This bundle of rights can
also be broken up into different types of rights in which a person
may own one stick or a number of sticks (property rights). Examples
of the different sticks of rights include life estates, and reversion

or remainder rights. These can be explained by the following. A

84

person can possess and use a piece of land and upon his/her death the
right to the land would return to the person who originally gave the
life estate or the remainderman assigned by the original grantor.

The full bundle of rights or fee simple is the closest one
can get to the everyday idea of ownership. A person who possesses
fee simple ownership will have the least constraints on the use of
his or her land. 0n the other hand, the person who is the owner of
fee simple is still subject to constraints of its use by the state.
The state can condemn the land for a public use or use police power
for the public welfare.

Direct acquisition of property can be accomplished by buying,
donation or a long term lease. The easiest way to protect a building
or an area is to buy it. This is also the most expensive. A private
individual, interested group or governmental agency can attempt to
purchase property for preservation and adaptive reuse. The donation
of a historic property can be beneficial to an individual who is in
the upper tax bracket. It can be used as a tax advantage. But, the
historic prOperty has to be donated to a public or private body engaged
in preservation work. There are a number of legal ways through which
people can donate historic buildings and receive financial benefit.
It is important to realize that if people do donate historic property
there are tax benefits. The specifics will not be covered in this
thesis.

Another way to preserve property is to acquire less than the
full ownership of the entire property. A part of the building--the

section which is significant--can be acquired with the remainder of

85

the building still in the owner's possession to do with as he or she
pleases. There are two ways to accomplish this; first, through the
purchase of the desired part to be saved or secondly, by some less-
than-fee simple interest in the property. In our legal system the

second approach is used most.104

The purchase of less-than-fee
simple can be aCcomplished in three ways. These include easements,

development rights and covenants.

Preservation Easements.--An easement can include limitations

 

on land development and structure modifications. There are two types
of easements, the negative easement and positive easement. An ease-
ment is a nonpossessory part in real property; it gives a certain
right to persons who actually do not own the property.105 The negative
easement is the future. The idea is to stop changes to an area or
building which would destroy the character, historic integrity or
historic value. A

The positive easement, in the preservation sense, requires
that improvements be made to a property to bring it back to an
appropriate state. Over the years changes happen to a property.
These changes can be through alterations or neglect. A positiVe
easement requires that a building be fixed up to those specifications
stated in the easement. Once the changes are completed, the positive
easement changes into a negative easement.

Easements are written individually for each property and the
owner must abide by them. When the easement is originally made, an

owner must be involved in the process and agree to the terms. The

86

owner is involved so problems or hardships are eliminated and the
owner grants final approval with his/her signature.

Easements are usually granted in perpetuity. This means that
the easement lasts the life-time of the building or a specified length
of time. The reason for this is that the easement will then go from

owner to owner to insure the protection of the building over the

years.106 Historic preservation easements usually deal with exterior

features of a building or buildings. There are usually four major
.provisions for these architectural easements.

The first major provision is a promise by the building owner
that the appearance of the structure will not be modified
without the prior written permission of the easement holder.
Second, the owner must agree to maintain the structure and to
allow the holder of the easement to inspect the property
periodically. Third, the easement allows the holder of the
easement to file suit to obtain an injunction to prevent the
property owner from violation of any provision of the easement,
or, if a violation has occurred, require restoration of the
building to its condition before the violation. Fourth, an
architectural easement will almost always declare that its
provisions will be binding upon not only the present owner of
the property, but also on all future owners. Thus, the easement
“runs with the land" and, if properly recorded with a city or

. . 107
county government, it 15 not affected by the sale of the land.

Easements may alSo be used to control property next to an historic
area or building.108
Easements are used in historic districts and for individual
buildings. Easements used in historic districts are a strong enforce-
ment technique and allow for individualized controls within districts.
Eastments are also used in relation to groups that have revolving

funds. The property can be bought, restored, and resold with an

architectural easement written into the deed.

87

 

Development Rights.--Development rights is a fairly new con—
cept whose use has been limited. Development rights can be acquired
through the use of easements. The purchase of development rights is
supposed to lessen and dissipate the incentive to use a piece of
property for new construction. An historic building at times does
not use a piece of property to its fullest extent allowed by zoning.
The owner is compensated for not using the property to its fullest
development Capacity (highest and best use). This can be both
effective and equitable to the owner and preservationist. If the land
is already being used for a highest and best use, development rights

cannot apply.

Covenants.-—Easements and covenants are often thought to bear
resemblance to each other. Actually they are quite different legal
terms. Easements are a property interest that gives one the partial
legal right to use of the property. A covenant is simply a type of
promise. One property owner to another makes a promise or covenant
as to the use of the land or "look" of a property. Covenants are
most used in new subdivisions in an attempt to keep the appearance
similar and uniform.

Covenants are usually written into a deed or purchase agree-
ment. When a property changes hands, the seller can write covenants
into the new deed to restrict the buyer in any way he wishes as long
as the buyer is willing to agree. Covenants may be positive or
negative. Positive covenants require the new owner to do something to
the property. Negative covenants are ones that restrict the new

owner from changing or demolishing the property. A covenant that is

88

carefully worded can be placed into the deed of a historic property,
legally requiring the future owners to take care of and preserve the
structure.

As with easements, covenants can be used in conjunction with
revolving funds. A local nonprofit preservation group can buy an
historic property using their revolving funds, then restore it and
sell it with restrictive covenants. A number of groups such as the
Historic Charleston Foundation (South Carolina) and the Foundation
for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage use the combination of
revolving funds and covenants for preservation.

There are two problems with covenants. These involve the
transfer of the benefit (the person who enforces the covenant has the
benefit) and the burden (owner of the covenant property has the burden
to uphold it). The first problem is the question about what happens
when the ownership changes. Does the burden go with the new owner?
The second problem raises the question: Can the benefit be executed
by anyone other than the original group or person who made the
promise? These problems should be addressed in the original covenant

so it is clear to the people involved, not as an afterthought.109

Governmental Preservation Powers

 

The government can act just as any other legal "person" in
acquiring rights to property. It has the right to bargain for and
eventually buy these rights. The three governmental powers that.
apply to historic preservation, that private individuals do not have,

are the rights of eminent domain, police power, and the power to tax.

89

 

Eminent Domain

Eminent domain is the power of the sovereign to take private
property for a public purpose. The owner of a certain piece of land
can be required to sell his land for a just price when needed by the
government. The power of eminent domain is limited by law and like
other government powers (police power), legal restrictions are needed
for the use of eminent domain. Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amend-
ments to the United States Constitution the government is limited in
its use Of eminent domain.

Under eminent domain one can take the full fee simple or
less-than-fee. "Eminent domain can be used to condemn easements,
leases, options, contract rights, franchises and so on although the
most familiar application of eminent domain is taking a fee interest
in property."1101

For purposes of historic preservation, the taking Of fee
simple means that the government will use the building, perhaps as a
public museum or in a park. It is also possible to take property to
be redeveloped and sold or leased to private individuals or grOups.
For this case it would be important to show that such a taking was
in the desired public interest and should be supported by legislative
action to be ready for any possible court cases.

The taking of less—than-fee can be accomplished through two
means: easements and development rights. An easement being condemned
has its advantages for preservation purposes because it would be less

expensive than taking the whole fee. The condemnation of an easement

90

on a building would permit the building to remain on the tax rolls
and still stay in private possession.

A government may also condemn the development rights on a
building or area. This type of condemnation has been used along
highways to Obtain the right to develop, which may be used to stop
development. This type of less-than-fee interest goes by the name Of
scenic easement.111 Condemnation of development'rights is a con-
temporary and controversial idea and as yet has not been used, but

this method could be used in historic areas in the future.

Police PoWer

 

The next sovereign power that can be utilized for preservation

is "police power." As stated in the Village Of Euclid v. Amber Realty

 

CE; (272 U.S. 365 (1926)), police power is given to the government to
enact laws to promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare Of
the community. Police power is just one of the rights given to
government to govern. The main technique used in historic districts

under police power is zoning.

, --- — 1
..v' '

'CZoning.}-In general almost all local governments use zoning
as a way to control land use. The authority to zone is part of the
police power held by the state government. City and county sovereigns
have no authority to zone unless it is state mandated. Zoning was
developed to stop nuisances by separating the various uses. The
problem with zoning is that the zoning ordinance has been envisioned

as an end state of development. Actually the forces of development

and changes to land use have not conformed to the vision of the zoning

91

ordinance. In order for a zoning ordinance to work, it should con~
form to the manner of growth predicted by the zoning ordinance. The
reverse is what has happened in cities. Many zoning ordinances have
been amended so many times that the original plan is scarcely recog-
nizable. The strip development and uncontrolled growth exists as a

testament to how well zoning fails.

Zoning and Historic Preservation.--Zoning is one of the most

 

common preservation tools in historic districts. Since zoning is not
involved in buying the property or acquiring any interest in property
it is cheaper and easier to implement for governments. The gOvernment
also does not need the consensus of property owners in the area to
implement zoning.112
The power to zone for historic preservation reasons comes from
the state, but in different ways. Some states have enacted enabling
statutes geared specifically to historic preservation. Unfortunately
these statutes are usually narrow in approach, but they have been
helpful in maintaining the character of many urban neighborhoods.

They also provide potential for expansion. Other cities get their

power to regulate historic districts from general state zoning laws.

..1..

 

a'Historic District Ordinances.—-Originally preservation
efforts relied extensively on private funds for purchase of a
threatened property. This was insufficient. Something more was
needed that was less expensive. The judicial interpretation of

preservation devices such as historic districts did not mirror the

hostility which had occasionally met early zoning regulations. By

92

the time major preservation schemes come before the courts, a sufficient
legal framework for approach and validation had been developed as a
foundation involving refined zoning questions. These were discussed
earlier. Paralleling the shift in attention from historic signifi-
cance to architectural and social significance has been a shift from
the protection of single buildings to protection of groups and areas
with historic district ordinances.

Historic district ordinances set up special zoning regulations
to control the use and development of specific areas which were con-
sidered historical. All buildings within the districts are protected,
even though all do not need to be significant. All buildings are
included because regulations must be uniform to all property owners
within the historic district.

The typical ordinance creates a volunteer group of people to
administer the regulations of the historic district, known usually as
the historic district commission. The members are appointed by the
mayor or county board Of supervisors. Some ordinances have require-
ments for the types of people who should be on the commission. This,
is an attempt to use different fields of experience.

Within the historic district ordinance, boundary lines are
established and described. They can be given in a narrative way or
placed on the existing zoning map as a special district. Within
these boundaries all structures are controlled. The controlsusually
are to prevent demolition, exterior alteration, and more recently, to
require minimum maintenance requirements. Minimum maintenance

requirements are being used because of failures to maintain buildings

93

within historic districts. Owners sometimes let buildings deteriorate
until they become unsafe and a health hazard. When they reach this
state, the health inspector or the building inspector must order
their demolition.

Only two ordinances specify in detail the "kind of defects
that constitute deterioration and the procedures required to Obtain

compliance.113

These ordinances are Vieux Carre in New Orleans (1958)
and Pioneer Square in Seattle (1974). Application for new construction,
to demolish, or to alter the exterior of a building must be approved

by the historic district commission or the building inspection
department, depending on the ordinance. Some form of appeal for an
adverse decision is provided but the procedure is different with

each ordinance.

Historic district ordinances also contain design standards
for exterior alterations and construction of new buildings in the
district. The purpose for these standards is an attempt to keep a
consistent sense of character within the district. The standards are

used by designers and the historic district commission as a-basis for

what is appropriate for the district.

,-
If“
f

.Taxation/
(—————-—9£

.nd

Taxation is another one of the governmental powers that can
affect preservation efforts. Depending on the type of taxation, tax
laws and policies can be a benefit or a detriment to preservation
efforts. To an individual, a nonprofit group, or a corporation" any
decision concerning the alteration, destruction, or preservation of

his property will include economic considerations."114 In most cases,

94

though, decisions are purely economic. This is where taxes are a
critical consideration. Taxes will be discussed later because the
subject fits into the next chapter on economics. Taxation was

mentioned here to make it clear that it is an integral part of the

government's power.

CHAPTER V

ECONOMIC MECHANISMS AND CONSIDERATIONS

IN PRESERVATION

Economic viability is the single most important aspect of
preservation. This fact makes Chapter Five very important. The
chapter is split into three major sections: historic districts and
economic considerations for preservation, economic considerations
against preservation, and economic mechanisms to accomplish preser-

vation.

Economics of Historic District Zoning

 

Traditionally, zoning was created to serve several social
purposes in the private market and was legally based on the state's
police power. The purpose of zoning was to ensure that contiguous
parcels do not threaten each other's values due to being incompatible
uses. When zoning is effective, each owner is partially guaranteed
that neither he nor his neighbor can put in a noxious use. All bene-
fit from this mutual self-restraint.

Historic district zoning goes beyond traditional zoning.
Within an historic district that has an ordinance, uses are not
restricted to one type. All different types of uses can be allowed

such as public, residential, and commercial buildings. Also under

95

96

historic district zoning, exterior alterations are restricted or even
frozen to their current physical appearance, while the interiors can
be changed. The economic reasoning behind this.type of zoning is
that individual historic structures gain value by being incorporated
with other historic structures. All the structures gain value from

mutual restrictions.115

Enforcement is needed, as with traditiOnal
zoning. Without enforcement, one owner can profit by going against
the historic designation while the rest of the owners observe the
historic district zoning ordinance. The "wildcatter" might build a
structure that doesn't conform in materials or design and yields a
higher profit.

The discussion so.far has assumed a market exists for a
historic district because the buildings within the district are
historic and aesthetically pleasing. If the buildings are not con-
sidered economically valuable as an historic grouping, then the
historic district status could well lower the property values and
resale value. Within the realm of this thesis, if a district does
have an historic designation, then that designation should be a market—
able asset.

Many times designated historic districts are areas which
have been slums and land can be bought cheaply. In these areas,
restoration costs are high compared to the low cost of land. Since
restoration costs are high, the private individual is reluctant to
invest in an area by himself. Investing money in a building, when
no one else in the area is fixing up their property is a high risk.

The historic district designation can be a signal in an otherwise

97

fragmented market. It creates a concentrated area where people
wishing to fix up a building with character and architectural spaces
can go. If an entire city attempts to be designated as an historic
district, the concentrated affect will be lost.

Comparing historic districts economically with individual
landmarks, one finds a solid justification for historic districts.
Historic district zoning is primarily an attempt to induce or capture
the interrelationship between buildings in the area, which raises
their economic value mutually. In such a district, property values
rise. Individual buildings designated as landmarks, usually lose
property value because property value is determined by expectation
regarding the future profitability. Any building that is by itself
and not reinforced by other buildings has to stay economically viable
to keep a resale value.

Historic District Stabilization and
Improved Property Values

 

 

With a historic district, property values usually Stabilize
first. Then after stabilization, property values tend to rise. It is
interesting to note that most of the Opposition to one historic dis-
trict, Swiss Avenue District in Dallas, Texas, came from landlords
whose property was outside the district boundaries and who thought

there might be a loss in their property value.116

This has yet to be
shown to be true.
The proof of property values increasing in histOric dis-

tricts has been shown in city after city.

98

Examples include Pittsburgh's Manchester Renovation Project; The
Aneonbrough Project in Charleston, SOuth Carolina; Savannah,
Georgia, Lexington, Kentucky's Short Street area, the Pioneer
Square District in Seattle, Washington; German Village in
Columbus, Ohio; and of course, the Vieux Carré in New Orleans.

117
The most dramatic examples are: Beacon Hill in Boston where values
tripled in‘7 years and El Pueblo Viejo in Santa Barbara, California
where the selling price of buildings within two years increased 75 to
150 percent;118 German Village in Columbus Ohio where property values
doubled only two years after the district was designated.

Another example is Seattle's Pioneer Square which was
created in 1970. Here property values between the years 1965 to 1973
increased approximately $4.7 million or 77 percent. Officials like
to use the example of four buildings which were purchased between
1965 and 1970, before the district was created, and then resold after
the district was designated. Even with adjusting the market price
for improvements, the selling price was 75 percent above the original
purchase price.119

There has been one well-known exception to this stabili-
zation and increase in property values. The Gaslight Square area in
St. Louis. A commercial district that was not done well and included
too small an area for growth and it was not able to influence its
surroundings. The district's property value dropped along with the
entire surrounding area.120

The following ways to assess the economic impact of a

historic district were suggested by the National Trust for Historic

Preservation.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

99

Analyze trends in real estate values (including rents) within
the historic district and compare with trends for similar
areas elsewhere in the community. Indicate whether property
values and rents are rising faster or slower in the historic
area than elsewhere.

Analyze trends in real estate values in the area adjacent to
the historic district. Determine whether the district is
having a "spill-over" effect on these areas.

Analyze investment trends in and near the historic district.
Indicate whether the preservatiOn of the area has promoted
or hindered investment as compared with the period before
comprehensive preservation was undertaken.

Study retail sales trends of stores located in and near the
district. Determine the impact of preservation activity on
sales.

Relate the historic district to the economic base of the
community and identify the role played by the district.

Identify the public financial costs and benefits relevant to
the area and determine whether the historic district "pays
its way."

Analyze tourism trends in the community and determine the
role played by the historic area in the promotion of and
benefits from tourist traffic.

Analyze the economic impact of the construction business
being generated by rehabilitation of structures in the
historic district..

Compare the value of rehabilitated properties within the
historic district wish the value of similar but newly con-
structed buildings.1 1

Such a detailed study is presently being done by the National Trust.

Data are being collected from three geographical areas: the historic

district, the area surrounding the district, and a section of the

community similar to the district but utilized as a control area for

comparative purposes. Unfortunately, such data are not presently

available for this thesis.

100

Other Economic Benefits of Historic
District Preservation

 

Historic district preservation can be a mechanism used to
strengthen the local economy in several ways. These can include
tourism, additional employment, increased investment, a growth in
tax revenue, and a decrease in crime. All of these are in some way
economically beneficial to the city involved. Either through an
increase of money being brought into the city, or a decrease in money

the city must spend.
Next to increasing property values, tourism has been the

second most important reason for historic district implementation by

\

cities. Tourism alone is the third largest revenue producer in every

state in the union.

Historic sites are an important element of this growing
trade. A survey of members of the American Automobile Associ-
ation showed that 81% named sightseeing as a major recreational
activity in vacationing. AAA recommends that a vacationing
couple budget $36.00 a day for food, lodging, trips and gasoline.

An estimate for metropolitan Philadelphia is that at least
one-fourth of its $250 million a year tourist and convention
business is attributable to historic sites.

The Thomas Edison Birthday in Milan, Ohio (population 1,400)
brings over 25,000 visitors to town. The general area has fifty
motels.

In a recent survey, the Ohio Development Department concluded
that a community attracting 36,500 visitors a year could expect
to receive an additional $777,000 in personal income through
111 new jobs, $144,300 in bank deposits and $1,119,908 in added
retail sales.1 2

The above figures can be multiplied even higher for historic
districts. They have a greater drawing power than individual.
buildings. A district, which is well integrated with different types

of uses, can attract the tourist dollar with restaurants, stores and

101

bars. Not all historic districts can house a tourist trade, but for
the ones that are able to, they have a very viable enterprise.
Historic districts can result in additional employment,
increased investment and a decrease in crime. Seattle's Pioneer
Square is an example. Pioneer Square was developed in an old section
of the city. Through an initial investment of $1.2 million in public
funds, $10 million worth of private investment was generated. When
the district was firSt developed, 1,000 people were employed within
its boundaries. In 1976, 6,000 people were employed in the same
geographical area. Approximately 200 new businesses started during
this same period. Along with the dramatic economic change in Pioneer
Square, the crime rate dropped from 17 percent of the city's total to
1 percent.123
As mentioned earlier, historic district designation and
ordinances tend to stabilize and improve property values. Therefore,
as land and building prices increase, so do property tax revenues.
As revenues to the city increase within an area, the city can afford
to provide more adequate public services for it. The increased tax
base usually pays for the cost of public improvements to the historic

district.124

Economic Considerations Against Preservation

 

As previously stated, benefits from creating historic dis-
tricts include an increase in property values, a new income from
tourism, and a greater tax revenue. Not all preservation efforts are
an economic bliss. Both public agencies and individual owners or

investOrs will have costs which should be considered in planning a

102

preservation effort. These costs can be accrued in many ways as

Mavis Bryant explains it in Zoning for Community Preservation:

 

Individual property owners may suffer from not being allowed to
put their property to its most profitable use, from being
required to maintain property in good condition, and from having
to pay higher taxes as property values rise. Tenants may find
rents increased. Substantial public investment, too, in the

form of improvements such as parks, landscaping, street furniture,
lighting and sidewalks, is usually required as a catalyst to
private inVestment. Public action to reduce the burden on owners
of historic properties may reduce tax revenues from such prop-
erties for a time. If sensitivity to_the delicate balance
between costs and benefits from a community preservation program
does not characterize both planning and administration of program
elements, seriowssdislocations may occur within a redeveloped
historic areas.

The following are economic considerations one should be aware
of when considering preservation through the use of an historic dis-

trict.

Land Values

 

Land values increase because of location of the land in
relationship to the demand of use. With large increases in land
values, relatively new buildings cannot survive in a climate of rising
V land values; it is hardly surprising then that vintage historic
buildings fall victim as well. The spectacular increase in the value
of urban land, as seen in most downtown locations, puts market pres-
sures so that as many as three buildings in less than 100 years are
built on a location. The continuing increase in land costs demands a
more intensive use of that land. This intensive use is such that no
landmark can supply the added demand. The average urban historic
building is very small compared to the potential structure the site

cOuld support. Even if the historic structures are structurally

103

sound, and have a potential to be renovated, there still is a gap
between the renovated use and the potential highest and best use the

land could possess.126

Increased Rents

 

Within a historic district, as it becomes rehabilitated and
the accompanying costs of maintenance, property values, and taxes
start adding up, then rents will rise. Rents rise due to added
costs, and because more affluent tenants can be attracted. The
present residents see any change as a tragedy. Poor people and small
shop owners find it difficult, if not impossible, to continue staying
in this kind of area. Another result is that increased property
values cause the conversion of single-family residences into multi-
unit residences in order to gain a higher income. This drastically

changes the character Of the neighborhood.

BuildingLCodes

 

The requirements set up in building codes can Often increase
the cost of maintaining or renovating old structures. Under the
authority of police power, states can enact laws for the protection
of the community under the criteria of health, safety, morals and
general welfare. According to this power, city and county governments
have been given authority by the state to adopt building and housing
codes which provide "minimum standards for the design, construction,
use, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within their

127

jurisdictions." Generally, most provisions of the Uniform Building

Code (adopted by most cities) do not apply to structures which were

104

erected before the code was enacted. There are several circumstances
when the codes can affect the upkeep and renovation costs of historic
buildings. "Where the building undergoes major renovations, or where
it is so delapidated as to constitute a threat to public safety, or
where the number of persons using the building greatly increases, the
Uniform Building Code requires the entire building to conform to
codes. The costs necessary to bring the structure "up to code" can
often represent a roadblock sufficient enough to prevent preser-
vation."128
Besides the Uniform Building Code, there is also the Uniform
Housing Code (U.H.C.) which deals in a large part with existing
structures. ”The U.H.C. establishes very specific standards for
wiring, sanitation, ventilation, fire protection, plumbing, lighting,

and other necessities."129

If a building is substandard, the city
can then issue an order requiring the building be repaired, vacated,
or in fact demolished.

Any building that is relocated or renovated, must be brought
up to code. The cost for this type of project is sometimes highly
undesirable and the required change could destroy the character of
the building. Since building codes were not written with historic
preservation in mind, some cities are writing building code ordinances.
These ordinances waive certain provisions of the building code in
special cases involving historic structures. A problem usually
arises with wooden buildings which were never made to conform to

today's codes. In order to have sensitivity to the problems of

renovating such structures, waivers are needed for sections of the code.

105

Building codes at the same time are important and cannot be
lightly waived. Insurance companies consider historic structures a_

130 It is

bad liability if code requirements have not been met.
possible to assume that many buildings in historic districts like
the Vieux Carré exist because they were up to code previously for
safety and fire standards which prevented destruction by fire. Codes

are important, they have to be reassessed with safety, fire and

aesthetic values intermingled.

Barrier Free Access

 

The accessibility of buildings to handicapped peOple is one
of the major problems that is finally being addressed in the 19705.
Recent legislation in Michigan, Act 177, 1975, has attempted to make
buildings more accessible. Act 177 will be used as an example for
this thesis, but acts in other states are being passed with the same
Objective: accessibility.

Act 177 states that all public and revenue generating build-
ings should be accessible. An important example is apartment com-
plexes. Twenty-five percent of the units have to be accessible.
Public buildings that serve the people have to be available to all.
This means the addition of ramps and elevators to existing buildings
which is a problem for historic, public and revenue generating
buildings that cannot make the needed changes without destroying the
character of the building. Variances are available from a state
review board, but this is a questionable situation when historic build-
ings are involved. At the present time, a set of new regulations is

being put together to modify the requirements for making historic

106

'buildings accessible. Buildings that qualify for historic status
would then be placed under these new regulations. But, there is
still the problem of accessibility versus historic character for

which the solutions are few and limiting.

Maintenance Costs

 

The preservation ordinances that are most effective have
anti-neglect sections which require a certain amount of upkeep on the
buildings within a historic district. Where such provisions are not
incorporated into ordinances, communities must face the problem of
demolition when owners allow buildings to decline beyond a point
where they can be repaired. This in effect defeats the purpose of
the ordinance.

When maintenance standards are required the costs may be too
great for some property owners to bear. This is especially true in
poor districts where the people cannot afford anymore money for
housing. This may be particularly evident in older historic areas
which are deteriorated and are starting to be revived through historic
district ordinances and preservation programs. If maintenance
standards are required, some provision must be made to stop undue

hardship caused by the ordinance to the property owners.131

Restrictions on Use

 

When a historic district ordinance is applied to a certain
area, it attempts to freeze the character of that area. The struc—
tures are frozen so they cannot be demolished or their exteriors

damaged. This can have the effect of constraining a property owner

107

to retain the existing structures. This may mean that the owner is
foregoing a greater income which he could accrue through building a
newer and bigger building or extensive renovating. Even though such
legal restrictions are the right of the government and are needed to
have the broader public benefit of historic preservation, they still

are a restriction to an individual's use.

Taxation

A district is made up of many individual holders of historic
property. When one owner makes an alteration, destruction, or
preservation to his property the main consideration will be economics.
Most owners of commercial property would desire an income from their
property. If the return is low compared to the investment, the owner
most likely would change the use of the property to one of greater
income. If an owner is using a property for his own use and there
are higher operating costs in the form of maintenance and taxes
imposed, its present use might be abandoned. The end result of this
could be that the historic qualities of the structure would be
destroyed or even the structure itself.

There has to be a mechanism to offset opportunity costs to
landowners. Opportunity costs are assumed higher revenues available
to a property owner if his land were used in a different way. Many
times holding costs on a historic structure are minimal, but the
Opportunity costs are very enticing, especially if a landmark is
located where there are high property values due to economic pres-

sures for redevelopment.

108

There are two types of taxes to be concerned with in regard

to preservation, property tax and income tax.

Property Tax.--Property tax has two components: "a tax on the
132

 

land and a tax on the improvements (anything built on the land)."
If special allowance is not made for these two components, they can
work against preservation.

Opportunity costs cannot be directly regulated by taxes, but
holding costs can be reduced by a revised use of the property tax.
Property tax works by assessing the land and buildings at their market
value. The value of property is assessed from the highest and best
use on the open market for the property and not at its present use.
Historic buildings in a high demand area of intensive use will be
taxed heavily no matter what the present use.

To add to the owner's dilemma, if he would like to preserve
a historic building and make improvements on that building, those
improvements to the structure will increase its market value and
taxes will go up. Property tax assessment increases as the value
Of any improvement increases which works as a disincentive for
preservation.

To provide lower property taxes for historic buildings does
not guarantee certain preservation or that the taxation mechanisms
used are adequate. The concept should be to provide an incentive to
preserve a building or to "at least eliminate the incentive to

133

demolish historic property.” The idea to use property tax as a

preservation tool is fairly new. The state of the art is based on

109

tax incentives to preserve open space, but these principles can also
be applied to historic property.

An often used property tax technique that changes land use
determinations is present-use assessment.

Since the basic problem is that landmarks and open space Often
cannot return sufficient revenue to affect taxes which are
based on a higher and better use of the land, present-use assess-
ment mitigates the problem by taxing the property only on its
value for present uses, not on the basis of any speculative or
future uses.
There are three types of present-use assessment techniques: prefer-
ential assessment, deferred assessment, and contract assessment.

Preferential assessment is the most used and the simplest form,
but the least effective type of present-use assessment. Under this
assessment, after a property is approved as historic it is assessed
on its present use. This tax will not reflect the market value,
which is based on the highest and best use. If the building is ever
altered in any way to change the architectural significance, the
tax will revert to the one reflecting the true market value Of the
property.

Deferred assessment works much the same as preferential
assessment. A record is kept of the difference in the tax between
the market value and the present-use assessment. If the owner
changes the use or appearance of the property, so it no longer
qualifies for the present-use assessment as a historic property, then
the owner must pay the additional taxes. There is usually a time
limit from two to seven years for which the taxes have to be paid

back. Under this scheme, an owner's options are more reStricted and

.the incentive to keep an historic property intact is more meaningful.

110

"Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-127a) has adopted a deferred
assessment scheme, but there is no limit on the number of years of
back taxes that will be recovered upon change or appearance."135

Contract assessment is an agreement between a historic
property owner and the local government in a legally binding con-
tract to restrict the property use and building as it i5'for an
agreed upon number of years. There is a penalty for a breach of
contract which is an incentive to keep the contractual agreement.
California is the only state to use this technique with historic
property. 'On the other hand, three others use it for open space
land (Washington, Pennsylvania, and Hawaii). 1

One of the problems that has surfaced using present-use
assessments is a result of the high Opportunity costs in urban areas
where historic properties are located. Here a complete reduction of
property taxes will do little to persuade the owner not to change the
property to a more intensive use. In the absence of a demand for
more intensive use, the present use assessment seems to work, but
this is the area of least need. Those states that "have present-use
assessments schemes for agricultural, open space, or historic property
with long-term restrictions and strong penalties for breach have
experienced very little use of their statutes."136 Another problem
with present-use assessment is in most of the enabling legislation.

'States do not reimburse local governments for their loss of revenue

through the implementation of present-use assessment techniques.

111

In conclusion, present-use assessments have not been utilized
sufficiently to make an accurate assessment of their effectiveness.
But at the same time analysis tends to be unfavorable.

Present-use assessment may be quite effective if carefully
drafted and administered. The analysis does suggest however,
that the contract form may be preferable because the possibility
of an unproductive loss of tax revenue is minimized.

One theme of the analysis is that successful implementation

of present-use assessment enabling legislation depends heavily
on the sophistication of the local planning process. Even the
most carefully drafted legislation will be unsuccessful without
the cooperation of local Officials. As legislation which only
authorizes cities and counties to act, present-use assessment

is limited bg the quality of local planning and taxing processes
themselves.1 7

There are other variations of the property tax that have been
used in different states for preservation purposes. These variations
include reduction of taxes on any publicly held easements on property
alteration or demolition and exemption fromthe tax roles for historic
property held by nonprofit historical societies. Some states are
giving credit for restoration costs toward property tax payment over a
number of years. Under this system, when an owner can get credit to
cover the total cost of restoration, the government is actually paying
for the restoration. The most positive legislation with regard to
property tax and restoration has been passed in Puerto Rico. If an
owner fully restores his property, he pays no property tax for ten
years. A partial restoration earns five years of free property tax.
Added on to this, the property does not have to have rent control or
income tax on the rent. Even though property taxes are quite low in

Puerto Rico, the above condition may provide active mechanisms for

preservation.

112

Income Tax.--The second type of tax that can be used to

 

encourage preservation, but has actually worked against preservation,
is the income tax. The federal income tax regulations have been the
main detriment. New construction is given tax benefits which are
unavailable to older buildings needing major renovation. The Tax
Reform Act signed by President Ford on October 4, 1976 gives important
new tax incentives for historic preservation. It attempts to correct
the past inadequate sections of the tax code which worked against
preservation. The Act makes tax advantages available to the public
through the Secretary of the Interior. Briefly, the Historic
Structures Tax Act S. 2347 would:

(I) allow a five year write- off of approved rehabilitation costs

Of property on the National Register or in a Registered
Historic District;

 

(2) deny deductions for expenses incurred in demolishing historic
property;

(3) limit to the straight—line method the depreciation of property,
built on the site of demolished historic property;

(4) allow those who substantially.rehabilitate property to use
the accelerated depreciation methods previously restricted to
new construction; and

(S) specifically allow charitable deductions for easements donated
to protect historic property (emphasis added).

Number two is of great importance to this thesis. In the
revised code a taxpayer can no longer deduct the cost of the demolition
of a certified historic structure. Included in this are all buildings
located in a national, state or local registered historic di5trict
unless the Secretary of the Interior certifies Otherwise. Before the
Historic Structures Tax Act, the federal tax code had encouraged

demolition by allOwing owners to deduct demolition expenses. This

113

had been a major problem to historic preservation. The first four
parts of the Act are relevant to property that is depreciable or

property that is an income for an individual.

Economic Mechanisms To Accomplish Preservation

 

A property owner needs assistance with financial aspects of
preservation and for public improvements in historic districts.
There are a number of ways people are given help. Some of these
mechanisms have been mentioned previously, they include easements,
restrictive covenants and tax incentives. They will be discussed
briefly as ways to accomplish preservation. There are other ways to
promote historic preservation in historic di5trict5. They include
adaptive re—use, revolving funds, transfer of development rights and

direct acquisition.

Easements

An easement is a limited ownership right in a piece of real
property granted by the owner to another person or body. .An easement
that is granted by a property owner on his historic building can be
used as a savings. The property owner can save on Federal income and
local property taxes. The easement given is assessed at a certain
level and this value is donated to a nonprofit, tax exempt organi-
zation. This donation can be deducted from one's taxable income.
"In Annapolis, Maryland, where easements have been used extensively
for preservation, the appraised value of a facade easement is about
10 percent of the appraised value of the fee simple interest (total

ownership). When an owner reduces the value of his property by that

114

amount the valuation for tax purposes can be lowered accordingly."139

The important aspects are that the property remains in private owner-
ship, the owner must keep up the maintenance on the historic building,
and the public body continues to collect taxes on the nine—tenths
portion held by the owner.

A single easement, at times, can stop new construction on a
whole series of front facades. Used in an advantageous way and

administered well, an easement can be a strong preservation tool.

Tax Incentives '

 

Taxation has been discussed, but this section will summarize
briefly those tax incentives that.are used or can be used as preser-
vation tools. Four types of tax incentives can be used.

(1) Abatement of property tax when tax load threatens continued
existence of historic property.

(2) Exemption from property taxes to extent of restoration costs.
(3) Special classification of designated buildings for tax purposes.
(4) Exemption from property taxes in consideration for easement

or agreement with owner of designated property to refrain

from altering or demoiiahing a structure without consent of

the local commission.

The first tax exemption would allow part or whole exemption of
property taxes on designated properties. The owner would have to show
that without a tax abatement he would have to demolish the historic
structure he owns.

The second exemption would allow owners of designated
properties to take the costs of approved and documented preservation,

maintenance, and restoration and use a portion Of those costs for an

abatement from local property taxes. The building involved would

115

have to be part of a certain area or buildings designated as a local,
state, or national significance. The exemption would probably last a
specified number of years and designate certain percent of the costs

Of work done.

The third type of exemption would take a building or an area
of buildings that have been given a special classification and apply
to them a special designation for tax purposes. Buildings which are
designated could be taxed at a reduced rate, but not the land they
are located on.

The final exemption would give a tax cut from property taxes
for an easement or promise with the owner of a historic structure to
stop from changing or destroying a building without permission from
the local governmental authority. An owner of a historic building
could get an exemption from all or part of his property taxes if he
agreed to a binding agreement which would meet certain specifications,
place a restrictive covenant, or place an easement on his property.
Conditions could vary from specific changes on the historic structure
to demolition and different degrees of change in between.

The Vieux Carré historic district in New Orleans is an
example where the city grants an exemption only after the owners and
‘ heirs of the structure agree to a formal contract which forbids
any alteration or demolition without prior approval of the historic
district commission. The idea again, in giving the property tax
exemption is to encourage upkeep and maintenance on a structure

which normally would be too costly.

116

Restrictive Covenants

 

A covenant is not a right to ownership like an easement, but a
legal promise to the use of a property. Covenants are written into I
the deed of the property to restrict the new owners and owners in the
future to the agreements in the deed. A designated body is given the
responsibility to make sure the restrictive covenant is upheld or to
approve alterations that are made to the property. The designated
body can sue the owner if he violates the promise. Sometimes the
body has the first Option to buy the land when the owner wants to
sell the property.

This tool has been used by groups who buy historic buildings,
restore them, and then sell them with restrictivecovenants as part
of the deed. This device has been used in specific historic dis;
tricts such as Savannah, Georgia and in the Strand in Galveston,

Texas.141

Adaptive Re-Use

 

One of the most successful economic solutions up to this time
has been to use the existing real estate market and to reeuse or
adapt underused historic or architecturally significant buildings.

To change the functions of these significant structures to contem—
porary uses has been quite successful. But it has only been in the
last ten years that adaptive re-use has become competitive with new

construction costs.142

A combination of a conservationist attitude
to the environment and numerous successes has brought about one Of
the most important changes in the state of preservation economy of

the early and mid-19705.

117

Reasons for more adaptive re-use include an increase in fuel,
material, and labor costs. Especially the sharp rise in fuel and
material costs in the 19605 and 19705. Other changes which occurred
to increase adaptive reuse include: rising costs of demolition, the
need for new construction of large tracts of cleared land, "no growthU
attitude, the energy crisis, and other economic considerations.
People saw that there were economic benefits in adaptive re-use. They
could buy, restore and then sell for a profit restored buildings
within the city. People started realizing the long-overlooked bene-
fits of urban living. The Old buildings of cities provide more
interesting and varied environments fOr people to live, work, shop
and eat.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation finished a
survey of adaptive re-use projects in June of 1976. The results of
the survey were that adaptive re-use was not always cheaper but close
enough to new cOnstruction costs to be competitive. They concluded
that adaptive re-use was a viable alternative to new construction to
provide the space needs of new tenants.

The costs of each project will vary greatly depending on the
amount of work needed to be done on each different structure. The
components that were more expensive were the architectural and
mechanical work. These costs could be kept down by the architect
through creativity and ingenuity. The demolition and structural
costs were relatively low and so not the major determinants of a
project. 'The important aspect in comparing adaptive re-use versus

new construction costs is the quality and character of the space

118

created by both. An appreciation of the quality of the finished
product is essential to place the comparative cost figures in per-
spective. The amenity benefits on a restored building should be
taken into consideration because those benefits often provide economic
return thrOugh higher rents and occupancy rates. As George Notter, a
Boston architect explains it:

. . . more often than not, the total dollar expenditure for

preservation, including the acquisition of the property involved,

is about the same as new construction. Thus the plus factor

is achieved by developing the potential assets into a final

project of greater amenity--one having the right location, more

space in either height or volume, more area or more character,

materials of special quality or a potential for time savings in
construction.1 3

RevolvingsFunds

 

For any major historic district preservation a revolving fund
is very important. In broad terms, revolving funds, public or private,
are started with a sum of money raised in any way possible. The
money raised is then invested into projects which are projected to
repay the investment and even at times make a profit. The money is
best used when it is applied to certain areas or historic districts
rather than haphazardly distributed throughout a city.

Arthur P. Ziegler Jr. in his book, Historic Preservation in

 

Inner City Areas: A Manual of Practice, describes how revolving funds

 

can be beneficial to a preservation group's effort. First, the
revolving fund tends to give force to an organization's efforts and
economic resources. This is especially true if a specific district
is picked to work on. Secondly, the idea of an established and

permanent revolving funds attracts donors. They like to see their

119

money being used and the benefits that revolving funds have on an
area. Thirdly, administrative costs of an organization can be taken
from the profits of the revolving funds so that the organizational
framework can economically keep going as well as the revolving

‘ funds. Lastly, revolving funds are a way that preservationists can
Obtain power. Without legislative support a preservation cause can
be futile. Revolving funds are one way to show that a group and an
effort are alive.‘ An organization can gain political influence by
showing restoration going on because of its efforts.144

There are five basic types of revolving funds which can be
used, or bits and pieces taken from each to develop one's own
revolving fund.

The Charleston Fund was the first revolving fund in the
United States and is administered by the Historic Charleston Founda-
tion. The fund is used to buy a structure, restore the facade, and
then sell the building with restrictive covenants placed in the deed.
The interior Of the building is not touched so the new owners can use
their imagination on it. The idea is to get peOple interested in an
area by restoring the exterior of the buildings. In the last few
years, the Charleston Fund has been buying "large rows and clusters
of buildings" to have more area protection.

The Savannah Fund, also one of the first, has been working
quite well over the years. The historic Savannah Foundation admin-
isters the fund by picking out an area of consideration and purchases
property there. They then promote the area with advertising to

influence people to move into the area. The Foundation is run by

120

businessmen, not true preservationists, and so is based on economic
principles. Guidelines and restrictions are established in the chosen
area and a restrictive covenant of 99 years placed in the deed to
prohibit facade change. This is backed up by a lOcal preservation
ordinance which requires a permit to change facades.

The Pittsburgh Fund administered by Arthur Ziegler's organi-
zation, the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation (PHLF), is
quite different. They are concerned with a total restoration,
interior as well as exterior. The main difference is that the PHLF
rents its units to the original residents. Low or moderate income
people living in the buildings are not displaced. They try to
develop residences for all income people within an area. The main
idea behind the PHLF's use of their revolving fund,

is an effort to make old buildings function in a modern city--

a changing city-4and for all income groups. While some of its
restored properties are rented to moderate-to-middle-income
groups, others rent under the leased housing program to low-
income tenants; we get our investment returned in about 15
years. Not a_quick profit, but we are fulfilling our goal of
saving valuable buildings, improving the environment, creating
fit habitations, and serving low-income families. So far there
have been no social problems in our integrated neighborhoods.14S

Two other revolving funds are important. They were developed
in Pittsburgh not as preservation funds, but as funds to provide good,
decent housing.

The first was established by the Neighborhood Housing Services
(NHS), a nonprofit group, made up from many other organizations to
fix up a Victorian-style neighborhood which was run down, but for the

most part owner-occupied. The people were unable to improve their

property because of the costs and redlining practices. A code

121

enforcement program prodded property owners to get help from NHS to
see how to bring their property to code. Then, if a bank would not
give them loans for the improvements, NHS would loan them the money.
The other revolving fund, called the Major Development Fund,
was set up by the Action Housing Development Fund, a nonprofit group,
who was established to imprOve low and moderate income housing. The
fund loans money to contractors to go ahead with projects the banks
are not going to loan money to at first. Action Housing gets the
money by borrowing it from corporations at 4% and loaning it at 8%.)
After the contractor has proven to the banks that his project works,
he then pays back the money to Action Housing.146
Revolving funds can be used as a preservation tool. They
can be used to set standards, be examples of restoration, enable one
to buy property, used as an emergency fund, and they allow a preser-
vation group to buy property in poor condition and fix it up to
attract private investors into an area. In sum, revolving funds can

be used as an anchor in an area to help stabilize it.

Transfer Development Rights

 

The transfer of development rights is a new tool used in
historic preservation to protect privately owned landmark buildings
on prime downtown locations. John J. Costonis has developed this

technique for preservation in the book Space Adrift: Landmark

 

Preservation and the Marketplace. Government buys from an individual

 

land owner the unused development potential (deveIOpment rights) of
an historic landmark. This unused development potential is defined

as the full space allotment under the existing zoning laws. The

122

development rights are sold to a developer to be used on another site.
This allows the new building to be larger and more profitable than

the zoning regulation would normally allow. "The transfer of develop-
ment rights in this manner, carried out according to strict urban
design controls, shifts preservation costs from the city landmark
owner to the downtown development process itself."147

Transfer development rights can be used in historic districts.
There are two types of districting techniques proposed by Costonis.
The first wOuld put a border around an area where most of the city's
downtown landmarks are located. The development rights sold from one
landmark would have to be used within the designated area. The
second type suggested would be the most appropriate for historic
districts. This is less restrictive and also promotes the idea of an
historic district. A neighborhood or downtown area of significance
is designated as historic. Higher density there is not desirable
because more intensive development would be a threat to the character
of the area. Development rights within the district are transferred
to other parts of the city.

An example of the above would be the proposal that has been
suggested for the restoration of Washington's Georgetown waterfront
district. "Funds for restoration would be generated by the sale of
_the development rights of historic properties within the district."148
The rights would be diStributed to a predetermined area, next to
Washington's new subway system where high densities would be more

beneficial.' If the rights were sold in the Georgetown district, then

the district's visual and dimensional scale would be destroyed.

123

Another example where transfer development rights have
actually been used is South Street Seaport. The South Street Seaport
I Museum is a whole district in lower Manhattan, New York, that was
protected through a combination of landmark designation, development
rights transfer and urban renewal. What is unique about this project
is that the development rights were banked for future use someplace
else. The Office of Lower Manhattan Development was able to line up a
group of different banks to purchase the development rights over the
district. Then these funds were used to buy out the developers in the
area.
With the threat of demolition of the structure in the district
gone, the Seaport district was able to plan for the historic district-
and begin restoring the buildings. Transfering the development rights
took pressure off inflating property values, which slowed down, so it
became economically feasible to restore the older structures. Now the
problem was to make the area economically self-supporting with a
mixture of profitable commercial activities.

Transfer development rights have an uncertain future with
respect to historic districts. With transfer development rights,
costs are shifted from the public to the new marketable commodity.
The marketable commodity is the ultimate source of the compensation
system which demands an increasingly intensive use of land. As long
as the system can be politically viable and the administrative problems
worked out the proper conditions can be created to make transfer
development rights a preservation tool for historic districts. Because

of the political and administrative hurdles, the concept of transfer

124

deve10pment rights will not be used frequently in respect to historic

districts in the near future.

CHAPTER VI

POTENTIAL IMPACTS, CAUTIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS

The potential impacts, cautions, and implications of historic
districts are important considerations. This final chapter is the
catch-all chapter. It deals with a variety of considerations related
to the preservation of historic districts. These include: costs
versus aesthetics; historic districts and the environmental movement;
preservation and the poor; the question of historic districts and
neighborhood conservation (Is establishing historic districts enough?);
and last, a discussion on integrating preservation and historic dis-
tricts into planning, environmental, and social considerations.

It is important when defining historic districts that historic
have a broad definition. Districts are groupings of buildings which
are linked together by elements which are not all historic. They are
made up of elements which are architecturally, visually, and environ-
mentally important. The creation of districts is a method to preserve
aesthetically pleasing areas which are not necessarily historically
linked. Districts along with other preservation tools can be used to
stabilize and preserve visual amenities of areas. The broad definition
of historic should be emphasized and stressed to help preserve
aesthetically pleasing areas..

125

126

Conservation is a word that defines more clearly than preser-g
vation the attempts of using districts to save viable, very liveable,
aesthetically pleasing, and culturally significant areas. Districting
Can be used to take areas which are deteriorating and help revitalize
them. This is the main consideration. The secondary consideration
is the cultural and historic benefits of saving historic districts.
People can be enlightened about the history of their community and
learn to appreciate its past. A district can be the rallying point
for cultural activities. The atmosphere created by a historic dis-
trict Often attracts musicians, artists, and unique shops which then
add to the area's attraction and character. .1

The following are other impacts, cautions, and implications
for historic districts. They are just part of a whole group of

current and future considerations.

Costs Versus Aesthetics

 

When restoring or revitalizing, a compromise has to be made
between restoring to the original style of architecture and the cost
of such an undertaking. An authentic restoration will try to match
every detail, including the original paint colors. For a private
individual interested in sweet equity, that is too time consuming and
costly.

Historic districts try only to regulate exterior features of
buildings. If the restoration of the exterior is made true to the
character of the district, and not a modernization, it is adequate.
The interiors of buildings are very personal spaces and should be

left to the discretion of the individual owner as to use. His or

127

her personal items and expressions of taste should be expressed and

not years past.

Historic Districts and the Environmental Movement

 

Historic district conservation is part of a growing cultural
need to save our nonrenewable resources. For the most part, a public
awareness of the need to protect our aesthetic nonrenewable resOurces,
such as historic districts, was dormant until the last ten years. It
has become a moral dedication of many people to be concerned with
ecolOgy, conservation, and pollution control.

The growing awareness of the environment has strengthened the
cause for the preservation or conservation of historic districts.
Conservation of historic districts is a tangible item people can
relate to and is usually nonthreatening to the majority of society.
At the same time, there are people skeptical of the preservation
movement because of their perceptions of the goals and directions of
preservation strategies or they are alienated by the lack of what
they consider germane or pertinent issues.

To overcome this skepticism, people have to be brought into
the preservation movement and educated as was dOne in the environ-
mental movement. People have to think about the future in more than
just a few days.) The intangible value of a community solving its
own problems over the long run is essential to successful preser—
vation. If people are not involved with long range foresight, any
preservation attempt is in danger. The Pittsburgh approach, with
Arthur Ziegler, focuses on buildings that are both a continuing

importance to the community and of historical value, combined with a

128

process of involvement and self-help. It generates concern, enthusi-

asm, action, and continued awareness in the community.

Preservation and the Poor

 

An example of poor blacks being moved out Of an area because
of rising property values and rents is Georgetown, Washington, D.C. A
very old area, where blacks have lived since before the Civil War.
In 1930, 40 percent of the population was black. Then the area was
discovered by upper-class whites who were willing to pay handsomely
for an association with history. By 1950, most blacks and poor

whites had moved out.149

Blacks view Georgetown as another example of
whites deciding what is best for blacks. .Blacks of today see "the
need for and the imperative of black power with its tenet of self
determination."150

A difficulty of preservation in a poor area is where does the
poor move after the rents have raised. Housing choices'are decreased
for people on the bottom end of the income Scale. The white middle
and upper class already have many more choices for housing and have
-been given more in the example of Georgetown. Preservationists must
be aware of this problem and work closely with local housing author-
ities to alleviate it.

There is another objective that even the traditional preser-
vationist wOuld have to consider: Does an historic area actually need
historic preservation if part of its past culture and heritage is
moved out? In the case of Georgetown, the blacks played a major role

in its history, but they have been excluded in its preservation.

What can be concluded is:

129

Much preservation in the Georgetown style more accurately
reflects desires to profit and to provide a new era for white
,residentS near the city core than a concern for history. A
genuine concern for history would not countenance a course of
action designed to distort that very history. A concern for
social implications of a restoration project would compel the
participation and involvement of the blacks presently residing
in historic neighborhoods in any preservation activities affect-
ing the neighborhood.151.

In Michael de Haven Newson's article "Blacks and Historic
Preservation," he suggests solutions to the problems discussed above.
He discussed ways for blacks to influence preservation projects.
First, he summarized the private enterprise project.

The central elements of this type of project can be briefly
summarized. A real estate developer or speculator may have been
inspired by the local preservationists who have concluded that
the neighborhood in question has fundamentally attractive qual-
ities. The developer, appropriately fortified, proceeds to
purchase a large portion of the land. He will probably obtain
the aid of the building department or other appropriate govern-
mental agency as a means of "stimulating" the present owners to
sell. After acquiring title, the developer will proceed to
obtain financing for the actual restoration and, upon completion
of the restoration, will sell the restored unit at a high price
to a white family. The developer would steadfastly maintain,

_of course, that he would sell to anybody, but there do not happen
to be many blacks who can meet his price.

The black response to this scenario will depend in large part
on their political power. The specific tactics available fall
into two major categories: those that require relatively little
political power and those that require a great deal. When blacks
will gain a great deal of political power is a matter of some
debate. Realistically, it has to be conceded that they may
never get as much power as they want. But the potential for
acquiring some degree of political power is great.

Blacks can refuse to cooperate if they have political clout.
They can say pp_to developers who want to buy their property. Blacks
could influence preservation projects if money were available to
them through mortgage insurance and direct federal loans. This
would permit them to fix up their property without private enterprise

moving them out. Another solution, which concerns all preservationists,

130

is some way of controlling restoration costs. ”Sweat" equity is one
thing that could promote this, but it would mean training programs
for unskilled people so they could fix up their own homes. Last,
nonviolent protest through picketing or other negative publicity
tactics could affect politically sensitive participants and donors.

If the black and poor get involved in politics, they could
attempt to decentralize governmental functions. A neighborhood
agency could take over a lot of the planning functions of the city
government, so the property of a particular restoration project would
be determined by the neighborhood. The neighborhood could predetermine
how many low-income residences should be provided, and if the stand-
ards are not upheld, building permits could be denied.

Two recent cases are particularly relevant. In SASSO v.

Union City, the Ninth Circuit identified an affirmative obligation

on the part of the city to respond to the demand for low-cost
housing:

 

Given the recognized importance of equal opportunities in
housing, it may well be, as a matter of law, that it is the
responsibility of a city and its planning officials to see
that the city's plan as initiated or as it develops, accommo-
dates the needs of its low-income families, who usually--

if not always--are member of minority groups (424 F. 2d 291,
295-96, 9th Cir. 1970).

In DeSimone v. Greater Englewood Housing Corpgration (269 A.

2d. 31, 56 N.J. 428 (1970)) the question was whether a variance
granted to build low—income housing in a white neighborhood could
be sustained. A New Jersey statute required that variances be
granted only for "special reasons." The local board of adjustment
attempted to satisfy this requirement by reciting in considerable
detail the housing needs created by overcrowding and blight in

the black neighborhoods of the city. The New Jersey court held
that:

 

As matter of law in the light of public policy and the law

- of the land, that public or, as here, semi-public housing
accommodations to provide safe, sanitary, and decent housing,
to relieve and replace substandard living conditions or to
furnish housing for minority or underprivileged segments of

131

the population outside of ghetto areas is a special reason

adequate to meet . . . (the statutory standard) and to ground

a use variance (267 A. 2d, at 38-39, 56 N.J. at 442).

It has long been accepted that the development of low-income
housing is a proper governmental concern. The implication of the
recent decisions is that the pressing need for that housing may
allow governmental units to give itlgzhigh priority even at the
expense of more trad1t1onal values.

A group in Pittsburgh are actually trying to address the
problems of the poor and preservation. This activist historic preser—
vation organization is named the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks
Foundation and is led by Arthur P. Ziegler, Jr. The movement in
Pittsburgh has evolved out of the dichotomy that the poor are moved
out by people with money. Ziegler's unique historic districts
program tries to utilize historic preservation of houses as a way to
renew the civic pride of people who live in the area and to involve
them in the restoration activity rather than dislocating them. This
is a community action approach to the architectural restoration of an
area and has been working, but with slow progress.

The misfortune of preservation is that its efforts are on a
crisis by crisis situation. In order to make their contribution,
preservationists must learn to begin with principles-rather than
issues. The first duty of a preservation group is to inform a com-
munity of its indigenous architectural values. These values should
include districts and the structures within them.‘ The aesthetic
qualities and usefulness of districts should be fully described.

Second, preservationists must start their organization before they

need to fight. Positive accomplishments that serve the entire

132

community should be their goal. They are best Obrained through

ongoing programs rather than a crisis by crisis battle.154
Ziegler believes that inhabitants of the most ruinous slums

have as much right to enjoy that architectural past as_do the most

affluent of Pittsburgh's citizens. He is dedicated to finding an

alternative to demolition and dispersion. 'The first priority is to

restore the social fabric and the second priority is to restore

the physical form. An example of this concern occurred when a pro-

posed half million dollar community center was researched by Ziegler

as to its community benefit. It was found out that the center was

not what the neighborhood youth wanted to keep them off the streets

at night. Existing community facilities and their buildings were

all that were required. The youth wanted to use the bowling alley

one night a week, the pinball place one night a week, and the Catholic

gym three nights. At $5000 a year, peace was restored and existing

buildings saved.155

The Question of Historic Districts and
Neighborhood Conservation

 

 

In recent years, historic districts and neighborhood conser-
vation as issues have been growing together as a result of the desire
and need to preserve or conserve areas of our cities. These areas
are aesthetically and socially viable. In 1973, the Task Force on.
Land Use and Urban Growth suggested that the National Register of
Historic Places be expanded to include conservation areas under a new
category. This new category would be defined as "urban districts

with mixed uses, vital street life, and physical integrity."156

133

The Council of Environmental Quality recently reported that three
types of urban neighborhoods should be preserved: neighborhoods of
long standing with some unique quality, long standing ethnic neighbor-
hoods, and historic areas.

The National Register of Historic Places until recently
defined a "historic district as a geographical area with a concen-
tration of sites, buildings, structures, or objects unified by past

events, a plan, or physical development."157

The National Register
does minimumly protect historic areas affected by federally funded
or licensed projects. Recently, they came out with new standards in
which a district can be made up of several different parcels of land
with noncontiguous boundaries. The logic and reasoning behind this
decision appears weak. It seems that this definition of a district
weakens what little control there was with the National Register

nomination. This new standard combined with the criteria already in

effect are too restrictive. They are designed to focus on individual

 

structures of outstanding architectural or hiStorical significance.
What about livability and use? Are these not important also? Should
they not be considered as criteria?

The type of districts that have been placed on the National
Register up to now, for the most part, have not been in cities. They
mainly range from small rural towns to mining towns, or to early farm
settlements. A change must be made to the restricted definitions of
the National Register nominations fOr historic districts. Elitist
attitudes and values have led to recognizing the home of the indus-

trialist but not the collective residences of the working class.

134

.The designation of a historic district conservation area
should include the following criteria. Vitality, along with attractive-
ness and utility are the main criteria. The area should have a number
of different types of activities related to residence, shopping,
recreation, jobs, and education. The district should be evaluated on
how the whole area and its residents contribute to the city's develop-
ment. Finally, a central activity which made the area develop such
as a mill, brewery, central market or wharf should be included.

People are starting to think in the above way for definition
and standards to apply to areas of our cities. The San Francisco‘
Urban Design Plan strongly advocates the conservation of areas which
may not contain individual buildings that are historic or otherwise
_ outstanding, but have a special character worth preserving. These
areas contain an unusually fortunate relationship of building scale,
landscaping, topography, and other attributes that makes them indis-

pensable. As Michael Seelig said in Time Present and Time Past:

 

More attention is being paid to intrusion into neighborhoods, in
the forms of unsympathetic architecture as well as visual, noise,
traffic and air pollution disruptions. Citizens have always been
concerned with improving their surroundings and while historic
preservation once emerged as a Specialized and limited aspect of
this concern, today it is part of a general movement for environ-
mental conservation. ‘

Is Establishing Historic Districts Enough?

 

The above section concentrated on designation of conservation
areas. An interesting question arises as to whether designation
alone can reverse the decline of an urban neighborhood. There are
two reasons why a district might reverse because of designation.

First, designation could give credibility to the area so loans would

135

be more available at a lower interest rate or available at all.
Second, the designation may stop the influx of incompatible uses
which start to destroy the character. The designation along with
community promotion of a district may help create a sense of com-
munity which it lacked before. The designation may act as a catalyst.
Fixing up a neighborhood is‘a psychological phenomenon as well as an
economic one. A

In a declining neighborhood each individual homeowner has a
dilemma when deciding to improve his/her housing situation. The
choice is to stay and improve one's existing residence Or to make the
improvement through a location change. Property values play an
important role in this decision. If property values are on a decline,
it is best and a safer investment for the owner to sell and buy some-
place else. The creation of this forced mobility is wasteful and
unneeded.

But designation by itself does not guarantee that a neighbor-
hood will not decline. There are other factors that play a role in
that outcome; locational factors of where the area is in relationship
to employment centers, stores, schools, etc.; the social status of
the neighborhood; the trend of growth; and the age of the buildings.

Besides the above factors, which would be different with each
district, there are the legal and economic tools applicable to dis-
tricts. These were talked about in chapters three and four.. They
can be used in many different ways and combinations to achieve some
preservation. Since each situation to which they can be applied will

be different, it is important to use a combination of legal and

136

economic tools in a way that will be acceptable. It is impossible

to try to designate which ones are best because that will change with
each district. An important aspect is to put them into a planning,
environmental, and social review framework.

Historic Districts and Preservation Integrated Into
Planning, Environmental, and Social Considerations

 

 

Preservation is part of a greater reconsideration of land
use practices and the origins of the rights to use land. Preservation
is part of urban conservation needs which are growing in our cities.
Preservation laws have to be stronger than "stopgap devices such as
landmark designations."159 Historic preservation programs must be
more effective, and the planning process must assume a stronger role
in preservation. The legal mechanisms used currently are not adequate
and offer only a partial solution.

Most of the traditional tools for preservation have been
used as a response to a threat of redevelopment and demolition.
Preservation of historic districts and landmarks need to be given
exposure as a viable part of design and city growth and removed from
the realm of a crisis by crisis orientation. In earlier chapters
public and private legal tools and economic tools were discussed.
These are not inadequate concepts. They have to be placed into a
different type of administrative framework which will integrate them
into the thinking of land use planning, resource management,.and
social planning. Preservation should become a legally required
consideration in physical planning, impact analysis, and social

planning to expand the preservation possibilities of districts.

137

 

Planning and Historic Districts

A historic district designation and ordinance will not auto-
matically make or restore a historic area. To help the preservation
of an area it Should be incorporated into the planning process. City
planning and historic preservation planning, as processes, are
identical. First, get the community involved. Second, do a back-
ground and study design. Third, define or determine one's goals and
objectives. Fourth, research or survey the existing conditions and
facts as they pertain to the objectives stated. Fifth, analyze the
facts gathered in relation to the newly established principles and
standards. Sixth, re-examine goals and objectives. 'Seventh, develop
a plan. Eighth, implement the plan. Ninth, at various times evaluate
the plan and its implementation (administration). In each step the
citizens of the areas should be involved. Assuming the required
studies and analysis of the historic areas are carried out, specific
plans should be made for each district (see Figure 2).

Historic preservation should become one of the elements in the
general plan and it should be incorporated into the other elements:
economic base, land use, zoning, transportation, and community facil-
ities. In the economic base section the overall economic effect of
the preservation program of the community could be analyzed. Land
use and zoning can be looked at to See how the historic districts fit
into the whole city. Future major transportation routes and circu-
lation problems within and around historic districts can be addressed
in the transportation element. Historic districts and their need for

various facilities can be addressed in the community facilities section.

138

N onzmflm
mZmNEO

.mmooen— 9:585 cots/.885 29: seawmwaaumfi a
7.0mm HmOnEDm Jsozfiém a

. manage season- Ema/67.200 moeomm 03E: 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

confluommeeuk-
25 9:3. ummmUUDm mow omommz machoai
eonflaom-
manoom-
5E 35m nousuwum 3.332-
985 .«o :09..ng . ”55 uuofluoufi
>282 33m 53m anus—“fizuum «.52 deoamodoucuua‘-
20°F flawed new :onanflamuo Sen. 5 29:85. 6933030 new macaw—3m- 333 2560
259.com on: muugcfim armamen— 5?» 330 2805? Sea 32.530- mofiuoflm emamoo 363m.
3395 xofieuum 5.5 3064. moqaaofium e930 .Beigm cauosumm uubwc< ”>635 23:3: :0 3:ch meanness—.883“
”2.3a "2.3.. ”23...: 3 ”9342.244 SEER g nazwbeoxus‘m.
mmPflZ—«zQJ‘ Hzmzmqmsz 3m~>mm >MOHZm>ZH mqfloo
<P<Q

  

+20m<mwmm

2”:me

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>m>mam
23a 21...: .3400 j a 1 33.2530
mmeflzfioa‘ HZmEmiE. 223.1 32:; 2213.7... >m0p7<mbwm mstoo azaomouog
. m _ A _ _
. _ . _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
. . _ _ _ _
u . n “ eaazs .szELO “ n n
_ . _ _ . _ _ _
_ _ . _ _ . _
rulllllllllluplllllnlllLlunllllrultnIIIIIllullrllllnllulrlllllllII11L

uoemOmma.

139

Preservation techniques have failed in the past because they
are crisis oriented and the full potentials of these techniques have
not been a concern of the planner. The piecemeal approach to historic
preservation has not been effective. Preservation techniques have to
be considered in the overall plan of the community.

Integration of Historic Districts

Into An Environmental and Social
Analysis Framework

 

 

 

The trend now and in the future is to review and judge devel-
opment proposals in terms of their impact upon an entire network of
ppth_social and environmental values. The aim of historic preservation
is to integrate restored buildings into the environment as part of a
larger whole. Some means has to be developed for achieving satis-
factory environmental control in the community where buildings are
lOcated. This can be developed into the legal system through an
environmental and social review process. A

Two fairly recent Federal Statutes have started us thinking
this way. First, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
where federal agencies must consider the following issues in their
recommendations for other agency actions and for legislation, "sig-
nificantly affecting the quality of the human environment." Issues to
-be considered:

(a) the environmental impact of the proposed action,

(b) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided
should the proposal be implemented,

(c) alternatives to the proposed action,
(d) the relationship between local short—term uses of man's environ—

ment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term pro-
ductivity,

140

(e) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
which would beo involved in the proposed action should it be
implemented.

Second, in 1966, Congress established a procedure for the
review of projects that were connected with buildings, sites, objects,
and districts on the National Register of Historic Places. This
provision came under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, created by the National
Historic Preservation Act, is the administrative body who is to
review the projects where federal mOney and licenses are involved and
properties within the projects are on the National Register.

These statutes are attempting to preserve the Options avail-
able for future generations. The objectives of an environmental
statement or review is to provide a means for giving environmental
quality careful and appropriate consideration in the planning and
decision process. EnvirOnmental quality should have a broad defini-
tion for historic preservation purposes that includes social factors
for consideration in preserving a historic district.

The courts to this date have limited their environmental
impact in the National Historic Preservation Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act to only those properties on the National
Register. This is too limited a view. The criteria of the National
Register are too strict. State and locally important districts and
prOperties should be part of the review process. Hopefully, the
courts will take the broader view in the future that nonregistered
property is protected under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This is not meant to save any old building. This is directed mainly

141

at those viable historic conservation districts. Another important
consideration in the review process is social considerations.
Sociological considerations are important because the creation

of a historic district is not always beneficial to all residents in
the area. Preservation of an area can greatly change the socio-
economic characteristics as well as the physical characteristics.
In proposing a historic district ordinance and preservation plan, one
should carefully include into the implementation and planning thoSe
working and living in the proposed area. They should not be displaced,
but they Should be part of the process. An environmental/social
impact analysis with broad and progressive criteria should consider
the problem.

We are going to find each other-~we who are searching for the

right way of living the truth and the peaceful way of harmony

with each other and with nature . . . . We are all part of it,

we cannot break away from it . . . .

T. Banyasya, a Hopi . . .

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSIONS

ThrpughQUt this the§is an attempt has been made.t9.explqrst.

‘..— "an?" Mn:

_the ba$1$sfor future preservatipn plann1ng and 2739FE93215813393.F9J

m
at”. fig...,.1-~~‘- I'.“1H"fi ”I ‘ f P -‘

historigwgistricts. A history of the preservation movement was

developed to describe how the concept of historic districts was
created.) Next, characteriStics of historic districts were described.
Then economic and legal mechanisms for preservation were discussed
as they exist today. The specifics of historic districts were then
detailed to analyze, explore, and explain the problems, impacts, I
cautions, and implications of historic districts.

Preservation Evolving Into An Environmental
and Social Context

 

 

The preservation origins were truly a grassroots effort. It
spontaneously evolved throughout the nation as an interest activity
of amateurs. No national organization coordinated preservation
efforts until 1949 when the National Trust was formed. LOcal preser-
vation efforts were hurt by the lack of coordination, professional
knowledge, governmental assistance, and national leadership.)-

At the same time, the emphasis on individual historic build-
ings was patriotically too narrow. The next structures to be preserved

were of individual architectural importance representing the rich

142

143

and forgetting the majority of the working class. Then in the 19305
historic areas or districts became important. The definition of
historic districts at this time was limited and narrow. Areas of
some cities which were lucky enough not to be destroyed by the changing
patterns of American urban life were considered important to preserve
and were treated as museum pieces. Examples are Vieux Carre, New
Orleans; Savannah, Georgia; and Charleston, South Carolina.

Over the years preservation became more acceptable to the
government.1 The government became more involved and was spurred on
by the frantic calls of local preServatiOnefforts. But the govern-
ment made mistakes. Through attempts at urban revitalization such as
urban renewal, city and federal authorities learned that the bull-
dozer mentality of completely clearing and destroying areas of the

Sky. at: 1.1. 1:612 .

city and building anew does not work. {tmwgsurealiEggwthatmrestorationg,

conservation, and preservation of city areas was a more humane approach

(when “a.” hm ,
"N-whr-lw‘. \H-v 1“ J- ‘_p I H
"HE‘U'Df‘W. 315’] Jim-0 “HM- he \wvl V‘- 01W ’ .7 441-. 1 . ' V ”a '

and more acceptable to the general public. Conservation restoration,

wt... was «a; H mm.flfllw "‘~"

and preservation were acceptable because they worked to aesthetically
meaansnvironment .w1 th..111...).11111111131133'3292995 , 5951.31.91? 5’17“?“ 19’“
COnservation and preservation of historic districts are
slowly being integrated into the decision-making process. The
creation of the National Preservation Act of 1966 made preservation
an important part of governmental policy. The National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as currently interpreted by the courts,
reviews projects that use federal dollars or licenses and includes

National Register properties. The environmental conservation and

review of the built environment, including historic districts, lags

144

behind the environmental review of natural environments. There are
two reasons for the limited review of histOric districts as part of
the environmental review process. First, the current court inter-
pretation of environmental review of historic districts allowing only
National Register districts to be reviewed. Second, the limited
definition of what constitutes a historic district by the National
Register program. 1

The common denominator of the environmental and preservation
movement is that environmentalists, historic preservationists, and
conservationists are all concerned with protecting outstanding visual
features in our environment. The relative newness of city governments
getting involved with the total urban environment, including both the
natural as well as man-made qualities, is a result of the above
mentioned common denominator.

Cities are in different stages of conserving/preserving their
environments. Some are still defining their visual assets, others
are educating people of those assets, and still others are deve10ping
legal and economic mechanisms to ensure protection of valuable areas
and scenic views. Some cities have implemented mechanisms to preserve.
certain historic areas while many are surveying and studying ways to
implement conservation techniques which can apply to scenic views,
entire neighborhoods, and natural-assets. Actual experience of this
type is very sparse and limited. New York City and Cincinnati are
known as cities which have developed and adopted zoning techniques

. for preservation of defined areas and views.

145

The transition of historic preservation toward historic
districts and amenity conservation has started to surface and be
considered more often. Traffic, air pollution, noise, visual dis-
ruptions, and unsympathetic architecture are becoming concerns of
Aresidents in unique neighborhoods. People have always been concerned
with their surroundings, but the type and degree of that concern has

been changing.

The Poor and Preservation

 

In preserving historic districts in large cities there is a
major dichotomy of preservation reality in the displacement of the
poor. Preservation of an area results in the rising of property
values and rents forcing the poor to pay or move. The middle and
upper class who have many more choices for housing drive the poor out.
There has been no solution to this problem except on a small level.
One group, as mentioned, the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Founda-
tion led by Arthur P. Ziegler, Jr. has been trying to deal with this
problem. By involving the existing residents in the planning,
restoration, and financing process, the group has been successful in
keeping the poor in restored areas.

The majority of the time the poor residents are not con-
sidered. They are brutally eased out and displaced like the victims
of urban renewal. The problem of moving out the poor by people with
more money is a major concern of area preservation. This problem
needs further exploration and would be a good topic to study in the

future, even though the urgency is now.

146

Community Support Essential

 

For any preservation effort to be successful, community sup-
port is required. A basic interest has to be there and then expanded|
upon. The community must be convinced that the preservation of a

particular historic district will benefit the community. The community

 

has to be a part of the planning process to engrain the effort into J
the community. Information that is clear, descriptive and informative
is needed throughout the community.

The social process to achieve increased public involvement
needs expanding as an essential adjustment for the preservation
movement. Conditions under which preservation organizers have worked
are changing and will continue to change in the future. The preser-
vation movement can be part of the social process in which communities
are trying to confront the increasing rapid change of our world. Some
people are suffering from "future shock" and are trying to deal with
it.

To preserve historic areas without long-range community
support is impossible. A concerned public can keep an eye on its own
preservation interests and keep up an information flow which is '

sorely needed. Large-scale preservation can only be achieved with

 

institutional support for new directions in land use policies. Broad

IJAfi'fi‘

support is necessary to incorporate the environmental and preser-

...r-

vation effort into national level policy changes. , ./

Each District Is Different and Dynamic

 

Within the process of preserving historic districts, one must

remember that they are all different and dynamic. All historic

147

districts being different, creates a situation where each one must be
studied and the preservation strategy for each developed separately.
Historic districts take on the characteristics of the past in each
region and city in our country. Cities and states all have different
preservation laws for dealing with the problems of their respective
historic districts. Historic districts are dynamic. This change and
development is not wrong unless it upsets the character and aesthetics
of districts. Historic districts, whether residential, commercial,
industrial, mixed use or rural, have certain aspects that make them

unique and worthy of preservation.

Zones of Transition Around Historic Districts

 

One of the major problems of historic districts is the
development which occurs in the area immediately surrounding the
boundaries of the district. There are usually no controls in this
transition zone that makes development sensitive to the character of
the district. Transition zone development threatens the district's
viability, uniqueness and character. The edges of the district are
slowly eroded by high rises, gas stations, supermarkets, etc. There
is a need for land use and aesthetic controls in the transition zone.
These controls should not be as strict as the district controls, but
should be effective enough to stop the district edges from slowly
effecting the core of the district. Zones of transition would be a

good topic for future research.

148

Creating Conservation Areas Which Have Viable
Ethnic or Community Growth Significance
(Or, The Definition of Historic
Has Been Too Narrow)

 

 

 

 

The definition of "historic" up to now has been too limited
and narrow. The National Register has to expand its criteria as to
what makes a historic district. The creation of conservation areas
should include viable ethnic areas, areas which were significant in
the city's deve10pment and growth, unique aesthetic and visual areas
(unique views), and areas which are unique because of their develop-
ment .

The historic district can be used as a tool to create con-
servation areas which have their own identity and characteristiCs.
There are many districts existing right now in many cities that just
need to get exposure which would start them on their way to preser-
vation. Then the economic and legal mechanisms combined with com-
munity and public support will keep a part of the environment worth

saving.

Legal Mechanisms

 

The legal mechanisms for preservation confront the laissez-
faire attitudes of citizens towards governmental regulation of private
property rights. The trend in recent years to more gOvernmental con-
trol has strengthened the preservation movement. The courts inter-
pretation to regulate property with aesthetics as the main criteria
has broadened preservation and conservation powers. People cannot
arbitrarily utilize their land. One has to take the community welfare

into consideration. On the governmental control side, the courts

149

allow government the right to use police power to regulate land use
as long as their regulations are "reasonable."

Historic district ordinances are a tool to regulate the
environment and architecture under police power. The use of such a
tool is an indication of the lack of basic knowledge of visual design
and perception in our culture. It shows the pre-eminence of the
rights of property—owning over the rights of the public good. The
need for legislation and legal mechanisms to deal with subjective
parts, such an ambience and aesthetics, is an unfortunate aspect of
our society.

Historic Districts Need to be a Self-Supporting
Economic Benefit to be Feasible

 

 

In the long run, historic preservation will be one of economic
feasibility rather than one of historic, aesthetic, and legal
feasibility. An econOmically sound restoration will carry much more
weight with a developer or a planning and zoning commission than the
combined arguments of historical significance, continuity, and out-
standing architectural features.

In Chapter Four, economic mechanisms and considerations for
preservation were described. A combination of the suggested mechanisms
to accomplish preservation can be applied to different districts and
expanded upon to meet changing economic conditions and demands. At
the same time new methods have to be developed to help with ever
increasing destruction pressures. A general underlying concept
throughout this thesis is that the fight against the forces opposed

to preservation is worth the benefits accrued through such a struggle.

150

The main forces against preservation are the indifferent opinions
towards the "best" use of the land, the lack of information, economic
pressures, past governmental failures, and the lack of a comprehensive
planning approach.

Preservation Should Be Incorporated Into An

Environmental Impact and Social
Review Process

 

 

 

At present, the preservation effort is not as developed as
the environmental effort. People are slowly becoming aware that a
total conservation effort, including preservation of man-made objects
and natural areas along with environmental concerns, is important.
The common concerns of preservation and environmental efforts of

creating a better world to live in are bringing the movements togetherfi

 

Social considerations are important because the creation of
historic districts often displace poor residents as mentioned
earlier. Social considerations should include involving residents
into the planning process which would hopefully create community
support and valuable input. When creating a historic district, an
analysis should be made reviewing possible social effects whether

they are beneficial or harmful.

Planning and Historic Districts

 

. To preserve a historic district the process must be incor-
porated into the community's planning efforts. Historic preservation
should become one of the elements of the comprehensive plan and con-
sidered in all elements of the process. A historic district's

preservation takes many different participants to succeed. These

151

different participants should be from federal, state, and local
government and the citizens of the district. There is a need to
interface the activities between the different participants. It is
common for each participant to work separately without any idea of
what the other is doing. This wastes a lot of money and time and is
ineffective.

Preservation techniques have failed in the past because they
are crisis orientated and the full potentials of these techniques
have not been a concern of the planner. Preservation techniques

have to be considered in the overall plan of the community.

A Call For the Urgency of Preservation

 

Preservation of historic districts is important for a number
of reasons. Aesthetically and socially they have been seen as a
better alternative than the suburbs. We have limited natural resources
and should use what we have now to its fullest potential. People
put important values on objects of antiquity because they represent
their roots and heritage.

Within this framework of need, it is also important to save
the districts which contain buildings less than historic. They also
represent a cohesiveness for those looking for stability in their
environment. Development happens so quickly these days that people
lose orientation to their environment.

In sum, there are many different types of historic districts
and each has to be handled separately because of their uniqueness.

Historic districts have to be an economic benefit and self supporting.

The preservation of historic districts has to be incorporated into a

152

comprehensive planning and environmental impact review. The definition
of "historic" has been too narrow and has to be expanded before our
viable man-made areas are destroyed. Community support is mandatory
for preservation of historic districts to be preserved.’ We must learn
from our past mistakes so that we can conserve the unique areas which

are remaining.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTES

1C. Page, "Saving Places for People," Progressive Architecture,

NoVember 1972, p. 70.

 

2John J. Costonis, Space Adrift: Landmark Preservation and

the Marketplace (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1974), p. 4.

 

 

3Preservation and Rehabilitation of a Historic Commercial
Area, New Bedford, Massachusetts (Newport, Rhode Island: The Urban
Design Group), p. 16.

 

 

4Richard H. Brown, "Overview and Evaluation of Current
Historic Preservation Methods and Techniques" (Master's Thesis,
University of Massachusetts, 1973), p. 3.

5Frank B. Gilbert, "Precedents for the Future," Law and
Contemporary Problems 36 (Summer 1971): 312.

 

6Laurence S. Cutler and Sherrie S. Cutler, Recycling Cities
for People: The Urban Design Process (Boston, Massachusetts: Cohners
Books International, Inc., 1976), p. 67.

 

 

7"Looking Forward to the Past," Progressive Architecture,
November 1976, p. 45.

 

8Costonis, Space Adrift, p. 4.

 

9Grady Gammage Jr. et a1., Historic Preservation in California,
A Legal Handbook (Stanford Environmental Law Society, March 1975),
p. 3.

 

 

10Terry J. Tondro, "Symposium Perspectives on Historic
Preservation," Connecticut Law Review 8 (Winter 1976): 200.

 

1,ICharles B. Hosmer Jr., Presence of the Past: A History of

the Preservation Movement in the United States Before Williamsburg
(New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1965), p. 24.

 

153

154

1 1

21bid., p. 41. 3Ibid., p. 77.

14A good source of information on the ten years prior to

the Centennial celebration and the celebration is J. B. Jackson's,
American Space.

 

 

15Hosmer, Presence of the Past, p. 80.
16Ibid., p. 102. 171bid., p. 114.
18Ibid., p. 269. 191bid., p. 271.

20Thomas H. Seidel, "Limitations and Potentials of a Regional

Planning Agency Initiating the Implementation of Historic Preservation
Plans at the Local and Regional Levels: A Cast Study in the SOuth-
eastern Connecticut Planning Region" (Master's Thesis, University of
Rhode Island, 1975), p. 25.

21Mavis Bryant, Zoning for Community Preservation: A Manual
for Texans (Austin, Texas: Texas Historic Foundation, February 1976),
p. 6.

 

 

22Ibid., pp. 5-6.

23William J. Murtagh, "Defining a Historic Building and Dis-
trict,U Preservation and Building Codes (Washington, D.C.: The
Preservation Press, National Trust, 1975), p. 3.

 

24National Trust for Historic Preservation, A Guide to
DelineatingEdges of Historic Districts (Washington, D.C.: The
Preservation Press, National Trust, 1976), p. 23.

 

 

25National Historic Sites Act of 1935, 16 U.S.C. 462.

 

6Gammage, Historic Preservation in California, p. 24.

271bid., p. 24.

28Robert H. McNulty and Stephen A. Kliment, Neighborhood
Conservation (New York: The Whitney Library of Design of Watson—
Gaptill Publications, 1976), p. IV/99.

 

 

zglbid.

155

3,ODepartment of Transportation Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. 138,
49 U.S.C. 1653(f).

31Gammage, Historic Preservation in California, p. 88.

 

32National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321.

33Executive Order 11593 (May 13, 1971) was given by President
Nixon under the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906, the National
Historic Site Act of 1935, the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

34Gammage, Historic Preservation in California, p. 26.

 

35William K. Reilly, The Use of Land: A Citizen's Policy Guide

 

to Urban Growth (Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1973), pp. 195-196.

 

6Gammage, Historic Preservation in California, p. 25.

 

37nFord Signs 4 preservation Bills," Preservation News,

November 1976, p. 1.

 

381bid., pp. 1 and 3. 391bid., p. 3.

40Nathan Glazer, "Slum Dwellings Do Not Make a Slum," The

New York Times Magazine 21 (November 1965), p. 55.

 

41George A. Reif, "Old Salem, North Carolina and the
Preservation Movement: A Case Study of a Community's Decision to
Preserve Its Historic Fabric" (Master's Thesis, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1966), p. 25.

4zTunnard and Pushharen, Man Made America (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1963), p. 421.

 

43John R. Baggs, "Historic Preservation in the United States:

Illustrated with Selected Programs" (Master's Thesis, University of
Oklahoma, Norman, 1967), p. 33.

44Ibid., pp. 33 and 39.

45"Historic Preservation via Urban Renewal," Journal of
Housing 10 (AugUst 1962): 298.

 

156

4.6"Bulldozers, Spare Those Treasures," Detroit Free Press,

4 February 1977, Editorial page.

 

47City Plan Commission, College Hill: A Demonstration Study of

Historic Area Renewal (Providence, Rhode Island: College Hill Press,
1967), p. vi.

 

 

48Ibid., p. v.

49"Historic Preservation via Urban Renewal," Journal of

Housing, p. 297.

50Albert B. Wolfe, "Conservation of Historic Buildings and
Areas," Planning 1964 (Chicago, Illinois: ASPO, 1964), p. 213.

 

 

51Kerr, American Institute of Architects Journal, p. 37.

 

52McNulty and Kliment, Neighborhood Preservation, pp. 48-49.

 

53Ibid., p. 49.

54Terry J. Tondro, "An Historic Preservation Approach to

Municipal Rehabilitation of Older Neighborhoods," Connecticut Law
Review 8 (Winter 1976): 251.

 

55National Trust, A Guide to Delineating Edges, p. 7.

 

56Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
The M.I.T. Press, 1960), p. 48.

 

57Ibid., p. 67. 581bid., p. 68. sglbid.

60National Trust, A Guide to Delineating Edges, p. 21.

 

61William J. Murtagh, "Aesthetics and Social Dimensions of

Historic Districts," Historic Districts: Identification, Social ‘
Aspects, and Preservation (Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press,
National Trust, 1975), p. 9.

 

 

62Historic Districts: Identification, Social Aspects, 42$.
Preservation (Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press, National
Trust, 1975), p. 3.

 

 

63Ibid.

157

64G. C. Argan, "A Policy for the Preservation of Historic

Centers," Historic Districts: Identification, Social Aspects, and

Preservation (Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press, National
Trust, 1975), p. 17.

65United States Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Historic Preservation Plan: For the Central Area General Neighborhood
Renewal Area, Savannah, Georgia (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1973), pp. 12-17.

66National Trust, A Guide to Delineating Edges, p. 9.

7Murtagh, "Aesthetics and Social Dimensions of Historic
Districts," pp. 11-12.
68 . . . . '
National Trust, A Guide to Delineatingigdges, pp. 13-14.

691bid., p. 15. 701bid., p. 16.

71Ibid., pp. 16-17.

72Lynch, Image of the City, p. 4.

Lecture of Rupler Cutler, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, 22 November 1976.

Gammage, Historic Preservation in California, p. 5.

75Ibid.

76Jacob H. Morrison, Historic Preservation Law (Washington,

D.C.: The Preservation Press, National Trust, 1974), p. 20.

77Ibid. 78Ibid., p. 21. 791bid.

80 81

Ibid., pp. 35-36. ‘ Ibid., p. 23.
821bid., pp. 26-27.
83

Berman v. Parker, 75 S. Ct. 98.

Morrison, Historic Preservation Law, p. 28.

158

851b16., p. 35. 861bid., p. 41. 87Ibid., p. 44.
88Ibid., p. 47. 891bid., p. 48. 90lbid., p. 49.
gllbid. 921bid., p. 51.

3Gammage, Historic Preservation in California, p. 6.

 

94Ibid., p. 10. I 951b1d., p. 11.

96F. Bosselman et al., The Taking Issue: An Analysis of the

Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control (Washington, D. C. : Council
on Environmental Quality, U. S. Government Printing Office, July 1973),
p. 120.

 

 

97Gammage, Historic Preservation in California, pp. 11-12.

 

98Bosselman, The Taking_1ssue, p. 134.

 

99Ibid., p. 136.

100Joseph L. Sax, Defending the Environment: A Strategy for

Citizen Action (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 158.

 

 

IOIIbid., p. 159.

 

1026ammage, Historic Preservation in California, p. 31.
103Ibid. 104Ibid., p. 33.
105

Notes, "Land Use Controls in Historic Areas, " Notre Dame
Lawyer 44 (February 1969): 380.

 

106Maryland Historical Trust, Preservation Easements
(Annapolis, Maryland: The Maryland Historical Trust, 1976), pp. 2-3.

 

107Gammage, Historic Preservation in California, p. 34.

 

108Russell L. Brenneman, "Techniques for Controlling the

Surroundings of Historic Sites," Law and Contemporary Problems 36
(Summer 1971): 416, 418.

 

109Gammage, Historic Preservation in California, p. 37.

 

159

1101bid., p. 40. 111Ibid., p. 42. 112Ibid., p. 52.

113Michael F. Wiedl III, "Historic District Ordinances,"

Connecticut Law Review 8 (Winter 1976): 221.

 

114Gammage, Historic Preservation in California, p. 65.

 

llslbid., p. 355.

116Lyn Dunsavage and Virginia Talkington, The Making of a
Historic District: Swiss Avenue, Dallas, Texas (Washington, D.C.:
The Preservation Press, National Trust, 1975), p. 27.

 

 

117Bryant, Zoning for Community Preservation, p. 8.

 

118Andrew Gold, "The Welfare Economics of Historic Preser-

vation," Connecticut Law Review 8 (Winter 1976): 357.

 

119Bryant, Zoning for Community Preservation, pp. 8-9.

 

120Dunsavage and Talkington, Swiss Avenue, p. 27.

 

121National Trust, A Guide to Delineating Edges, p. 18.

 

122Ziegler, Historic Preservation in Inner City Areas, pp.

 

18-19.

123Bryant. Zoning for Community Preservation, p. 10.

 

124Ibid. 1251b16., p. 40.

126Gammage, Historic Preservation in California, p. 9.

 

1

127Ibid., p. 89. 281b1d°3 PP- 8-9'

1291616., p. 85.

0Murvan M. Maxwell, "An Architect's View of Preservation
Within Existing Codes," Preservation and Building Codes (Washington,
D.C.: The Preservation Press, National Trust, 1976), p. 36.

 

131Bryant, Zoning for Community Preservation, p. 40.

 

160

 

1ngammage, Historic Preservation in California, p. 8.
133Ibid., p. 46. 1341bid., p. 6. 1351814., p. 68.
136Ibid., p. 71. 137Ibid., p. 75. 1381816., p. 77.
139

Bryant, Zoning for Community Preservation, p. 70.

 

1 1

4OIbid., p. 72. 4llbid., p. 70.

142Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, "Adaptive Use:

A Survey of Construction Costs," Washington, D.C., Special Issue
Report, June 1976, p. 22.

143Ibid., p. 23.

144Ziegler, Historic Preservation in Inner City Areas,

pp. 30-31.

 

145Ibid., p. 34. 146Ibid., pp. 30—36.

147Bryant, Zoning for Community Preservation, p. 73.

 

148Costonis, Space Adrift, p. 50.

 

149Michael de Haven Newsom, "Blacks and Historic Preservation,"

Law and Contemporary Problems 36 (Summer 1971): 423.

 

15 152

olbid. 1511bid., p. 424. Ibid., p. 425.

153Ibid., pp. 429-430.

154Arthur P. Ziegler Jr., Historic Preservation in Inner City

Areas: A Manual of Practice (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: The Allegheny
Press, 1971), p. 63. '

 

155Ursula Cliff, "Arthur Ziegler: Prophet of Preservation for

the Poor," Design and Environment, Summer 1975, p. 30.

 

156Lawrence 0. Houstoun Jr., "Defining What We Want to Save,"

Urban Land, July/August 1975, p. 24.

 

l571bid.

161

1_S8Michael Y. Seelig, Time Present and Time Past (City of

Vancouver: Department of Social Planning, 1973), p. 69.

 

159Gammage, Historic Preservation in California, p. 79.

 

160Costonis, Space Adrift, p. 6.

 

161Lynch, Image of the City, pp. 47-48.

 

162Tondro, Connecticut Law Review, p. 256.

 

3Gammage, Historic Preservation in California, p. 38.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"A Community Surveys Its Historic Resources." Small Town, March 1975,
pp. 17-220

 

A Plan for the Conservation of Waterford. Waterford: Waterford
Foundation Inc., 1973.

Argan, G. C., and Murtagh, William J. Historic Districts: Identifi-
cation, Social Aspects, and Preservation. Washington, D.C.:
National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1975.

 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. "Adaptive Use: A Survey

of Construction Costs." Special Issue Report, Washington,
D.C., June 1976.

Baggs, John R. "Historic Preservation in the United States: Illus-
trated with Selected Programs." Master's Thesis, University
of Oklahoma, Norman, 1967.

Baldwin, Malcolm F. "Historic Preservation in the Context of Envi-
ronmental Law: Mutual Interest in Amenity." Law and Con-
temporary Problems, Summer 1971.

 

 

Barnett, Jonathan. Urban Design as Public Policy: Practical Methods
for Improving Cities. New York: McGraw-Hill Publications,
1974.

Berke, Arnold Michael. ”ReSident Attitudes Toward Change in an
Historic Preservation District, A Study of German Village."
Master's Thesis, Ohio State University, 1969..

Berman vs. Parker. 348 U.S. 26 (1954).
Biddle, James. "Historic Preservation is Getting Growing Attention

from Federal, State, and Private Agencies." Journal of
Housing, May 1971, pp. 219-227.

 

Biddle, James. ”Historic Preservation: The Citizens' Quiet Revo-

lution." Connecticut Law Review, Winter of 1975-76, pp. 202-
208. '

162

163

Bosselman, F.; Callies, D.; and Banta, J. The Takingglssue: An
Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control.
Washington, D.C.: Council on Environmental Quality, United
States Government Printing Office, July 1973.

 

 

Brenneman, Russell L. "Historic Preservation Restrictions: A Sampling
of State Statutes." Connecticut Law Review, Winter of 1975-76,
pp. 231-247.

 

Brenneman, Russell L. "Techniques for Controlling the Surroundings
of Historic Sites." Law and Contemporary Problems, Summer
1971, pp. 416-422.

 

Brown, Richard H. "Overview and Evaluation of Current Historic
Preservation Methods and Techniques." Master's Thesis,
University of.Massachusetts, 1973.

Bryant, James A. "The Role of State Programs, Urban Effects of
Statewide Preservation Projects." Historic Preservation,
January-March 1971, p. 37.

 

Bryant, Mavis.i Zoning for Community Preservation: A Manual for Texans.
Austin, Texas: Texas Historic Foundation, February 1976.

Building the Future From Our Past: A Report on the Saint Paul Historic
Hill District Planning Program. Saint Paul, Minnesota: Old
Town Restoration Inc., 1975.

 

 

 

City of Providence Plan Commission. College Hill: A Demonstration
Study of Historic Area Renewal. Providence, Rhode Island:
College Hill Press, 1967.

 

 

Cliff, Ursula. "Arthur Ziegler: Prophet of Preservation for the Poor."
Design and Environment, Summer 1975, pp. 28-31.

 

Collins, Robertson. "Progress and Profit Throuch Blending Past and
Present." Small Town, March 1975, pp. f«12.

 

Cook, Louis. "Bulldozers, Spare Those Treasures." Detroit Free Press,
4 February 1977, Editorial Page.

 

Costonis, John J. Space Adrift: Landmark Preservation and the
Marketplace. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1974.

 

 

Cutler, Laurence S., and Cutler, Sherrie 8. Recycling Cities for
People: The Urban Design Process. Boston, Massachusetts:
Cohners Books International, Inc., 1976.

 

 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966. 23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C.
1653(f).

164

Dukeminier, J. J., Jr. "Zoning for Aesthetic Objectives: A Reappraisal."
Law and Contemporary Problems, Spring 1955, pp. 218-237.

 

Dunsavage, Lyn and Talkington, Virginia. The Making of a Historic
District, Swiss Avenue, Dallas, Texas. Washington, D.C.: The
Preservation Press, The National Trust, 1975.

 

 

Galbreath, Carol J. "Community Benefit from a Sense of History."
' Small Town, March 1975, pp. 4-7.

 

Gammage, Grady, Jr., et a1. Historic Preservation in California,
A Legal Handbook. Stanford: Stanford Environmental Law
Society, March 1975.

 

 

Glazer, Nathan. "Slum Dwellings Do Not Make a Slum." The New York
Times Magazine 21 November 1965, p. 55.

 

 

Gold, Andrew. "The Welfare Economics of Historic Preservation."
Connecticut Law Review, Winter of 1975-76, pp. 348-369.

 

Goldstone, H. H. "Aesthetics in Historic Districts." Law and
’ Contemporary Problems, Summer 1971, pp. 379-385.

 

Gilbert, Frank B. "Precendents for the Future." Law and Contemporary
Problems, Summer 1971, pp. 311-314.

 

Gray, Oscar S. "The Response of Federal Legislation to Historic
Preservation." Law and Contemporary Problems, Summer 1971.

 

Hammond, Thomas Clark. "Planning for Preservation in Tennessee:
Methods of Identification, Evaluation, and Utilization of
Historical and Architectural Resources." Master's Thesis,
University of Tennessee, 1969.

"Historic Preservation via Urban Renewal." Journal of Housing 10
AugUSt 1962, pp. 297-315. Jug,“
.' ' . 7-1‘
Hosmer, Charles B., Jr. Presence of the Past, A History of the
Preservation Movement in the United States Before Williams—
burg. New YOrk: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1965.

 

 

 

Houstoun, Lawrence 0., Jr. "Defining What We Want to Save." Urban
Land, July/August 1975, pp. 24-26.

Jacobs, Stephen W. "A Current View of Area Preservation." American
Institute of Architects Journal, December 1964, pp. 49-53.

 

Johnson, Huey D. "The Role of Public Attitude and Involvement in the
Preservation Movement." Connecticut Law Review, Winter of
1975-76, pp. 370-381.

 

165

Johnson, Johnson, and Roy Inc. Marshall: A Plan for Preservation.
Marshall, Michigan: Marshall Historical Society, 1973.

 

Kelley, W. I. "New Orleans Historic Preservation and the Building
Code." Preservation and Building Codes, Washington, D.C.:
The National Trust, 1975.

 

 

Kerr, Robert J. "Historic Preservation--A Pragmatic Approach."
American Institute of Architects Journal, April 1964,
pp. 36-38.

Knight, Carleton, 111. "Ford Signs 4 Preservation Bills." Preser-
vation News, November 1976, pp. 1 and 3.

 

Knott, Lawson B., Jr. "The Impact of Historic Preservation on

 

Development and Land Use." Urban Land, July/August 1975,
pp. 4-7.

Loflin, John J. "Zoning and Historic Districts in New York City."
Law and Contemporary Problems, Summer 1971, pp. 363-366.

 

 

"Looking Forward to the Past." Progressive Architecture, November
1976, p. 45.
Lowry, S. Todd. "An Economist's View of Preservation." Pioneer

America, January 1976, pp. 28-35.

Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts:'
The M.I.T. Press, 1960.

 

 

Lynch, Kevin. What Time is This Place? Cambridge, Massachusetts:
The M.I.T. Press, 1972. —

Maryland Environmental Trust. Conservation Easements. Baltimore,
Maryland: Maryland Environmental Trust, July 1974.

 

Maryland Historical Trust. Preservation Easements. Annapolis,
Maryland: The Maryland Historical Trust, 1976.

 

Maxwell, Murvan M. "An Architect's View of Preservation Within
Existing Codes." Preservation and Building;Codes.
Washington, D.C.: The National Trust, 1975.

 

.McCahill, Peter J. "Saving a Neighborhood Through Historic Preser-‘,
vation." Journal of Housing, April 1976, pp. 169-170.

 

McNulty, Robert H., and Kliment, Stephen A. Neighborhood Conservation.

 

New York: The Whitney Library of Design, Watson-Gaptill
Publications, 1976.

166

Meehan, Edmund J., Jr. "Elements of Historic Preservation in
Selected Center City Areas." Master's Thesis, University of
Rhode Island, 1970.

Miner, Ralph. Conservation of Historic and Cultural Resources.
Washington, D.C.: ASPO.

 

"Modern-Day Battle in the Nation's First Rural Historic District."
Small Town, March 1975, pp. 23-24.

 

Morrison, Jacob H. Historic Preservation Law. Washington, D.C.:
The-National Trust, 1974.

 

Murphy, John. "The Special Nature of Historic District Zoning."
Urban Land, July/August 1975, pp. 9-13.

 

Murtagh, William J. ”Defining a Historic Building and District."
Preservation and Building Codes. Washington, D.C.: The
National Trust, 1975.

 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347.
National Historic Sites Act of 1935. 16 U.S.C. 461-467.
National Park Service. How to Compiete National Register Forms, The

National Register Program. Washington, D.C.: Department of
the Interior, National Park Service, No. 127.

 

 

National Trust for Historic Preservation. A Guide to Delineating
Edges of Historic Districts. Washington, D.C.: The National
Trust, 1976.

 

 

National Trust for Historic Preservation. "Factors Affecting Valu-
ation of Historic Preperty." Washington, D.C.: Information
Sheet from the National Trust, 1976.

National Trust for Historic Preservation. "Historic District
Ordinances--Landmarks Commission Ordinances." Washington,
D.C.: Information Sheet from the National Trust, 1976.

National Trust for Historic Preservation. "Neighborhood Conservation."
Information Sheet from the National Trust, 1976.

Newsom, Michael DeHaven. "Blacks and Historic Preservation." Law and
Contemporary Problems, Summer 1971, pp. 423-431.

 

Notes. "Land Use Controls in Historic Areas."' Notre Dame Lawyer,
,February 1969, pp. 379-430.

 

Page, C. "Saving Places for People." Progressive Architecture,
November 1970, p. 70.

 

167

Poinsett, David N. "Past and Present: Planning for Continuity."
Small Town, March 1975, pp. 12-13.

 

Preservation and Rehabilitation of a Historic Commercial Area, New
'Bedford, Massachusetts. Newport, Rhode Island: The Urban
Design Group Inc.

 

 

"Preservation of Landscapes in the United States." ASLA Bulletin,
April 1975, pp. 1-12.

 

 

Rasmussen, Paul W. "Planning and Historic Preservation, The Old
Town Alexandria Experience." Planners Notebook, February
1973.

Reif, George A. "Old Salem, North Carolina and the Preservation
Movement: A Case Study of a Community's Decision to Preserve
Its Historic Fabric." Master's Thesis, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1966.

Reilly, William K. The Use of Land: A Citizen's Policy Guide to
,Urban Growth. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1973.

 

 

Sax,.Joseph L. Defending the Environment: A Strategy for Citizen
Action. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971.

 

Sayne, Paul. "Aesthetics and Property Values: Does Zoning Promote
the Public Welfare?" American Bar Association Journal,
June 1949, pp. 471-529. '

 

Seelig, Michael Y. Time Present and Time Past. City of Vancouver:
Department of Social Planning, June 1973.

 

Seidel, Thomas. "Limitations and Potentials Of a Regional Planning
Agency Initiating the Implementation of Historic Preservation
Plans at the Local and Regional Levels: A Case Study in the
Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region." Master's Thesis,
University of Rhode Island, 1970.

Shull, Joe A. "The Use of Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation."
Connecticut Law Review, Winter 1975-76, pp. 334-347.

 

Skolnik, Arthur M., and Wood, Edmund J. "Preservation Legislation
for Pioneer Square Historic District in Seattle."
Preservation and Building Codes. Washington, D.C.: The
National Trust, 1975, pp. 41-45.

 

Steinglas, Margaret. "Plan and Program for the Preservation and
Re-Use of Historic and Architectural Landmarks in Hudson and
Claverich, New York." Master's Thesis, Pratt Institute,
Brooklyn, New York, 1970.

168

Tondro, Terry J. "An Historic Preservation Approach to Municipal
Rehabilitation." Connecticut Law Review, Winter of 1975-76,
pp. 248-311.

 

Tondro, Terry J. "Symposium Perspectives on Historic Preservation."
Connecticut Law Review, Winter of 1975-76, pp. 199-201.

Tunnard and Pushharen. Man Made America. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1963.

 

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Historic
Preservation Plan: For the Central Area General Neighborhood
Renewal Area: Savannah, Georgia. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, April 1973.

 

 

Wall, Louis Samuel. "The Feasibility of Tax Credits as Incentives
for Historic Preservation." Master's Thesis, George Washington
University, 1972.

Wharton, William G. "A Uniform Statewide Building Code with Pro-
visions for Historic Buildings and Districts: The Code
Official's View." Preservation and Building Codes.
Washington, D.C.: The National Trust, 1975.

 

.Weinberg, Robert C. "Pitfalls and Plausibilities of Landmarks
Preservation." American Institute of Architects Journal,
July 1965, pp. 50-57.

 

Wiedl, Michael F., 111. "The Law of Historic Preservation." Urban
Land, July/August 1975, pp. 27-30.

Wiedl, Michael F., III. "Historic District Ordinances." Connecticut
Law Review, Winter of 1975-76, pp. 209-230.‘

 

 

 

Wilson, Paul E. "The Response of State Legislation to Historic
Preservation." Law and Contemporary Problems, Summer 1971,
pp. 329-347.

With Heritage So Rich.~ A Report of a Special Committee on Historic
Preservation under the auspices of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors with a grant from the Ford Foundation. New York:
Random House, 1966.

 

Wolfe, Albert B. "Conservation of Historic Buildings and Areas."
Planning 1964, Chicago: ASPO, 1964.

 

Ziegler, Arthur P., Jr. Historic Preservation in Inner City Areas:
A Manual of Practice. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: The Allegheny
Press, 1971.

 

 

APPENDIX I

KEY DEFINITIONS

APPENDIX I

KEY DEFINITIONS

Districts--Districts are the medium-to-large sections of the city,
conceived of as having two-dimensional extent, which the observer
mentally enters "inside of," and which are recognizable as having
some common, identifying character. Always identifiable from the
inside, they ape also used for exterior reference if visible from
the outside.16

Enabling Legislation--Legislation which gives governmental entities
the power to carry out an activity, this can be under the mandate of
a state or federal program.

 

Fee Simple Rights--The full ownership in a property. If one thinks
of property ownership as a bundle of rights, fee simple is the whole
bundle, every stick.

 

Future Shock--Future shock is a complete sense of alienation from an

overload of new trends and developments in our technological oriented
society. .Preservation and conservation of historic areas is seen as

a way to confront this phenomenon. '

 

Historic District--A historic district is an area, or a cluster of
related buildings, objects, and structures, in a compatible setting
which takes as a whole, visually expressive styles and modes of
living. These are representative of various periods in American
history.1

 

Historic District Commission--The group given the jurisdiction to
control the use of properties within a historic district.

 

Historic District Ordinance--A special ordinance set up to control
the aesthetic character of a historic or architecturally significant
area. The authority can encompass the prevention or delay of
demolition and control of facade alterations.

 

Historic Preservation--In a narrow sense, referring to structures
or sites where the fathers of our country slept or fought battles.
In the broadest sense, synonymous with conservation of man-made
resources or in the city of urban conservation. Individuals sub- -
scribing to the broad definition maintain that famous sites and

 

169

170

buildings are only part of the picture, and that the preservation
and restoration of large areas of our cities and towns is a necessary
component of a livable future environment.

Ordinance--A municipal regulation, set forth by governmental authority.

Public Good--A good which provides positive externalities to individ-
uals other than the owner.

 

Public Trust—-The government can hold in trust for the benefit of

the public, land and objects. ‘Just because someone owns land and has
exclusive possession of its surface, does not give the right to
destroy or harm the environment around it. The use of land can have
spillover effects on other people's land and the government has the
right to protect land or objects that benefit the public.

 

Sweat Equity--A term referring to the increase in value 0f property
through improvements done by the owner. The economic benefit one
receives through being a do-it-yourselfer.

 

Tout Ensemble--The character of the entire district, all the buildings
features, historic or not.

 

Transition Zone--The area around a historic district which might have
an influence on the edges of the district and ultimately the district
or be influenced by the district.

 

Reconstruction--The recreation of a building from architectural
documents, often highly conjectural and less accurate than restoration.

 

Rehabilitation--Rehabilitation is putting a building into serviceable
and habitable condition.

 

Restoration-~An architectural term meaning to put a building back

as it was in a particular period. Restoration goes beyond making a
structure habitable once again. It includes retaining and refreshing
its original exterior architectural character and as much of the
original interior as possible; it adds a dimension of special value
beyond that of structural soundness.

 

Zoning--A police power measure, enacted primarily by general purpose
units of local government, in which the community is divided into
districts or zones within which permitted and special uses are estab-
lished as are regulations governing lot size, building bulk, place-
ment, and other development standards. Requirements vary from dis-
trict to district, but they must be uniform within districts. The
zoning ordinance consists of two parts: a text and a map.

APPENDIX II

FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL

GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS

APPENDIX II

FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL

GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADVISORY COUNCIL NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF
ON HISTORIC TRUST FOR THE INTERIOR
PRESERVATION HISTORIC NATIONAL PARKS

PRESERVATION SERVICE
FUNDS
STATE
PRESERVATION
OFFICER
NEEDS EXPRESSED
:- ------ A-95 REVIEW ------------ -: _
I 3
LOCAL ' REGIONAL
-Government -Government
-Individuals _ ______ -EIS ______________ -Historic Societies
-Historic Societies

 

 

 

171

 

 

 

ICHIGQN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

312931011

 

lllli I I
5

8248