News from the
National Alliance of
Preservation Commissions
May-June 2013
04 Learning to Appreciate—Not Necessarily
Like—Midcentury Modern Architecture:
Finding Success in Preserving the Recent Past
07 Mid-Century Modern
Survey in St. Louis
10 Blue Collar Modern, White Collar
Modern – A Tale of Two Cities
16 Philadelphia Modern
18 Staff Profile
MID-CENTURY MODERN
21 State News
22 Heads Up
23 Upcoming CAMPs
(706) 369.5881
fax (706) 369.5864
[email protected]
2011
CONTACT NAPC AT:
2006
All current NAPC members
who serve as city staff to
preservation commissions
are encouraged to
distribute articles in
The Alliance Review to
commission members and
other staff and elected
officials within your
member organization.
Articles can be distributed
via photocopies or
scans distributed
through file servers,
intranets, and emails.
2011
www.uga.edu/napc
1621 T Street, NW #602
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: 202-660-2762 or
202-667-0818
[email protected]
New Canaan Historic
District Commission
1271 Oenoke Ridge Road
New Canaan, CT 06840
Phone: 646-256-8500 [email protected]
REGINA BREWER
City of Decatur
509 N. McDonough Street
P.O.B 220
Decatur, GA 30031-3309
Phone: 404-371-8386
[email protected]
2011
Historic Preservation Planner
City of Boise, PO Box 2302
Boise, Idaho 83701
Phone: 208.585.7393
[email protected]
D. HENRICHS
City of Gainesville, FL
306 N.E. 6th Avenue
P.O. Box 490, Station 11
Gainesville, Florida 32602-0490
[email protected]
352.334.5022
JAMES HEWAT
City of Boulder, CO
177 Broadway, 2nd Floor
Boulder, CO 80306
[email protected]
303-441-3207
ALISON D. HINCHMAN
Marketing, National Trust
for Historic Preservation
1785 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-588-6357
[email protected]
CORY R. KEGERISE
City of Pueblo, 211 E. D Street
Pueblo, CO 81001
Phone: 719-553-2248
[email protected]
JEFF CRONIN
DAVID MORGAN
152 Chestnut Ave. #1
Boston, MA 02130-1827
Phone: 626-437-7957
[email protected]
CATHERINE O’CONNOR
MATTHEW HALITSKY, AICP
Community Preservation
Coordinator - Eastern Region
Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission
Graeme Park
859 County Line Road
Horsham, PA 19044
Phone: (215)219-3824
[email protected]
WADE BROADHEAD
ERIK NELSON
2009
2011
4225 Wickford Road
Baltimore, MD 21210
410-353-0407
[email protected]
2011
2006
ROBIN BECKETT
NICOLE DIEHLMANN
2011
2005
Eleonora Machado,
[email protected]
KATHERINE ADAMS
Executive Director, North Carolina Legal
Education Assistance Foundation
3948 Browning Place, Suite 334
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: 919-782-7108
[email protected]
100 5th Street NW
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: 202-546-0012
[email protected]
Department of Planning
and Community Development
PO Box 7447
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
Phone: 540-372-1179
[email protected]
Illinois Association of Historic
Preservation Commissions
1 Old State Capitol Plaza
Springfield, IL 62704
Phone: 217-785-5730
[email protected]
TED STROSSER
Ted Strosser, Architecture
& Conservation
PO Box 88
Lewisburg, PA 17837
Phone: 570-847-5125
[email protected]
JEREMY WELLS, PH.D.
Assistant Professor of
Historic Preservation
School of Architecture, Art
and Historic Preservation
Roger Williams University
One Old Ferry Road
Bristol, RI 02809-2921
Phone: 401-254-5338
[email protected]
2009
GRAPHIC DESIGN
2011
Lindsey Walsworth,
[email protected]
Louisiana Main Street
LA Division of
Historic Preservation
PO Box 44247
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Phone:225-342-8162
[email protected]
ESTHER HALL, Chair-elect
SCOTT WHIPPLE
2008
SUPPORT STAFF
RAY SCRIBER, Treasurer
2012
Paul Trudeau,
[email protected]
Arkansas Historic
Preservation Program
323 Center Street,
1500 Tower Building
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 501-324-9665
[email protected]
2012
PROGRAM DIRECTOR
2008
National Alliance of
Preservation Commissions
Staff at the Center for
Community Design &
Preservation at the College
of Environment & Design,
University of Georgia
PATRICIA M. BLICK, Secretary
2011
NAPC STAFF:
2011
Published bimonthly
by NAPC
National Alliance of
Preservation Commissions
P.O. Box 1605
Athens, GA 30603
Professor, UNCG
Dept. of Interior Architecture
P.O. Box 26170
Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
Phone: 336-256-0303
[email protected]
2012
the
JO RAMSAY LEIMENSTOLL, Chair
2011
2007
2013
Board
of
Directors:
NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS
2011
COVER PHOTO:
First Christian Church, Boulder,
CO. Photo courtesy of: Wade
Broadhead and James Hewat.
See article “Blue Collar Modern,
White Collar Modern – A Tale
of Two Cities” on page 10.
ROBIN ZEIGLER
Montgomery County
Planning Dep.
8787 Georgia Ave.
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301-563-3404
[email protected]
Metropolitan Historic
Zoning Commission
3000 Granny White Pike
Nashville, TN 37204
Phone: 615-862-7970
[email protected]
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
In this Issue
Page 3
BY PAUL TRUDEAU, NAPC PROGRAM DIRECTOR
Historic preservation, as we all know, is a
multi-faceted discipline that is deeply rooted in
our country’s appreciation and protection of
heritage resources. To many, preservationists
are seen as stewards for those resources that
tell the stories of early American culture and
history. To no surprise for those of us who
work in the field, preservationists have been
focusing on recent past resources for several
decades. In fact, two modern structures – the
Houston Astrodome and Worldport Terminal
at John F. Kennedy International Airport in
New York – have made the National Trust
for Historic Preservation’s 2013 list of Most
Endangered Historic Places. There are also
numerous online resources and websites
like Retrorenovation.com that remind us of
the enthusiasm for these resources; consider
visiting a modern historic house museum!
With the common “50 year” threshold steadily
moving into the 1960s generation of the built
environment, it’s more important than ever
for local communities to identify and evaluate
their midcentury resources. For this reason,
we felt it was time to dedicate another issue
of The Alliance Review to midcentury modern
resources, as we did in 2000 (“Preserving the
Recent Past: Works by Master Architects”),
2004 (“The Recent Past: Considerations for
Local Commissions”), and 2008 (“Recent
Past Recon”). As cities all over the country
deal with threatened Modern buildings, many
are realizing strong community sentiment for
these resources – in part due to the fact they
were built and used after many of us were
born. But what do these buildings tell us about
our culture? Did they usher in a new wave of
architectural significance, or did they replace
too many examples of traditional American
architecture? How can we measure this phase
of architectural design and development against
other phases in our country’s history?
In Pasadena, CA, two
mid-century buildings
(1966–with honeycomb
brise de soleil influenced
by the work of Vladimir
Ossipoff) on the former
campus of Ambassador
College in Pasadena, CA
were demolished while
this issue of The Alliance
Review went to press:
an all-too-common fate
for mid-century modern
resources.
With examples of surveys and projects from St.
Louis, Philadelphia, and Boulder and Pueblo, CO,
as well as entertaining overview of midcentury
modern resources from Adam Thomas, of
Historitecture, L.L.C., this issue of The Alliance
Review offers new ideas and perspectives to
help your commission consider recent past
resources. Our Staff Profile series continues
with Megan McLaughlin from the City of Miami,
FL, with an emphasis on the challenges of
protecting modern resources. Enjoy!
Great online resources from the National Trust for Historic Preservation:
Recent Past Resource Guide: http://tinyurl.com/recentpast
Modernism + Recent Past Resource Guide: http://tinyurl.com/recentpast2
Page 4
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
Adam Thomas is an Architectural Historian for Historitecture, L.L.C., a Colorado-based
architectural history consulting firm providing an array of services ranging from cultural
resource surveys to interpretive video documentaries. http://www.historitecture.com/
Learning to Appreciate—Not Necessarily Like—
Midcentury Modern Architecture:
Finding Success in Preserving the Recent Past
By Adam Thomas, Historitecture, L.L.C.
1
If AMC’s hit television series Mad Men has taught us anything, it is that midcentury modern architecture is as cool
as the ice cubes in Don Draper’s glass of Canadian Club.
But many of us in historic preservation practice already knew
that. Our struggle has been to convince our ever-diminishing
funding sources, wary elected officials, and the ever-skeptical
public that modern architecture is not just cool but historic;
that these buildings are worthy of the highest standards of
documentation and preservation. Historicist architectural
styles, those based on architectural precedents from the past,
speak for themselves; modernism requires interpreters. We
must be those interpreters.
1
2 345
Sadly the cards are stacked against efforts to preserve midcentury modern buildings for a myriad of reasons. Many are
simply aesthetic: the glass and steel towers of the International
style or the cold, rough concrete monuments of Brutalism
cannot compete with the fuzzy warmth and Disneyesque
nostalgia of the Queen Anne house or the rustic log cabin.
To many Americans, midcentury styles are just plain ugly.
Many modernist buildings have not aged well because their
architects boldly experimented with new materials that have
failed to withstand the test of time, and these edifices are
notoriously difficult to adapt to new building systems and
additions, and hence, new uses. Moreover, age-conscious
Captions: Photo1: The 1963 demolition of Pennsylvania Station in New York City in the name of “progress” was a catalyst
to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1963. Photo credit: Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, NY,31NEYO,78-2. Photos 2 and 3: The evolution of the American skyscraper borrowed heavily in design from the Campanile
di San Marco in Venice, Itlaly, as seen in the 1909 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Tower in New York City. NAPC file
photos. Photo 4: Eliel Saarinen’s 1922 design submission for the Chicago Tribune building. NAPC file photo.
Photo 5: First Christian Church, Columbus, Indiana, designed by Eliel Saarinen and constructed in 1942. NAPC file photo.
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
Americans often resent and refuse to accept the idea that
anything constructed in their lifetimes could now be deemed
“historic.” And the owners of midcentury buildings, particularly institutions such as schools and hospitals, bemoan
these edifices, and rightfully so, as energy hogs—as if every
other historic or even new building is somehow a model of
efficiency.
Because midcentury modern buildings cannot speak for
themselves in same way as those with historicist styles, they
are particularly vulnerable to insensitive remodeling or demolition, rending their protection through inventories and
landmarking all the more crucial. Unfortunately, building
2
3
4
preservation movement itself. After all, these were the buildings our forebears in this noble profession fought against:
midcentury modern was the villain in the story of historic
preservation. Following World War II, an unholy alliance of
federal and local urban renewal and public housing programs
systematically and relentlessly shredded the fabric of our
cities and the lives of those unable or unwilling to flee to
the suburbs. A bland vision of modernity bespoke a national
tragedy. And even in the best situations, the construction
of modernist buildings in our already crowded cities necessarily required the removal of older buildings. Often these
demolitions were worthwhile sacrifices, opening the way for
fantastic additions to the American architectural canon. But
others failed spectacularly, most notably Charles Luckman’s
dismal replacement for Manhattan’s glorious Pennsylvania
Station, demolished in 1963 (SEE PHOTO 1). This one event
Page 5
owners and their architects often see the minimalism of
midcentury modern architecture as a blank canvas upon
which to erect postmodern superfluities entirely antithetical
to the intent of the building’s original design. Even worse
are the wanton demolitions. The threatened destruction
of pretty, historicist buildings, will bring out the dedicated
citizen-preservationists as a certainty and often elicit the attention of the media, politicians, and other residents. But the
minimalism of modernity too often passes without so much
as a photograph.
The problem with gaining support for midcentury modern architecture lies at the very genesis and success of the
5
coalesced the modern preservation movement, which culminated in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
So if the public distains much of midcentury modern architecture and its very existence clashes with the DNA of
preservation, why bother? For starters, the National Register’s
so-called “fifty-year rule” compels us to care—that we “take
into consideration” all buildings fifty years old or older. But
for a city interested in documenting and preserving midcentury architecture, basing this new and risky preservation
venture on a vaguely worded and ultimately unenforceable
federal regulation is hardly a way to build a strong coalition
of elected officials and residents. Instead, to foster support for
preserving the recent past we must be diligent in educating
the public. We must teach our constituents to appreciate—
not necessarily like—modern architecture.
Page 6
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
Why? Because midcentury modern architecture represents
an astonishingly profound aesthetic and spatial revolution
that signifies an enormous leap in human innovation. It
represents a pivotal moment in the history of America’s built
environment.
Indeed, in the centuries before this revolution, architecture
was stuck in feedback loop, rehashing the same stylistic
precedents over and over again. Consider the Campanile di
San Marco, in Venice. Constructed in 1514, only twenty-two
years after Columbus’s first voyage to Hispaniola, this 160foot tall bell tower, adjacent to St. Mark’s Basilica, was among
the tallest manmade structures in the world and a powerful
symbol of the authority and wealth of the Venetian city-state
and the Catholic Church. For architects it became the principal model for the stylistic treatment of any tall building…
for nearly 500 years!
Various imitations of St. Mark’s campanile proliferated in
the American built environment. Architects intended some
of them as replicas, most notably at Walt Disney World’s
Epcot World Showcase and at The Venetian Las Vegas.
Unsurprisingly, numerous churches across the country
borrowed the design of the campanile, as seen in the
southeastern bell tower of St. John Gualbert Cathedral, in
Johnstown, Pennsylvania. But St. Mark’s campanile shows up
in plenty of secular settings as well, including the clock tower
at Seattle’s King Street Station; Sather Tower, known simply
as “The Campanile,” at the University of California, Berkley;
and Denver’s landmark Daniels & Fisher Tower.
St. Mark’s campanile again and again punctuated the skylines of America’s late nineteenth-century cities. As real
estate prices soared in urban centers, architects looked ever
skyward, constructing taller and taller buildings. By the sheer
force of tradition they returned to St. Mark’s campanile for
inspiration. Thus it happened that one of America’s greatest innovations, the skyscraper, came to be dressed in the
moldy draperies of a distant past an ocean away. This new
building form represented the cutting edge of engineering,
construction technology, and materials manufacturing; yet in
project after project, St. Mark’s campanile returned. Perhaps
the most notable example was the fifty-story Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company Tower, constructed in 1909 in
midtown Manhattan. While architects Napoleon LeBrun
& Son succeeded in designing and constructing the thentallest building in the world, a spectacular accomplishment
of American ingenuity, the firm chose to hide its brilliant
engineering behind a façade based on a building that was less
than a quarter the skyscraper’s size and already four centuries
old (SEE PHOTOS 2 and 3).
Fortunately, architects began looking elsewhere for stylistic
precedents as their buildings reached unimaginable heights
and the weight of history collapsed upon itself with the tragedy
of World War I. Enter Eliel Saarinen, whose 1922 submission for the Chicago Tribune’s architectural competition was
groundbreaking. Although it was the second-place entry, the
soaring vision of minimalism captured the imagination of
architects. John Mead Howells and Raymond Hood’s winning design, which was ultimately constructed, was stodgily
Gothic and garnered few imitators. Saarinen’s vision, on the
other hand, became the tinplate for the golden age of Art
Deco skyscrapers and continuing refinements would lead to
the gleaming glass-and-steel towers of the post-World War
II city. The reign of historicism had ended; the age of free
expression in architecture had begun (SEE PHOTO 4).
Two decades after his Chicago Tribune entry, Saarinen reimagined even the staid campanile form in his 1942 design
for the First Christian Church, in Columbus, Indiana, the
building that launched the city’s incomparable menagerie of
contemporary architecture (SEE PHOTO 5). The architect
justified his rejection of traditional architectural styles for
this religious building in favor of stark minimalism in declaring, “The last drop of expressiveness has been squeezed
out of these once so expressive styles.” Saarinen’s reimagined
campanile reached the same height as St. Mark’s and fulfilled
all the functions of its vaunted ancestor, yet it did so as an
unadorned, rectangular shaft of brick, with a single, offset
clock face, tellingly lacking even numerals. Even today the
campanile thrills in its newness and audacity to throw off the
yoke of historical ornamentation. Saarinen’s son, Eero, went
even further when in 1947 he broke free from two millennia of Roman triumphal arches with his sleek and graceful
design for the Gateway Arch, in St. Louis.
Yet a Saarinen—or a Wright, Gropius, Kahn, Mies van der
Rohe, Breuer, or Johnson—did not have to design every midcentury modern structure for these buildings to be important.
The architectural revolution is embodied in every midcentury
modern building in every town and city in America. You can
find it every time a government office, bank, school, or library fails to resemble a Greek or Roman temple; every time
a church lacks even a hint of the Gothic, Romanesque, or
Byzantine; or every time a house no longer evokes a medieval
manor or colonial plantation. For better or worse, every one
of these modern-style buildings represents a bold decision by
ordinary people in your community to break with precedent,
reinvent the local built environment, and pursue an entirely
different aesthetic of progress and modernity. They chose
modern materials—concrete, steel, and glass—for modern
times, representing the unprecedented prosperity and seemingly limitless potential of postwar America. These decisions
about style and materials resulted in buildings that are undoubtedly landmarks, even if they are recent landmarks.
We need to assure that the aesthetic of postwar minimalism is on par with the most intricate of historicist styles.
Midcentury modern architecture may not always be pretty,
but it always purposeful. After all, Leonardo da Vinci, who
walked the Piazza San Marco, in Venice, as the campanile
was taking shape, confessed that “Simplicity is the ultimate
sophistication.”
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
Page 7
Mid-Century
Modern
Survey in
St. Louis
By Besty Bradley, Director,
Cultural Resources Office
City of St. Louis, MO
1
2
3
St. Louis is known as an historic city constructed almost entirely of red brick. Nevertheless, it has a wonderful collection
of mid-century modern (MCM) buildings. Recent threats of
demolition to two distinctive buildings highlighted the fact that
MCM occupy desirable locations that are considered prime
redevelopment sites. However, the interest shown in the threatened buildings – particularly among the young adult residents of
the city – was surprisingly high and indicated that it was time to
get serious about MCM buildings in St. Louis.
This city of 66 square miles has not grown since its boundaries
were set in 1876. Consequently, much of St. Louis was built out
before World War II. In contrast to other cities where extensive
housing was constructed during the post World War II building
1
2 3
boom, in St. Louis single-family houses are not the dominant
resource of the era. Instead, the non-residential buildings of the
period — built in some concentrations as infill along arterial
streets and in urban renewal areas — are noticeable markers
of post-war building. This broad category of resources includes
many of the most significant buildings and seems to be most at
risk. (SEE PHOTO 1)
A Tiered Thematic Survey
The City’s Cultural Resources Office, a Certified Local
Government, applied for a Historic Preservation Fund grant
through the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) to perform a survey of non-residential buildings
Captions: Photo1: Examples of Mid-Century Modern buildings in St. Louis. Top: Lambert Terminal, Hellmuth, Yamaski & Leinweber, 1957.
Lower left: James S. McDonnell Planetarium, Hellmut, Obata & Kassabaum, 1963. Lower right: Lashly Branch Library,William B. Ittner, Inc. 1967.
Photo courtesy of the author. Photo 2: W. A. Sarmiento, while an architect at the Bank Building & Equipment Co. of St. Louis, designed the
1959 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union Hall, one of the buildings included in the “Defining an Era” group of buildings
the survey identified. Photo courtesy of the author. Photo 3: Public meeting attendees ponder their votes for buildings to be documented
further. Photo courtesy of the author.
Page 8
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
constructed between 1945 and 1975. As the City’s demolition review criteria afford more protection to buildings that
are eligible for listing in the National Register, we wanted to
have a group of properties determined eligible by the SHPO
as a project product. A tiered survey with varying levels of
documentation, accompanied by the usual survey report and
contexts, became the plan. The nearly 20 properties from the
time period already listed in the National Register, and thereby
already protected, were not included in the project. The City’s
Cultural Resources Office selected Peter Meijer Architect, of
Portland, with Christine Madrid French on the team, as the
consultant for the project.
The Cultural Resources Office began the reconnaissance level
survey by using the City’s land records database to provide locations and building construction dates. Over 2,280 properties
were documented with photographs and classified by property
type.
As Cultural Resources Office staff explored the city with camera
and clipboard, the full extent of the construction that took place
during the period under study became evident. Discovering a
MCM church in a residential neighborhood, sharing “finds,”
puzzling over the function of what was finally determined to
be a “drive-up” rather than “drive-thru” bank, and gradually
understanding where building occurred lightened the work of
the survey. The reconnaissance survey confirmed what we had
supposed: there is a lot out there, a good portion of which is
utilitarian in nature, and recording it all to the same level of
detail would not be the best use of resources.
Peter Meijer Architect project staff then reviewed the recorded
properties and, in conjunction with SHPO and the Cultural
Resources Office, selected 200 properties to be recorded on
the State’s standard architectural survey form. The group includes schools, libraries, health care buildings and churches.
Commercial buildings, mixed‐use complexes, banks, and office
buildings are also represented. The consultants took additional
photographs, wrote descriptions of the buildings, and carefully
examined the historic integrity and architectural merits of these
properties.
Putting the Public Meeting to Work:
Defining an Era
From this list, 40 properties were selected, based on architectural
excellence and National Register and City Landmark eligibility,
for further scrutiny and consideration at the project’s first public
meeting. (SEE PHOTO 2)
About 30 people met to consider the progress of the St. Louis
MCM Survey. A series of presentations set the scene for the
“work” of the meeting. Posters presenting the buildings hung
on the walls of the meeting room. Attendees were asked to
place adhesive stars on the buildings that they felt were critical
in defining the era of MCM St. Louis. As each person had 16
stars to place on the flyers, hard choices had to be made.
Why would we ask the public: “Which buildings do you think
deserve additional documentation?” The counter question is,
why not find out which buildings the interested public finds
compelling? Historic Preservationist Kristin Hagar’s assertion
that a recent past resource is more likely to be valued as having
historic significance over time if multiple sources and layers
of significance can be found at the time of identification and
evaluation prompted the public meeting format. Asking for
more than the usual amount of public comment on this grant
project seemed to be a constructive addition.
The placement of the stars revealed a fairly strong consensus on
which buildings warranted further study. A group of 13 buildings were clearly considered to define the era and eight more
received almost as many stars. With the public’s help, it was
much easier to settle on a group of buildings to be documented
at the most intense level. After the public meeting, Peter Meijer
and the Cultural Resources Office considered building type,
geographic and architect distribution as well, and soon had a
“short list” of properties that would have extended statements of
significance included on their survey forms. (SEE PHOTO 3)
Survey Results and Looking Ahead
The Survey Report includes analysis and recommendations that
will carry this work forward. We now know more about the
geographical distribution of the resources, the overall popularity of the various Modern Movement expressions, and the use
of style by decade and by property type. The use of materials
was also quantified and supports the observation that brick
remained St. Louis’ favorite building material.
The survey historic contexts and report support the plan that
the next step will be the preparation of a Multiple Property
Documentation Form. The survey highlights the presence of
clusters of Modern Movement, some built in redevelopment
areas and some as infill along a thoroughfare. Some are located
in established historic districts with earlier periods of significance and have the potential to constitute a second period of
significance for the historic district.
As for the properties on the “Defining the Era” list, the survey
forms and information on how to seek listing or designation
will be provided to property owners and the next step will be
theirs. Given the interest in buildings of this time period, no
doubt work will proceed on listing and designation and some
MCM buildings will be recognized for architecture, community planning, and development, and as historically significant
for other reasons.
This project is only a starting point. The term “Defining the Era”
was selected to signal that while these properties are significant
and define the “Gateway Years” in St. Louis, they are not the
only ones that can be considered significant and are eligible to
be important historic resources.
Thinking about a similar project?
The historic context research has been instructive, both in
finding sources and in the resulting narrative. There were few
secondary resources to draw upon. Several editions of an AIAsponsored book on significant architecture during the period
and a local construction industry monthly have been invaluable.
Clipping files in local libraries become less complete as the
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
period progresses. Sanborn maps for the period are scarce. Studies of St.
Louis during the time frame are narrowly focused and do not provide an
overview. Primary research will be necessary and time consuming. On
the other hand, some of the architects whose work you are documenting may be available as oral-history resources. Imagine lunching with a
group of retired architects and talking about their important projects.
A thematic survey, as opposed to a geographically based one, worked for
St. Louis because of its development pattern. Focusing on two areas of
significance – architecture and community planning and development
– highlighted factors that are closely allied with broad patterns. Take
some time to define the scope of a survey project. Look broadly enough
to have a sense of the big picture even as you address the most important
property types and areas of significance.
The 1950 to 1970 period turned out to be a distinct period in the community planning and development history of downtown St. Louis. But
we didn’t know that before establishing the parameters of the project.
Again, take time to define a time period for a survey based on the
history of your community. The broad patterns of the era – suburbanization, construction of interstate highways, use of urban renewal tools and
growth of a metro region – have distinct histories in each urban area.
Communities did not experience them in a constant manner. Also, be
aware that some topics, such as the demolition associated with urban
renewal and freeway construction and the dislocation of residents, were
controversial at the time. What was problem solving during the 1960s
may now look like the initiation of several unintended consequences.
Actions require explanation through the lens of that era and with a
minimum of judgment.
The St. Louis survey was intended to establish some credibility as
historic resources for buildings from this time period. For most babyboomers, this period challenges their sense of history. Although they
know the Vietnam War and the 1960s are over, and even the Cold War
is a historic period in the past, it is difficult to translate that understanding to buildings constructed during those times. People may have
a personal relationship with a MCM building under discussion, one
based on an experience at a young age and without understanding of the
time beyond their own lives. Yet the fact that they have an association
may keep them from understanding a resource as historic or historically
significant. This aspect of resource recognition requires some interpretation and salesmanship.
Be aware of project significance creep: the way a current project seems
to involve significant resources because you now know and understand
them. The odds are that you will find a group of resources to be interested in and excited about. As we integrate MCM resources into the
longer history of our communities, it will become clear that some will be
architecturally and historically significant, but many will not be. Don’t
give up subject matter authority through over-enthusiasm.
Finally, look for the preservation stories as you read about the new
construction of the period. I found a growing sense in the architectural
community that some old buildings were worth preserving. A local
group of architects stated in 1965 that, as the “cause of modernism” was
largely won, they could assume the leadership of preservationist activities, as was their duty. The attitude toward the built environment during
the post World War II period was complex and varied, and is certainly
worth investigating in your community.
Page 9
A few additional questions
for Betsy about St. Louis &
Mid-Century Modern (MCM)
How is it that properties in the National Register are “already
protected” in St. Louis?
St. Louis has a strong demolition-review section in its ordinance.
All properties listed in the Register must be approved by the
Preservation Board for demolition, and the demolition criteria
address condition of the building, effect of the demolition,
proposed subsequent construction, and other factors.
Recently, the Board denied demolition of a 1976 building
designed by Peruvian-born modernist architect W. A. Sarmiento
for replacement by a CVS pharmacy. The protection is in
the City’s historic-preservation ordinance, using listing in the
Register as one of the protected categories.
Was there a national outreach for consultants for the Midcentury Modern Project?
We published our RFP widely, including on PreserveNet, to get
experience in a broad survey project and MCM architecture.
Two out-of-town firms submitted bids.
Is there a greater awareness of mid-century architecture in
St. Louis than other places because of the internationally
celebrated monument, the Gateway Arch, and, even, the
former Busch Stadium?
Probably not. The Arch is of the city but not of the city as it
is the National Park Service Arch that tourists visit. The historic
context examines the relationship during the period and I
ended up naming the period “The Gateway Years.” The fact
that the Arch was being built was a major boost to St. Louis
during the 1960s – most likely, it’s just that more people living in
the city appreciate MCM and make that known. Washington
University’s class on MCM architecture, a couple of years old,
is evidence of the interest in the architectural community and
elsewhere.
Was there any reluctance at first from the local commission
to apply for a CLG grant for this project?
No – the link between young people and MCM appreciation
is strong enough, coupled with the fact that this is the
demographic group that is moving into the city, that there
was no reluctance. The Mayor’s office and Preservation Board
are very aware of the interests of the Millennials and want to
present a city government that “gets it.” Plus, we presented it
as the “thing to do”: to be in the forefront of what communities
are doing in historic preservation.
Is there a second phase for MCM residential properties–
and will the context report for the MCM survey be added to
the city’s preservation plan?
The residential properties are a second phase being
considered. We have some other smaller grant projects
to take on first. The long contexts and survey forms will be
presented in the survey report via our website and SHPO’s.
Shortened, more popular, and more like the earlier ones,
versions of the contexts will be added to the preservation
plan, which is also on the website.
Information on the project is available at the Mid-Century
Modern Survey page on the Cultural Resources Office
website: http://stlouis-mo.gov/cultural-resources
Page 10
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
Blue Collar Modern,
White Collar Modern
– A Tale of Two Cities
By Wade Broadhead, Planner, City of Pueblo, CO
and James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner, City of Boulder, CO
A majority of everything built in the United
States was constructed in the last 50-60 years,
and much of it now potentially eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places or
for local designation. To the general public, the
notion of something built during their lifetime
“being historically significant” can seem alarming,
while appreciation of “high style” Mid-Century
architecture is often seen as elitist and of interest
only to architects, interior designers, or European
tourists.A strategy of engaging interest in the postWorld War II era in America depends on “leading
with history,” through understanding the local and
national context of the period, then following with
a more traditional examination and evaluation of
the representative architecture. This strategy can
help engage citizenry, expose new audiences to
historic preservation, and develop ways to assist in
neighborhood stabilization.The following examines
the approaches two Colorado communities have
taken to understanding their recent past.
1 2 3
4 5 6
7
Captions: Photo1: Cover of the Pueblo Modern Context Study report. Photo courtesy of the authors. Photo 2:
His and her garages on a 7th Avenue Modern home in Pueblo. Photo courtesy of the authors. Photo 3: Promotional
flier for “Pueblo Modern” presentation. Photo 4: 1950s Boulder subdivision. Photo courtesy of the authors. Photo
5: 1950s advertisement for Boulder subdivision. Photo courtesy of the authors. Photo 6: First Christian Church,
Boulder, CO. Photo courtesy of the authors. Photo 7: Hazel Barnes House, Boulder, CO. Photo courtesy of the
authors.
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
1
Page 11
3
2
5
4
7
6
PUEBLO
Pueblo, Colorado recently experimented with a new approach
to the Recent Past by investing and leading with popular local history, followed by architecture. A City/non-profit /State
collaborative was able to engage the citizenry and generate
excitement with its Pueblo Modern Project, a Citywide Historic
Context Study, Architectural Guide, and Preservation Plan from
1940-1982. http://www.pueblo.us/ (SEE PHOTO 1)
jumped to 18%, that Pueblo experienced neighborhood decline.
Unlike most of the neighborhoods in the Midwest, these historic neighborhoods remained stable well into the 1970s and
even 1980s, while the growing middle class moved into small
suburbs (compared to Chicago or Denver) on the North and
South sides of the city. However, these ‘Micoburbs’ were still
within a 5 minute drive from downtown and now form the bulk
of Pueblo’s stable middle class housing stock.
Pueblo is no Emeryville, Palm Springs or New Canaan. It is
a community of 106,000, with a 50% Hispanic population and
an average income of $31,000. The steel mill, state hospital,
and local governments are the biggest employers, not a likely
audience for Mad Men or Modern architecture. Unlike much of
Northern Colorado, which boomed during the post-World War
II years with research and development industries, Pueblo prospered during these years with basic American manufacturing,
centered around its steel mill, Colorado Fuel and Iron (CF&I).
The height of employment for CF&I was during the mid-1950s,
not the 1910s. As the mill changed from making the implements
of World War to the implements of the Cold War (rebar for
Nike missile silos-photo, nuclear power plants) Pueblo experienced an economic explosion. Pueblo’s historic neighborhoods
remained stable well into the 1970s and even 1980s, and welcomed many infill homes and ‘creative’ alterations to existing
buildings. It wasn’t until the massive steel depression of 1982,
when thousands were laid off and Pueblo’s unemployment rate
The Pueblo Modern project was funded by a generous anonymous donation of $7,000, funneled through Historic Pueblo Inc.
It was used as a match for a grant from History Colorado, the
state historical fund. The City then hired Historitecture, whose
staff Adam Thomas and Mary Therese Ansty, Ph.D, had extensive
experience with Mid-Century resources, and who had conducted all of the City’s traditional historic neighborhood studies.
This seasoned relationship allowed City staff to share information with the consultant and identity key people for interviews.
The context was followed with a strong architecture guide and
creative preservation plan to offer guidance for citizens after
the study ended. City staff reached out to the AIA Colorado
Chapter, which sponsored a logo that was produced by a local
graphic artist and Mid-Century Architecture fan. The consultant
also improved upon their award-winning design and layout for
the report, making it easy to read, rich with photos and period
appropriate icons. Luckily, Pueblo was impeccably documented
by ex-steel mill worker turned photographer, John Suay, who
Page 12
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
captured the era beautifully with his camera. The engaging
opening essay explained that this period is one in which Pueblo
should be proud (SEE PHOTO 2). The city accomplished
much without the turmoil of other American urban areas. The
achievements of that era are crucially important since the city
still reels from the economic dislocation of the steel crash of
1982, and unemployment lags at near 10%. Like Pueblo, most
cities have much to celebrate in the Mid-Century Era.
This study resulted in a project wrap up meeting with over 100
people in attendance, complete with two presentations: one
about why Modernism is important nationally and one about
the project results, with media coverage from the local paper
(SEE PHOTO 3). More so, the working relationship between
staff and the consultant identified numerous ways in which the
story/history to the architecture was linked, and how these
places had meaning and significance. The study revealed previously unknown information including a 1950s “neo-adobe”
tradition of houses built from the earth of backyards with
Hispanic residents teaching others the skills and the use of old
trolleys and boxcars for housing. Another new element was
Modernism in the historic city. During this period, 1880s subdivisions were filled in with excellent examples of Modernism
and the infill and ‘refill’ (Modernist additions to older homes
and businesses) of historic housing and small commercial shops.
The Pueblo Modern study also revealed that one of the city’s
premier housing subdivisions, Belmont, was copied from a
builder’s handbook, and the south-side subdivision of Sunset
battled to secure financing for Hispanic residents. Most importantly, it documented the Hispanic civil rights and La Raza
movement, well-known to the older population but unfamiliar
to younger generations.
The resulting preservation plan highlighted the need to engage
a small Mid-Century neighborhood and work toward designation with an even more intense outreach. Since then, the City
has received a grant to conduct a ‘Community Built Survey’ with
a Slovenian micro neighborhood near the mill. Staff doesn’t
refer to it as a Mid-Century study, only working with great
people in an excellent neighborhood with beautiful, modest
housing. This approach may be a way for cities and planners to
engage their Mid-Century neighborhoods, one slice at a time.
Whether it’s fighting extensive redevelopment with guidelines,
or slowly strengthening deteriorating housing tracks, such an
approach takes engaged internal staff and consultants beyond
the standard survey or context report.
Blue Collar Modernism is hard work, and requires equal parts
of good planning and good preservation. Whether residents
of architect-inspired “High Modernism,” modest ranches or
altered historic homes landmark their residences is of little relevance if the outreach and education persuades them to treat
their homes as if they already were in the National Register
of Historic Places. This pride will be reflected in increased
maintenance and care, which should result in higher property
values and higher taxes, something every planner and municipal
official should be concerned with. Preservation, above every
other field, stands poised to lead that charge for American’s
Mid-Century neighborhoods.
BOULDER
Located about 100 miles north of Pueblo at the eastern edge
of the Rocky Mountains, Boulder, Colorado is an affluent city
of about 100,000. Boulder is famous for its colorful Western
history, being a choice destination for hippies in the late 1960s,
and as home of the main campus of the University of Colorado,
the state’s largest university. Furthermore, the city of Boulder
frequently acquires top rankings in health, well-being, quality
of life, education, and art. The city is less known for its wealth
of post World-War II Modernist architecture and Mid-Century
modern era residential neighborhoods.
Like many western American cities, Boulder experienced tremendous growth after World War II so that the sleepy town of
13,000 in 1940 had, by 1970, evolved into a vibrant city of more
than 72,000. The architecture and design of the resulting housing was markedly different from that built before the war. It
manifested in the form of Ranch, Split-Level, and bi-level houses
set on curving roads and cul de sacs, but also in avant-garde
examples of modern buildings dispersed around the city (SEE
PHOTOS 4 AND 5).
In 1999 the City of Boulder’s historic preservation program
undertook a Certified Local Government-funded building survey of 100 architect-designed examples of Modernism – long
recognized but never documented and dating between 1947
and 1977. The resulting documentation provided much-needed
information on a remarkable period of design in Boulder, which
local architect and Landmarks Board chair Mark Gerwing
refers to as “perhaps the best collection of regional post-war
Modernist architecture in the United States.”
While this survey was a relatively early and important effort at
documenting architecture of the recent past, by the mid-2000s
the lack of information on post-World War II architecture in the
Call for Job Postings
NAPC is now posting job announcements in the field of historic
preservation on our website. If your organization – or one you
know of – is interested in posting a job announcement, please
send in PDF format or as an online link to: [email protected].
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
city was becoming apparent as the number of buildings older
than 50 years and subject to demolition rose. Increasingly, staff
and the Landmarks Board struggled in assessing the individual
and cumulative impact of demolitions of non-architect designed
buildings from the recent past without baseline survey and contextual information. In 2006, the program reviewed nearly 70
applications for the demolition of post-World War II buildings.
The number of demolition applications in Boulder continues
to rise as development pressures intensify in this built-out city.
In 2008, the city applied for and received a State Historical
Fund grant through the Colorado Historical Society (CHS) to
undertake a historic context and survey of post-World War II
architecture in Boulder. Informed by primary and oral history
interviews and field survey, the study consisted of an in-depth
historic context, a reconnaissance-level survey of several thousand buildings and intensive-level survey of 105 buildings in ten
post-World War II neighborhoods. Initially, there was resistance
from the CHS to the “context first” driven approach to the
study rather than the traditional method of surveying first then
developing a historic context. However, to Boulder’s historic
preservation staff, taking a broader approach (understanding
the history of the identified 1947-1967 period) seemed the
most practical and effective way to decide which areas should
be examined and which buildings in those areas should be chosen for selective intensive level survey. In the end, CHS agreed
that the approach made sense and was an effective way to
research and document an overwhelming number of buildings
with very limited resources (SEE PHOTO 6).
The bulk of research undertaken was primary in nature as very
little scholarship existed on the post-war period in Boulder
to that point. While archival research was employed, the most
useful information was gleaned through autobiographies, diaries, letters and oral histories, giving first- hand accounts of life
in Boulder from 1947-1967. Oral histories were undertaken
through the Maria Rodgers Oral History Program, conducted
and digitally recorded by volunteers. Interviews were primarily
of long-time residents, builders and developers of the examined neighborhoods. Through this research, the rapid change in
demographics became clear as educated young professionals
came to the city to work in the burgeoning aerospace and hightech sectors. This resulted in the context providing a strong
social history of the period which ultimately assisted in making
decisions as to how undertake the survey.
While the ten subdivisions examined comprise several thousand buildings, only 102 received intensive-level survey. The
reconnaissance survey undertaken by historic preservation
interns, with the oversight of the consultants and city staff,
identified “types” of houses and the degree of alteration. The
best examples of each type were then selected for intensive
survey.This approach has enabled the subsequent review of the
demolition of post-war houses against the surveyed examples.
While not perfect, the information has proved very helpful to
property owners, the Landmarks Board and staff in making the
demolition review process effective and relatively predictable
(SEE PHOTO 7).
A considerable amount of public outreach was undertaken
through the course of the project to inform citizens of the
purpose of the study and to engage public interest in Boulder’s
post-war period. Initially, public skepticism and fear that the city
was poised to “landmark my ranch” was encountered, but as
the study continued and its findings shared with the community
there was a general recognition of its value. At the same time,
it became clear that residents were very proud of the modest
character of their post-war neighborhoods and concerned that
inappropriate new construction and additions were threatening
that character.
Recommendations of the study included the identification of
some buildings and areas eligible for local landmark designation, but focused on the development of alternative “character
areas” as way to manage areas of Mid-Century historic significance in a less restrictive way. Another recommendation was
the development of pattern books that could assist property
owners in making changes appropriate to the character of their
post-war neighborhood. Information on the study can be accessed on the City of Boulder’s Historic Preservation Program
website: www.bouldercolorado.gov/historicpreservation
As the projects in Pueblo and Boulder have demonstrated,
engaging your community’s Mid-Century property owners and
resources can be daunting, scary, and difficult at first. Addressing
this sea of almost overwhelming resources challenges us to
return to our roots as planners and preservationists with innovation in engagement styles, grass roots history, and high caliber
survey work. Many cities may be surprised at the response of a
well-executed Mid-Century project will elicit from their older
residents. Also, due to a popular cultural revival, even their
younger audiences are now flocking to the aesthetic of the
era. Whether it’s combating high-income tear down problems
or neighborhood stabilization, creative, well planned-studies
of Recent Past resources may be the answer to the questions
thousands of municipalities didn’t know they were asking.
Join NAPC-L
Access to NAPC-L
is limited to
NAPC members
Page 13
NAPC-L is the only
national listserv for local
preservation commissions.
NAPC-L gives you access
to local commission
members, staff, and others
across the United States.
To join NAPC-L, simply send an e-mail to [email protected], subject line: Join NAPC-L.
Page 14
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
WELCOME TO NAPC
NEW NAPC MEMBERS:
Christine Beckman
Ft. Collins
CO
Rhonda Sincavage
National Trust For Historic Preservation
Washington
DC
Carin Ruff
Cleveland Park Historical Society
Washington
DC
Amanda Mazie
Wilmington
DE
Izzy Cannell
Ketchem
ID
Salina
KS
Alexandra Kress
Poolesville
MD
Ryan Cleary
Bedminster
NJ
John Burger
Salina Heritage Commission
Douglas McVarish
Collingswood
NJ
David Cooke
Italian Village Commission
Columbus
OH
Rex Hagerling
Italian Village Commission
Columbus
OH
Jason Sudy
Columbus
OH
Todd Boyer
Columbus
OH
Ben Goodman
Columbus
OH
Jill Clark
Columbus
OH
Kathryn Brown
Harleysville
PA
Andrea MacDonald
Harrisburg
PA
Kevin Wohlgemuth
Philadelphia
PA
Lee Riccetti
Philadelphia
PA
Kelly Berger
Philadelphia
PA
Shanshan Gao
Philadelphia
PA
Lizzie Hessmiller
Philadelphia
PA
Erica Maust
Philadelphia
PA
Ruthie Embry
Philadelphia
PA
Moira Nadal
Philadelphia
PA
Maggie Smith
Philadelphia
PA
Laura Lacombe
Philadelphia
PA
Lauren Burton
Philadelphia
PA
Sarah Blitzer
Philadelphia
PA
Rachel Isacoff
Philadelphia
PA
Di Gao
Philadelphia
PA
Patton Roark
Philadelphia
PA
Philadelphia
PA
Solebury
PA
Nashville
TN
Salt Lake City
UT
Blacksburg
VA
Reina Chano
Christine Terranova
Historical Architectural Review Board
David P. Sprouse
Barbara Murphy
Utah State Historical Society
Lauren Trice
Teresa Minchew
Leesburg Board Of Architectural Review
Leesburg
VA
Darcy Mertz Krewson
Snohomish Design Review Board
Lake Stevens
WA
Carol Olson
Lewisburg Historic Landmarks Commission
Lewisburg
WV
Jay Deeds
Home Quest Realty
Martinsburg
WV
Page 15
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
THANK YOU!
RENEWING NAPC MEMBERS:
Nancy Carver
Kenai Historic District Board
Kenai
AK
Christy Anderson
City of Montgomery Planning and Development
Montgomery
AL
John Charley
City of Bisbee Community Development Dept.
Bisbee
AZ
Steve Prosser
City of Campbell Historic Preservation
Campbell
CA
Cheryl Drake
City Of Arvada
Arvada
CO
Diane Metsch
City of Dover, Historic District Commission
Dover
DE
Mike Wing
Tallahassee Trust for Historic Pres.
Tallahassee
FL
Athens
GA
Athens
GA
Fort Dodge
IA
Elgin
IL
Evanston
IL
Sharon Bradley
Amber Eskew
Athens-Clarke County Historic Preservation Commission
Roger Natte
Dan H. Miller
Gifford Park Association
Brad White
Andy Cross
City of Highland Park
Highland Park
IL
Ying Liu
City of Naperville, Historic Preservation Commission
Naperville
IL
Greg Jones
Crowley Historic Commission
Crowley
LA
Nan Hockenbury
Lynnfield Historical Commission
Lynnfield
MA
Carol Allen
Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission
Baltimore
MD
Grace Mary Brady
Saint Mary's County Historic Preservation Commission
Leonardtown
MD
Kirsti Uunila
Historic District Commission Calvert County
Prince Frederick
MD
Washington
MI
Edina
MN
Washington
MO
Frank A. Pompa, Jr.
Joyce Repya
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Carolyn Witt
Stacy Merten
Asheville Buncombe Historic Resources Commission
Asheville
NC
Rosemary DeQuinzio
Bridgeton Historic Pres.
Bridgeton
NJ
Joan Anastasio
Hoboken Historic Preservation Commission
Hoboken
NJ
Gianfranco Archimede
Division of Historic Preservation, City of Paterson
Paterson
NJ
Circleville
OH
Tom Spring
Paige Ashenfelter
Portland Historic Landmarks Commission
Portland
OR
Robin Zeigler
Metro Historic Zoning Commission
Nashville
TN
Wanda Parrish
Spotsylvania County Planning Department
Spotsylvania
VA
Mary O'Neil
City of Burlington
Burlington
VT
WELCOME
NEW NAPC PROFESSIONAL NETWORK MEMBERS:
YourTownApps LLC
18 East Palmer Avenue
Collingswood, NJ 08108-1221
Douglas C. McVarish, Principal
[email protected]
http://yourtownapps.com
856.745.3835
Established in 2012 by an experienced architectural historian, YourTownApps LLC works with heritage preservation and interpretation organizations to convey information to larger and more diverse audiences through
smartphone apps and QR-code-based interpretive systems. We specialize in developing multimedia apps for
walking and driving tours of historic districts, communities and corridors. Contact us to discuss your interpretive questions and ideas.
YourTownApps LLC. We make apps to tell your stories.
Page 16
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
Modern
PHILADELPHIA
1
By Ben Leech, Director of Advocacy
Preservation Alliance for Greater
Philadelphia
2
5
3
4
As a city with over three hundred years of history embodied in its built environment,
Philadelphia presents both challenges and opportunities to preservationists in advocating for
the conservation of buildings from the postwar era and more recent past. On the one hand, the
city boasts an impressive collection of well-known buildings designed by such internationally
renowned architects as George Howe, Louis Kahn, Pietro Belluschi, Eero Saarinen, I.M. Pei,
Richard Neutra, Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. The city also has a well-established
and active community of preservation officials, advocates, academics and practitioners who fully
recognize and embrace the legitimacy of preserving midcentury modern architecture alongside
Philadelphia’s older inheritance of eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth century buildings. On the other hand, this older inheritance continues to define popular conceptions of the city
and its history. Buildings from the postwar era are still commonly dismissed as unattractive or
out of place in comparison to the “traditional” historic architecture which comprises the majority
of the city’s building stock. Most of these buildings, along with the architects who designed them,
remain obscure to all but a niche audience of specialists and aficionados.
When a distinctive midcentury modern building in Center
City Philadelphia, the Sidney Hillman Medical Center, was
threatened with demolition in 2009, both the advantages and
frustrations of recent past preservation in an historic city were
laid bare. Designed by locally prominent architects Louis
Magaziner and Herman Polss and constructed in 1950, the
four-story granite and limestone building stood within the
boundaries of a local historic district largely made up of
nineteenth-century row houses. A developer proposed replacing the Hillman Center with a high rise apartment tower, but
because the building was classified as a contributing structure
within the local district, the demolition first required the approval of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Despite
strong opposition to demolition by preservation advocates who
defended the building’s architectural significance, the general
public remained largely ambivalent. More opposition to the
project arose from the proposed height of its replacement
than from the inherent value of the building itself, which was
characterized by many as aesthetically cold and bland (to the
consternation of the building’s admirers, the author included,
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
who found the building to be invitingly idiosyncratic). The
Commission ultimately approved the demolition under its financial hardship clause, finding that the building had no viable
potential for adaptive reuse. Strictly speaking, the building’s
architectural significance was irrelevant to the issue of financial hardship, and the lack of widespread public opposition to
the demolition did not directly influence the Commission’s
decision. At the same time, preservation advocates recognized
a troubling disconnect between their own assessment of the
building’s worth and that of the general public (and by extension, the assessment of the real estate market). In 2011, the
Hillman Center was indeed demolished and replaced by a
high rise apartment tower (SEE PHOTO 1).
Following the loss of the Hillman Center, the Preservation
Alliance for Greater Philadelphia launched its “I Like Mod”
campaign, a multifaceted initiative to raise awareness of
and appreciation for the city’s eclectic and often overlooked
midcentury and recent past architecture. The “I Like Mod”
moniker, a not-so-subtle and period-appropriate nod to the
famous 1952 “I Like Ike” Eisenhower campaign slogan, is an
intentionally lighthearted attempt to reframe the modernism
debates away from specialized analysis and towards a more
basic expression of popular appeal. Paralleling these efforts,
the Alliance also recognized the need to expand the discussion of modernism’s impact beyond the well-known examples
of high-style architecture concentrated in and around Center
City and other select areas to include a broader recognition of
modernism’s more vernacular expressions scattered throughout neighborhoods across Philadelphia. To do so, the Alliance
began compiling a comprehensive inventory of modernist
buildings constructed in Philadelphia between 1945 and 1980.
The goals of the inventory were relatively modest 1) to serve
as a central repository for basic information about buildings
of the era, 2) to highlight previously under-studied buildings,
building types, character-defining features and architects, and
3) to serve as a planning tool in the comparative identification
and prioritization of preservation priorities (SEE PHOTO 2).
Our methods have been admittedly ad-hoc: the inventory
began as a compilation of buildings identified in architectural
surveys, guidebooks, and scholarly works. It was designed to
capture basic information about each property, including street
address, date of construction, architect, building type, and a
reference photograph (unlike a traditional field survey, the
inventory does not include more detailed physical descriptions
like building height, materials, number of bays, etc., leaving
Page 17
this level of documentation for more targeted investigations).
The number of sources grew steadily as archival research progressed; efforts to identify the architect or construction date of
a particular building often led to the discovery of additional
source material. Period architectural journals, neighborhood
resource surveys, and city archives proved instrumental in
growing the inventory, as did solicited input from neighborhood groups and individuals via public presentations. Online
tools like Google Street View were indispensable in quickly
verifying the existence or loss of properties identified in
historic photographs. Chance discoveries in the field also accounted for numerous additions to the inventory – a cautionary
reminder there is ultimately no substitute for systematic field
surveys (which were unfortunately beyond the project’s scope)
(SEE PHOTOS 3 AND 4).
Three years into the project, the inventory remains a work in
progress, but is already meeting its first two goals: nearly 500
buildings have already been identified, the majority of which
are now photographed and tagged with known architects
and construction dates. The inventory is publicly accessible
on the Alliance’s website (www.preservationalliance.com/
modern), searchable by architect, building type, construction
date, address and neighborhood, drawing more attention to
previously under-recognized buildings and architects and
facilitating continued scholarly and popular research. But by
design, the inventory alone does not assign any determination
of relative significance to each property beyond recording any
existing local or national historic designations. As such, our
third goal, one of using the inventory as a basis for establishing
preservation priorities, still lies ahead. In the coming months,
the Alliance will be convening working groups to identify
appropriate methods for determining the relative significance
and integrity of the buildings included in the inventory and
to identify appropriate candidates for designation to the
Philadelphia and National Registers.
We view these steps as complimentary to our simultaneous
efforts to promote the general appreciation and revitalization
of midcentury modern architecture, independent of formal
designation efforts. Learning from the loss of the Hillman
Center, legal protection alone is unfortunately not a magic
shield. Indispensable to the long-term sustainability of any
building is its perceived aesthetic, cultural, and economic value.
Raising the profile of midcentury modern architecture in an
historic city like Philadelphia is not an easy feat, but is a necessary one.
Photos 1-4 courtesy of the author.
Captions: Photo1: Demolition of Philadelphia’s Sidney Hillman Medical Center brought increased attention to
the challenges of advocating for the preservation of midcentury modern architecture in Philadelphia. Photo 2:
Designed by architect Philip Mastrin in 1957, the former Feinberg & Sons storefront is an increasingly rare example of midcentury modern vernacular commercial design. A number of buildings designed by Mastrin, a relatively
unknown architect, were identified in the course of the inventory. Photo 3: District Health Center #1, designed
by the locally significant firm of Montgomery & Bishop in 1959, is one of a series of health centers commissioned
by the City of Philadelphia in the decades following World War II. The city recently announced plans to vacate the building, leaving it vulnerable to
demolition. Photo 4: Philadelphia experienced a boom in public school construction in the postwar years. Efforts are currently underway to evaluate
National Register eligibility for Strawberry Mansion High School (1964) and dozens of others approaching or reaching fifty years of age. Photo 4: The
mid-century modern Architectural Resource Survey inventory is publically accessible on the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia’s website.
1
3
2
4
5
Page 18
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
2
Staff Profile
M e g a n M c La u g h l i n , C i t y o f M i a m i , F L
1
4
3
Incorporated in 1896, Miami is a young city that lives hard. Prior to incorporation, Miami was
first a Tequesta village at the mouth of a river, and by the mid/late 1800s it was a modest pioneer
settlement of palm-thatch houses, accessible only by boat. At the end of the 1800s, Henry Flagler
extended his Florida East Coast Railway to the settlement, sparking the first of many “booms”
that would come to characterize Miami. In the 1920s, feverish speculation broke out, resulting
in vast neighborhoods of Mediterranean-style villas and many of the elegant “skyscrapers” of our
Downtown. Another building boom took place during the post-war period, resulting in some of
the nation’s most iconic Mid-Century modern landmarks. In recent decades, Miami has experienced yet another unprecedented building boom that has resulted in a breath-taking skyline along
Biscayne Bay. The city is also host to early 20th-century Craftsman bungalows, distinctive Art
Deco architecture, and Bahamian cottages, and significant archaeological zones. Miami’s significant properties are snapshots of the past and visible reminders of the community’s heritage.
How/when did you enter the field?
I come from a family of amateur historians
so I spent much of my childhood visiting
historic sites. While other Florida kids were
playing at the beach, my family visited nearly
every plantation, fort, mill, Indian mound,
and historic town in the State. I studied
at the College of William and Mary in
Williamsburg, Virginia, primarily for its
close ties with Colonial Williamsburg. I took
numerous courses in partnership with the
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, and
learned everything from brick-making and
finishing timber for clapboard siding, to
how to identify vernacular interpretations of
high-style architecture. At that time I was
very interested in historic preservation and
completed my first professional internship in
the Historic Preservation Office of the City of
West Palm Beach.
Upon graduation I enrolled in the Master
of Architecture program at the University of
Miami where my studies focused on architectural design, urban design, and historic
preservation. While there I studied under the
great historians and preservationists Vincent
Scully and Catherine Lynn, and enrolled in
seminars and design studios on traditional
architecture and historic preservation.
After many rewarding years at the planning
firm of Dover, Kohl & Partners, I decided
to apply my national experience at the local level, and I joined the City of Miami
Preservation Office as the Preservation
Planner. About a year and a half later, the
Planning Department asked me to take on
the responsibilities of Preservation Officer.
I feel that my varied background in architecture and planning across the country
has given me the valuable perspective that
Historic Preservation is not simply an end in
itself, but it can be used as a valuable tool in
the creation of strong neighborhoods, cities,
and regions.
Can you give us some background on
local preservation activity in Miami?
The City of Miami’s first Preservation
Ordinance was adopted in 1981 as a section of the Zoning Code, and it provided for
the designation of historic sites by way of
a Heritage Conservation Overlay District.
Since that time, the Ordinance and the
structure of our office has evolved. The
Preservation Ordinance is now a standalone document within the City Code, and
designations obtain final approval from a
Historic and Environmental Preservation
Board. The City has 115 individually designated historic resources and nine historic
districts with a total of 1,064 contributing
buildings within the boundaries of those
districts.
All designated historic
managed through the
Appropriateness (COA)
alterations are reviewed
resources are
Certificate of
process, and
according to
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
the Design Guidelines for Historic Sites
and Districts, last updated in 2011.
Preservation Office staff has the ability to
administratively approve COAs for minor
alterations to historic buildings that are
in keeping with the Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines.
COAs for major
alterations, additions, new construction,
and demolition must be reviewed and
approved or denied by the Historic
and Environmental Preservation Board.
Applications for demolition are evaluated
based on criteria such as the significance
of the building, its structural soundness,
public health and safety, economic hardship, and what is proposed in place of the
building.
There are a number of incentives available
for the owners of historic properties, such
as an ad valorem tax exemption program
for rehabilitation, a transfer of development rights program for historic sites
located in intensely zoned commercial
areas, and waivers from certain zoning
and building code requirements, such as
setbacks, open space requirements, parking requirements, land use, and FEMA
flood elevation requirements.
How does your commission fit into the
local government structure?
Our Preservation Office is part of the
Department of Planning and Zoning, and
the Preservation Officer reports directly to
the Planning Director. We have two fulltime staff members, a Preservation Officer
and a Preservation Planner, as well as an
on-call archaeological consultant. We
are a Certified Local Government. The
Preservation Office is a little different
from other cities in that we administer
Historic Preservation and Archaeology as
well as Environmental Preservation and
Tree Protection. We have Environmental
Preservation Districts throughout the city
that function a little bit like historic districts,
except that the preservation is focused on
trees and natural features like rock outcroppings and natural bluffs.
Our commission is called the Historic and
Environmental Preservation Board, which
is a quasi-judicial board. They make
final decisions on all designations and
Certificates of Appropriateness. There are
1 2 3
4
nine members and one alternate member.
What are the most notable successes/
accomplishments of historic preservation in your city?
The City is at the forefront of the preservation of Mid-Century Modern architecture,
with many notable designations in recent
years. The MiMo (Miami Modern) /
Biscayne Boulevard Historic District, encompassing over one hundred commercial
buildings, was designated in 2006. This
stretch of Biscayne Boulevard through the
Upper Eastside of Miami hit its period of
significance after World War II when the
thoroughfare became the premier location
for a new type of lodging accommodation suited for the 1950s car culture: the
motel. Today, it is these motels that define
the historic character of the district, with
their futuristic Miami Modern (MiMo) style
and flamboyant signage. Since the MiMo
Historic District was designated, property
owners have taken advantage of the ad
valorem tax exemption program, the
transfer of development rights program,
parking waivers, and historic sign exemptions to facilitate the rehabilitation of the
historic motels. With the help of these
preservation incentives, the Boulevard has
been transformed from a struggling commercial strip to a hot real estate market,
with trendy restaurants, office buildings,
design showrooms, and boutique hotels
popping up in the historic buildings (SEE
PHOTOS 2, 3 AND 4).
Other notable preservation successes in
the City of Miami have been the preservation of an important archaeological site,
known as the Miami Circle, in the face
of extreme development pressure, and
the rehabilitation of the historic Venetian
Causeway between Miami and Miami
Beach, in the face of threats to demolish
the original bridges and rebuild a standard
DOT bridge in their place.
What are the biggest challenges
currently facing the commission and
historic preservation in your city?
We are experiencing another building
boom, but at the same time the City is
financially battered from the recession.
As a result, the public is understandably
embracing new development. This is a
Page 19
challenge for preservation because in
some cases our historic and environmental
resources are threatened by proposed projects, and there is far less popular support
for preservation if it means slowing down
development. In addition, the majority of
our residents are recent arrivals, many of
whom are from other countries and other
cultures. Therefore, many of the residents
don’t have the inherent understanding and
appreciation of the City’s history that is
passed down through generations in other
places. Therefore, the most important job
of a preservationist in Miami is public outreach and education on the benefits and
value of historic preservation.
Another challenge facing historic preservation in Miami is the foreclosure crisis and its
fallout, which has resulted in abandoned
historic buildings that are deteriorating.
Many of these vacant buildings have been
placed on the City’s Unsafe Structures
list and are slated for demolition, either
because the structure itself poses a public
health and safety threat, or because the
property has become a magnet for squatters.
How is your program equipped to deal
with these challenges?
Our office works closely with other
preservation agencies in the area and
preservation groups to educate the public
of the many benefits of preservation. For
instance, over the past two years, the
Preservation Office has worked closely
with the Downtown Development Authority
to educate property owners and investors
on the value of the Downtown National
Register District, and on the many financial
incentives and long-term benefits of rehabilitating these historic buildings. In 2012,
we received a Preserve America grant for
a Downtown preservation initiative which
included a Downtown Preservation conference hosted by the Urban Land Institute,
the Downtown Development Authority,
and the City of Miami. The conference was
attended by over 300 downtown property owners, investors, and preservation
advocates, and focused on the funding
tools available for rehabilitation. The
grant also funded a series of Downtown
National Register District tours for hotel
concierges and cruise ship professionals,
Captions: Photo1: Megan McLaughlin. Photo 2: The Miami Marine Stadium, built in 1963, was designated in 2008
through the efforts of a local preservation organization, Dade Heritage Trust, and its subsidiary group, Friends of Miami
Marine Stadium. Photo courtesy of Megan McLaughlin. Photos 3 and 4: The Bacardi Building Tower and Annex, built in
1963 and 1973 respectively, was designated in 2009, at a time when Bacardi headquarters were being moved to a larger
facility. The buildings were designated both for their architectural merit and their cultural associations with Latin America.
Photo courtesy of Megan McLaughlin
Page 20
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
and the creation of a Downtown Miami
Historic District map, so that local hotels
and cruise ship operators could inform
tourists of the historic gems right outside of
their doorstep. Finally, the grant paid for
a number of plaques that will be used to
identify historic sites Downtown. In 2013,
continuing this public relations effort, the
Downtown Development Authority has
funded a “Historic Preservation Toolkit”
study compiling all of the many local,
state, federal, as well as private funding
tools available for the rehabilitation of
downtown historic buildings. Finally, the
Preservation Office is completing a set of
design guidelines tailored specifically for
the Downtown National Register district, as
a compliment to the Toolkit and a guide for
property owners navigating the approval
process for funding and compliance.
For Unsafe Structures, our office continues to work closely with the Building
Department to notify the Historic and
Environmental Preservation Board and the
affected neighborhoods from the moment
that the building is placed on the Unsafe
Structures list, and to guide a search for
alternatives to demolition well before demolition is scheduled.
Have there been recent cutbacks to
funding/staffing?
Our staff has been reduced to two fulltime preservationists and an on-call
archaeological consultant, down from a
peak of four full-time preservationists and
an archaeological consultant. Meanwhile,
the number of historic properties that are
administered by our office has doubled
after the designation of two large historic
districts in our Upper Eastside, the MiMo
/ Biscayne Boulevard Historic District and
the Palm Grove Historic District. Also,
in previous years the City had an open
contract with a preservation consultant
who provided all services for designation
reports, surveys, and Section 106 reviews;
all of these services are now provided in
house, which has limited the frequency
of updates to the historic surveys and the
number of designations that can be completed each year.
Does historic preservation have a high
profile and widespread support in your
city?
Preservation has loyal support in particular areas of the City such as our Upper
Eastside, which is almost entirely designated historic through the conglomeration
of four large historic districts. Three of the
historic districts are residential, and they all
lie alongside upper Biscayne Boulevard,
which was designated the “MiMo” or
Miami Modern Historic District. In this
area of the City, historic preservation has
had a clear and direct impact on the revitalization of the area, and we have seen
dramatic increases in property values as
property owners rehabilitate their historic
homes and commercial properties.
Are there innovative or unique features
about the historic preservation program in your city?
The City of Miami’s historic preservation
program has a number of innovative tools
available for the protection of historic
properties, including an Ad Valorem Tax
Exemption program, a transfer of development rights program, and process by
which historic properties can be exempt
from certain building and zoning code
requirements. Our HEPB meetings are
aired on TV and are available on the
City’s website. We have an award-winning
Historic Preservation website that provides
convenient public access to information
about our program including designation
reports for all of our designated sites and
districts, information about the designation
process, and technical information on the
Certificate of Appropriateness process and
our design guidelines. You can visit it at
www.historic preservationmiami.com.
Do you have training programs for
commission members?
We are reinstating an annual training workshop for our Historic and Environmental
Preservation Board this fall. Other past
and upcoming training events that our
Board members are encouraged to attend
include last year’s Downtown Preservation
Conference, a Historic Windows Workshop
this fall, several CLG training workshops
hosted throughout the State this spring,
and the annual Florida Trust Conference.
Our local preservation advocacy group,
Dade Heritage Trust, organizes numerous events throughout the year, including
an intensive two months of preservation
events in the spring called Dade Heritage
Days. Many of our Board members are
active participants in these programs.
Who in the city is responsible for enforcement actions?
We work closely with our Code Compliance
Department to enforce the Preservation
Ordinance and the Tree Protection
Ordinance. We are in daily contact with
the officers in each of our districts. They
call us to confirm if work is being done in
accordance with our design guidelines and
we contact them to cite properties when
work is being done without our approval.
Do you foresee any new trends or direction for historic preservation in the
coming years?
In Florida, the preservation of modern
architecture is becoming extremely important, as the architecture of the 1950s and
1960s is now more broadly eligible for
National Register and local designation.
Since most of our state was developed during that time period, we have some of the
Country’s most significant landmark structures, as well as model neighborhoods, that
should be preserved. I think the greatest
challenge will be to balance the preservation of auto-oriented modern architecture
and post-war communities with the need to
adapt for a more pedestrian-oriented lifestyle. Furthermore, because such a large
percentage of Miami was developed in the
1950s and 1960s, we must be deliberate
in choosing the very best examples from
that period for designation. In the coming
year, our office would like to undertake a
survey of our mid-century modern (MiMo)
resources for this very purpose.
If you were to lead a group on a tour
of historic properties in your city, what
would you show them?
I would take them to our Downtown
National Register District, which is one
of Miami’s most important historic
places and up until recent years has been
relatively unknown. Most people think
of Miami for its impressive skyline and
contemporary high rises, or even for its
Art Deco and MiMo historic districts, but
few are aware of the stellar collection of
Beaux Arts, early 20th Century “skyscrapers” and office buildings that are located
in our Downtown. A unique thing about
our Downtown National Register District
is that it contains high-quality examples of
architecture from every era, from a 1910s
Palazzo-style post office to a 1960s MiMostyle Morris Lapidus office building.
What do you like most about your job
and about living in your city?
I am convinced that I have the best job in
Miami because I get to work with the most
architecturally and historically significant
buildings in the City on a daily basis. How
many people would love to dig through
historic photos, old building plans, and
visit beautiful old buildings every day? I
also find it extremely fulfilling to work with
property owners and educate them on the
benefits of preserving their buildings. I am
proud of the Preservation Office’s efforts to
preserve and protect the historic resources
of the City. It isn’t always easy, especially
in a City that values large-scale redevelopment; however it is always rewarding.
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
STATE
New York
Collier Heights Awarded Local
Historic District Status
May 16, 2013
http://tinyurl.com/ldt9j4y
Collier Heights—a West Atlanta neighborhood built by and for
African Americans—has been designated as a Local Historic
District by the City of Atlanta, the mayor’s office announced today.
The fifty-year-old ranch house development was named to the
National Register of Historic Places in 2009, but that designation
did not protect its architectural integrity. Now, under an ordinance
approved by City Council on May 7, all new construction and
alterations to home exteriors must be reviewed by the Atlanta
Urban Design Commission. The area is significant as a particularly
well preserved example of midcentury design, but it is even better
known as a groundbreaking refuge for upwardly mobile African
Americans during the turbulent Jim Crow era.
California
Century 21 Dome in San Jose
Threatened by New Development
May 16, 2013
http://tinyurl.com/kmjaw7z
Public School Discovers Slave
Burial Ground in Joseph
Rodman Drake Park
May 23, 2013
http://tinyurl.com/kwz88fr
For the past 100 years, South Bronx residents have
unknowingly held picnics and cavorted over the bones
of buried slaves. That’s the startling discovery teachers
and students at a Hunts Point public school have made:
They located a burial ground for Indian and African slaves
that city officials demolished more than 100 years ago to
make way for a nearby park. Everyone at Public School
48 has taken up the cause of proper recognition for
those forgotten slaves buried in Joseph Rodman Drake
Park, a few blocks away from their school. “This is about
people who contributed to this city and whose lives were
obliterated from history,” said teacher Justin Czarka. He
and Phil Panaritis, a city Education Department official
who heads up the Bronx’s federally funded Teaching
American History project, have spearheaded more than a
year of research by the school’s pupils to document the
site’s location.
North Carolina
Docomomo US/Noca is currently advocating for the preservation
of a mid-century movie theater in San Jose, California. The
Century 21 Theater, located at 3161 Olsen Drive in San Jose,
was constructed in 1963 and opened in 1964. The theater was
designed by Bay Area architect Vincent G. Raney with a futuristic
dome shape. The Century 21 Theatre in San Jose was one of
the first venues built specifically for Cinerama and was the first
Century dome theater to be constructed in what would become a
chain, ultimately expanding to Southern California, Salt Lake City,
and Seattle. Differing from the Century domes that would follow,
the Century 21 in San Jose was constructed almost entirely of
concrete and has a larger lobby area. Although the theater was
originally designed for presenting films using the 3-strip Cinerama
process, it is capable of presenting films in several formats. With
the exception of some interior renovations, the theater appears
much as it did in 1964 and is one of the oldest of the Cinerama
era still standing in the United States. A similar mid-century dome
theater in nearby Pleasant Hill, California, was demolished on May
8 to make way for a big-box sporting goods store. The Century 21
site is currently being marketed as available for development, and
Docomomo US/Noca is working to build support for the building
before demolition is proposed.
Pinehurst Historic Preservation
Commission Rejects Council’s
Proposal for Historic
District Boundaries
June 21, 2013
http://tinyurl.com/n5fodmq
The Historic Preservation Commission rejected the
Pinehurst Village Council’s proposal to significantly
reduce the size of the village’s Local Historic District.
The commission did not take a vote at a special meeting
Thursday to discuss the issue, but all four members at
the meeting indicated opposition to the council’s plan.
The council proposed reducing the size of the district
to boundaries similar to those in 1973 when the village
was added to the National Register of Historic Places.
The Local Historic District, which was approved in 2006,
was made about six times larger, in part because many of
the village’s residents wanted their homes included. The
general feeling of the council is that the current district
is too large.
ONLINE DESIGN GUIDELINES COLLECTION
VISIT http://napc.uga.edu and click on “Online Design Guidelines”
Don’t see your district’s guidelines?
Send the link to [email protected]
e d u cat i o n
+
a dvoc a cy
NEWS
Georgia
Page 21
+
t ra in in g
Page 22
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
Appropriations Process Continues
The stalemate over the FY2014 Budget and the debt ceiling
continues in Washington and both sides are blaming each
other for the impasse. Meetings between Republicans and
Democrats are ongoing. The crux of the matter is whether
the debt ceiling is raised independently, as President Obama
has indicated he thinks it should be, or whether it is included
with a group of deficit reductions, which Republican leaders
have said is required to garner their support. House Speaker
John Boehner (R-OH), however, indicated he doesn’t think
that the budget and debt ceiling will be tied together. “It certainly doesn’t seem likely to me that would ever be the case and
it certainly would never be the case unless there was a broad
agreement that would put us on a plan to balance the budget
over the next 10 years.” It remains to be seen if an appropriations bill will pass or if Congress will simply pass another
Continuing Resolution. At the moment, the latter appears to
be the best outcome for preservationists, given developments
in the House.
House appropriators proposed an 18% cut in the funding for the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Subcommittee. The proposal is a full 20% lower than President
Obama’s FY14 budget and 14% below the level set under sequestration. “At these funding levels, we would see massive and
devastating park and wildlife refuge closures, less and less law
enforcement officers protecting the public, and almost no resources to fight wildfires…” said Alan Rowsome, director of
conservation funding at the Wilderness Society. The overall
budget proposal totals $967 billion, much lower than last year’s
appropriated $1.043 trillion.
IRS to Issue Tax Guidance on Case SCOTUS
Declines to Hear; CAPP Bill Reintroduced
In a bit of bad news to the preservation community, the
Supreme Court declined to hear the case in Historic Boardwalk
LLC, relating to the policies for awards of the Rehabilitation
Tax Credit, or Historic Tax Credit (HTC). On the upside,
The IRS and Treasury Department announced they hope to
You can download this application form at preservationaction.org
issue new guidance on the. The case has potential wide-ranging
implications on the HTC. While a date-certain has not been
announced for this new guidance, it is widely expected to assuage concerns among HTC investors and project managers
around the country.
In more good news, Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ben
Cardin (D-MD) introduced the Creating American Prosperity
through Preservation (CAPP) Act in the U.S. Senate. The bill,
numbered S. 1141, was also introduced by in the last Congress
by Cardin and former Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). It would
enhance the HTC by including energy efficiency and other
restoration projects. At the moment the companion bill has not
yet been introduced in the House but preservation advocates in
Washington are hopeful it will be introduced sometime in the
near-future. Current Senate co-sponsors include Sen. Chuck
Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).
World Heritage Fight Heating Up
Many of you may be aware of the upcoming issue regarding the United States non-payment of dues to the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO). A set of laws passed in the US in 1990 and 1994
disallows US funds being paid to organizations that recognize
the Palestinian state. In 2011, UNESCO recognized Palestine
and the United States has not paid its dues since—even as
Israel continues to pay their UNESCO dues. As a result, our
membership in UNESCO will lapse in November of 2013.
The World Heritage Convention, which is administered by
UNESCO, designates significant world heritage sites. Among
those in the United States are Independence Hall, the Statue
of Liberty, and Monticello.
As a result of our lapsed membership in UNESCO we will lose
our voice on World Heritage Sites, including potential sites in
Texas and Ohio. Preservation Action and US/ICOMOS have
teamed up in Washington to further efforts to get a waiver for
these laws to allow us to pay our UNESCO dues and will need
help in the coming weeks and months to engage the grassroots!
The Alliance Review | May-June 2013 | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
Page 23
g, MN
, Red Win
9
1
8
1
ly
e, IN
Ju
, Lafayett
4
2
3
2
t
s
r, ME
Augu
, Gardine
0
2
r
e
b
ke, VA
Septem
0, Roano
2
r
e
b
o
t
Oc
The Alliance Review
University of Georgia
Center for Community Design & Preservation
225 W. Broad St.
Athens, GA 30602
PAID
Permit #165
Athens, GA
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM
WITH PAYMENT TO NAPC:
PO BOX 1605 ATHENS, GA 30603
OR FAX TO 706-369-5864
or join online at
http://napc.uga.edu/join
$20.00
• Student
$35.00
• Individual Membership
$50.00
• Commissions: Municipal/county population
less than 5,000*
• Local nonprofit organizations
Name
$100
• Commissions: Municipal/county population
of 5,000 to 50,000*
• Regional or statewide nonprofit organizations
Commission/Organization
$150
• Commissions: Municipal/county population
Address
greater than 50,000*
• State Historic Preservation Offices
• Federal Agencies
• National nonprofit organizations
Address
$150
PROFESSIONAL NETWORK
• Consultants /Consulting Firms
City • Businesses/Companies
• Other Professional Services
State Phone
Zip Code
Fax
E-mail
I Prefer:
Hard copy of newsletter in the mail
Electronic version of newsletter via email
How did you hear about NAPC?
In addition to receiving all NAPC membership
benefits, Professional members are listed in the
NAPC Professional Network Directory at
http://napc.uga.edu/directory.
* Membership includes all commission members
and staff. Please provide complete list with
each name, mailing address, e-mail, phone
number, and preferred delivery method
of newsletter (postal or electronic)
PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP
Half of all premium membership dues
support NAPC’s student internship and
Forum scholarship programs
$250 CHAIRS CIRCLE
$500 FOUNDERS CIRCLE
MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES
Become part of the
national network of
local preservation,
historic district, and
landmark commissions and boards of
architectural review.
Organized to help local
preservation programs
succeed through education, advocacy, and
training, The National
Alliance of Preservation
Commissions is the
only national nonprofit
organization dedicated
to local preservation
commissions and their
work. NAPC is a source
of information and
support for local commissions and serves as
a unifying body giving
them a national voice.
As a member of NAPC,
you will benefit from
the experience and
ideas of communities
throughout the United
States working to protect historic districts
and landmarks through
local legislation, education, and advocacy.
Nonprofit Org.
U.S. Postage