Preservation: For What Purpose?

Sign Petition to Reform Historic Guidelines

Preservationists across the U.S. are arguing about historic standards and guidelines that regulate new buildings and additions in historic districts. Many want design that harmonizes with existing historic fabric while review boards emphasize contemporary design in the name of differentiating new from old. A major new book on this topic has just been released: "The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation" by Steven Semes. Semes argues for "new traditional" architecture that preserves the style and character of historic buildings.

A camp of preservationists in Richmond, Va. agree with Semes' assessment and are circulating a petition to reform historic guidelines. They claim that the guidelines and review boards are eroding the historic character of the old buildings and neighborhoods by mandating that new construction, alterations and additions be differentiated from existing fabric by being obviously "of our time." The result is discordant contemporary design that stands out rather than blends in, and degrades its historic surroundings by standing in conspicuous contrast to it. The petition seeks to reestablish a focus on compatibility rather than differentiation. By promoting architectural harmony and wholeness within historic districts, buildings and neighborhoods can evolve in accordance with their historic patterns and styles.

Please support this effort for positive change that will steer one of America's most historic cities back in the direction of preserving its fragile historic resources. We hope other localities follow suit. http://www.petitiononline.com/saveohds/petition.html

For more background on this issue, please view this video at www.oldhouseauthority.com: and read an article by Steven Semes on the controversy over "Compatibility and Differentiation"

Below are some reasons why you should care about reforming historic standards and review boards. These examples are from Richmond, Va. but typify what is happening across the country where national, state and local review bodies prioritize "differentiation" over "compatibility."

No, this not an EconoLodge. It is part of a project that received state historic tax credits in Richmond's earliest neighborhood. Richmond's architectural review commission also gave it a stamp of approval even though it resembles none of its 19th and late 18th century neighboring properties.

Nope, not a beach house. This grey metal clad structure with its asymmetrical roof is part of a historic tax credit project and won unanimous approval from the local architectural review commission. When one commission member asked city staff if the metal siding was appropriate in a historic district, he was told: "It's appropriate for a contemporary structure." And contemporary design is after all, what review boards insist on to avoid "False Historicism," i.e. ensuring that new design or features are conspicuously "of our time."

Disdain for "False Historicism" leads to Frankenstein design. This discordant, multi-family structure [shown on right] overwhelms adjacent antebellum townhouses. It includes a little bit of this, a little bit of that, just as the local architectural review board recommended. In 2002, the review board told this applicant to "make sure that the new structure have a contemporary feel and not too closely mimic a recognizable architectural style." Well, he got that right.

City Guidelines Hurt Old Neighborhoods, Preservationists Say

An ideological battle over how best to preserve Richmond's architectural history has gone digital.

by Chris Dovi
Style Weekly, Richmond, VA

Read full article here.