may-june 2013 - national alliance of preservation commissions

State News21 Heads Up22 Upcoming CAMPs23

News from the National Alliance ofPreservation CommissionsMay-June 2013

Mid-Century Modern Survey in St. Louis

Blue Collar Modern, White Collar Modern – A Tale of Two Cities

Philadelphia Modern

Staff Profile

Learning to Appreciate—Not Necessarily Like—Midcentury Modern Architecture: Finding Success in Preserving the Recent Past

10

07

04

16

18

MID-CENTURY MODERN

JO RAMSAY LEIMENSTOLL, ChairProfessor, UNCGDept. of Interior Architecture P.O. Box 26170 Greensboro, NC 27402-6170 Phone: 336-256-0303 [email protected]

2007 ESTHER HALL, Chair-elect

Executive Director, North Carolina Legal Education Assistance Foundation3948 Browning Place, Suite 334Raleigh, NC 27609Phone: [email protected]

2011

NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS2013 Board of Directors:

NAPC STAFF:

PROGRAM DIRECTORPaul Trudeau,

[email protected]

SUPPORT STAFF Lindsey Walsworth,

[email protected]

GRAPHIC DESIGN Eleonora Machado,

[email protected]

National Alliance of Preservation Commissions

Staff at the Center for Community Design &

Preservation at the College of Environment & Design,

University of Georgia

CONTACT NAPC AT:

(706) 369.5881 fax (706) 369.5864

[email protected] www.uga.edu/napc

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.

Published bimonthly by NAPC

National Alliance of Preservation Commissions

P.O. Box 1605Athens, GA 30603

t h e

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.

PATRICIA M. BLICK, SecretaryArkansas Historic Preservation Program323 Center Street, 1500 Tower BuildingLittle Rock, AR 72201Phone: [email protected]

RAY SCRIBER, Treasurer Louisiana Main Street LA Division of Historic PreservationPO Box 44247 Baton Rouge, LA 70804Phone:225-342-8162 [email protected]

KATHERINE ADAMS1621 T Street, NW #602Washington, DC 20009Phone: 202-660-2762 or [email protected]

ROBIN BECKETT New Canaan Historic District Commission1271 Oenoke Ridge RoadNew Canaan, CT 06840Phone: 646-256-8500 [email protected]

REGINA BREWERCity of Decatur509 N. McDonough StreetP.O.B 220Decatur, GA 30031-3309Phone: [email protected]

WADE BROADHEADCity of Pueblo, 211 E. D StreetPueblo, CO 81001Phone: [email protected]

JEFF CRONIN 152 Chestnut Ave. #1 Boston, MA 02130-1827Phone: [email protected]

2011

2005

2008

2011

2006

ERIK NELSONDepartment of Planning and Community DevelopmentPO Box 7447Fredericksburg, VA 22404Phone: [email protected]

CATHERINE O’CONNOR Illinois Association of Historic Preservation Commissions1 Old State Capitol PlazaSpringfield, IL 62704Phone: [email protected]

TED STROSSERTed Strosser, Architecture & ConservationPO Box 88Lewisburg, PA 17837Phone: [email protected]

JEREMY WELLS, PH.D.Assistant Professor of Historic PreservationSchool of Architecture, Art and Historic PreservationRoger Williams UniversityOne Old Ferry RoadBristol, RI 02809-2921Phone: [email protected]

SCOTT WHIPPLEMontgomery County Planning Dep.8787 Georgia Ave.Silver Spring, MD 20910Phone: 301-563-3404 [email protected]

ROBIN ZEIGLER Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission 3000 Granny White Pike Nashville, TN 37204 Phone: 615-862-7970 [email protected]

2009

2009

2011

2011

2011

2008

NICOLE DIEHLMANN4225 Wickford RoadBaltimore, MD [email protected]

MATTHEW HALITSKY, AICPHistoric Preservation PlannerCity of Boise, PO Box 2302Boise, Idaho 83701Phone: [email protected]

D. HENRICHSCity of Gainesville, FL 306 N.E. 6th AvenueP.O. Box 490, Station 11Gainesville, Florida [email protected]

JAMES HEWATCity of Boulder, CO177 Broadway, 2nd FloorBoulder, CO [email protected]

ALISON D. HINCHMANMarketing, National Trust for Historic Preservation1785 Massachusetts Ave., NWWashington, DC 20036Phone: [email protected]

CORY R. KEGERISECommunity Preservation Coordinator - Eastern RegionPennsylvania Historical and Museum CommissionGraeme Park859 County Line RoadHorsham, PA 19044Phone: (215)[email protected]

DAVID MORGAN100 5th Street NWWashington, DC 20002Phone: [email protected]

2006

2011

2011

2012

2012

2012

2011

2011

2011

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?

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!

In this IssueBY PAUL TRUDEAU, NAPC PROGRAM DIRECTOR

ERIK NELSONDepartment of Planning and Community DevelopmentPO Box 7447Fredericksburg, VA 22404Phone: [email protected]

CATHERINE O’CONNOR Illinois Association of Historic Preservation Commissions1 Old State Capitol PlazaSpringfield, IL 62704Phone: [email protected]

TED STROSSERTed Strosser, Architecture & ConservationPO Box 88Lewisburg, PA 17837Phone: [email protected]

JEREMY WELLS, PH.D.Assistant Professor of Historic PreservationSchool of Architecture, Art and Historic PreservationRoger Williams UniversityOne Old Ferry RoadBristol, RI 02809-2921Phone: [email protected]

SCOTT WHIPPLEMontgomery County Planning Dep.8787 Georgia Ave.Silver Spring, MD 20910Phone: 301-563-3404 [email protected]

ROBIN ZEIGLER Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission 3000 Granny White Pike Nashville, TN 37204 Phone: 615-862-7970 [email protected]

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.

Great online resources from the National Trust for Historic Preservation:Recent Past Resource Guide: http://tinyurl.com/recentpastModernism + Recent Past Resource Guide: http://tinyurl.com/recentpast2

P a g e 3T h e A l l i a n c e R e v i e w | M a y - J u n e 2 0 1 3 | N a t i o n a l A l l i a n c e o f P r e s e r v a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n s

If AMC’s hit television series Mad Men has taught us any-thing, 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.

Sadly the cards are stacked against efforts to preserve mid-century 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

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

1 2345 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,31-NEYO,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.

By Adam Thomas, Historitecture, L.L.C.

1

P a g e 4 T h e A l l i a n c e R e v i e w | M a y - J u n e 2 0 1 3 | N a t i o n a l A l l i a n c e o f P r e s e r v a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n s

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, par-ticularly 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 de-molition, rending their protection through inventories and landmarking all the more crucial. Unfortunately, building

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 at-tention 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 mod-ern architecture lies at the very genesis and success of the

preservation movement itself. After all, these were the build-ings 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 neces-sarily 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

coalesced the modern preservation movement, which culmi-nated in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

So if the public distains much of midcentury modern ar-chitecture 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 mid-century 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.

2 3 4 5


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 160-foot 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 prin-cipal 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 sky-lines 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 great-est 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 then-tallest 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 submis-sion 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 win-ning 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 rei-magined 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 de-claring, “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 millen-nia 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 mid-century 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 li-brary 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 seem-ingly limitless potential of postwar America. These decisions about style and materials resulted in buildings that are un-doubtedly landmarks, even if they are recent landmarks.

We need to assure that the aesthetic of postwar minimal-ism 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.”


Mid-Century Modern Survey in St. Louis By Besty Bradley, Director, Cultural Resources OfficeCity of St. Louis, MO

St. Louis is known as an historic city constructed almost en-tirely 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 threat-ened 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

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.

12 3

1

2 3


constructed between 1945 and 1975. As the City’s demoli-tion 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 lo-cations 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 in-cludes 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 build-ings 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 AheadThe 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 popular-ity 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 signifi-cance 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, commu-nity 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 AIA-sponsored 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


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 document-ing 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 com-munity 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 – suburbaniza-tion, 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 baby-boomers, 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 under-standing 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 interpreta-tion 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 inter-ested 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 activi-ties, 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.

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 Mid-century 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


Blue Collar Modern, White Collar Modern – A Tale of Two Cities

By Wade Broadhead, Planner, City of Pueblo, COand 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 post-World 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.

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.

14

257

36

P a g e 1 0 T h e A l l i a n c e R e v i e w | M a y - J u n e 2 0 1 3 | N a t i o n a l A l l i a n c e o f P r e s e r v a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n s

PUEBLOPueblo, Colorado recently experimented with a new approach to the Recent Past by investing and leading with popular lo-cal 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)

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 pros-pered 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 experi-enced an economic explosion. Pueblo’s historic neighborhoods remained stable well into the 1970s and even 1980s, and wel-comed 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

jumped to 18%, that Pueblo experienced neighborhood decline. Unlike most of the neighborhoods in the Midwest, these his-toric 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.

The Pueblo Modern project was funded by a generous anony-mous 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 conduct-ed all of the City’s traditional historic neighborhood studies. This seasoned relationship allowed City staff to share informa-tion 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

1 3

5

7

2

4 6

P a g e 1 1T h e A l l i a n c e R e v i e w | M a y - J u n e 2 0 1 3 | N a t i o n a l A l l i a n c e o f P r e s e r v a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n s

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 pre-viously 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 sub-divisions 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 im-portantly, 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 designa-tion 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 rel-evance 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.

BOULDERLocated 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 tre-mendous 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 hous-ing 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 sur-vey 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

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].

Call for Job Postings


Access to NAPC-L is limited to

NAPC members

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.

Join NAPC-L

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 con-textual 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 thou-sand 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 cho-sen 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, dia-ries, 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 exam-ined 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 high-tech 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 thou-sand 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 designa-tion, but focused on the development of alternative “character areas” as way to manage areas of Mid-Century historic signifi-cance 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 ac-cessed 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 inno-vation 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.


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

John Burger Salina Heritage Commission Salina KS

Alexandra Kress Poolesville MD

Ryan Cleary Bedminster NJ

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

Reina Chano Philadelphia PA

Christine Terranova Historical Architectural Review Board Solebury PA

David P. Sprouse Nashville TN

Barbara Murphy Utah State Historical Society Salt Lake City UT

Lauren Trice Blacksburg VA

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

NEW NAPC MEMBERS:

W E L C O M E T O N A P C


RENEWING 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

John Burger Salina Heritage Commission Salina KS

Alexandra Kress Poolesville MD

Ryan Cleary Bedminster NJ

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

Reina Chano Philadelphia PA

Christine Terranova Historical Architectural Review Board Solebury PA

David P. Sprouse Nashville TN

Barbara Murphy Utah State Historical Society Salt Lake City UT

Lauren Trice Blacksburg VA

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

T H A N K Y O U !

YourTownApps LLC18 East Palmer AvenueCollingswood, NJ 08108-1221

Established in 2012 by an experienced architectural historian, YourTownApps LLC works with heritage pres-ervation 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 interpre-tive questions and ideas.

YourTownApps LLC. We make apps to tell your stories.

WE

LC

OM

E

NEW NAPC PROFESSIONAL NETWORK MEMBERS:

Douglas C. McVarish, [email protected]

http://yourtownapps.com856.745.3835

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

Sharon Bradley Athens GA

Amber Eskew Athens-Clarke County Historic Preservation Commission Athens GA

Roger Natte Fort Dodge IA

Dan H. Miller Gifford Park Association Elgin IL

Brad White Evanston IL

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

Frank A. Pompa, Jr. Washington MI

Joyce Repya Edina Heritage Preservation Board Edina MN

Carolyn Witt Washington MO

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

Tom Spring Circleville OH

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


ModernPHILADELPHIA

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 replac-ing 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 ap-proval 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,

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 build-ings. 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.

By Ben Leech, Director of AdvocacyPreservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia

1

3

2

5

4


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 exam-ple 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.

13

2 54

who found the building to be invitingly idiosyncratic). The Commission ultimately approved the demolition under its fi-nancial 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 finan-cial 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 exten-sion, 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 discus-sion 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 through-out 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

this level of documentation for more targeted investigations). The number of sources grew steadily as archival research pro-gressed; 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 neighbor-hood 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 ac-counted 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 neces-sary one.

Photos 1-4 courtesy of the author.


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 archi-tectural 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 lo-cal 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 archi-tecture 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 sec-tion 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 stand-alone document within the City Code, and designations obtain final approval from a Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. The City has 115 individually des-ignated historic resources and nine historic districts with a total of 1,064 contributing buildings within the boundaries of those districts.

All designated historic resources are managed through the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process, and alterations are reviewed according to

Staff ProfileMegan McLaugh l i n , C i t y o f M iami , F L

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 experi-enced 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 signifi-cant properties are snapshots of the past and visible reminders of the community’s heritage.

1 4 3

2


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 hard-ship, 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 develop-ment 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, park-ing 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 full-time 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 out-croppings 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

nine members and one alternate member. What are the most notable successes/accomplishments of historic preserva-tion in your city? The City is at the forefront of the preserva-tion of Mid-Century Modern architecture, with many notable designations in recent years. The MiMo (Miami Modern) / Biscayne Boulevard Historic District, en-compassing 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 accommoda-tion 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 exemp-tions to facilitate the rehabilitation of the historic motels. With the help of these preservation incentives, the Boulevard has been transformed from a struggling com-mercial 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 preserva-tion 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

challenge for preservation because in some cases our historic and environmental resources are threatened by proposed proj-ects, 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 out-reach and education on the benefits and value of historic preservation.

Another challenge facing historic preserva-tion 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 squat-ters.

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 reha-bilitating these historic buildings. In 2012, we received a Preserve America grant for a Downtown preservation initiative which included a Downtown Preservation confer-ence hosted by the Urban Land Institute, the Downtown Development Authority, and the City of Miami. The conference was attended by over 300 downtown prop-erty 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

1 324


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 con-tinues 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 de-molition is scheduled.

Have there been recent cutbacks to funding/staffing?Our staff has been reduced to two full-time 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 com-pleted each year.

Does historic preservation have a high profile and widespread support in your city? Preservation has loyal support in par-ticular areas of the City such as our Upper Eastside, which is almost entirely desig-nated 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 re-vitalization 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 pro-gram 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 devel-opment 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 work-shop 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 numer-ous 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 en-forcement 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 di-rection for historic preservation in the coming years?In Florida, the preservation of modern architecture is becoming extremely impor-tant, 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 dur-ing that time period, we have some of the Country’s most significant landmark struc-tures, as well as model neighborhoods, that should be preserved. I think the greatest challenge will be to balance the preserva-tion of auto-oriented modern architecture and post-war communities with the need to adapt for a more pedestrian-oriented life-style. 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 “skyscrap-ers” 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 MiMo-style 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 redevelop-ment; however it is always rewarding.


e d u c a t i o n + a d v o c a c y + t r a i n i n g

GeorgiaCollier Heights Awarded Local Historic District StatusMay 16, 2013http://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.

CaliforniaCentury 21 Dome in San Jose Threatened by New DevelopmentMay 16, 2013http://tinyurl.com/kmjaw7z

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.

New YorkPublic School Discovers Slave Burial Ground in Joseph Rodman Drake ParkMay 23, 2013http://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 CarolinaPinehurst Historic Preservation Commission Rejects Council’s Proposal for Historic District BoundariesJune 21, 2013http://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.

NEW

SSTATE

VISIT http://napc.uga.edu and click on “Online Design Guidelines”Don’t see your district’s guidelines?Send the link to [email protected]

ONLINE DESIGN GUIDELINES COLLECTION


You can download this application form at preservationaction.org

Appropriations Process ContinuesThe 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 cer-tainly 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 appropria-tions 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 se-questration. “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 re-sources 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 ReintroducedIn 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

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 as-suage 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 UpMany of you may be aware of the upcoming issue regard-ing 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!


July 18-19, Red Wing, MN

August 23-24, Lafayette, IN

September 20, Gardiner, ME

October 20, Roanoke, VA


The Alliance ReviewUniversity of GeorgiaCenter for Community Design & Preservation225 W. Broad St.Athens, GA 30602

Nonprofit Org.

U.S. Postage

PAID Permit #165 Athens, GA

Become part of the national network of local preservation, historic district, and landmark commis-sions and boards of architectural review. Organized to help local preservation programs succeed through edu-cation, 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 com-missions 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 pro-tect historic districts and landmarks through local legislation, educa-tion, and advocacy.

MEM

BERSHIP CATEGORIES

$20.00• Student

$35.00• Individual Membership

$50.00• Commissions: Municipal/county population

less than 5,000*• Local nonprofit organizations

$100• Commissions: Municipal/county population

of 5,000 to 50,000*• Regional or statewide nonprofit organizations

$150• Commissions: Municipal/county population

greater than 50,000*• State Historic Preservation Offices• Federal Agencies• National nonprofit organizations

$150 PROFESSIONAL NETWORK• Consultants /Consulting Firms• Businesses/Companies• Other Professional Services

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)

Half of all premium membership dues support NAPC’s student internship and

Forum scholarship programs

$250 CHAIRS CIRCLE$500 FOUNDERS CIRCLE

PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Name

Commission/Organization

Address

Address

City

State Zip Code

Phone Fax

E-mail

I Prefer:

How did you hear about NAPC?

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH PAYMENT TO NAPC: PO BOX 1605 ATHENS, GA 30603 OR FAX TO 706-369-5864or join online at http://napc.uga.edu/join

Hard copy of newsletter in the mailElectronic version of newsletter via email

may-june 2013 - national alliance of preservation commissions

Documents