<%BANNER%>

Rescuing Our Past

Center for World Heritage Research & Stewardship at the University of Florida University of Florida
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024441/00001

Material Information

Title: Rescuing Our Past The Role of Sense of Place in the Preservation of Residential Interiors
Physical Description: 1 online resource (123 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Mcgibbon, Nalo
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: design, historic, housing, interior, place, preservation, rehabilitation, sense
Interior Design -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: RESCUING OUR PAST: THE ROLE OF SENSE OF PLACE IN THE PRESERVATION OF RESIDENTIAL INTERIORS Historic residential interiors are being lost due to multiple causes. There are several strategies for fighting this loss including government supported financial incentives for rehabilitation or restoration as well as individual efforts to recreate ?historic? interiors. The purpose of this thesis is to examine some of the reasons that might explain the restoration, preservation or reconstruction of residential interiors. Despite of the wide availability of financial incentives for their preservation, these initiatives are rarely used and historic residential interiors continue to be lost. Counteracting this phenomenon, some individuals are motivated enough to attempt saving interiors of the past on their own terms, and chose to create interiors to match their own interpretation of the history of their house. Case study research was conducted to describe and help explain individual choices in rehabilitating or restoring residential interiors. Case studies are well suited to examine contemporary phenomena within their real-life context. Cases were controlled for single family house owners living in houses generally referred to as ?historic.? Semi-structured informal interviews following approved protocols inquired about homeowner reasons for rehabilitating or restoring their house interiors. The case study participants emotional attachment, and identification with, their house were examined through interview questions and use of environmental autobiography methods. The information was then interpreted and a cross-case analysis was generated to identify recurring connections between psychosocial factors and the interpretive recreation of house interiors. This thesis summarizes the theoretical background, method and results of this study, and findings from the case studies suggesting possible answers to the question: Why do people preserve, through rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction, residential interiors of the past?
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Nalo Mcgibbon.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Torres Antonini, Maruja A.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024441:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024441/00001

Material Information

Title: Rescuing Our Past The Role of Sense of Place in the Preservation of Residential Interiors
Physical Description: 1 online resource (123 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Mcgibbon, Nalo
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: design, historic, housing, interior, place, preservation, rehabilitation, sense
Interior Design -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: RESCUING OUR PAST: THE ROLE OF SENSE OF PLACE IN THE PRESERVATION OF RESIDENTIAL INTERIORS Historic residential interiors are being lost due to multiple causes. There are several strategies for fighting this loss including government supported financial incentives for rehabilitation or restoration as well as individual efforts to recreate ?historic? interiors. The purpose of this thesis is to examine some of the reasons that might explain the restoration, preservation or reconstruction of residential interiors. Despite of the wide availability of financial incentives for their preservation, these initiatives are rarely used and historic residential interiors continue to be lost. Counteracting this phenomenon, some individuals are motivated enough to attempt saving interiors of the past on their own terms, and chose to create interiors to match their own interpretation of the history of their house. Case study research was conducted to describe and help explain individual choices in rehabilitating or restoring residential interiors. Case studies are well suited to examine contemporary phenomena within their real-life context. Cases were controlled for single family house owners living in houses generally referred to as ?historic.? Semi-structured informal interviews following approved protocols inquired about homeowner reasons for rehabilitating or restoring their house interiors. The case study participants emotional attachment, and identification with, their house were examined through interview questions and use of environmental autobiography methods. The information was then interpreted and a cross-case analysis was generated to identify recurring connections between psychosocial factors and the interpretive recreation of house interiors. This thesis summarizes the theoretical background, method and results of this study, and findings from the case studies suggesting possible answers to the question: Why do people preserve, through rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction, residential interiors of the past?
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Nalo Mcgibbon.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Torres Antonini, Maruja A.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024441:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110216_AAAAIW INGEST_TIME 2011-02-17T04:12:30Z PACKAGE UFE0024441_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1224 DFID F20110216_AACFIL ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH mcgibbon_n_Page_087.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
b7bba958b5133a6881967e9ed43aa838
SHA-1
b13a77cf32554e30cd3c9a7f32bd497bb08747b3
1144 F20110216_AACFHW mcgibbon_n_Page_061.txt
f0b1e5026bbb55708b37b5b31dffb9b6
dee0188882892556386ce68a7d07b30ecaf94c0c
681 F20110216_AACFJA mcgibbon_n_Page_112.txt
0aab28c1693548a8602113f639adbcf5
4045a1f5242b6e4b3ee1d0a73a453933167cc166
1409 F20110216_AACFIM mcgibbon_n_Page_088.txt
4ac020def8041ba31fe2707318b83b32
daaa3c2ec2cbfa4da24ac2e4ab4acf65bbdeb54a
887 F20110216_AACFHX mcgibbon_n_Page_063.txt
618df19b0d40d5b6e55119fa2dc94fe1
e984a0b5a3e1cbe99227dc462217f296cc56b9ab
722 F20110216_AACFJB mcgibbon_n_Page_115.txt
7a0f1cd6870dfa7c36112da197df9332
075caa575e62f464f70dac7118f0301af154bc27
1194 F20110216_AACFIN mcgibbon_n_Page_090.txt
2baf684644e0aadce5c34a9728ccaa09
7cb555fd5c8e613ed0f8d59c1e9d5f4530bae994
1618 F20110216_AACFHY mcgibbon_n_Page_065.txt
0fe9226b3b07317f6ca8d3018cd932d1
fca828a4f08446cfe0c12f8a17ee504f68fd14c0
2406 F20110216_AACFJC mcgibbon_n_Page_116.txt
07aea7db85b6118e77f04f380da3a941
3c64954d29b3fd6edf8db07592aef9e86cf0fb9e
674 F20110216_AACFIO mcgibbon_n_Page_091.txt
29a550763e1bb3861ab8e704ee96376c
dce4d76c718c3fd4c4e000ae31fd8fd6696ef857
2213 F20110216_AACFHZ mcgibbon_n_Page_066.txt
023c509a62d451da57b81f575637a91d
e0baeeb958d1068cd2f6e0df21c80da97378e93b
2431 F20110216_AACFJD mcgibbon_n_Page_117.txt
5d5649054d73ee1fd130aae11f3a7d6e
ec95aff3a307b9fb288ed74d247b5fe36d2e36cc
381 F20110216_AACFIP mcgibbon_n_Page_092.txt
d2325a227e62b1aad61fde8119472d07
124e281407722db1797b7fcf4177bb78148ffa3b
2489 F20110216_AACFJE mcgibbon_n_Page_118.txt
91a61e1c9104e2698bc33c60d288909e
6dd4adab43e2c69adee2c26aaaef8fc1b699af49
2022 F20110216_AACFIQ mcgibbon_n_Page_093.txt
2d595855924cfef513731c345f8423f2
b145dc8da592787a746b6df417bd38c8fa06b6be
2319 F20110216_AACFJF mcgibbon_n_Page_119.txt
0f7a50148b75afcce266e0ac3941ff2d
339f2dd97dc851720f8febb62720384dd5c520ca
2650 F20110216_AACFJG mcgibbon_n_Page_121.txt
8324b961c472c4769701cbcc65f8b2c7
83fe9b24a6b7f52507bc70d7788fe1ae17156270
2188 F20110216_AACFIR mcgibbon_n_Page_094.txt
c547f44ed1439345b1d5f6d88fd5d539
f60a64ae312823f867a9a62362d49d078b99edc7
8951 F20110216_AACFJH mcgibbon_n_Page_001.pro
a7cea46b0e8643ca2f6db6c3ed067dbd
65cc9ed86a439ca2f4a731af5ad3744912c6173c
1022 F20110216_AACFIS mcgibbon_n_Page_096.txt
c9c5902523ca2ed056c6388adfef7a52
423ccf7a5a5df19ceb65c52cf28fcc634c5449e8
522 F20110216_AACFJI mcgibbon_n_Page_003.pro
1927720b70eee6e41aa440eadff0f5d4
b3ff078675c87fdd6be04fe7d854ff150d4e26b3
1066 F20110216_AACFIT mcgibbon_n_Page_097.txt
11e8b34207e7c045fa4a992df40712e1
0fb99aab14896197e5bcc63bb04cb0c07891e857
38715 F20110216_AACFJJ mcgibbon_n_Page_004.pro
2954203f5e02cf336c626af455846cdf
9af1d326cf12d2200a59f08d9e05372e08d5fd6c
1716 F20110216_AACFIU mcgibbon_n_Page_100.txt
1889be836be10ecf9dd0b9f97c148367
f0e0642066d83ec10927c54bd30d439f0c981de3
102808 F20110216_AACFJK mcgibbon_n_Page_005.pro
24aebf3dfb98aaf6e532c81b92d36801
6d7e080586e9f7a2c0b206d2a23f090e515b12b9
980 F20110216_AACFIV mcgibbon_n_Page_104.txt
d7b8cc0ed312f890e9723314fcb4c788
5f2c705e626448c894a7798bfe62344cfe1de7db
82622 F20110216_AACFJL mcgibbon_n_Page_006.pro
10d9b32a247d8b283e69056fa4eb1f83
9b7250cd9319f686ed509c7fafba529196d5011f
963 F20110216_AACFIW mcgibbon_n_Page_106.txt
4034b7226dba06734c7f34583a6eceb3
39f6f4f2b2f119541fe1551ff4803bd66063e2f4
18605 F20110216_AACFJM mcgibbon_n_Page_008.pro
dc5eb61b5b93d3e9d747d081c64f1ddf
2d6a071761ad133b9719ed77bb407f3ed72eb9b2
1008 F20110216_AACFIX mcgibbon_n_Page_107.txt
5c0b1779367ad71133378cf75c64f3b5
3a82a8f1cf91a520f93a6c742bc41b6e88487f4d
53465 F20110216_AACFKA mcgibbon_n_Page_025.pro
0b51bb30c0d17d480f567701f12cbec8
3055364d5349956d1feed5ceab8124eb9cad0954
35335 F20110216_AACFJN mcgibbon_n_Page_009.pro
793b0de6c79fa6e21032825bbc582abe
c7c5aa231a032ba1e37d9e8fb5ddec64a88fb953
2156 F20110216_AACFIY mcgibbon_n_Page_110.txt
26a082b85f5ab83fc82d9a90fc25d6df
9fad70fd21ae4e7d471180d5129042bbab54028a
56142 F20110216_AACFKB mcgibbon_n_Page_027.pro
9c4961a1fec546dd4eaf8522f7797eb3
1c38b18fa9b0c86646c908dd5424883b73bc3f34
45993 F20110216_AACFJO mcgibbon_n_Page_010.pro
e0660c3ac6624191791bec280b717f24
c7ae3f299ef427781fffcd72b39fb746f7653cf3
1416 F20110216_AACFIZ mcgibbon_n_Page_111.txt
16f833f2061116825db472db710beb3d
2d66fdb73a459def8c8286a18c2861d2ae263100
55551 F20110216_AACFKC mcgibbon_n_Page_029.pro
b4a06574cf60771a49cd142d2beed736
fd693c788f5b4b4440a5cc200807b1d87f88c982
15796 F20110216_AACFJP mcgibbon_n_Page_011.pro
1acbd1e64d2993d1c83988331c295e34
6df13cc058f58eb8f6525a1e744a12dba4725af9
51662 F20110216_AACFKD mcgibbon_n_Page_031.pro
4217dcb35bce0adf4fe6cc47b0650ce0
4830c928fa7bf1d17ca7fc2b4ac8b5d057fa5ba9
56284 F20110216_AACFJQ mcgibbon_n_Page_012.pro
918f0f6e7b45034251f6b86608d2e047
9787f1437bd32ae843d81b05d8f5e26b5402baae
50583 F20110216_AACFKE mcgibbon_n_Page_032.pro
dd2e4b01b7e5287194bd7f6c1e6754a5
e0afd1d69f9e6e180bfb6090ca9db2087e3e36e6
58848 F20110216_AACFJR mcgibbon_n_Page_013.pro
1fbdb9116712507f74157ce093a77321
53bc7f9d1e1046508bdc8773aeb11720af50829f
54451 F20110216_AACFKF mcgibbon_n_Page_033.pro
2eac655a9dbc5919af3b66e495e1236d
f967c4d41fea4e7f2fa2f4939f4ef61bde0f726a
54363 F20110216_AACFKG mcgibbon_n_Page_034.pro
db93fa811687aac9c1fa02f8646b802a
b003eb9e9b35f5a103b45a08a319cb3aca048a81
56636 F20110216_AACFJS mcgibbon_n_Page_014.pro
ca407e877c7943d9ec8a959fe7532824
573d04cbb1cef5212896c95e8b531055b00f7ac9
54805 F20110216_AACFKH mcgibbon_n_Page_035.pro
49947342b2be5f094f62eec7882c963a
915789392ea4a5c90f9bf33ab4d91d9aa9e8b9ba
53299 F20110216_AACFJT mcgibbon_n_Page_016.pro
b68f841bde585446d0e80d8b2aa02979
c5dc66b70b48c31840b1fb81b1f653c122f5c734
53851 F20110216_AACFKI mcgibbon_n_Page_039.pro
8167eb5635904362abb0b8e793c64f60
ba405b942c16ac733cba83925116f7114d8b70bf
51426 F20110216_AACFJU mcgibbon_n_Page_018.pro
4bf9e12f1221dc704b6f34ea6b8e7e7d
bf61000320166ed645485a3cd95220f577d2ed28
55590 F20110216_AACFKJ mcgibbon_n_Page_040.pro
608be330bc34ea1230348b23ed76d713
1c6ad1d0bed41635ca4ffceddf9e2ccf2934af03
52596 F20110216_AACFJV mcgibbon_n_Page_019.pro
ab0edaed190faa36cda9633c311c2111
7af497cfe2dfb3632d9cd864ab661f0ceed3be43
55153 F20110216_AACFKK mcgibbon_n_Page_041.pro
1f8c7d73f79e7cfca22c1f4128f05cf2
420861e226f79f11563525dadc2473f020bfb2ba
54549 F20110216_AACFJW mcgibbon_n_Page_020.pro
84bbca7be6e3e396d1f0a04408719d44
c8a7b0ba00662b9b16ef9629cdd36ee862c9d9c8
55167 F20110216_AACFKL mcgibbon_n_Page_042.pro
9e033aa89611264a567d8e1d8699c134
db59dda68463fd15a9c10bcf8bf6c10317b83156
54439 F20110216_AACFJX mcgibbon_n_Page_021.pro
91285ca603ab6e5ad773bf7f88d03eca
b21cb4b171f4a683b65536ff0c88783b508f8520
50079 F20110216_AACFLA mcgibbon_n_Page_059.pro
91c5fb21d2ed45fc10a7e66a92a266d1
70e43691227d3599fda1fb8d3cfd7445a5d5b69a
57517 F20110216_AACFKM mcgibbon_n_Page_043.pro
0da927c00ff30d3aaa6aeccafe29b2b5
aaf8c7097456fed21472ac5800bafd5f9ce1c7d7
58152 F20110216_AACFJY mcgibbon_n_Page_022.pro
3448bd5d3271f0303f95eb7f8efa864c
7bed0b942346351f960df0735483ebce9585bf58
52295 F20110216_AACFLB mcgibbon_n_Page_060.pro
3c0c8ccad188235a430416919aad5379
e150b87d594a4e4554c2b720e8dc8ccdfc4b90bd
53134 F20110216_AACFKN mcgibbon_n_Page_044.pro
2d10d110a756cffa804b2ba2812c4f43
035e5aba0d53eb4afb9f9f7f3c369bf7d0734812
52869 F20110216_AACFJZ mcgibbon_n_Page_024.pro
04506743e1680ad4013b2189f968419e
3de43b9793902e05a44c4ca69f819703279d880c
28848 F20110216_AACFLC mcgibbon_n_Page_061.pro
91193b7ff8cde56f6e73c95964cd1cbb
a2028fd3b04c0ccf71f4489975937aa0dd45e371
54575 F20110216_AACFKO mcgibbon_n_Page_045.pro
f1f7d5adc5cec70bec1bfa6246f7cf38
bce98c926f84ba0f668d255a101493319c86d435
58490 F20110216_AACFLD mcgibbon_n_Page_062.pro
5743115ccaad7c7ee026e6fc8761c104
1e3ef4b4269961db9f19934c97d3844d9cb0620f
50380 F20110216_AACFKP mcgibbon_n_Page_046.pro
3ec77295ff4a4141e91f30d0671f62d9
53c4d02a99c66aea42d42b0b34fe740c7c99b534
52502 F20110216_AACFLE mcgibbon_n_Page_064.pro
3d44debc8fb4aad4b5565d7ce217fd74
67125b2731952bfcab3c1096f1cb9a6ba280cded
48534 F20110216_AACFKQ mcgibbon_n_Page_048.pro
fdb8faca398e92ec28cf2cc85e65ea9f
0e034761ef107a10a2e232cd48d1dd3891746c3e
56233 F20110216_AACFLF mcgibbon_n_Page_066.pro
064970243ce08b4758c79dc5f1659dd2
12e0202763be06a17f0270f931d5d8e0a52d7103
51919 F20110216_AACFKR mcgibbon_n_Page_049.pro
d492ea27735db85999030a62818b47a1
9660a4e6979371d8f9cfc8ceba27b4e8d2c665c6
54269 F20110216_AACFLG mcgibbon_n_Page_067.pro
1b67f081916bcf91c41adee88c7ddc14
90f21cf4ead299d0d24681a83f8fafbd785784ec
54902 F20110216_AACFKS mcgibbon_n_Page_050.pro
a993c9b3f0d14c0a16086a4e1bda7f01
5c89c665b588b991921fec6d1ef46d5efef526ac
51195 F20110216_AACFLH mcgibbon_n_Page_068.pro
705c2f3a5e6bfdc8121e16b17e8bfb83
56df6724de525817055aed21fb1507b4bef47376
27992 F20110216_AACFLI mcgibbon_n_Page_069.pro
109bedd20a4dddc7e9d69d29e092b9a3
756c6a2d62753bfb79734e871884c4946451cf37
53438 F20110216_AACFKT mcgibbon_n_Page_051.pro
51d7b7accaac5aa38d285e81086d72c5
d211c4c26d88ba5d84996443dd6a1568c77f1729
32371 F20110216_AACFLJ mcgibbon_n_Page_070.pro
4376ce7d99e43e045698326dc2bc3bc5
9f893a959e05919eb69f867ad44aca1f69dc3920
46060 F20110216_AACFKU mcgibbon_n_Page_052.pro
a586cc282b5e929b4020116d677f6fbf
d2eded3b06b4ac140426396ffbf657cfe08426a3
31904 F20110216_AACFLK mcgibbon_n_Page_072.pro
99b1a51b9c57abd73c5038a09378526d
d81b25e719e31b1e8fa51bf5eb706a8ea9f14419
45046 F20110216_AACFKV mcgibbon_n_Page_053.pro
01befb599e5568652f5383152d0d4921
429cbe10d2883739b5c6fdfd008a4b90562f56a7
32488 F20110216_AACFLL mcgibbon_n_Page_073.pro
632d968d4779888338f4d30aafa8909d
09dc76d2899e20c02dc8021606da6e41a38558ed
15625 F20110216_AACFKW mcgibbon_n_Page_055.pro
0f19bb7df8f009dbc2115a94f272fe8d
ecc12155ea04beb8b1bc6bcb610a52129eb861ae
15227 F20110216_AACFMA mcgibbon_n_Page_091.pro
7583085255c39ed12f5b3f1b042329e5
ec6276deeff9cdfbd3f47e56e64d593766e88bd8
54949 F20110216_AACFLM mcgibbon_n_Page_074.pro
659b8e2bfd9f78420ff5479e5173f690
5c5e058a09c4b5c88bb88b4e261114e68cc61fc0
51833 F20110216_AACFKX mcgibbon_n_Page_056.pro
6819d7103b6891a2f8a663dace8bc69b
72c192cd5121533aa7f7139b355a8ddd33096e36
56316 F20110216_AACFLN mcgibbon_n_Page_075.pro
43ff0aac8f8c84edfd6b43f36df6a930
bbcfe5112e217f4ef170d4e1f999a5ef548e70bb
52560 F20110216_AACFKY mcgibbon_n_Page_057.pro
ae41f2681d2267d1b135952671f78a4b
3c50fd1179dab622370ef982e1baa19f9656a9de
40061 F20110216_AACFMB mcgibbon_n_Page_093.pro
ec1f750cc345e2a7684608a17c21141a
3bdea9f02a7ece63ad51443e6046df2daf477e53
58794 F20110216_AACFLO mcgibbon_n_Page_077.pro
288153631f1e459206166c9840f33608
0b1b1771a3d69e8c84a736ab38624834ec4b0d6c
54880 F20110216_AACFKZ mcgibbon_n_Page_058.pro
b10292c2d26edbb0f5c545c99adf3f82
cba506dd23abae13ec5647d1f0bddecb01c44e7a
39029 F20110216_AACFMC mcgibbon_n_Page_094.pro
b226426691596787780401e5ae83489d
cfbc7a9158e057f342d6aaf66343a64e269067d2
58694 F20110216_AACFLP mcgibbon_n_Page_078.pro
9f7b2aa9ac61bd874a275f993ce5024a
43d45f7ea19472b8852e5b96b1aaa33cf56132ca
29174 F20110216_AACFMD mcgibbon_n_Page_095.pro
17de0204148d14a217d295ccc8917c91
cde2d1d779aa55854955c323f39d29a14a0075cb
55832 F20110216_AACFLQ mcgibbon_n_Page_079.pro
0b132e88e03188a71792e6e790a44f4e
8555196c8828c65afd6553dda4d9d12872a98883
19538 F20110216_AACFME mcgibbon_n_Page_097.pro
b76b905473567be1c877f20795c53421
506989797b6c3bb79df73a1c75fb797ec0aeeda7
57741 F20110216_AACFLR mcgibbon_n_Page_080.pro
36a8ee1fd935248a595e75f020e0e756
2843b4c6137a38f069f3cad8450af43d093778c8
19197 F20110216_AACFMF mcgibbon_n_Page_098.pro
b34b22c5cd80fb225d41e449c5b35df3
b523257104d887fb1ba8fee4b139abbde3f22381
58718 F20110216_AACFLS mcgibbon_n_Page_081.pro
67c2dea2632db7652f33260687aa8db7
6c3bcfe9cc900feceb487b896c75b05c9b3db7d4
24676 F20110216_AACFMG mcgibbon_n_Page_099.pro
8a0f18ff6d86bb7ea8fb01936c10bcb0
2d688dd1caf0a4249dc7f0d95068b8a82fb6c193
4411 F20110216_AACFLT mcgibbon_n_Page_082.pro
936b3092ed0836aae656a919d7c8e9bb
afe254ae127c2cea7a55198dc6088c51916b58e0
23785 F20110216_AACFMH mcgibbon_n_Page_103.pro
8911056deac7192665366dfa5693d839
43887128313049bcd73814bf33c6435b9bfa1586
18702 F20110216_AACFMI mcgibbon_n_Page_104.pro
4ec3d1cc3f6f5341c986b6c1820c0521
9150958f5db53799f4dafd351c59d4ff4e680aa6
57081 F20110216_AACFLU mcgibbon_n_Page_084.pro
8eea15a590b5b6f6aad4256b887828a0
a7e6647ebd707f4984194ef83496ac8d05b07c46
23612 F20110216_AACFMJ mcgibbon_n_Page_105.pro
8e3ec4400e33cd4399c505f7c3311173
4eab0aab5d0aba0ad70309df00f57b8953eb1186
60100 F20110216_AACFLV mcgibbon_n_Page_085.pro
e90ef7dfaabc35a8ffc258a12e64cae7
5a8a52b6bfef06f3787253208a4c55d3272f02c9
45412 F20110216_AACFMK mcgibbon_n_Page_108.pro
d463d5fdcd56f5819ca1b0b51c493515
1a5c8b7c52b562c2dfe7c7d74c163e78049990df
16758 F20110216_AACFLW mcgibbon_n_Page_086.pro
e65eab5070fc742ef12e8cf3c9a5ab5f
4481783e9e924379c2d0cc8f45d515ea952b51e0
12210 F20110216_AACFML mcgibbon_n_Page_109.pro
d1f4c9d8c603cde6fd57c82420aa2c24
572bfd63bf9402947f67434eecf03d43660ef9cc
30785 F20110216_AACFLX mcgibbon_n_Page_087.pro
a71ea04639b3964f9287d138a90fa1cb
5bfcfb6e8c3224ed782d944e632bffec95ef579e
91649 F20110216_AACFNA mcgibbon_n_Page_005.jpg
01dcdcffce664c9eca99ea75e404006c
8f7dacc4cb46aa103af79337fc1954a6ec3b4fbf
49904 F20110216_AACFMM mcgibbon_n_Page_110.pro
c2b604b39632403a28d6d22b71270563
dd67a371bc376d5cde599108467e9feca33cf407
31919 F20110216_AACFLY mcgibbon_n_Page_088.pro
b465a6f06a9379665464e8a44fc13eb8
5951fce421731dec3c84edf54593b3dbfa09e797
19549 F20110216_AACFNB mcgibbon_n_Page_005.QC.jpg
0179e934a33a80bb9ff4b7df09a04d15
f39d8bb857978b1f64ff026b24bb378805847860
34782 F20110216_AACFMN mcgibbon_n_Page_111.pro
51130dde6a14c9e89a5902b630ed18b5
4df8596669d921d60792d3787e28d4f1453e389a
23065 F20110216_AACFLZ mcgibbon_n_Page_090.pro
f8292695cfcadfac904691a04c0b835a
e9080fbec2874d84a700027d3150d3e6cffad4fb
98230 F20110216_AACFNC mcgibbon_n_Page_006.jpg
e4e552ca448657bff1723eb7d530a925
d92c150d56cdc49a03c92c430fff680485840233
15111 F20110216_AACFMO mcgibbon_n_Page_112.pro
857ef9a5fe4d03635921a7ef2c6bbd7b
7b3e0db06792c20b7f7bff8971b7c639dd358abb
23288 F20110216_AACFND mcgibbon_n_Page_006.QC.jpg
5babc80940cec18dd99c399b95ff6a86
bfa98166d70f0f03a3e482ff0f00b28079a3c2f4
58632 F20110216_AACFMP mcgibbon_n_Page_116.pro
5c371fe2fc0530e912294a1f409f8f43
e6ecad5cc72a45689b18550cde5d498779889f35
17547 F20110216_AACFNE mcgibbon_n_Page_007.jpg
1ecd52c79af5844d13fd3b06f91ae48b
942374d5204b10652ac1676c3e299a68be719661
60296 F20110216_AACFMQ mcgibbon_n_Page_118.pro
b6b8bb7e76f61102eadcf1a461589fd9
cf35747953d7008cd76f2e09da893faa746cebcf
27070 F20110216_AACFNF mcgibbon_n_Page_008.jpg
060faa94d6f97c276b02062cc2392c60
b12e800bb540c1587a704c0ce633c32d18359916
56406 F20110216_AACFMR mcgibbon_n_Page_119.pro
a6d16f49975a49a88d15b134c27430ce
b70ce9bfab40b70635532e81ea1af4f6f5fadd0d
53070 F20110216_AACFNG mcgibbon_n_Page_009.jpg
ab808faf7b62b901148f570c2646be2e
75c6dfb7c83c4039b23f9fedc273ce7ba658b520
36922 F20110216_AACFMS mcgibbon_n_Page_122.pro
517627c628335a0b7881e2e85660d6b2
3558eca106fe3e7327414cb35be1eb1cc21d2138
15410 F20110216_AACFNH mcgibbon_n_Page_009.QC.jpg
c3667e080eb57b04fb61166554456906
601e4d2629a060e1ec03a1ae6d73dc1b1de8452c
31008 F20110216_AACFMT mcgibbon_n_Page_123.pro
2e0906d4f481c4bf45f5175a656f4420
552ea614a98449224622e05d524a0f539cb4da05
28317 F20110216_AACFNI mcgibbon_n_Page_011.jpg
fcef4a73d3b4b99e359736f6792e8fc9
2a2c1e565998be309463869f569197355ed84ddc
3626 F20110216_AACFMU mcgibbon_n_Page_002.jpg
dc95641c1abeaad63c5cbc6f2c64bb8c
ccd6f623df3385a61cb44a0994b2612560f32cb0
89936 F20110216_AACFNJ mcgibbon_n_Page_012.jpg
1c3a8b6a859bf9e973e8c087516f8f90
c01e40f477a3f194d8afd35f94be8f5685b79c9a
27727 F20110216_AACFNK mcgibbon_n_Page_012.QC.jpg
1edc7d221e03309ae3486de80f545ce9
67a03cd17fa6966bab093ef9981d6310de75cd5b
1051 F20110216_AACFMV mcgibbon_n_Page_002.QC.jpg
4be294ec64b611d3f349407e8b3a199e
a3a9bec740e2ca59c5d6109a595ac53273bcfebd
95301 F20110216_AACFNL mcgibbon_n_Page_013.jpg
03b45f360428b3d811099d234e3f3099
85a63c37688e1bb8c45ee0e6a0246c10ef7ed8fa
3005 F20110216_AACFMW mcgibbon_n_Page_003.jpg
34e3143d6e2943caabc6e5e967bd7cfa
fe71301c1cb6757cb4b700396a573fa26a06b6a6
87198 F20110216_AACFOA mcgibbon_n_Page_024.jpg
68e5fd85df371c3f8edaeca70b67a4a5
fd7557784260e6df6ea6de7ba2bffcf6f2182370
29295 F20110216_AACFNM mcgibbon_n_Page_014.QC.jpg
cda0baeb0eded7b83b63e7077bd4dadb
d5c29040d68fb2191241643e3618472b58fb8576
925 F20110216_AACFMX mcgibbon_n_Page_003.QC.jpg
aaf7546bab852945bac9284826628f03
f99b8cec3a379513b9871f0fac8a8ba6675aa7d6
27503 F20110216_AACFOB mcgibbon_n_Page_024.QC.jpg
9f3ecd5d2196bcddf908384889edba4b
476a054d9972245bdce752e8c8b558651f1663cf
27001 F20110216_AACFNN mcgibbon_n_Page_015.QC.jpg
1c67fa2f2a0531e478401461729efb3a
0425a17ca64efb80f00929167403685a06db39bd
65946 F20110216_AACFMY mcgibbon_n_Page_004.jpg
bc13efbb21f00334a8f000b4770a08fa
818a9d155f1aa8a499628f8722b216a5681a6553
88664 F20110216_AACFOC mcgibbon_n_Page_025.jpg
79d72f661b3e4b700f4ab1aa67d05715
db73fcd806b1066b65627398fa86415881460251
88146 F20110216_AACFNO mcgibbon_n_Page_017.jpg
b998a1cf3dd5208f12d7dd20f5d25306
503dea705fd933d6d24a27f6254fed144652e8e4
21662 F20110216_AACFMZ mcgibbon_n_Page_004.QC.jpg
5ac0a590350a5e0bb0b70663eca662f6
db1df83b03d7a74a4c1a45e650fd0bf9c647728c
28366 F20110216_AACFOD mcgibbon_n_Page_025.QC.jpg
429c68821f431465f4cd30d848f445f4
b9ae3f341585e07a28cfb0d605b97c3dc0054110
84084 F20110216_AACFNP mcgibbon_n_Page_018.jpg
2679573e2f7cd93106c64e72d60dee1d
934d9a6a9d342ec3416bded601677569dfb2144f
92083 F20110216_AACFOE mcgibbon_n_Page_026.jpg
1d86f9fb7cb79716a2bce36e460d41cf
e5bb63bfa00feaa55ee3f26eda3e0f8d30a4d1e5
26358 F20110216_AACFNQ mcgibbon_n_Page_018.QC.jpg
1a6eb6f06f4edb51e6add499898aba7f
8f0842804bcc7f9f0e96c3059a12708c8473209c
90359 F20110216_AACFOF mcgibbon_n_Page_027.jpg
4e6764e77c0df17d2515b948db7d3f3c
bbdded344e5e09916b192ddf899ec34dcf708043
28060 F20110216_AACFNR mcgibbon_n_Page_019.QC.jpg
ed46b0a9a56e3e306655d6ff6ad73679
33b83f73a7f9f528f5cf3dfb40379bdf1d380f38
27996 F20110216_AACFOG mcgibbon_n_Page_027.QC.jpg
b14596f1905a7496f4f1d7c6f22c01c5
b43a7e52a959963978d32cc8aabbf38a4441cc30
90504 F20110216_AACFNS mcgibbon_n_Page_020.jpg
a2d8720dc70ea790bd902f187ea12ff6
0a2ce1d865dc753a7a5b1817fafae913f6765e40
92260 F20110216_AACFOH mcgibbon_n_Page_028.jpg
65b367aade76ad7bc4865b6d44fbfb66
330ef2458eba941805b0f50fa807ba230b0cec5a
28561 F20110216_AACFNT mcgibbon_n_Page_020.QC.jpg
0702bef0cd015a67780bfed2d410594f
5decf625efe9f9622197ea8df2fed4ae045cc6ee
28453 F20110216_AACFOI mcgibbon_n_Page_028.QC.jpg
184b206b715a67222e4fcf6a1e7fcf29
b1b593b06b2b5246f1269fc6904f1d7a1c7a0aaf
89642 F20110216_AACFNU mcgibbon_n_Page_021.jpg
8d6e0afe4955d09449da1cd8f3e10d2b
d8bfeddde8339384bdaa5a22f8eec90cde4f1d17
90564 F20110216_AACFOJ mcgibbon_n_Page_029.jpg
7e2b5affaf2e57a970c625acd09b006c
43d7c993b4fdbd24238017ddd9f23e59f75ef5f1
26989 F20110216_AACFNV mcgibbon_n_Page_021.QC.jpg
bb108a82cc83537b78486389d97fbaaa
8cca516c7e7bfb09ef657d3a07c15d6418545079
28472 F20110216_AACFOK mcgibbon_n_Page_029.QC.jpg
85b1fd770dec634b2c3e92318219614e
7b5cc03dc86d9cf092301dc2d3ea578130c7d816
88362 F20110216_AACFOL mcgibbon_n_Page_030.jpg
684c0f95e84448fd93a6b69c8cb7cbc4
a450f46004f9ae928ae7e4e1b6c6676d667b247e
94653 F20110216_AACFNW mcgibbon_n_Page_022.jpg
9f77561f71e201f4a5b33023593ade9b
25f6a432a154bbdc37b9d120681d422f7af831f5
27207 F20110216_AACFOM mcgibbon_n_Page_030.QC.jpg
bea6636193726fc368a25b1c8fb3e06b
102ad3ae810c63650ca098941ee7f40f8be432f7
29713 F20110216_AACFNX mcgibbon_n_Page_022.QC.jpg
db26d2577661672109670970d576c388
ec4f4c220f6457ba117cdbb2d21551018b863fe4
28843 F20110216_AACFPA mcgibbon_n_Page_042.QC.jpg
ec2ef141373b03a47751328f4fbf3f4a
441b4335951a6ee53b32d23f1e1e4a0fbc684f78
26773 F20110216_AACFON mcgibbon_n_Page_031.QC.jpg
6f4caa82ef414a64eb7011e7a2499954
0b7c71c99dc49d07ed5a42b28801fdadd8d9e423
94060 F20110216_AACFNY mcgibbon_n_Page_023.jpg
22c03666854d2e0c74edb80794bfddc7
d223980977837abdc871d4483756815f2c8b8bad
29221 F20110216_AACFPB mcgibbon_n_Page_043.QC.jpg
9a3d0e75428fc6fcb9f1fcc204055010
0c9ad3f5b2ea768122ac6424534936f693117360
90644 F20110216_AACFOO mcgibbon_n_Page_034.jpg
ad1157fa4d7920e5538f6fc97424ca78
446bb3a89e9add76fbec6592875479f11e0ffc93
30116 F20110216_AACFNZ mcgibbon_n_Page_023.QC.jpg
522bed24c12f580591bd77071fcc0d63
2a020f017e935defdc26fa90b1d299c94a8c41ed
27431 F20110216_AACFPC mcgibbon_n_Page_044.QC.jpg
4f808fb54d1e47d394ad7f25c5e37344
bb889df1dea15ffeb4210d300b34b74b79749506
28441 F20110216_AACFOP mcgibbon_n_Page_034.QC.jpg
98f36b1cf5a94b518ed69501e4789a3a
0083bd753128e8e4bc4aa82a19b794f71c3e9c0f
89630 F20110216_AACFPD mcgibbon_n_Page_045.jpg
b571679a597f47f0e334b9dd0233a1db
15199e40b3c5a3ac43abba0bbecf3f3de40c27a6
88562 F20110216_AACFOQ mcgibbon_n_Page_035.jpg
430fffc68201cd806e470334db516d65
f09c8c076d0f627323efa92e97a06aab6f385177
28067 F20110216_AACFPE mcgibbon_n_Page_045.QC.jpg
009a5a674f09e8ec07c47fbd4476c11f
d66d03154adddf42b2b3a1f21dfe02aa6d4f0618
27321 F20110216_AACFOR mcgibbon_n_Page_035.QC.jpg
b7a34f8c81c966846c6cdf378e10a269
93a981af39b43831f6f13be56d7f55f2847d8986
26395 F20110216_AACFPF mcgibbon_n_Page_046.QC.jpg
64125c12f0e779fc35ef6e701103632c
72003de70af51238c168ad633df0c7e1aa4cec15
26757 F20110216_AACFOS mcgibbon_n_Page_036.QC.jpg
6acebc6a63fd7571e4c358d673b3ff2f
cfbf4b71eaa47c1eabb51b5a8398ce4dc4ee0b98
28503 F20110216_AACFPG mcgibbon_n_Page_047.QC.jpg
fe6a998760d17c1a1a62ba78d5e85c5c
e7771fb4a7dbda2cb5f038ac4bba10e259e8851d
29648 F20110216_AACFOT mcgibbon_n_Page_037.jpg
1a8e07220f0646b7fc28010a376dd108
f77bb8fa334bc3a8b392dd54b361b7b6a68e1b51
79571 F20110216_AACFPH mcgibbon_n_Page_048.jpg
c1ceb2af9da79c4ed6a72f0f53c11910
740a3108c0f42c06218a4c02c519c030f59e348f
9671 F20110216_AACFOU mcgibbon_n_Page_037.QC.jpg
1aae1570249cfaa79e7ed87a009dbf17
eb24ba99e82b64cf1bfdea9c9a1261fa10bb1d82
24935 F20110216_AACFPI mcgibbon_n_Page_048.QC.jpg
8b2b5eb64aaef2a2f952790c64ed257f
703814953165191168f1bf6865d72f58dad69d32
88268 F20110216_AACFOV mcgibbon_n_Page_039.jpg
72268df777857e5071ceb30b92709e49
e254ac7a486dd69e27cadbbb71a212c40e438e14
86118 F20110216_AACFPJ mcgibbon_n_Page_049.jpg
4142d71b11b755b52c8ba8ac9d1436b9
bf617d44576ca791281468c7a3ae65e011a25ad5
28090 F20110216_AACFOW mcgibbon_n_Page_039.QC.jpg
15da700a23b44acd9e4780b52004d556
e130dc582a9a88e727f837a696767f092b500100
26499 F20110216_AACFPK mcgibbon_n_Page_049.QC.jpg
4104833b02ebf2aa623a37e5b28f9bc9
b5b711a2e0c7dc053b76e7af5118dd2ef620867c
89950 F20110216_AACFPL mcgibbon_n_Page_050.jpg
8376198c748de029e9e935e852869ad2
7f734750521d41369f65e9ee37e3800668d5374c
90932 F20110216_AACFOX mcgibbon_n_Page_040.jpg
a8c72dd9c49146cc94f093259e33d326
22f4e209f888bbafa8f00dce31318e3d8386504d
76782 F20110216_AACFQA mcgibbon_n_Page_059.jpg
66c5d81987e52afd310fbbc2a82d1736
07783632f3b2f085c1f130e263390063953c2bb9
27629 F20110216_AACFPM mcgibbon_n_Page_050.QC.jpg
4275f835b07d5c6a1e5a3ee5c62ca52a
2bdb2084a2a4929ece81e4b258488544e7d16e5f
28729 F20110216_AACFOY mcgibbon_n_Page_040.QC.jpg
2a0e275551e17e6b77df46c6e548b45d
fc10d8cbc275513e704c6329a9f0fde48004205e
24872 F20110216_AACFQB mcgibbon_n_Page_059.QC.jpg
04cba1cd47f207b3222f6a17b921858f
3ccf2868deb95585f10721bfb9d11580878e54a1
84113 F20110216_AACFPN mcgibbon_n_Page_051.jpg
8d5eb0edee95f92479f5bacfe39e21e1
2a60bbbfc11d1a48c0f424ec9d8a3065add07989
86456 F20110216_AACFQC mcgibbon_n_Page_060.jpg
2d8d67bf7cca3e669e335af199d67639
285204f02021054afcfa18b1f64d66072678d4d1
27664 F20110216_AACFPO mcgibbon_n_Page_051.QC.jpg
a801f6152523713542eb25d9fb7dd0e2
00d209c7ee056bbbd5384d2ae593a5847ace4254
29126 F20110216_AACFOZ mcgibbon_n_Page_041.QC.jpg
d64b14117e5cc64af45723f6efbf6a24
bb399295d2630e5d6d134b795108e3509fa7d649
26603 F20110216_AACFQD mcgibbon_n_Page_060.QC.jpg
1ab0becad7693fe2b163bf90ea3f66d4
36fd6ec3fd4811b62edf38445acf060c791b7129
79281 F20110216_AACFPP mcgibbon_n_Page_052.jpg
105fd76838350895b0d272ef1ad5265a
1581a3dc1bd8179318c6bb0cfe866535315d94e6
25066 F20110216_AACFQE mcgibbon_n_Page_061.QC.jpg
a81610ba87a85d9c0b97d3ea521be180
504e8f35a05368f95ecb51621c84362985a23d0f
24035 F20110216_AACFPQ mcgibbon_n_Page_052.QC.jpg
3469a1db9fe87ce9362be1bf2c555811
d168916f70a20e6eac524946dad943d430047c02
96168 F20110216_AACFQF mcgibbon_n_Page_062.jpg
7a89b903b1ea93eaa95356155c8fee28
96996362565c12cc7d97c7a2ed32275b9574ab23
23331 F20110216_AACFPR mcgibbon_n_Page_053.QC.jpg
ae1c5cffaf03a92b05e651a197ccf05f
066c19e28549ea4f21fae84e4b25978f5502cafb
30191 F20110216_AACFQG mcgibbon_n_Page_062.QC.jpg
ffe7676aff43e750b88f618d46d616ed
2033e87f2610ce2509c193dea59cd404e350e9db
84704 F20110216_AACFPS mcgibbon_n_Page_054.jpg
1dbee030850399d5fdb3e912dda2965a
9d1626e4d91bfd23995777abf12843d904939fdd
23941 F20110216_AACFQH mcgibbon_n_Page_063.QC.jpg
db64e4967944dfc4d306b5b53a86da54
6cc8483cbc596adf42c8c61968d50efdb6d194dc
25169 F20110216_AACFPT mcgibbon_n_Page_054.QC.jpg
36d2fff8d4ddfb544578848888498ba9
667c8f29583fcb3dec978e3bd402c21a877ddf18
86779 F20110216_AACFQI mcgibbon_n_Page_064.jpg
527c8ef103cad13299825c0fcef7a4dd
18a09325e03dd0d9b399d66b2942b476b8045404
27910 F20110216_AACFPU mcgibbon_n_Page_055.jpg
fba0925bdab0e2825fefc5b3c1419ad5
4b0007a9690853abdf4f3311db13638764bcd0e6
78980 F20110216_AACFQJ mcgibbon_n_Page_065.jpg
ab8e80e9570447d77177d9da384f0c4a
cf86c8201690c30c5562da4d5959a3e4b551c113
8054 F20110216_AACFPV mcgibbon_n_Page_055.QC.jpg
bb0f839bc264126260fbd1bcfd8a5b0d
12d48df26cafba9542b91d556d18613c2b25ca2f
25269 F20110216_AACFQK mcgibbon_n_Page_065.QC.jpg
6cf3a2cb780e668ca850e178a51896a9
1f49797e8333708df37a30674d7a20bb588e4744
84437 F20110216_AACFPW mcgibbon_n_Page_056.jpg
9c2227a020e6d67b63afbe503efb12d0
aff6e3ec930935da0198047e542fc69862d5dcce
92870 F20110216_AACFQL mcgibbon_n_Page_066.jpg
5a7579bc2aa0f1ba0f2333caa72162d9
1b46bd0da98a1369c97e44ca1d9a3e41fb2436bf
26397 F20110216_AACFPX mcgibbon_n_Page_056.QC.jpg
ca0abae7422f936990b6b6a51c855ec4
cb831f6e4adaadec0c5562fbaa846aa4c2fa7e36
29281 F20110216_AACFQM mcgibbon_n_Page_066.QC.jpg
dbf72d751c261ef6bf01f5c95c8ac4cb
34812df39ae90b90e4846bbedb6413fc634ae008
88611 F20110216_AACFRA mcgibbon_n_Page_074.jpg
6b8d001965e528aeba558322fb0db115
2e5b1e03bd1c91091bfd72608ff9ee445d23c769
89442 F20110216_AACFQN mcgibbon_n_Page_067.jpg
155e3fbe8aa4cee62d735324c988af61
a812c1f5404cc0dc86ed715be8041b6fee1b8fa3
28322 F20110216_AACFPY mcgibbon_n_Page_057.QC.jpg
15b858af53f84ae66a8766376ae15ec9
d15120f82082e3ace3d9c6f229c642d07699d785
27839 F20110216_AACFRB mcgibbon_n_Page_074.QC.jpg
5d6fb68f5225ef6a574d457d5460288b
d248e3d91c2dfbfc8382d6749faee6e10e40a4be
28440 F20110216_AACFQO mcgibbon_n_Page_067.QC.jpg
51bc3d749208beae468ea3f361fb97cd
0029671b49973049f1d92f8d811059b1dd9a0e29
88859 F20110216_AACFPZ mcgibbon_n_Page_058.jpg
ddc23b2428d5e36f452a0aa771bccdae
e4bf6e21551ff5ae97dfb565714f7eebbce29d6c
90795 F20110216_AACFRC mcgibbon_n_Page_075.jpg
c4318ed56c349e5b44e3fb8f0dc98613
185dc52e6553d53fbeb7063c1a10d58a7d9c5023
26273 F20110216_AACFQP mcgibbon_n_Page_068.QC.jpg
3831ecaff04d1bee694bc5c4be0bb315
d086039b7a620f826562d84982b8d1f6fe9d84b1
28152 F20110216_AACFRD mcgibbon_n_Page_075.QC.jpg
ae2deb6a6d95293f6f69a52069c174a9
a6dbeb03b24887f43ae99bdd13fd463d2c964036
71780 F20110216_AACFQQ mcgibbon_n_Page_069.jpg
a1041e57621f407d0e054fa87a2c46b4
8b4634771de4b46e70752d45378aedb894fb3bc0
91852 F20110216_AACFRE mcgibbon_n_Page_076.jpg
74871d955f0bd14729045d62fe4197a7
d64618a14fbf4e8d04aade495bc5bd9b0fc20e3e
23286 F20110216_AACFQR mcgibbon_n_Page_069.QC.jpg
3e1c834425244a27b2732f6cd62dd43f
a3ab21fa80924e7cdafbd7b10795557798b5b336
28017 F20110216_AACFRF mcgibbon_n_Page_076.QC.jpg
8bb0cd0a7cdb7f4413466ccbb0bdb696
05799c0354887ba9bf37f9611859b082f31c6f5c
70115 F20110216_AACFQS mcgibbon_n_Page_070.jpg
68b01408f5bb52f1c7b725534750dcf6
bdd2e0e2078ada47d98110da6fd5915fc4e48be0
97149 F20110216_AACFRG mcgibbon_n_Page_077.jpg
d601d93e963d98b8a398559aa208d210
2b56209ea48f5a89a179389bbd064c5b15ceffb7
21881 F20110216_AACFQT mcgibbon_n_Page_070.QC.jpg
750939fbecea3802183b38e1ff0d331d
24a3fd67b509d50561a47397731b99bcb514ea49
29395 F20110216_AACFRH mcgibbon_n_Page_077.QC.jpg
e4d02ecc80bbf868d2c3d26940abdff1
d176b5acb081e6077100525cd0f20499bb0953a6
61890 F20110216_AACFQU mcgibbon_n_Page_071.jpg
d3ec66c150fba0b3e56700764ef08a8c
c003743af768824dd164f81b849130404068502a
28473 F20110216_AACFRI mcgibbon_n_Page_078.QC.jpg
7a6148e3f5a15973b7991e3a2b1087e9
db768b085df5804e1f5b27e4cac6136961780610
20108 F20110216_AACFQV mcgibbon_n_Page_071.QC.jpg
fe68af125a03585dbdf5a94944df7977
e43924a64037da9df2fc7f101f99012395885c47
90939 F20110216_AACFRJ mcgibbon_n_Page_079.jpg
37d326665b919f5edc64da7a35e8952a
aac00ad1ae24af965967920fcb76b7d561ed3b85
73771 F20110216_AACFQW mcgibbon_n_Page_072.jpg
fd7d4b1612a954be249f023b45d03c56
bc4286ce6c82abcbe0e98be9f77e3a729aa5f5ca
27253 F20110216_AACFRK mcgibbon_n_Page_079.QC.jpg
95de154a4b7c1322c33b0b336395286f
6e4028c539afae59183b078342891a033ca3c6e8
23204 F20110216_AACFQX mcgibbon_n_Page_072.QC.jpg
b4a5672739810575b8c15960b55b56f3
04e398c5c1942d7a3917699b880ef8428963ca21
93621 F20110216_AACFRL mcgibbon_n_Page_080.jpg
a7769a0c9fd4c81067758086b057094d
b182cdb2aeba20fc7fe983c3eeca436b130b69dc
63687 F20110216_AACFQY mcgibbon_n_Page_073.jpg
b543f946d9907703d4fd5a51377d6128
30f4906118618fcf7cf8aac65d64835a5dbd3398
31909 F20110216_AACFSA mcgibbon_n_Page_091.jpg
24fddf4d127f87b99b7560eba3fb1d3a
f4a5f948a84a853a02da7d06587082f1fa0a82a2
93981 F20110216_AACFRM mcgibbon_n_Page_081.jpg
88e74545278d8422a05ac0f8bc311dea
04e59e1a9668b3af518aa7bb457d82fc3e574c4c
9431 F20110216_AACFSB mcgibbon_n_Page_091.QC.jpg
bf744b4994da1b44c5cbfec7fd42bfeb
7072b463283d2e1f34012600e0c8f0a3ea6f7c10
29482 F20110216_AACFRN mcgibbon_n_Page_081.QC.jpg
6960e9dbe416f21d52ab2efd3806dcf4
b3e90169e5f5b956b2d4366a8bff0573d4ee3517
20169 F20110216_AACFQZ mcgibbon_n_Page_073.QC.jpg
9e332c316ed7c73f1f74c3940b7af794
514262d3e471441138a2bfa183d88212518458ad
19744 F20110216_AACFSC mcgibbon_n_Page_092.jpg
10426948cae78548b54482d83c7d9f43
8a08105b056e222d9305ad9ed8a5ec6904612de3
9571 F20110216_AACFRO mcgibbon_n_Page_082.jpg
0c374c25ce687041ea5eaf8ed53c180f
bddbe5fcfe5a517510c63bf0f61acdf27bd69c27
58055 F20110216_AACFSD mcgibbon_n_Page_093.jpg
357a0c6d135c7bd34ecca62d13c02544
5820323fb5b9fe96cb1d2e1600d73bd4a71824bf
3465 F20110216_AACFRP mcgibbon_n_Page_082.QC.jpg
683f32cd21f515d3269651317bc0f1d8
b6b797da83e2e66e7c7e2e322c14a47822a435f6
16028 F20110216_AACFSE mcgibbon_n_Page_093.QC.jpg
b6128f9a718fe3629a23476fb0e521f5
a5c68018d7c28e2971b3651c185ed6cba3059c55
27583 F20110216_AACFRQ mcgibbon_n_Page_083.QC.jpg
c96ddb8fd0fe0aabcb375c5c0d0a0ef8
5be2594c4b2b364a13427dd0d8722b41f947ec02
42683 F20110216_AACFSF mcgibbon_n_Page_094.jpg
8ac65154053c57af70422340db3a2c4f
d331c4fa30266987955a6d0a14342483ce19a994
90568 F20110216_AACFRR mcgibbon_n_Page_084.jpg
1dff292490e6aeb877bb20167376c9c6
b9f2e4ec2274f97ec297e1d92a8fbb2079e403a1
12991 F20110216_AACFSG mcgibbon_n_Page_094.QC.jpg
1a5f3cb33583301e434f6d7ca01e224a
8f359df4534edabc543e65110ad4400a35c8d07c
28631 F20110216_AACFRS mcgibbon_n_Page_084.QC.jpg
f44e0c063e916044cfb16162511f4bb9
c78cfe2fb1285bea3b7218583188f735bdde6167
40625 F20110216_AACFSH mcgibbon_n_Page_095.jpg
36638406cd5c2a34bf3779ff7ce0a1be
25672ec534825ae820de7bb68a524ff65ff598f1
29810 F20110216_AACFRT mcgibbon_n_Page_086.jpg
55ffee8bdb544afa24ad25426da5edde
2bcf50fdf5f6f8c75f4ca510355549667f127a4e
12401 F20110216_AACFSI mcgibbon_n_Page_095.QC.jpg
634163c8e318e4c3dcb7baaa144f4727
86b05c38378aebc117fbd0ec98a0c8a9298a348a
9765 F20110216_AACFRU mcgibbon_n_Page_086.QC.jpg
2076b7e454c3ab3831c6e381ae0f76af
13ee08d29cb08b9a59b7b8ca1199586e2983f9de
41215 F20110216_AACFSJ mcgibbon_n_Page_096.jpg
ea14d9d8b099f17f230b2558f34de331
df01de8d6e09e4b273a8ea6061c7d1006782a791
54345 F20110216_AACFRV mcgibbon_n_Page_087.jpg
85d67900767050ec9bcb3fb2e413ddf2
9411b58d9bf70d5408e280af0188e7db0671df61
12925 F20110216_AACFSK mcgibbon_n_Page_096.QC.jpg
d5398b442ae7621f697b30b0fc1869ad
8621d77b5a37ba3b523f386bfe65587d6be92f72
61520 F20110216_AACFRW mcgibbon_n_Page_088.jpg
9b3d32d9391e7ae360ffb3e45451972c
a3cd8753ffc8d4a6646bd79279c7b9b48fb2113a
38777 F20110216_AACFSL mcgibbon_n_Page_097.jpg
0f812596b18f09ede280f70a26b0352f
065598be9e365f864c804c142f5a026fb95eaf85
18614 F20110216_AACFRX mcgibbon_n_Page_088.QC.jpg
d21da665d44694de616ffd48b3100d1c
55725aa37e4825002863044e898a85af881db56f
9432 F20110216_AACFTA mcgibbon_n_Page_107.QC.jpg
1f58a72e7b0f04f0c0bb80a1a3d984a5
005c69c8952d92c1e4a030f73e93bbcf18a558f6
11800 F20110216_AACFSM mcgibbon_n_Page_097.QC.jpg
29333a288f00a78a227f25a7e9f45f30
4760fe3ce7f73bcd63def3519f84b370402574e9
57731 F20110216_AACFRY mcgibbon_n_Page_089.jpg
4aaf70e10e024067f64a3ea0515523aa
711bef4d9bff585f9f8a6ab9de324ec05dec59b5
78998 F20110216_AACFTB mcgibbon_n_Page_108.jpg
911285622ffa669a56090a1376ef1f61
f838a909af309057885bb7e52b868e65eb2c775c
39082 F20110216_AACFSN mcgibbon_n_Page_098.jpg
23724f71f19bad2ca47aa26ae83b4630
3484932971526d4285a0f8ffd9315c8b68489226
17086 F20110216_AACFRZ mcgibbon_n_Page_089.QC.jpg
dfaa703a97dec2c3f8bab0c613d7d8e7
9ce3bee6a83e0661772b760d745e0e0bf9b93037
22129 F20110216_AACFTC mcgibbon_n_Page_108.QC.jpg
c8baa87f54b9e834676bf2eb4233dd8d
111eb0d868ab6adcf03af96c734bff39869d4459
12297 F20110216_AACFSO mcgibbon_n_Page_098.QC.jpg
681c25bbcb832e18f584bbbc42b19937
5416127a5ff3c63e29d2bdd4618cde63625bc787
6612 F20110216_AACFTD mcgibbon_n_Page_109.QC.jpg
723174e50e7f04af14aa50395aa8c242
da378832ffbc2c9fecea6d880e7c048e8b8232e1
37992 F20110216_AACFSP mcgibbon_n_Page_099.jpg
e11c79dc77275d78a361e837b0ae7192
50bcef6a27a0fd80a0e8e14d9b66a28689d2d2b4
83046 F20110216_AACFTE mcgibbon_n_Page_110.jpg
9cb28c9898cc9d2ac9bdb1b71c9d72a4
2278edfdde339155c2e34db97ec5f1d4b8d06239
11252 F20110216_AACFSQ mcgibbon_n_Page_099.QC.jpg
7f5bbd58c940fadc2caf69403c5ad9cf
2cd39b127ccab353bdac1ae3af82b455374a9f15
25537 F20110216_AACFTF mcgibbon_n_Page_110.QC.jpg
c25e8a2a601f41a0a06b6d689dd4a692
02012186ef8bf0e47bed92e54fd93da0e4777367
11780 F20110216_AACFSR mcgibbon_n_Page_100.QC.jpg
76efdd6ede662698dc43518ea67c2da4
21ff1df2f605f20691eafb4515050198aa8719d7
19717 F20110216_AACFTG mcgibbon_n_Page_111.QC.jpg
11cc6df0615d2b8732e5302d68b1d552
325bcb21df41c8aeeb7f548ed37df862573e98bd
37741 F20110216_AACFSS mcgibbon_n_Page_102.jpg
cee4ec553e5d3655b4e92e08ff46b7f1
c4927e48f61c22919e78a8844917732403302422
F20110216_AACFTH mcgibbon_n_Page_112.jpg
a523bdcb447ea52cdfabd196f66566a1
1676476401b6e48c13689e84258e39754797d77a
11237 F20110216_AACFST mcgibbon_n_Page_102.QC.jpg
aeed0dce73c72dd777c6614a972270b4
5405e58c003d924292097c1404a7836a63f45832
64789 F20110216_AACFTI mcgibbon_n_Page_113.jpg
21dbfa79d7175d33b3f5bec1d010d9a1
d77a809c430cd1d32b91e3d1490fb01a82f528ff
37336 F20110216_AACFSU mcgibbon_n_Page_103.jpg
49b4cf08ceec762d85b5f961757888f8
3228a54cd2cc591f170630c4f877a9e4a4409d47
20099 F20110216_AACFTJ mcgibbon_n_Page_113.QC.jpg
e77463e7733af273378222f7a07705a1
61bb8c8e3df8de975f11a2d7bb3aaf87be78bb9d
11312 F20110216_AACFSV mcgibbon_n_Page_103.QC.jpg
2275f603e5dafc488bd08b5116e0db2b
d57d04a1c2ee8574e98b24cca0da955cd7b1074c
69316 F20110216_AACFTK mcgibbon_n_Page_114.jpg
7b07cc8ffcc9ba8d7a0e266c9264f05c
2b5cf5ee986fdad9cef732b61bfc371ff9f291f9
36655 F20110216_AACFSW mcgibbon_n_Page_104.jpg
a61530a91e8ad83e02e6ca2b438a39dd
ff1dc17b307c22719b6297c6c8e842cc9219700a
32804 F20110216_AACFTL mcgibbon_n_Page_115.jpg
48137ea3d05d09b3a0eff75f9e37b72b
d9db83c21e99bab432f90d6cbc0ef2e8a54d82df
10878 F20110216_AACFSX mcgibbon_n_Page_104.QC.jpg
1390400f1c830305bfd592b0afb363fb
d71fabbac148514674109fa5f8f7cee91fc94ca6
10775 F20110216_AACFTM mcgibbon_n_Page_115.QC.jpg
b9a9363316c815d3cc8d245884a416bd
0814003d08182cce1eee164a80a7fa457e4503ff
39745 F20110216_AACFSY mcgibbon_n_Page_105.jpg
5c5613ebb442c170535d6d9e5f047341
d97c4349e062ec098a5e01a4e8b66145a6a86d9e
267596 F20110216_AACFUA mcgibbon_n_Page_001.jp2
b1b8709e0cfaf8982796ee4c813ca781
3f29f9ef0090deb668c17d83577e5951881a2997
103919 F20110216_AACFTN mcgibbon_n_Page_116.jpg
95f42567f5f2232500d76213ee04bf18
97d30c03782bc91e63b17f5e16e728c82704d063
36485 F20110216_AACFSZ mcgibbon_n_Page_106.jpg
52f940604233ac5c50963f455c7d2818
a421fdbb4d4549644b747c091385506ffedd8d31
16989 F20110216_AACFUB mcgibbon_n_Page_003.jp2
ed96a0a2099563a84cdaafd25f906510
67ff867729896c94cf87219a89e059012648de4a
28474 F20110216_AACFTO mcgibbon_n_Page_116.QC.jpg
17a0204cf7559ec4d8acec990ba70387
248059895af4f4889c1c25dbc240378358ed8bab
872166 F20110216_AACFUC mcgibbon_n_Page_004.jp2
8b8accb0dd9ca6dad3cb699639ae1f03
6af8de4585604042e0bf9e9164e5bcedc7a777f3
99675 F20110216_AACFTP mcgibbon_n_Page_117.jpg
3404db828540a29408f7e2e0a6c936da
cd8b4218a82b7c5cde1f33096d72269469e906e2
1051985 F20110216_AACFUD mcgibbon_n_Page_005.jp2
36bd633043454af63250efce56f40f12
4eb5f046c2ae7f98b5c417a5b4409f396b5d893b
95458 F20110216_AACFTQ mcgibbon_n_Page_118.jpg
df33a682189d4b62cc9fcf2ab67d6e90
4017db0b8a9840334224f6bc183b3b75910cd1db
321257 F20110216_AACFUE mcgibbon_n_Page_007.jp2
ff32f5d9ca06ec0f14330934f36807ed
9cff549511376353c5b79bae53e8bf99342ffbe5
6586 F20110216_AACGAA mcgibbon_n_Page_085thm.jpg
6b0792d3e456d43db0edc00b96aafd07
f6ee56ca6bb58cc99e5db537bc7d8bf402d772e3
28529 F20110216_AACFTR mcgibbon_n_Page_118.QC.jpg
eec89e56aa29cb5cc7d1573865a520b3
db22bb1c4be05cf1a68f217006d91373bde8eb29
1051938 F20110216_AACFUF mcgibbon_n_Page_009.jp2
0e507633625eb92e2ae764e5f0c21fbf
74c6cc28a0126914d0ebf7b0b75d896a1ddad918
2314 F20110216_AACGAB mcgibbon_n_Page_086thm.jpg
0bf527bc40eb527b6b9366aebc5adcd0
ffe27526ba6722c55a5986086e4c52a24d937d77
97894 F20110216_AACFTS mcgibbon_n_Page_119.jpg
7d572bb928aae1929f8faea46e5517bb
4d7208fb48923ccde3e70c11dc0b5351f2ee0599
1025698 F20110216_AACFUG mcgibbon_n_Page_010.jp2
ef1fd6793993273b4934b1461b16727e
1b7c17e163196f6bfdefcbcc7ea48a66149dbe43
3720 F20110216_AACGAC mcgibbon_n_Page_087thm.jpg
e5d6974823e20c0a63bb02ff16afd20a
d79cd42b7e4a243b806c07222f84133abf214c85
27714 F20110216_AACFTT mcgibbon_n_Page_119.QC.jpg
954d5c3e25b86454f09c89c2336773e2
46a3ef972390bfd3e773cf86a2c885d31227662b
363790 F20110216_AACFUH mcgibbon_n_Page_011.jp2
60f16da7de69e4b604378c7b6e97ccbb
897135f896e588ad7d47c5b55908cf683d747f8f
4423 F20110216_AACGAD mcgibbon_n_Page_088thm.jpg
48e49b0d0afb45b5303119bca0bf49f3
ef486cf7e2a941c3bf2c1a29196c56480fe31081
105756 F20110216_AACFTU mcgibbon_n_Page_120.jpg
ce40889723a5aa77a98939192f413ff0
de33e6237643a038c09f8bec6a697c17c32d56e1
1051940 F20110216_AACFUI mcgibbon_n_Page_014.jp2
90266a8e512420734dde5d06e43522b2
078e2c2aa0891d38c930f85ff7fcf58c021761a4
4269 F20110216_AACGAE mcgibbon_n_Page_089thm.jpg
caf2577a2dfebad111b0c7b8bb5b37ed
89175e742b1570e2fdd070245d00f724ef8d6462
28976 F20110216_AACFTV mcgibbon_n_Page_120.QC.jpg
b60473cc7a7c21b5ceade515f2d46265
948a68c1422e032465d363e61d4575dfc078d522
F20110216_AACFUJ mcgibbon_n_Page_015.jp2
491f9f508ca17bd7e24d22d68a134cb0
5c3c853b277220665676c009bcbae6f9f959958c
2581 F20110216_AACGAF mcgibbon_n_Page_090thm.jpg
5b5ec21699aabea348cf9e413c5876e6
49aef2294e83f5050e6a5c4b23e2abe3fd92562c
111847 F20110216_AACFTW mcgibbon_n_Page_121.jpg
01a1f4e525bb09ddc8de2317fde7a1fc
4a552d29974385d3dfee5ef91def7e0ac4060882
1051970 F20110216_AACFUK mcgibbon_n_Page_016.jp2
cd4dd71056db33f785c224fa215fbddf
66386dada7f6c57381bec7a7be21ce816d279886
1734 F20110216_AACGAG mcgibbon_n_Page_092thm.jpg
5c30a44df48bd977572aba19bde3fc14
290be00a875e7e598a072e8cb79d32e01fda090d
1051984 F20110216_AACFUL mcgibbon_n_Page_017.jp2
b2ab42c2f30ecd35b5400a08771ea425
2ebde55b2724179b4b2cf99dc695fe614cd0980c
64525 F20110216_AACFTX mcgibbon_n_Page_122.jpg
f2c47ce5598136a8b07b0f261c5f9241
48c1be1b31ef35f210cc148cd354a40d41c65b9e
3931 F20110216_AACGAH mcgibbon_n_Page_093thm.jpg
e65a8ef43a2dae4d1d0eb279922d1087
571aa3a84c628115d2203fd7b484e8f366132d5b
1051981 F20110216_AACFVA mcgibbon_n_Page_043.jp2
335d5e702f66018df59a7543411248c7
703cd22eff7ee429961e3268d0fb9f01abbc651f
1051923 F20110216_AACFUM mcgibbon_n_Page_018.jp2
f21139d6511bb34cd2b179c2c2bc0dac
c18ba71fa624733cdd60d5248315132e3d25aa44
17512 F20110216_AACFTY mcgibbon_n_Page_122.QC.jpg
5b40f290bb74fd5bbf815600f67134ab
d13111e6dad102dbe6d712ca28ac20ae48d92564
1051926 F20110216_AACFVB mcgibbon_n_Page_046.jp2
9c187639d16340219a16aafe86df9af8
130a97a384b46044efff300b9c0f9f908c08da61
1051983 F20110216_AACFUN mcgibbon_n_Page_019.jp2
8241a5a5a102cc54369843905684703d
370462a70d47bd50802e047b20cdf555e3e6c055
55686 F20110216_AACFTZ mcgibbon_n_Page_123.jpg
15bd5b73b00037269f58e705c6ea3e2c
f409ac89a332f1c63fb83c7de150be71ead9ea03
3160 F20110216_AACGAI mcgibbon_n_Page_094thm.jpg
0cd570feaa9e77bc4acc5387d3d6af22
f0af11eb219b6806c7ffc30e298c992313b65580
F20110216_AACFVC mcgibbon_n_Page_047.jp2
8165e023a38bade814698524ab4c8497
96325d495d5ecc5f4c92c23aa5aa76348671b550
1051969 F20110216_AACFUO mcgibbon_n_Page_021.jp2
af932b41987cbabeb3bd0f60c0aaa2d4
602bff54e681de37fe9e7e4c70d6875c5cfd4fba
2952 F20110216_AACGAJ mcgibbon_n_Page_095thm.jpg
a884953aedab723e255ed1286fcd9b55
cab1af41e2d61cc29ed4febf6a17c0afc3250456
F20110216_AACFVD mcgibbon_n_Page_048.jp2
3bf54e00ca0af7ae3e9fbd404c5ed953
421686f85fa039c3ce946804dfd2059d6d2ba9a9
1051973 F20110216_AACFUP mcgibbon_n_Page_022.jp2
b3225d5b9ddcfe1b38771874772cf681
720afa4588c96dda69e560eaebde1d15bc6d3e77
3800 F20110216_AACGAK mcgibbon_n_Page_098thm.jpg
8bd1c0f6e56baf25e02cf3bb4559f84c
464ea5efb803fc7ee1cdd7d1bcc0c06231618fd9
1051982 F20110216_AACFVE mcgibbon_n_Page_049.jp2
f4fbacc31855288caba6513f1bdb4390
14b196be8b50d2e26a99bfb9a91d5ec488e47950
1051968 F20110216_AACFUQ mcgibbon_n_Page_024.jp2
f6720b7e0d1dcda42ce92ba378f10996
94932660e9cd890cf5aa9bf3451235a8993dc30e
6991 F20110216_AACGBA mcgibbon_n_Page_118thm.jpg
bb83a7f8b2893da4f23971728bbba804
5ba91dc386ec72896708f1e81a8c7213e0742ee9
3860 F20110216_AACGAL mcgibbon_n_Page_100thm.jpg
61afbea9fa96f1b9d8d660e543b3ab5b
b6316d28b48ddc46b74b5db533c5b3a5cf32ed6d
1051914 F20110216_AACFVF mcgibbon_n_Page_050.jp2
cd0ce3b38713a184ec6bef012fd499f0
d075132ec1d17bd2bedd385443c4fe68c2250a42
1051935 F20110216_AACFUR mcgibbon_n_Page_025.jp2
d189870b607b42f7773d7253dcabdfb0
226d9fd2bfec7a0e140dd6e0b9dae5264596bd34
6964 F20110216_AACGBB mcgibbon_n_Page_120thm.jpg
95ef42f1bcd26ba986a9fcca9e5c9089
6a4102ff7b89c85f69a8878f00cf5d3940544a76
3847 F20110216_AACGAM mcgibbon_n_Page_101thm.jpg
6e8c3898bbceb379478ad1dc8cd93b23
434b83b977430db8ab4020bec044d5c9e406f049
F20110216_AACFVG mcgibbon_n_Page_051.jp2
78ebc2d683c2b000e9ae8210fed5f314
9a73542bd028b69ab0f098afba1028e3efd198f5
1051954 F20110216_AACFUS mcgibbon_n_Page_026.jp2
dc483000a5fce4cc778bb49224e54073
e6ce96208e2510490d7107c40593b80d9a780114
4332 F20110216_AACGBC mcgibbon_n_Page_122thm.jpg
d8ce75eae3b92f330b2a7f7e5bc745c6
101d2750a336d6bf3f38acec1f64685a9b94f148
3661 F20110216_AACGAN mcgibbon_n_Page_102thm.jpg
f3c0e1b1bf7eb13e0e9eb817e84a69f5
77c72063feb7c220168ba8575e5bcf41b733a09a
1051976 F20110216_AACFVH mcgibbon_n_Page_054.jp2
7c0b1ec4d1074e0a011c20db4186abcc
d53f91da0b1300cc8507b99b4da09492d469812e
1051962 F20110216_AACFUT mcgibbon_n_Page_027.jp2
784d5acafaecdfdaf18d60394e0dc031
3e50c8ed7354c9172eb867847340ea6ddbb4c31b
146731 F20110216_AACGBD UFE0024441_00001.mets FULL
a6a3520c095c2299d53539643ecbc6e4
2c4d9112271e28c3edaa61e66b8917783730ec2f
BROKEN_LINK
mcgibbon_n.pdf
3520 F20110216_AACGAO mcgibbon_n_Page_103thm.jpg
0970690b2c46e08b859fd16b6202e30c
cc4c4d040ae3f1cc64d5a290305b11e15630011e
551708 F20110216_AACFVI mcgibbon_n_Page_055.jp2
d40aa06fc05f98f27ead5b0b60599460
f77bdc8400f8fe2e7945c50e9ef2531646395dd7
1051942 F20110216_AACFUU mcgibbon_n_Page_032.jp2
d6492f70a83afcecd58e22f7d2b9061c
e8f70b9c50a716e2227411405ce80e1661f2343f
3300 F20110216_AACGAP mcgibbon_n_Page_104thm.jpg
ae6cc0b02f586f4d254ffd878acf4bfc
41610fd7ddda86fd0306cc1606684082df7de8ce
1051964 F20110216_AACFVJ mcgibbon_n_Page_057.jp2
f68a6f8be93ac36ef3228455ff621ddd
fda60d7a4696bfc17087c47d33590246d9bd79c4
1051977 F20110216_AACFUV mcgibbon_n_Page_036.jp2
de850eeb3b97c38d2778200f1f091067
a01517c5f908d756e7e20c80931e668cc465db4f
3925 F20110216_AACGAQ mcgibbon_n_Page_105thm.jpg
55c237829fab912b57d2cde8ea49e8d2
e22c110a2c434a6053861da8515eedb22a262e98
1051979 F20110216_AACFVK mcgibbon_n_Page_058.jp2
a4bea8d8221c9dda07de46441b85b63f
db589d28a96109abe7fa7ed25333fc5c0238de53
372803 F20110216_AACFUW mcgibbon_n_Page_037.jp2
95df84ee6f24793c8eb5ffbb1287b235
4f48ab94c5771bcb0b82d2ed99a7c8ee8638dc39
3596 F20110216_AACGAR mcgibbon_n_Page_106thm.jpg
b3a4f786671fe355f1a6ee865038d5e2
044616d0b42d10d75f6bc3c76fa927bd5f5b0350
995738 F20110216_AACFVL mcgibbon_n_Page_059.jp2
220ef4b783bdc33db1a854756009472a
7dd0c5ebda5099674986a573191c3b0bea548429
F20110216_AACFUX mcgibbon_n_Page_039.jp2
ac29ec2dfbff75bf478ce73ea206d57c
03c5bea7f2e40ecf26b878d9db79dcd7e9f88e91
2726 F20110216_AACGAS mcgibbon_n_Page_107thm.jpg
613dc9d62b437a42f61d5c5717898858
9a364f7859594f5abb10ad8e169e04eeda796079
1051863 F20110216_AACFVM mcgibbon_n_Page_061.jp2
99da1a4aadba98e80cb3f824db251fd9
314e84cda4d0b2c3cb413ba776fe094df9ad8b6a
F20110216_AACFUY mcgibbon_n_Page_040.jp2
118d947241ba3ecfb0048d890a0ae0fc
6045d0b013bcaa8e4c1802627c80cb5897c03694
1051952 F20110216_AACFWA mcgibbon_n_Page_079.jp2
3861108b3454f3750bf5d853347ccb5a
73fc6f4afdd06c4604328b2c233760e28cbd6454
1904 F20110216_AACGAT mcgibbon_n_Page_109thm.jpg
ba8d12240c414707ea818858efc6b006
2537c974d96ada2cd3ce6fd4d53a0842983c0204
F20110216_AACFVN mcgibbon_n_Page_062.jp2
309011c9ddcca795f516f27aaba41bea
26638a454d9bf1d41d355b95b11777872dab36ab
F20110216_AACFUZ mcgibbon_n_Page_042.jp2
2017f095f6a93fa9d25d7ef55acad107
66f92960c06f8764e4f9629b0954e97774d9de65
1051920 F20110216_AACFWB mcgibbon_n_Page_080.jp2
e8f114c22c8fac4263f9151f0c7c7aa1
8b27fa9a43ecb466db343e249542229d8dfd0848
4772 F20110216_AACGAU mcgibbon_n_Page_111thm.jpg
8e3d68eda61e58a2ae8f6e2a15517d12
e5904e1d1042c43118d12570404f0e7b94e6888b
1051891 F20110216_AACFVO mcgibbon_n_Page_064.jp2
bb769d12c0801aa70699edcd04332307
697141e89184003a5aa1092b85f56b98a99d5709
1051925 F20110216_AACFWC mcgibbon_n_Page_081.jp2
844891c133918926fed6233d4b9da5ad
b142921214d8ad9ff311a44bd4ddb0c49687545b
2432 F20110216_AACGAV mcgibbon_n_Page_112thm.jpg
e0a637f97332d860b15b4042541d3e2f
932d0f6770b926220936973dc4f0570d7ced0c54
1051986 F20110216_AACFVP mcgibbon_n_Page_065.jp2
ada81744fb02fdfd69123545c8b3a437
436d7d8395e3cd449c78074f26a5147aa4a29008
100520 F20110216_AACFWD mcgibbon_n_Page_082.jp2
488ab5fe29b061947ef1fb4107a75356
cc954739feaa4d038e27d4e61c468d9d8eb9567b
5217 F20110216_AACGAW mcgibbon_n_Page_113thm.jpg
246f415a0a0472bc6590e4ee34671b66
3e6c1ec08eefb2aba175eda5f28368eae571581d
F20110216_AACFVQ mcgibbon_n_Page_066.jp2
159ccd392fc8c7b5f742d1b43cdaa0ba
de77c15d6936d1ff8784b4f731c4107b07aa833a
F20110216_AACFWE mcgibbon_n_Page_083.jp2
b2f558372057d2e3733076db456b8abc
4356468072ca26a560c344ec398e41b7f954bbff
5595 F20110216_AACGAX mcgibbon_n_Page_114thm.jpg
363013f05b6d52d3a5ab61d241da1a4c
d221e46b2b5db5578b899ece87fb4c36c094f095
F20110216_AACFVR mcgibbon_n_Page_067.jp2
5e987cd0c77f80f0a60ca2b254746ec0
1a8fc95b473e61e19936125e3c7e8471e8be9021
F20110216_AACFWF mcgibbon_n_Page_084.jp2
8a9ff175af1f1f45c3efa529e5eefc77
01c65a093b552d9f4bcbf010da5c0610e490e86e
6592 F20110216_AACGAY mcgibbon_n_Page_116thm.jpg
31e139e7cdee3be09836193866c77478
8c8d9ad7b2ee5ffa1e913fb2fb8d9ea02b402e99
1051960 F20110216_AACFVS mcgibbon_n_Page_068.jp2
0a2b395c52ca1fbfadbc9db27cf69e16
70c9da8bac49ce4537cb209ae1b24e3c2132aa3c
1051959 F20110216_AACFWG mcgibbon_n_Page_085.jp2
958a41753eb2f2a8274d733f87fd879f
3eb00a97149bb5179252119c7cf26620e5219fb5
6781 F20110216_AACGAZ mcgibbon_n_Page_117thm.jpg
6acbc86e024f2cae38a17b23978037a6
3ad9acbb57b4037e758ce7530b0926d9186d8b36
1031559 F20110216_AACFVT mcgibbon_n_Page_069.jp2
5395465befab0130a6da59489640953d
113c49b78d04341c70ca7f64bc2044dfb2218963
372812 F20110216_AACFWH mcgibbon_n_Page_086.jp2
983cc0eb0ceaaef01218b1c8fce4283f
af8b5f3fea101934dd69b1746f89dfa6334a1bdd
947361 F20110216_AACFVU mcgibbon_n_Page_071.jp2
f20c21628d1023c75bf5ea215ef96dda
7f0969b20e5927e03028d6882db9963418620034
686476 F20110216_AACFWI mcgibbon_n_Page_087.jp2
188bed5fbaaa9ab763a9f092da5618bd
575e2cbb3a074da7a6497bdcdf789f8458854b15
F20110216_AACFVV mcgibbon_n_Page_073.jp2
82099a263cce18b02c4300c2a453fb0e
a3474ef0f7b95a081c0a5fb5504ae630072e4fd1
780329 F20110216_AACFWJ mcgibbon_n_Page_088.jp2
e6fcf684a73f5aaf0ce96893eda22f95
b1d3d904b277bc1a9d9398fa8e85cda847b2a857
F20110216_AACFVW mcgibbon_n_Page_075.jp2
613e1d3b70b1d723e5411c5f2596e4d4
0a3f0d5ebd0c4354d008f575d57c40c98010e5cf
412106 F20110216_AACFWK mcgibbon_n_Page_090.jp2
8e7dfbd7dbb16692742a94cd0ee3b610
f41b366b5958b71a852d605c0a11debd1d27ed66
F20110216_AACFVX mcgibbon_n_Page_076.jp2
c173b496fe71044637fedad951f99426
314b208e4dcaee9e15b5b62656800b0ecd2ce7d4
373785 F20110216_AACFWL mcgibbon_n_Page_091.jp2
b8ba3acbbc005821349050d9d353f633
dd0ede61cc10d989b1a92fd95caa8e78e55c52d6
1051972 F20110216_AACFVY mcgibbon_n_Page_077.jp2
ffe2bae9c2c9a679e966c127f1be4bca
4d8a71937ce3f8b20b3a7382baa6bb68378c37e0
778938 F20110216_AACFXA mcgibbon_n_Page_111.jp2
9ee69639d983823be48f33f308c0e30f
008b619f83a17a53f27ba7f5e490fe4b371bacd8
220785 F20110216_AACFWM mcgibbon_n_Page_092.jp2
298e3668306b43cf4331bb34cce2352f
117b8f8a44dd374fc6bc855a4ac3e361c68573e8
1051957 F20110216_AACFVZ mcgibbon_n_Page_078.jp2
1d15e40a567443cd8c77ddd2147de0d9
ac40006db10b55b578b212b981109b1c4d137dab
367924 F20110216_AACFXB mcgibbon_n_Page_112.jp2
84618501bc620a72b8120b89b2c60c82
a48228343a51e2f025341786950ff6e05483f387
508384 F20110216_AACFWN mcgibbon_n_Page_094.jp2
afd81076cffc04f308e19b4c1e3a8073
45afd719b59fcfed631496c6a33d4bcefcdd5979
1051980 F20110216_AACEUA mcgibbon_n_Page_038.jp2
edc069a9be208c60dd73e39bfaf70931
5f0538691e9bbd6e1ef7a2d62fd49ef0fa216d43
422198 F20110216_AACFXC mcgibbon_n_Page_115.jp2
e9f126c04ff067c8f656a6e1866ff2dc
702aaa623066c28b33bf6a6d4c77ca7f7513efc5
485927 F20110216_AACFWO mcgibbon_n_Page_095.jp2
3ee6840333a42e830da1453709fbfa0d
443249bc456f3b471558968fa3f556ad95de1280
21757 F20110216_AACEUB mcgibbon_n_Page_109.jpg
5ef3a971a39e87d2ce63eb18e9bd79e8
bde807e3f035a55af4c2404dac56e8a52e0f6bf1
F20110216_AACFXD mcgibbon_n_Page_116.jp2
4b08151b8631505759782530d700b8f5
620503432a03030a2e4d1f506adedf0b1045895e
493633 F20110216_AACFWP mcgibbon_n_Page_096.jp2
dd0ab634f3df0132c6b397a11dacf7fc
a995938e7225dedec846715a51f3d56308160373
F20110216_AACEUC mcgibbon_n_Page_063.jp2
9abe71050f36c667e7d0519cd9886e5a
e17e7d993193cba4a1fd3c95da34f4b9cc0b807d
F20110216_AACFXE mcgibbon_n_Page_117.jp2
4ffcd0241fa9d543ca5daf72247e8978
a7fb2ba6a2e5ea221dae9027e72f7d4018d92816
463587 F20110216_AACFWQ mcgibbon_n_Page_097.jp2
1225947e9df9ce197b0de3f5a3db3eef
a6a2bae7b7f73d8a03f4213f9e813309f47253a4
3525 F20110216_AACEUD mcgibbon_n_Page_099thm.jpg
1c999c03bb14142d1dffdb1d7085114c
d0a543dc1d0abe137a547eafab3baea4f03290b7
F20110216_AACFXF mcgibbon_n_Page_118.jp2
0ef7ba847129c030bec72864ba1c1430
0d131f71de7cf68a019a9e9746dcecb27ff946bc
481571 F20110216_AACFWR mcgibbon_n_Page_100.jp2
3f6d45edf760b6342d4f3fd38c4f4f8a
e282058c6207527301d627d616b55e1e15a93ce3
2108 F20110216_AACEUE mcgibbon_n_Page_051.txt
b714718cf8159e3595ffdfc19c189da8
9c468d666d5a1b5bb2f4897a230509be71644a22
F20110216_AACFXG mcgibbon_n_Page_119.jp2
a4e0ec060957211fcf777ac212d419ff
6b75c24af5f277763741550e8356ad9dad39be49
472787 F20110216_AACFWS mcgibbon_n_Page_101.jp2
f28586d43f4c59a4de72020655587372
2dbb8e96ecc4e8be605e5115b1d8dae545d71d46
6552 F20110216_AACEUF mcgibbon_n_Page_012thm.jpg
9bd749aa479c15eb3ab29005e1ffeca3
80618860126096191f785955a5e2c58d5f172fd8
1051965 F20110216_AACFXH mcgibbon_n_Page_120.jp2
c59139d1ca58e64f4516ae307a7e8879
72fe92c9dbd9fe4af3c92c4af01a8be3783a78e2
461338 F20110216_AACFWT mcgibbon_n_Page_102.jp2
da3aeb550e25573ed150128f83ab3191
e67d5a1ba59210843111dcce216903bf79ad971d
F20110216_AACFAA mcgibbon_n_Page_029.jp2
b5970ff6a6a6bbbc65f990e463ce0e83
1b559f7a80316ed351ae46c6a15cd57a71361601
27288 F20110216_AACEUG mcgibbon_n_Page_032.QC.jpg
ae5d60ebeb9499b40e0762c3ec5db071
f011da111f1726aad8b1ed5059ea712096db6d7b
F20110216_AACFXI mcgibbon_n_Page_121.jp2
f469e4026b84ddfde64701e3b1f5de61
9c2103c7b737e42d66a548b28054802203fdfdeb
449651 F20110216_AACFWU mcgibbon_n_Page_103.jp2
08cc7eb5af358f49be197054837e3915
1490e4c9a783e0fc64c6a975fe114474d524eac1
86808 F20110216_AACFAB mcgibbon_n_Page_015.jpg
afdc3749e140f8d4ed2b3b0762b55c20
b01e278619fc0e6dafc7496cab6fc45d6a02ee9b
18621 F20110216_AACEUH mcgibbon_n_Page_106.pro
f3a6b1882dd148c5f2cdf7beb08cc8a9
afa4ba5941b614e45956a23ecab073b280b8845a
870674 F20110216_AACFXJ mcgibbon_n_Page_122.jp2
70db293d54ffc226d47b65c02ee4516d
06ef9bc2a8aa8c2b424d090ac803ad44cb8ed512
439573 F20110216_AACFWV mcgibbon_n_Page_104.jp2
c2c532177b42585ff3f2e5c3dca44758
0c9e53f7d2be7232fb0d4d678a7c3a24ded01b07
912231 F20110216_AACFAC mcgibbon_n_Page_114.jp2
4dde4f37fb3a631a0412e50a9d5695f5
7d751f3b4f3b1705ed2b2391bbe3f61ef41d8b35
2065 F20110216_AACEUI mcgibbon_n_Page_019.txt
0f22e6b1480fec0c32b497fdbae888d3
d9d591ea6546c13fc69879dcfb4b931c6a6047fc
455 F20110216_AACFXK mcgibbon_n_Page_002thm.jpg
6e08ca8587d32d9ef57a56f9488c3372
242e516124da6e8dc1e815464658650b272a8aa8
482044 F20110216_AACFWW mcgibbon_n_Page_105.jp2
6835be27fd5b8d98dd180aac210ef566
68f9147d66815b7b6c7942b6e3123a3c574f7846
38190 F20110216_AACFAD mcgibbon_n_Page_113.pro
8112c723f4019addb282234a1b8e18a0
fe0faa70880ed555b334e4a8ea301437f23185da
6281 F20110216_AACFYA mcgibbon_n_Page_021thm.jpg
47e15bf83ce83cf3cdaaf39f5a7042e7
abd54f6e435ca6d169b2a919890107c73380d72c
F20110216_AACEUJ mcgibbon_n_Page_064.QC.jpg
c7097df42ff83e92b4805cde53115a59
f1cf6dad4b3ada5d700b86a1092105a8694f787a
411 F20110216_AACFXL mcgibbon_n_Page_003thm.jpg
b9dbd519c364d0286736d54bb17e6066
8dbd80edf6534d34813ae784ca343065c9f1352e
449158 F20110216_AACFWX mcgibbon_n_Page_106.jp2
68c671bfca757e39ad457bdeeaa3fe0f
28d85ef2084790c364af98d12c1a823346d1afe1
59141 F20110216_AACFAE mcgibbon_n_Page_117.pro
457c2655d5e23fbd696048110ad1d4b5
153470308f9b2c5a5f3dfde6ce56434ac108477a
25271604 F20110216_AACEUK mcgibbon_n_Page_033.tif
4ae44fb36b8beebb541558f1a84c4060
990f61fdeb0e36a54e2faf9209f5ba957d15efab
5328 F20110216_AACFXM mcgibbon_n_Page_004thm.jpg
74b57142901aac9b84c39736d1be7b4e
23d4b936eb3b9fd035200ca23b0316af84d8fd7f
335368 F20110216_AACFWY mcgibbon_n_Page_107.jp2
47fe1df38624d8807cdfc038f7a7d5a8
78839e352f7a3d9e44a29ab3394e6104ec0160ec
F20110216_AACFAF mcgibbon_n_Page_030.tif
aa4b6ac0d2adc9f53286f4ca4bf1030d
ecdb2c68a199f242ff349dbf87716253e74c3698
6889 F20110216_AACFYB mcgibbon_n_Page_022thm.jpg
90bfbd8494cbc92ea23a064c11dc590e
81117f966407c3f8c3ad82edac1266ccf6f33654
F20110216_AACEUL mcgibbon_n_Page_072.tif
2289bcf03ae339305d6a9cd5cc8f3ca5
bfddf6b283d5e45aeb72b73a927e50b78a1f6601
4773 F20110216_AACFXN mcgibbon_n_Page_005thm.jpg
3fb3231a46e0a07febf28b569ae3b360
43e101b66a336424e8c56a28b3dcb3e017402fe9
22151 F20110216_AACETX mcgibbon_n_Page_114.QC.jpg
6f2476c4abf20ab87900e00983a56faf
2a2c64fd2ea43ddbb8ea799afc4af40e8522a2c9
243258 F20110216_AACFWZ mcgibbon_n_Page_109.jp2
de274702112935f563b643e27ca0651f
83c8f7eba13edb63c208955a91fa1e82a2466f7f
1495 F20110216_AACFAG mcgibbon_n_Page_095.txt
ce872409c8c83c80541c47b13ca4e9db
7b52f1a70956a0dddf192464cafed6972f211162
92785 F20110216_AACEVA mcgibbon_n_Page_043.jpg
49035047b716b06106e7e65c8717cb66
6b9654a7f5cbc3a4a011a53a3e4a71f78ffb7599
6880 F20110216_AACFYC mcgibbon_n_Page_023thm.jpg
5268d1e236196c3f3661b9c64c6775a6
a62ce0fd2f0c8a038029b66878d5ca5e1fe05d04
1149 F20110216_AACEUM mcgibbon_n_Page_069.txt
fd3f96675a280bd9ab355ff2fee9f82a
50cc3bc7091ddcc2181ccf0c816c1bb0ed8b98c2
5643 F20110216_AACFXO mcgibbon_n_Page_006thm.jpg
d75e3540cb1adfdc62b783ec8f01f27b
4e2f1262832be3fb3ba6d0b57f52d74b66fbf97e
85007 F20110216_AACETY mcgibbon_n_Page_031.jpg
d6826f117ec40246fe7e18755a8a2dd8
d3e29f7be81cb88b8dc575b74798fbbd97d85d0e
2250 F20110216_AACFAH mcgibbon_n_Page_083.txt
d3af5fc33d4d54bc3f2f5477f3121773
fc91ce164f54fa954fc151647a78da8262f03988
6444 F20110216_AACFYD mcgibbon_n_Page_024thm.jpg
166a74ec1882b17fd1e797346ba718b6
a451efb827979d495318abb108c8c078d4d7b18f
F20110216_AACEVB mcgibbon_n_Page_056.jp2
b299cad97d8880e14d61ab95b8f53133
e928ff65f17c9411861d70b5d887410a190a6be0
40402 F20110216_AACEUN mcgibbon_n_Page_100.jpg
53e90d0c81c1cfcd25970489a17b4c0b
b161db80bf2d6e7fdf39e535aa0b101a8f91f7c7
1292 F20110216_AACFXP mcgibbon_n_Page_007thm.jpg
d1703b30b29c34c5a7d9649407a62bee
84f584ec23bae1024cb1a94a3f1358fac36baac6
89 F20110216_AACETZ mcgibbon_n_Page_002.txt
998a169a6bbeb379fa0067c4ca9412a7
92f84c8f26c2f6667495acd3d410e24263e4c333
467379 F20110216_AACFAI mcgibbon_n_Page_098.jp2
10de07b1bf336da0d7d3e2bc50cc8f57
19016f35317a2c6732b8509c5fc2e05ea353c1d8
6441 F20110216_AACFYE mcgibbon_n_Page_026thm.jpg
2b7ad0df39b67cd91169847ec6a48d04
63794b2e901b3a9d8f209a017f523a2916387e18
1051909 F20110216_AACEVC mcgibbon_n_Page_031.jp2
bce3970da054fbe729e609549c923f30
f113dc595e03da6aaf1289de2060568a4230d385
F20110216_AACEUO mcgibbon_n_Page_103.tif
4d24638709a59dfd8863c3fef26b211d
5fceba1c758f86314af70b5a3cf5a6bed1b52afa
3574 F20110216_AACFXQ mcgibbon_n_Page_009thm.jpg
b8da407c4e92fb79f14d7e4d211374d5
5bc380a6e232777aaec24363fe7af93c776a5c86
6840 F20110216_AACFYF mcgibbon_n_Page_027thm.jpg
1cb9f570bfdfba58bdb23ab5be3d295e
9c42ace33a817d7bee678095c8d1dd5eef795b96
55225 F20110216_AACEVD mcgibbon_n_Page_083.pro
0f14810eec3bc8b0a8ec05c33afbb6c6
0d36f4b188f0df5bea273740f6154175ebd5f62d
1051907 F20110216_AACEUP mcgibbon_n_Page_060.jp2
e24250a988d8f2f6d3bab07b8e0f443f
c8f987c4ddb016cd08e25b933c3808aa10dc5e53
5516 F20110216_AACFXR mcgibbon_n_Page_010thm.jpg
34def3357c3f53f0e3ace915ff20b4d0
efefbbb83830ea1619ff1324c474684adc5189e5
2342 F20110216_AACFAJ mcgibbon_n_Page_079.txt
2c25e54b0335533d4cc28723ba1fb6a9
5d5317ada7a5a19e229f1fd4670a8d423941f312
6667 F20110216_AACFYG mcgibbon_n_Page_028thm.jpg
75b618c9276333b7513f71421c950dc7
7fc480306e0d2c133d44490a8640420fc5945fe8
9062 F20110216_AACEVE mcgibbon_n_Page_112.QC.jpg
d9923afe1aae90630d6c0a697eedfcb0
e3db888b8bac68fef377c886b88aaa2ca64ba087
28193 F20110216_AACEUQ mcgibbon_n_Page_033.QC.jpg
dc26224e7c6ed56d90737a3a683044b8
f202f026e409d7ba3bf21cb1b973ff61871324b8
2307 F20110216_AACFXS mcgibbon_n_Page_011thm.jpg
ee252f69fa0269a373c252f31a2de0f6
e8d4fcbef0873dd572b211e545465b728237e404
72526 F20110216_AACFAK mcgibbon_n_Page_063.jpg
43b633a7ba21a6d0f95538f76c353e4c
d693a42ef39ba07bdfefa13eafa27cde1e18220d
6606 F20110216_AACFYH mcgibbon_n_Page_030thm.jpg
8c9583a2eab0d55318ea93cf6492b588
70ea2776d6d9e53c727ae09b87a6a8707aef36b6
62480 F20110216_AACEVF mcgibbon_n_Page_120.pro
5f4d6f7bd44eb3b272b126cf97bbe2d7
77f0c1105d3ba573d1da48bc6eba05957d90a81b
F20110216_AACEUR mcgibbon_n_Page_068.tif
4ea0e338ab30ea9693b1b5806ba77e01
3723c879dc3f8a5597aa48622a77585fbdb86fe7
6858 F20110216_AACFXT mcgibbon_n_Page_013thm.jpg
a6e8ed80a68f7fb4e075bc444b45bdb4
3f8740cfda3b43312d0efa59cff4971649a7a0fe
F20110216_AACFBA mcgibbon_n_Page_107.tif
d871316c9dde233ef585d53cec08e5eb
a4f424e501020329fcbb34547182acf420910b0f
59925 F20110216_AACFAL mcgibbon_n_Page_111.jpg
d75f6f1f1f1a8af9f5865f2379b9c3fb
9e07b019086f30572231426704148ad0d64580a1
6554 F20110216_AACFYI mcgibbon_n_Page_032thm.jpg
4cf9bb201b1202b7e0dd02a2713722af
9e1fdf5f7bc895a3d3e554a40e4cf40f724f7412
5941 F20110216_AACEVG mcgibbon_n_Page_092.QC.jpg
c910e3b0b457ba36aa530e56db3a5f6c
02f017e2983e2afdbbf025b8fe53fc87c578a88f
2140 F20110216_AACEUS mcgibbon_n_Page_067.txt
7c97849df92d7659b6d5da3727863a73
cca2e4558c679c489e16b2436365cc7ec927bbc6
6662 F20110216_AACFXU mcgibbon_n_Page_014thm.jpg
9e0d4873b2c3a5334ca9ff592265feec
1f33b78a3b4b2859114c938cc22e99508d755dba
F20110216_AACFBB mcgibbon_n_Page_024.tif
a4ea8bd9f5b0d35bbf6d2472f61f6306
a5aa694eec2631aeabdcf8843ef771f47f183b4b
9795 F20110216_AACFAM mcgibbon_n_Page_090.QC.jpg
6d659f1729d5842151f0624467c0d267
96093191145e7ce0fbea75aba7df90ade596b8f7
6591 F20110216_AACFYJ mcgibbon_n_Page_033thm.jpg
1faad8d24ce30572e1f9aba872fbe3db
d31913a56a441919d17c4a7315f862db9b30ef0c
7953 F20110216_AACEVH mcgibbon_n_Page_008.QC.jpg
007c5be386f2725fcccb1b431c197441
38963e90af117ec10900cdc88dce442f17629fce
7074 F20110216_AACEUT mcgibbon_n_Page_081thm.jpg
e358880517c3dfd89a45b16a61323585
1df6485b744ae006169b11feb4dd5be722c082df
6347 F20110216_AACFXV mcgibbon_n_Page_016thm.jpg
1d43a559da74b39945d00e86c9b33552
b29328e5c3959baf55393d7d9cbb71fb21003d12
92671 F20110216_AACFBC mcgibbon_n_Page_014.jpg
c0bf47da47c47333567cbddd0dfff8c3
640e62c010b52f358c0c387b5df33d0ac891c5d7
53337 F20110216_AACFAN mcgibbon_n_Page_017.pro
8877ab1c8f5289f9d1ed6b58599cf4c1
739bcedb2e76a9463c6e4f0bcb8d5fc573e1fe3e
6634 F20110216_AACFYK mcgibbon_n_Page_034thm.jpg
dea043d0a0880b96f9635a40ae8c0a97
c7587930c423ccb71b4d8dd5ca000ef8a21786e7
741675 F20110216_AACEVI mcgibbon_n_Page_089.jp2
ca750f9b1705f03336ec45ba9d729c6d
d9044b4f97a4bd7e267c5bee8d8bed489a6ece9f
16628 F20110216_AACEUU mcgibbon_n_Page_037.pro
d742c920d0a646b4d0b3c6bbf1dd8bdb
dea8d28332a0d83a5cab94b94ccb6dd798542ec3
6598 F20110216_AACFXW mcgibbon_n_Page_017thm.jpg
026511d7b59d316818311d8e7a75cf25
6252c3bce331d1e8692c6756cb598eb42361e474
83458 F20110216_AACFBD mcgibbon_n_Page_046.jpg
5c12f8997c76d2693461653f919e4573
e4248208dafac6fe037d5737a297f5c4c3852957
89165 F20110216_AACFAO mcgibbon_n_Page_083.jpg
cdb81817411d1184a4bee7bd5a33c795
7caa76b75db35373b4d6736d2780933bbc11176f
5957 F20110216_AACFZA mcgibbon_n_Page_053thm.jpg
d6ce35d98fbbdac3d9312336030b0736
06bb11e19380b25b489d57e1661f67e2c8a5d145
6525 F20110216_AACFYL mcgibbon_n_Page_036thm.jpg
a854d2ab0219a73de42602979d2646c6
6b13816c5dfb4ade9e6283303c8d7f5bfea6278f
78042 F20110216_AACEUV mcgibbon_n_Page_010.jpg
5f82e420082d8e2a444577487339de75
399afd74df6db6d6eef4c6569dbeab1b789fdbe9
6637 F20110216_AACFXX mcgibbon_n_Page_018thm.jpg
739a70314ce6e47f20715ed01c9c31c5
d3ea440f062f37e07130fc7b00918e7b2c1630b1
581375 F20110216_AACFBE mcgibbon_n_Page_008.jp2
f7cdfc5b312b981a32eab716af7b4023
ac2d6e70025a28b3987af9449088511c98ea6ff1
91362 F20110216_AACFAP mcgibbon_n_Page_041.jpg
4045ff4d4abc42f84ad384085218bfc7
86968603c7d881e2621ef969a87f0f1864794163
1034 F20110216_AACEVJ mcgibbon_n_Page_101.txt
22e8eaf24424a13f8bd8b502b49031fa
e2095687459aa467adcf1d3dca51339312ea9cd0
6318 F20110216_AACFZB mcgibbon_n_Page_054thm.jpg
4141ae1298daaeaedaab9a8970b9bc80
2c55f7b47056ca06fb30cacf13bed2a51611a4b2
6249 F20110216_AACFYM mcgibbon_n_Page_038thm.jpg
5bf1a1a5e01cfb1f60ce54908a94911a
f298bd01e2e59dbea504d145e2bc86b47836096c
57986 F20110216_AACEUW mcgibbon_n_Page_076.pro
baab774c9b9fe0cb8636d2f5ada11e73
89134ac687549ba996bd1807f6c7d73eae6fd0df
6824 F20110216_AACFXY mcgibbon_n_Page_019thm.jpg
5e6834b0c2b53c13f673a0880d923f35
873a6ab7600d615b59f4c0327e76d4e7797d2f52
28184 F20110216_AACFBF mcgibbon_n_Page_117.QC.jpg
c33aaff3dc84a948b0b8bd194c30d65a
5ab1f3ebabd47c23d1623b50ba53793daf9fb0a8
6488 F20110216_AACFAQ mcgibbon_n_Page_035thm.jpg
da56d2d2cd0a1bfe2fddbdca6ab6ace1
ef0486d57930d02aec5fbc67acbcc2c41c337187
F20110216_AACEVK mcgibbon_n_Page_012.jp2
f8f2637e587e22d2d35a6cb8274e5e6c
52795c674e4e243a6aed9c5d9ee423b514e6848e
6560 F20110216_AACFYN mcgibbon_n_Page_039thm.jpg
4b2de5d3cb858ac49cb6ec2b0b915a00
ce620f21209841a4bdba9f9f8375483ecab74f79
F20110216_AACEUX mcgibbon_n_Page_039.tif
a882ede38c3110e9cc9855558867b4bc
2251ba9745caa27151c29f736654ef349dab4bd4
6803 F20110216_AACFXZ mcgibbon_n_Page_020thm.jpg
d3cf72e86df8b2101eaf3114c9cdb375
ebae31a6f0db5626daf2666a00e47fda42f0414c
629 F20110216_AACFBG mcgibbon_n_Page_007.txt
645beb8f1e0112e3862c1eb8f2acfd51
04b16fcb1e6ac749716cb468cf78a981762e8371
722222 F20110216_AACFAR mcgibbon_n_Page_123.jp2
1bd0f30bcbba93f1c67a3101f895e5d5
ee91ad3d977f19a60f0ae9c1570e7337ce4150d7
F20110216_AACEVL mcgibbon_n_Page_079.tif
c66cd7bfe31fc67d3a236228b25cc1bd
b09a6ed9a99f65bc71c376c23e533e2b356acc13
2706 F20110216_AACFZC mcgibbon_n_Page_055thm.jpg
978146d17b59378b8ae9ae0cec455602
7c021f9d8fd16997311614e091666cc7e47d8846
6739 F20110216_AACFYO mcgibbon_n_Page_040thm.jpg
7290b52e732486d25940bd5cc5ba2530
78ea44ca14a636ddc33628afc3ef32181b7bb199
9700 F20110216_AACEUY mcgibbon_n_Page_011.QC.jpg
26c6be2b73a1e690f987ba97d888c90a
7e4e05050cfe8d728865cc7d209a08c3f49440c1
1514 F20110216_AACFBH mcgibbon_n_Page_113.txt
e1670d50d398852590c986f044717354
8434743ef846faf8193950609cf62f66ba155005
F20110216_AACEWA mcgibbon_n_Page_052.tif
bb603afc3b75abbbe67ffad6a1baf274
5e615e3afd989c04cc9858bec933e98d1324ac2f
87429 F20110216_AACFAS mcgibbon_n_Page_032.jpg
fd39b5a36e780d011f4e11e0343801a9
6902d7f8159ac73ae139684341cb3bb78bed602b
6626 F20110216_AACEVM mcgibbon_n_Page_029thm.jpg
38ed64dbd4060cf0065ab29d149b1d4a
6d6f2f7aeb22679bf59c10fc81acb9cff11f6881
6471 F20110216_AACFZD mcgibbon_n_Page_056thm.jpg
3645b7f7d63a1f436a449a49ed014fb3
d5a7e6246ae59ee54048700673cfd3c4af1ca492
F20110216_AACFYP mcgibbon_n_Page_041thm.jpg
5aa657e7d44260e20ab6c5eca8b8723d
983817798f67010288468aa4e01b9a5dd8913422
1601 F20110216_AACEUZ mcgibbon_n_Page_004.txt
402095e7c461501506e4d1068421494f
7044ddf5567a7e5c797c3753f3a636c2ed3a35e9
5966 F20110216_AACFBI mcgibbon_n_Page_059thm.jpg
f314650e3c9ea8de181f7a92dad480c8
3632e299a3f529b29ce803c3b0d31ca3bcc689e9
4976 F20110216_AACEWB mcgibbon_n_Page_007.QC.jpg
3dc764012ea37f515ab6f9b40f7a3368
fbcd990da5ec543cc83f822cd4df15ad155b9bc0
F20110216_AACFAT mcgibbon_n_Page_006.jp2
6ee40e74023f40c9998704af4ea4550a
0a1c7ae62142c5345c02f6b31a7214d2fdbc42cf
11876 F20110216_AACEVN mcgibbon_n_Page_105.QC.jpg
d95da98bba8177e1574ecaf4e3883704
ef133e3e4a0c1f335b9e9637ac5030f3ee4fb8f7
6830 F20110216_AACFZE mcgibbon_n_Page_057thm.jpg
8e1590804a6abd66ee67de31052eb1a6
83de4d0d4f1e75a3d0a473860c3d44df1804203d
6544 F20110216_AACFYQ mcgibbon_n_Page_042thm.jpg
ac0368cfebcdb79000acfea8c4660c1f
ab134f370ead963bbc349b49b6caa8956cb70f7f
6596 F20110216_AACFBJ mcgibbon_n_Page_083thm.jpg
fe67eba6a840b3e9f641f5191bbb9807
92aa7a4d3470572be00b97bf829ef4d13c985159
F20110216_AACEWC mcgibbon_n_Page_028.jp2
bf03e17c2f20717cece9c10409b98d79
7b0af529c2d56931c75190f1b734ec854e0be6cb
87165 F20110216_AACFAU mcgibbon_n_Page_044.jpg
27f0162c57d1e65390d3b74ca1ea4e56
2e53afdd350a1bd625d6ba9a8c0f141310ca548b
40651 F20110216_AACEVO mcgibbon_n_Page_114.pro
d93b0a65ab834b7becda5ef9301740f4
a880c8997bf03220ec9ae33243fc527a76e6566f
6748 F20110216_AACFZF mcgibbon_n_Page_058thm.jpg
b1440a72bc1d877623186dca9fa13292
f357cea0bb02e175721e3f8dc775aa0e7d43ba20
6774 F20110216_AACFYR mcgibbon_n_Page_043thm.jpg
71eb5769ece893b399ff4a416f5a8071
8ff68d03f8c03f8ab2a253c901f954fe5211ec5e
1051955 F20110216_AACEWD mcgibbon_n_Page_034.jp2
20e895bf78a525ccecd10a8aaf3c4fd2
baa9d51636384755d7469004601acac9bcf8bb3a
F20110216_AACFAV mcgibbon_n_Page_036.tif
c7a6f4c318ded53296a1cde48fd9569b
e92e98ea1a004c81a4aead1127bbc0c5f856721c
178 F20110216_AACEVP mcgibbon_n_Page_082.txt
d20b6d2d33d703e89e112fb55b537186
4e9a89dcc2d1a103472996f90cc6a85107dabce3
6697 F20110216_AACFZG mcgibbon_n_Page_060thm.jpg
a59f57038dcfd27c23c2b1fc68793dfa
a82da5f337490416f21d9174f3fec9c87db7fe0e
6462 F20110216_AACFYS mcgibbon_n_Page_044thm.jpg
2228c0d222466c4ddcfda2d0ee93ccb3
64a31d65654cd1389c496de46d66a37b547deb71
19932 F20110216_AACFBK mcgibbon_n_Page_101.pro
8e1d14dfa824ff0018760ef475e08ef4
279418647ff7f8db4828c1f5960d75924d51d2c7
87763 F20110216_AACEWE mcgibbon_n_Page_038.jpg
d94bf661f983e7538e08747e01299aeb
e1d8a974b00f65635584b8b01f07b9eea67c301a
7101 F20110216_AACFAW mcgibbon_n_Page_001.QC.jpg
11c746e5b2161bcbf3320e4aea6a7a8a
f4719ef99995748049bca362cc584541d2965655
6293 F20110216_AACEVQ mcgibbon_n_Page_110thm.jpg
2af4de3309e269e7924a792c9bdb68e1
c48686bd1f9cca5fd432058ca287582167c14bf9
6942 F20110216_AACFZH mcgibbon_n_Page_061thm.jpg
8d5af7f12d046e23446d6a9d7ca6963a
5ebb17b05003b7f8dcb556fd8ca23c75cd44d663
6709 F20110216_AACFYT mcgibbon_n_Page_045thm.jpg
680b63e52b7b3376b88a8310892ee331
b124f51c8e966ff3fbd12f1897d7d167a422087f
86676 F20110216_AACFCA mcgibbon_n_Page_036.jpg
3de466d2131b7d876418e67942c90625
af717f142f697c28ffd8b51e4f71f710ea463d3c
1051963 F20110216_AACFBL mcgibbon_n_Page_072.jp2
41a8453f4150e7df54f1aca894a38fb7
3b1965a47099f5da54d306f995b38e50ecf4d483
1011 F20110216_AACEWF mcgibbon_n_Page_098.txt
6d9b0239ed3ffbfb63b5c3dd80537f24
3c986266f8af6a3bf12868a6ad2225210ce3a66c
6340 F20110216_AACFAX mcgibbon_n_Page_015thm.jpg
4165fc47038c11d8062d76eee389bf72
e0044fe7bd38d8d9672284ae575dc1a48b8fcdf3
28337 F20110216_AACEVR mcgibbon_n_Page_026.QC.jpg
ee66bb90bec600580a772fa6022f13c6
94c2edc01c4be9aa274f51cfe8ca3f90e1111d0d
6446 F20110216_AACFZI mcgibbon_n_Page_063thm.jpg
510ae839c83f1ea8c510f5cfaecc704d
ae4524392c3db87bda87b7d8554f2f5497afe3e3
6512 F20110216_AACFYU mcgibbon_n_Page_046thm.jpg
dc4085ad80644f02240d5214a373f5d2
aaa2dcb1f9ad53329c074eecb80b1d377484ed30
1532 F20110216_AACFCB mcgibbon_n_Page_122.txt
8ba5e9329eebe8da6656ab25fda0437a
c57bfaf927447bc211574fb8cda6994e85cb1471
13123 F20110216_AACFBM mcgibbon_n_Page_007.pro
ad6cc94995dbd15af8b8239eed9eb10a
9a5ca68ceacf6ff4be2df00728fe528d124e14e9
F20110216_AACEWG mcgibbon_n_Page_035.jp2
32757fb6d36ff8d578c1adf37b165586
9e7ed454d832ecea4878bdefa366ca62278984ff
1266 F20110216_AACFAY mcgibbon_n_Page_123.txt
a107abff152f23c979c6246d0a7c8ec8
18d176d2871706e6bb8fe6160884d54778683feb
2172 F20110216_AACEVS mcgibbon_n_Page_041.txt
7db1234a2f931671f2f8137772dc47c3
6428c6e5d569456c33dd828366749b109f6a72b4
6726 F20110216_AACFZJ mcgibbon_n_Page_064thm.jpg
56ab4f2c78dab63d871c7d8a02b18c88
f13512a1362adfde12dfab09fe2562b5fbe38c83
5893 F20110216_AACFYV mcgibbon_n_Page_048thm.jpg
f9211bbd5f431f3b2b5a19b67d085365
9faa7b2b725661b33a96b2f8534b5d495b8f48f1
29791 F20110216_AACFCC mcgibbon_n_Page_013.QC.jpg
e2ed2fb047a4d19f1d8cc21d5bafadeb
2a9481452ca4c261500d612b201b13912f9e5864
F20110216_AACFBN mcgibbon_n_Page_090.tif
370d6b56b01ea0e2c3fcf61e9e29a303
8f4e951b191b37f0ebf11b51ed186e9246638bcf
11998 F20110216_AACEWH mcgibbon_n_Page_101.QC.jpg
75ef0e5b9d32faaf3c3ea1a7a972b725
a088f2202fd5a8089d68a6a5e58f7141ab6ebf17
56875 F20110216_AACFAZ mcgibbon_n_Page_026.pro
111985883509cf026994858ae31662d5
92fd83826796724849ee0b9726c71300eae233d7
F20110216_AACEVT mcgibbon_n_Page_043.tif
2b4675a003714884c5a6c618d819c658
012b773de9cc345ded4ea3efe369ae9d0e4ae7e1
6368 F20110216_AACFZK mcgibbon_n_Page_065thm.jpg
975277c4bd1c9b820746381b6d5e72dc
0bf604b800d4e30d02202f1b88441b22d3f0dd2a
6467 F20110216_AACFYW mcgibbon_n_Page_049thm.jpg
357c3e3de34e43e0610b55d87df862a9
482042bbe85acb660cc47361e48155b490fea68c
65201 F20110216_AACFCD mcgibbon_n_Page_121.pro
42843c482466d1905ffd328aaa1a29dd
c1090342e39f5c4d4f692189adcc2c4cf3e475c6
F20110216_AACFBO mcgibbon_n_Page_120.tif
56effbce9d0af0f5cf38ff70c2c3559b
7f75f001e282130e5a96a54ff76e2fae6db632be
F20110216_AACEWI mcgibbon_n_Page_014.tif
2247921ca169f82ee2031ed96bf48734
0f0a341cde9b79389b3ee17217c1a0ecf050f5f5
F20110216_AACEVU mcgibbon_n_Page_100.tif
0ee02d3de3471893854d1be913ae3554
3d99d963b601c08305696c1c4b704b7d8da47854
6906 F20110216_AACFZL mcgibbon_n_Page_066thm.jpg
8340aff6cde9055b2ced41f644c638e2
5a76b6cdb369ed724b732b4dd9bfd741fd1f3509
6587 F20110216_AACFYX mcgibbon_n_Page_050thm.jpg
0e34a10611f573cd80a5154c35ab8391
c87e6b6c69a9756085faa1a7eb2ca408e7f1eea6
26877 F20110216_AACFCE mcgibbon_n_Page_100.pro
fb8a74cfc01b607d89ede8a8ecb80e14
f2fa848d19a6d2a95237ba816d1e07e72502e64c
30278 F20110216_AACFBP mcgibbon_n_Page_121.QC.jpg
f79e6ddd52dd6d1a89fcd2b909ea1e90
07b2bda6d941121db839638c395078fa6f342d8b
1611 F20110216_AACEWJ mcgibbon_n_Page_102.txt
efcffa41bb58a8ec42ddf5581bdee551
286d1971019e25e7a02e47d04818d0b4a9fbafa5
865849 F20110216_AACEVV mcgibbon_n_Page_113.jp2
507599ddb4fc2acb83405519ec4db107
898ae3a8f3ba7064ddd3229566c8dbaf440af4d2
6542 F20110216_AACFZM mcgibbon_n_Page_067thm.jpg
0facd119a8c57523ee151b8526f91de5
9b13c73668e6f47f27d5f0eae5934e27e078774d
6263 F20110216_AACFYY mcgibbon_n_Page_051thm.jpg
fe629ea1387f362831ec4c106a3532e4
5c9bf8626eb04097124457085e63fc6a4747a8b1
F20110216_AACFCF mcgibbon_n_Page_033.jp2
38bf4c5a65169a644ab85761bc5a83c7
0373d073e6c5bd9f33b7cec547ae2fabba3c3291
1635 F20110216_AACFBQ mcgibbon_n_Page_099.txt
6dd7eb2f3817c01108cdbc0fe7b643d3
4b41946bcbfd8f80ff21cd77d0ee2ca0c1a8abb3
56091 F20110216_AACEWK mcgibbon_n_Page_023.pro
e043f7f19112bacad715b41fb289d42a
b63469d0938b6b7a5e7462f202f3a3fc74b04793
755699 F20110216_AACEVW mcgibbon_n_Page_093.jp2
c4c13ba4aaff4ce70d702e4672d9b4c5
8e5386155fdc30b78f6a44eed662b0dbeb73582b
6618 F20110216_AACFZN mcgibbon_n_Page_069thm.jpg
d92a7fe54c84bcd74ae1c78efe22c417
5ecf92e06ed2e5a0c8085cc57aa5b19a7c3866df
6107 F20110216_AACFYZ mcgibbon_n_Page_052thm.jpg
afb32fd74697752ff43654169cf620b7
e5931f3da7bd2f646044dbe830a4c0b0fe986a82
1954 F20110216_AACFCG mcgibbon_n_Page_048.txt
6d5662d4e21563cbd3996843365a8247
f12c0ff83cd31890607671d52bbe1fca4887de2f
2338 F20110216_AACEXA mcgibbon_n_Page_013.txt
14c99aa3d591cb819284da371bd34e90
e9f7cef0b98af10e38ae1fe4ab766671c701f6ce
1478 F20110216_AACFBR mcgibbon_n_Page_105.txt
1d907500f6f5cae1bbecde72741506ca
daa185034c375d962a13404697c1aa56e72a5a88
1817 F20110216_AACEWL mcgibbon_n_Page_001thm.jpg
b7b099ef1b0c73777d841f366c89941c
1286cdde500a16749dc6495c14df8bc6531c24df
52717 F20110216_AACEVX mcgibbon_n_Page_038.pro
42c7f2ea4778dd54a26b04effac94fd9
2cc103c714d3460da43987838e0e6c4907cb29ff
5823 F20110216_AACFZO mcgibbon_n_Page_070thm.jpg
98589c1d75dd354ddbdb14f21f645d05
c6b1a4ddf726d3b449235c5b9d7bd0c0e0aafd51
2155 F20110216_AACFBS mcgibbon_n_Page_108.txt
ac7dd135c1a20a234dd22b3faa349a69
97c55094888f7477d0f3dc951f847dae7be6358f
9118 F20110216_AACEWM mcgibbon_n_Page_092.pro
9e2ed3edcac5dc07bdb7c877bf67f8ec
e6b4f148678c08305fb83e56f2a46e23a41bd854
F20110216_AACEVY mcgibbon_n_Page_098.tif
971d98e59d4d7e0971b486b98e03f811
16af3f30c19f5ee4e9f6139e2b6e3888eedd4f26
2270 F20110216_AACFCH mcgibbon_n_Page_037thm.jpg
abc7988f11d6eea131c0f5801817867c
1f9e816663b2db33792a80c4d4b9c7ef41987785
4898 F20110216_AACFZP mcgibbon_n_Page_071thm.jpg
27350207929edc418207308f812b8217
9d960e90d0383b3403fd30722273efeca7f60b88
3312 F20110216_AACEXB mcgibbon_n_Page_006.txt
f335b5c9ea438913d43cf6bb60328d04
94a8cf6d35e780a0f62ced3ddd56c29754a09cb6
27878 F20110216_AACFBT mcgibbon_n_Page_058.QC.jpg
947db35624fe64b10abe03971d05293c
6e677b17b9c65cab0c11ea2fdd6d2a30a4f9e094
2244 F20110216_AACEWN mcgibbon_n_Page_084.txt
15ce3d7452138a659b927363cac7993a
f94a2834975f6ab05e693fd9690dc2e71463529f
48351 F20110216_AACEVZ mcgibbon_n_Page_054.pro
1f0ba7e32669d9833243021fed118efe
8dc2f30eff2c3647f9af6f199a25727a103d47c3
22767 F20110216_AACFCI mcgibbon_n_Page_063.pro
5e56b3e6ea22c207b994c34ceebe1dfc
dab2ba4e52b0f75c98f9a0c19c07093a50360ec0
5527 F20110216_AACFZQ mcgibbon_n_Page_072thm.jpg
a2997b456822c85dde855c312e7982ba
d4741064005f285bbb8923a137b2cbb7f00a5a8d
54388 F20110216_AACEXC mcgibbon_n_Page_030.pro
c64ac7f684b81ba0b4d74983345c3e8e
b425745da5f07295ddcf4ae8f11947c01309be5a
30442 F20110216_AACFBU mcgibbon_n_Page_089.pro
197251ffa601ef43e43a27091944fefb
bd0da56ad807143247d454f760a1e1c0ed605872
93525 F20110216_AACEWO mcgibbon_n_Page_078.jpg
0268520a98515f7638784eed59e73592
84e7d7fceaf0d7f9ad8ed5ad79771b3f31d28594
7212 F20110216_AACFCJ mcgibbon_n_Page_062thm.jpg
32d2f34b5b28bac8f637bb03585c14c1
e6a48d06c39207b289641377110fc61e72e80878
6593 F20110216_AACFZR mcgibbon_n_Page_074thm.jpg
306efbad5012777efa026ccc99a3cadc
8e31ed4449c3596149792b28d1cac8b823938acd
52509 F20110216_AACEXD mcgibbon_n_Page_036.pro
5b36c0240dcdb66a817a6a94808f2d47
d7bd688588685447370839119a3677d5921a8d6b
25640 F20110216_AACFBV mcgibbon_n_Page_002.jp2
41d304b5da03e367b347597d6d365e4e
efb0e00f16c9da2f7a6af5bef9aa499384d4e3c8
40634 F20110216_AACEWP mcgibbon_n_Page_065.pro
953b42e3b68b0d5d5f7524cee69267c6
730148773e8ab4777c8c0e503e17d2b92b462611
17321 F20110216_AACFCK mcgibbon_n_Page_123.QC.jpg
6727a180dfcf994da2023d8796d633b4
e74c0e50df7df4e547ca6f147d656425153bc6ee
6859 F20110216_AACFZS mcgibbon_n_Page_075thm.jpg
ea446a45c7257caa8e726cb4dd4c80dc
88c3deb10ae1ebe0efd8ffa5a22d2c7057be1ff7
28210 F20110216_AACEXE mcgibbon_n_Page_016.QC.jpg
c8c62649834d247ecc2c433f721fef90
3e41c8b806aece4d4e8bc01bd1f62c317b4d8f3e
F20110216_AACFBW mcgibbon_n_Page_023.jp2
bb2abe324f967fbf190268abb31a75b5
47de9dbacd576c36edc910a24ed2e25af597bb77
6424 F20110216_AACEWQ mcgibbon_n_Page_031thm.jpg
99c6d79a5f372857a9b63b90bdf8d520
10f4118f40f35876494f0c669913e2d8fba9607d
6765 F20110216_AACFZT mcgibbon_n_Page_076thm.jpg
37e0734171e38015f6a4446e7af4c61f
4d3e0431fd98830f7cc18a578d3055ae468692c4
76801 F20110216_AACEXF mcgibbon_n_Page_053.jpg
2bcd11d08fafc452ed12e7db4bc2b7d4
dcd561de36632781dcf5a39f7f484bd7c0346e30
797 F20110216_AACFBX mcgibbon_n_Page_055.txt
98de0af5ff02cd2cbecb50c4312f7a32
04357d647227cb8942f7599cc01b5bf44e6b015c
F20110216_AACEWR mcgibbon_n_Page_070.jp2
6fa03ce65740496c08bc3e3a0baa9aba
4780af827098fd5c4e9d689cf131f3b18311b574
F20110216_AACFDA mcgibbon_n_Page_015.tif
9a5ce8a7aa504c959a38b1d5ac450146
4ff2107199959714507b0e883e5419729e07db4a
200738 F20110216_AACFCL UFE0024441_00001.xml
c43bec6484b86dc9436c294385a3df99
ed6a05e8e81420e35c7d4baa0e37b5e87373f5f4
mcgibbon_n.pdf
6966 F20110216_AACFZU mcgibbon_n_Page_077thm.jpg
ec67ca1070005ca2214300e861721bb0
a0fd44e745648e2ac9fca1f95d6582d5819e90e5
F20110216_AACEXG mcgibbon_n_Page_060.tif
5d5b4cf7c1e54840b42d4b0aaf787c64
6457e9714a4cb600fff8746cffe0b19b46967993
2005 F20110216_AACFBY mcgibbon_n_Page_032.txt
30b1b82a3e26781781f37f269bad392b
493d9aba30648f50eb2addcf5651d6d816794196
3782 F20110216_AACEWS mcgibbon_n_Page_097thm.jpg
b0af891e6b2e1e3b0c4b8de74ba98cbc
a2986754234c93ded476274978b65b65fc2819fc
F20110216_AACFDB mcgibbon_n_Page_016.tif
b7398241cadef7eb0a06aba5f2c09cdd
bb7cbb580ceac0f0ec5d958eff26cce18f7035aa
6882 F20110216_AACFZV mcgibbon_n_Page_078thm.jpg
9aa181b21d8fefa86f6d826cd27c87b9
cef9d163ed16786eb83d9dd022d077e0f9deec01
90469 F20110216_AACEXH mcgibbon_n_Page_047.jpg
c12c799b012ed6d36fc8afd958c4d0ca
127d48c0e94082ec9b6c21dcb25929bfe6944486
4162 F20110216_AACFBZ mcgibbon_n_Page_123thm.jpg
5cbc4e00186fdb940f6b4505fabe20d0
6b1f429d4ffd2b75f2efa9170f7cb37a3ba239b1
14725 F20110216_AACEWT mcgibbon_n_Page_087.QC.jpg
189b303f396770771232be541d712536
2e39dab53fdc5eeb9d908a0fc6cb8450fbe212ca
F20110216_AACFDC mcgibbon_n_Page_017.tif
c0753c9966dc997152452ff2c049218f
9900f2e52e06881d9c2d2112ee1899bea157a41d
6632 F20110216_AACFZW mcgibbon_n_Page_079thm.jpg
582fa51ed8b8efe5e79f27501d46540f
6c82a3c7ddaa29a6cdd327ade21b3963cb4db17b
1051978 F20110216_AACEXI mcgibbon_n_Page_041.jp2
5ccf2db7db53daaac8855e146aeef922
72bc80bd7527a5956d984e7d672a6dd3c9694af3
1051917 F20110216_AACEWU mcgibbon_n_Page_020.jp2
b4f27f48c0159809009da28fbb9f3e2a
e45eba8ea1d50823fb1db277d50d05a0624741b4
F20110216_AACFDD mcgibbon_n_Page_018.tif
9014f2b2f2bb0cdf9b8e803c1ca56609
6a64f0f53c2a01e002343c86ddb99395c59a588b
F20110216_AACFCO mcgibbon_n_Page_001.tif
6585d6aadd4218712d87bcae58be9d45
00388695c55d81361552b32d90d7fc618d173963
7112 F20110216_AACFZX mcgibbon_n_Page_080thm.jpg
2f43cf793d68cf430287f4ce364f6bf8
b06cff3f5705505b052b4e4ab884bcd0ca45d6a9
88589 F20110216_AACEXJ mcgibbon_n_Page_019.jpg
49837ad6def1ef6515a4cb1d0a253241
9352eba60ba634cfedfb4ac33fdc92617218cc12
F20110216_AACEWV mcgibbon_n_Page_017.QC.jpg
c4136fd89a3234fc3651302b7818a1ef
e402c2879665ccdd6f463f4312a568cc46e4721e
F20110216_AACFDE mcgibbon_n_Page_019.tif
8d8c8aba3f6f10e9d70841bac966329d
f31844c1c2f552776fe99464bbe72017d0802959
F20110216_AACFCP mcgibbon_n_Page_002.tif
da77950cec4166ba7ba2c7f7ce46bcdf
927ef07ce469727505ea8847d8bac3675be97fc9
944 F20110216_AACFZY mcgibbon_n_Page_082thm.jpg
585e32cd40e0d450072402427c226291
5de43c4969b532581b85923428c4809340a9d1de
F20110216_AACEXK mcgibbon_n_Page_085.jpg
2511b80ac930381675e61de116547602
1d915af10ef391cf71ff14809c4f3db98cffe61d
32653 F20110216_AACEWW mcgibbon_n_Page_071.pro
10eb624480e33d14990f4b6dfa8b18fb
7c2b433acd51c26e014dd00eed182d3470378693
F20110216_AACFDF mcgibbon_n_Page_020.tif
5d5d97108fa788c6ec55ccc6924edbe6
872373152343979ac8ac1b8e48c73efe8f85b80f
F20110216_AACFCQ mcgibbon_n_Page_003.tif
97cf8d1d7d52d69e0c73ac15ad9828ae
4a93d1066e219c48ade8ec0befe71abd250044a7
6833 F20110216_AACFZZ mcgibbon_n_Page_084thm.jpg
4f5e7cdc257e35557de2bdcae46bc3e2
64322801194a3d368fe2bc7e079920df3392cf87
19377 F20110216_AACEXL mcgibbon_n_Page_096.pro
f118163b93e07425ff3a3a9599d898d5
477626232ef585d3012fc3cfc92815c967e9743e
F20110216_AACEWX mcgibbon_n_Page_112.tif
c002bc2ea40f0a87c10d06eb7d3804b8
a1070a7c383f230d0e433b180282ef56b87674c5
F20110216_AACFDG mcgibbon_n_Page_021.tif
f4989ad0bb7b0e5a16abb19024ddbcf4
e14ec6dcdc92a5623cb44414d718c058347ca19b
6996 F20110216_AACEYA mcgibbon_n_Page_121thm.jpg
8400036c7e8c8ac432024b1eca1a2756
321f81e2de3e2aaac3095c3515844bfb15cc01d7
F20110216_AACFCR mcgibbon_n_Page_004.tif
cb1e3f8a21d81dd8a1fd856f558f89e2
f3389a7cbcb94ae37493349e085cd6905ec5ed1b
88243 F20110216_AACEXM mcgibbon_n_Page_016.jpg
ca7c13cf32248945a5757d2525b2c329
2112c0d60823d7645df57f177d6f5de1d385b074
55395 F20110216_AACEWY mcgibbon_n_Page_047.pro
408f46016da95360397e073f3acb4286
3d89a749bd9131b9dfdb6301baa4a353ce0e7a8f
F20110216_AACFDH mcgibbon_n_Page_022.tif
277631118eece870f6b667254624af71
c57f67c0a0659f4caf4c58869135b1ca3febdf5a
2437 F20110216_AACEYB mcgibbon_n_Page_085.txt
09f96ecbaee811439b87c64876e79613
d46def95bf3e4a886dbb50bf7924a03fe9e7c5f9
F20110216_AACFCS mcgibbon_n_Page_005.tif
55875ffc0ccd3e9a914a7bd499a5a65a
191cc70492e4615c7c7ad1e2cfe81a1181380c49
707 F20110216_AACEXN mcgibbon_n_Page_109.txt
bd2ff9ea48bebf501d1adcc6ba5142fe
3a922021ed3de6cabeebd458c7e2c45b636e2a0c
1043470 F20110216_AACEWZ mcgibbon_n_Page_108.jp2
386daef8a1f00aafd5cb82868b1055f1
8665b7e5efa4964c97c458db7fe53b83a2935ccb
F20110216_AACFDI mcgibbon_n_Page_023.tif
6496e632fed986670e353257ddbb92cb
84dbcbdd6d786528d1c253816a9c2b7ffd35fbec
F20110216_AACFCT mcgibbon_n_Page_006.tif
f61ac0605147fc6bb599036e419719c9
696348ee11d0a181f0b010770f093f5788121d9e
29421 F20110216_AACEXO mcgibbon_n_Page_080.QC.jpg
b7d3285df71d4c8aa21f26048632cd98
c623e52b5c8d4e2748a308af7df9296d1a09a9b8
F20110216_AACFDJ mcgibbon_n_Page_025.tif
1426fdaf16f3475e134e97a19f62f279
21e52877e2fd19dc37842fdce199a19805b36ba6
17822 F20110216_AACEYC mcgibbon_n_Page_115.pro
35132883cc329a674923ebecdd7e2e51
51e0c85ea8bebe35460f4ffeada522db39a2d8a5
F20110216_AACFCU mcgibbon_n_Page_007.tif
c26207e2fdf9e4f1176d1c351208c3a0
f296fdfbd4f501754ce9728353a7fa837ee0bc57
2258 F20110216_AACEXP mcgibbon_n_Page_008thm.jpg
19f4884f5a829768c7851a53308a9264
3154bdc5611f4c0cddb3fb2cf103f84afe5c212b
F20110216_AACFDK mcgibbon_n_Page_026.tif
902dc9c0d3c5f3d893729f4f241e276e
040c5a861de4b5ce315124a89447969fc5e10be1
1051967 F20110216_AACEYD mcgibbon_n_Page_030.jp2
5c0668cb5a0a61cb249405c0e6678df6
9a71e9221df14707cefb51e1bfd50ae666f6a41b
F20110216_AACFCV mcgibbon_n_Page_008.tif
b541cfef8904d962a50eaecf0ac77b56
ed52b8b07602f2e72b19612135d63a65db9d3d22
11096 F20110216_AACEXQ mcgibbon_n_Page_106.QC.jpg
e2de5b8bd948b91e22895a11698f8641
6bc02d44b06e13b71dcb49dbb3b6129fc23eb5c4
F20110216_AACFDL mcgibbon_n_Page_027.tif
675187f40504b2141a95b01e5b8b3333
d959e3032eb0f45631bca6ad4eb96a1497c238b4
89499 F20110216_AACEYE mcgibbon_n_Page_057.jpg
db133bacc5fe44d6f592b9a9551213c3
9feff33854e223112483ab0c41e0a37e7ddeee4d
F20110216_AACFCW mcgibbon_n_Page_009.tif
b9ce92a47bffa36b11a3c17b5d378a77
4333f76b34883fc8af2c7a02dd9347ab9e943c3e
F20110216_AACEXR mcgibbon_n_Page_075.tif
cc2a1c2253fa9b585c61295ddad204f0
0cf89353cc037c598d8901350065d737afc45a7f
F20110216_AACFEA mcgibbon_n_Page_047.tif
85ecb414641861baa49d05d782910754
f350ea3e484537bcf6662022cb3ac43a87d1c865
F20110216_AACEYF mcgibbon_n_Page_010.tif
bffff4478edba89dd753c8a07137b91e
af7b03b910bd76e24962fcff99fd240ee64881c4
F20110216_AACFCX mcgibbon_n_Page_011.tif
70b89e449d63e7a449ad1113f92b2108
ce4a727241343e7939a42035241507ebe1f90404
2442 F20110216_AACEXS mcgibbon_n_Page_078.txt
4c88cea533e818ef51295d3be7efb2b0
7ed3767c97be0c2f63391a5335b7a1d28e2270a6
F20110216_AACFEB mcgibbon_n_Page_048.tif
a3a664cd3429d0d6d0bef5eef3c28112
b2bf2916827bb3ac935be4da83f416e0ce6fcf14
F20110216_AACFDM mcgibbon_n_Page_028.tif
0e51a774d48176164154d91dcb264174
1571f97004c614a214d68785caa31b252c11d92f
6391 F20110216_AACEYG mcgibbon_n_Page_068thm.jpg
054d6d00ed99af991498d728f2e69138
92227f387505940a476c97d5bd1145b43f09c0ea
F20110216_AACFCY mcgibbon_n_Page_012.tif
5e7b2729afe1712f3a4b2d88dcae0cbf
cb2f662ce6e81539afb5caaf2a592e22ab601da2
F20110216_AACEXT mcgibbon_n_Page_074.jp2
3ccb6ae44ebf1b2d2492c937131b562c
ae660980ea2ecfafd75e21691608722831e122ec
F20110216_AACFEC mcgibbon_n_Page_049.tif
59c44c2c0704376f4dec1754be13c708
00579ccdf57d950730e48bca36ac9e791f1c97c1
F20110216_AACFDN mcgibbon_n_Page_029.tif
065ff891c918604d4bb18b0dcd825358
3d43ae0e2d8a37254020450f3990efababd8f9d5
16416 F20110216_AACEYH mcgibbon_n_Page_107.pro
02a3dcb506189f9248363b0403fc0e30
c22086c8d3d81f9992187b08aeef0020c58d3743
F20110216_AACFCZ mcgibbon_n_Page_013.tif
3d3e5f47ce9302657651b83a396a22a5
3b2516eaa87a73af24a829b235048428015e48cb
456274 F20110216_AACEXU mcgibbon_n_Page_099.jp2
f4cd4612a6c50064469c1e53f6a15b98
183fe60ceabd5f667b22569b8b90faccfba5ef15
F20110216_AACFED mcgibbon_n_Page_050.tif
a7f0cc0f71d94fb1ca38898ac3463e3a
51a73650ca28403d75706d51815c7c585efe1f33
F20110216_AACFDO mcgibbon_n_Page_031.tif
5d8c38c9fcf4e90c5c7bef10e218d5ee
d9307a577bb2d5774dffe75c5e4a59e1d1046b59
F20110216_AACEYI mcgibbon_n_Page_052.jp2
2ab28eae98aa80c769066c5ed700858a
bc1efdc4c53289a5d89da727034c57a9402ed850
F20110216_AACEXV mcgibbon_n_Page_118.tif
0be0ad9a4186d489594c0077e2f1f2bf
628177dc88cef3de906001fcfca7539a2e6242d4
F20110216_AACFEE mcgibbon_n_Page_051.tif
acfe3620b702c8ebfefb42d4d3c72343
1da20757f3b0e0558290f97395c7a667aa82c4c2
F20110216_AACFDP mcgibbon_n_Page_032.tif
54395f90399a76b242ba4172e4bc1b64
7f67f75991c1355e820131b5118006c709529636
F20110216_AACEYJ mcgibbon_n_Page_061.tif
addfa6ea9ebc36192c2895293116a808
f7d4eeb27f4fed313f4bf18445cf5d86e760fecb
26822 F20110216_AACEXW mcgibbon_n_Page_038.QC.jpg
765c881981fada731b88241d9f6d4a1a
a15f9974695207e3506bf6c957e30a019a75a28c
F20110216_AACFEF mcgibbon_n_Page_053.tif
689f42b83274bd3f7364dd95feff8e1d
86544fc70f6d8dff1b990421e03683fb3b1e41ab
F20110216_AACFDQ mcgibbon_n_Page_034.tif
400aa98e2d194f0e8400f0dd09c4b5e6
bf8a66ace8c7d01f1859496f29175896dfff978f
2571 F20110216_AACEYK mcgibbon_n_Page_091thm.jpg
8e76b1be2497256a6c8d7a0b1bb18ab3
a57e58375445ac7d18f36f8dc74725ef24cbe39c
F20110216_AACEXX mcgibbon_n_Page_053.jp2
23ceef608f389e97f016a884d49c41b8
6e3e78e0dc1af187fe3eb0b8d9140ea65bd6f265
F20110216_AACFEG mcgibbon_n_Page_054.tif
c892d18866a55943bb1da9ace4bd4adf
8413bd29f982c4d5efb56696192d4655fb06df31
1376 F20110216_AACEZA mcgibbon_n_Page_089.txt
19db35d0abb1ebe2220ce8a57a3ee448
a18c2159d1ed372ecf75875a107332562075b9f0
F20110216_AACFDR mcgibbon_n_Page_035.tif
0456b57f30589cf4a08d88d602e0d992
2de546cf3e8739d87292d8d2c84ff5687c64b34f
38967 F20110216_AACEYL mcgibbon_n_Page_101.jpg
d6d40e1cda44211089525f9566f56ad4
2aee60d90be6e771effb36492fd2d732820edc8e
84794 F20110216_AACEXY mcgibbon_n_Page_068.jpg
ab41c64255dcecf41a74d69c0a9f3403
ef487559b72d948b9c0360eac8521ba05d09b3f3
F20110216_AACFEH mcgibbon_n_Page_055.tif
077381bc005f56a846259d74fd2d2e8e
b9fd6a5751a52a2b1333cf42e6220d924344ae43
89170 F20110216_AACEZB mcgibbon_n_Page_033.jpg
66468bf863583e1cf5f23a12a7045387
c862fae6955e150c01ff946911305279359147cc
F20110216_AACFDS mcgibbon_n_Page_037.tif
4f6885d5332a4efb0e56ed03b5b8acdb
eeaf10a24a2222dedf82f5d16ad27505a297e463
29729 F20110216_AACEYM mcgibbon_n_Page_107.jpg
9c2fbc374c94c7ffe1a2ef2f50fa9333
ba0f2ccf817d352f0856922bbfcfebd35519da92
23525 F20110216_AACEXZ mcgibbon_n_Page_010.QC.jpg
9929297f29f259e8cd270ef873db7e03
c2416d631179be96a4454bd1305675a38e478bab
F20110216_AACFEI mcgibbon_n_Page_056.tif
f1e6cd332bac5209647cd83786d7687a
731fe077141d39b177808cb51197ef9a2b3d214a
4135 F20110216_AACEZC mcgibbon_n_Page_096thm.jpg
936ade697cd682e7955e9bb65b10d797
7292aeb5be3b96fadb5b2994c13cc1f90e453d34
F20110216_AACFDT mcgibbon_n_Page_038.tif
dca0c7ea483d5045f6f868eec9d3efad
dab482a3055896bde8caa84344fcd4c42fb73f9e
F20110216_AACEYN mcgibbon_n_Page_088.tif
0568a01e546501bb771ed7c7b0a7ea1d
bdf3b8356e095f9e1126adec268d44b48f741719
F20110216_AACFEJ mcgibbon_n_Page_057.tif
7a1b98120655ecd399d9e5c7d8e53a94
032c80d3d03ed79d27bba8c0c77fd479b9c7b3bb
F20110216_AACFDU mcgibbon_n_Page_040.tif
b50b4927339b9bed821e2ba39823aef0
88a60677c227ad4a6fac57677f35eb35ac0d0850
88874 F20110216_AACEYO mcgibbon_n_Page_042.jpg
161b83fc00765b21119e6d25dfaf0063
e52626ead05c9dc00ebcee8b576ee21650ecf579
F20110216_AACFEK mcgibbon_n_Page_058.tif
50825cbfc7333fd9ab593bdf9ce53a38
73ffe204724bfcab244a464d24a484da9a3f17bd
52185 F20110216_AACEZD mcgibbon_n_Page_015.pro
d6616b6bc4ee43b594ccb74b036d7cd1
e6a16e35a9230959181844e7b1b50ee455cb617e
F20110216_AACFDV mcgibbon_n_Page_041.tif
06b05ee283a7cd3792ab05729744ce04
03a0bf04065e4491fb37ff44960965a858690873
2189 F20110216_AACEYP mcgibbon_n_Page_029.txt
2abbd348a7b5f30e9232e9fe2a4bdf19
97dabf90f4b70d8f7acaf66de763dd8581133266
F20110216_AACFEL mcgibbon_n_Page_059.tif
56b0a808cde77b084786724c2c8ab0a4
4c810c0ea504eb3a060b892434deea528f6c397f
F20110216_AACEZE mcgibbon_n_Page_123.tif
f908b7ed0c43120a6febe60f9f3a9f45
efd463696223e123bfcf2c93cb951a8102a91576
F20110216_AACFDW mcgibbon_n_Page_042.tif
84420c96bd10010dd05b5bcebe596aae
eada73e9a620e4556b021e6f48bd4181ff0d6e0c
F20110216_AACEYQ mcgibbon_n_Page_070.tif
1e5f8003b78906a0f10d232e07b008fb
3c6c5c6885740b666dae4ad933a55b72e866bd04
F20110216_AACFEM mcgibbon_n_Page_062.tif
9e78e12563e8d9d2286c3589771055b1
112ddc2fc025f4e857310c8eefde8c93ad0cee6e
2130 F20110216_AACEZF mcgibbon_n_Page_034.txt
9edefc6d31b1b52578f4211b89f841e6
ace11333bc4f7ee1ea1df89f7f2bb6ea97014ac7
F20110216_AACFDX mcgibbon_n_Page_044.tif
3f1b4294e5846dfd7b87e47bfd3c76fb
37eb9fe16090ee5f5ef52e4e1c24a676089c0530
2026 F20110216_AACEYR mcgibbon_n_Page_018.txt
f1f5bba6b879b99c6eda33e3c0fff6bc
2361d68ead5e5aaea33c226c0aeafae6a2c0fa7e
F20110216_AACFFA mcgibbon_n_Page_082.tif
c1d02cf7b84130349da2b0f28185ce35
734cd02999691bd386043547a7506eee327537e6
2572 F20110216_AACEZG mcgibbon_n_Page_120.txt
2ace2043bbf694ca3940d7661cec30ef
d0d84b4e954db6262f7343f643f6c53c078ea0c3
F20110216_AACFDY mcgibbon_n_Page_045.tif
0bc5a89d8dc0573e53181bc9c8e8289a
3b3969b80a3d42af1aced3006a715a7b0212f60f
F20110216_AACEYS mcgibbon_n_Page_073.tif
749a1947372e7dee57a970436fc89b79
4d6e2b4f316b0b151b7962a980b9cfaf96558838
F20110216_AACFFB mcgibbon_n_Page_083.tif
f1830f08a4f2aa412cdac351b2fb9793
4e02f9cd5d8dd421272a3ff864352946b23aa6ea
F20110216_AACFEN mcgibbon_n_Page_063.tif
1d3af264e77ade4f423b28178fb9b9cf
beea343d604d0fbf60f5bc804e5e2a5b2f42583d
79675 F20110216_AACEZH mcgibbon_n_Page_061.jpg
606614027666a025d8c26132ff05f317
6b070701844d8b5af3230479fe5046332fdb60a4
F20110216_AACFDZ mcgibbon_n_Page_046.tif
511ed5984f7bd1a1472d4383874b1737
fedd61e437cd2b44dab08dddd1275ce925d5124b
810 F20110216_AACEYT mcgibbon_n_Page_002.pro
db4324556a0cb988fd1a00b614639baa
66072646ce9679e93c44547de159fe25fa034cd3
F20110216_AACFFC mcgibbon_n_Page_084.tif
a983a275c0fae9b086c35baf295ef4c9
eb8cc6ee80f5817d2caa605e5c5808bedfcd7ad9
F20110216_AACFEO mcgibbon_n_Page_064.tif
33213634ef8767e4c73105a25a280465
da371f2a6a33c73b28dac1b57f041cef29bce546
6193 F20110216_AACEZI mcgibbon_n_Page_119thm.jpg
ab62e33a454adc215c15692061b7fbc0
93a939aa1e764415397c371f3ec5fc86f54b469e
58948 F20110216_AACEYU mcgibbon_n_Page_028.pro
121c3a432c937a2b9b8e68a5324fe1f1
10766910f63c66553884ef2c8ce48a2a7ab6d562
F20110216_AACFFD mcgibbon_n_Page_085.tif
cb7b125aeeb7819b2bd83b9c2b59bddb
ca0cb992fab9a0dd09af48196dd49d4dfca5a0ae
F20110216_AACFEP mcgibbon_n_Page_065.tif
b3d0f8813a36bec79a402580323e3b74
321e4dfc85ac157b4ee2bc542ba46700106e1a09
2177 F20110216_AACEZJ mcgibbon_n_Page_040.txt
206d270275f0e593b2e0a3f687ad701a
164b81a1b45e38fde4bd6eb9f78c1b78734537f0
29186 F20110216_AACEYV mcgibbon_n_Page_085.QC.jpg
4c2e099ca81b5782d3d3af711c633604
30d87818bf963275bfbef356b635b4b4eaa61064
F20110216_AACFFE mcgibbon_n_Page_086.tif
84e9074bccf20af83cd69e28a3c0e09b
081a2681f30b672aaa5a78829195172f5c6999a8
F20110216_AACFEQ mcgibbon_n_Page_066.tif
a97cf62e449493f6d03feac8ae335fe7
7c1d8f267573f2489acb909e0564e5c9720d16af
1597 F20110216_AACEZK mcgibbon_n_Page_114.txt
ec09528c66a481416ad5d503ed47bf0f
f585c38e7571b89c2723fc9c53c2431748406e35
2191 F20110216_AACEYW mcgibbon_n_Page_074.txt
5643cb0485671df45312b3db1880bc1b
f729fc11815d4a4804c1a9fbc48a14383d87736a
F20110216_AACFFF mcgibbon_n_Page_087.tif
7927761656b2fb308b1b33d8af1d6a3d
d04936e0a454a64a7f0e6c99e63f44ebf7ba8074
F20110216_AACFER mcgibbon_n_Page_067.tif
9137d623af99a8a1d837d9ecdbe0fd30
9f0ab1810e5fb015cc58b33531c6dbab3c29d4a7
4845 F20110216_AACEZL mcgibbon_n_Page_073thm.jpg
a2bb7069d461a31f139cfa3d8483b8ec
5b6a82da20d66f4b6e1a11a93bc70e024476beac
34708 F20110216_AACEYX mcgibbon_n_Page_090.jpg
9777b344834483c6d5ef1bae860b52b1
45e5befe61be6244eb71d0d4dfd8986346e64c38
F20110216_AACFFG mcgibbon_n_Page_089.tif
13fe2aac02587123b9bc5867cf614f76
1a47d84c6155a3613989d5e9d0d4c13e0e0e438a
F20110216_AACFES mcgibbon_n_Page_069.tif
0f4ea573f2117d61866eafc7f470781a
c459b2f62a884572a4611fd6a5a9b0f02028e17d
2073 F20110216_AACEZM mcgibbon_n_Page_064.txt
2da9f208fdc54da8f5fd591d115dcd9a
8c5930b7c602aff69406a8acef382ab73db505a8
24143 F20110216_AACEYY mcgibbon_n_Page_102.pro
beb97f6eca02f6edcbf38a3db3133647
c8ca70d87c98c3ea41802cfca997a27c7b25e8ea
F20110216_AACFFH mcgibbon_n_Page_091.tif
bbc2e3b557f6e9cd6141def4b2d2e305
d8c569b6873a3f8694b6c5fd6e5263e050401cc0
F20110216_AACFET mcgibbon_n_Page_071.tif
4812144eaf0a5243a14c3a527c755263
689b5781b2e77b84e0c9328306e9af03cab7dced
F20110216_AACEZN mcgibbon_n_Page_013.jp2
a2b4ded54eabbb5112fbc1697d9e8385
fbbab52ebdb6bc4b2e9060d7fdf1b43abd67866a
F20110216_AACEYZ mcgibbon_n_Page_108.tif
3474b17666b1ce8f9515641100d335b9
fb712a9197ef67b470209420fb6757adea35a00c
F20110216_AACFFI mcgibbon_n_Page_092.tif
251bc5afe08413e4e914ba01e331242d
cc4be2541e02f3e95eec7b9d68fab0510108654a
F20110216_AACFEU mcgibbon_n_Page_074.tif
d0977174ee9014015d372f603952a99e
d61b52f584e212165afe8b2a524c63c40d762568
5797 F20110216_AACEZO mcgibbon_n_Page_108thm.jpg
59894f8475e72b9e462618aea0da579b
33465aec8c57e3b35fc60d35c49ac2d22a15913c
F20110216_AACFFJ mcgibbon_n_Page_093.tif
040682677322f9a25a58fbd93449a38a
3a032490a39618302d7fa076029c5474b3af5558
F20110216_AACFEV mcgibbon_n_Page_076.tif
062e7ec2e4688d98701639d97343dfb0
8e855b06e164d71a179f239ffef5fc899e3e5a78
2282 F20110216_AACEZP mcgibbon_n_Page_062.txt
6ab4cd0d8e6c81ea79014639c569c591
42f2300cf22d29d2f128cf85c64fe445d64d2d10
F20110216_AACFFK mcgibbon_n_Page_094.tif
0e8cc3283d27e621c93250b058b3b2b4
3091210e580e1de2a3fffa15c7d5d96de7645a2d
F20110216_AACFEW mcgibbon_n_Page_077.tif
4614782291a5d7a4c0bbf6c375a851e4
427b056205c3984103644d0aa63ccec8f07060c4
2647 F20110216_AACEZQ mcgibbon_n_Page_115thm.jpg
b9d88f8ebbaab0922f1f50b2d916cda4
6f0b0f617ff62844dec0a28ff1ab64413db86dd7
F20110216_AACFFL mcgibbon_n_Page_095.tif
30e9017ce4cf61484d26172d0a8b7fae
09f1ca37c0c483ce18578184dc78d61a7ec74b73
F20110216_AACFEX mcgibbon_n_Page_078.tif
a018066fbb1326b0dce697b6ab90697f
0216c591387249dc8a9258987cedec859f5d97e7
6685 F20110216_AACEZR mcgibbon_n_Page_047thm.jpg
46eae8c0542e9e3ee7da7b0e4e707f06
ecbc26fe7394a70628d482ec07bf4c910ea87386
F20110216_AACFGA mcgibbon_n_Page_116.tif
4de9653a230a0edfd3e28ac162e0e1bb
040073f22acd01f3cdf4e6923851aeb63791364b
F20110216_AACFFM mcgibbon_n_Page_096.tif
60af42c59386831275698af1c5f09480
827aa8db5d805180d898c07a20733e1314418476
F20110216_AACFEY mcgibbon_n_Page_080.tif
a3f4b0c99c17c34676ad7c82d570d6ee
ce02f7c61afdd05fd0b7b3c4cc879ddbbed8111d
24477 F20110216_AACEZS mcgibbon_n_Page_001.jpg
d30def42f76a6661838de6a90d362ae7
edd25c02dd550ebdd81321896c44b582f8d8a50d
F20110216_AACFGB mcgibbon_n_Page_117.tif
873fcdbf8e0ef8db590526e26f49712a
3a8f315f39c824aac0415c4fad49e2c70f0bce47
F20110216_AACFFN mcgibbon_n_Page_097.tif
70bf07a557317a000ad337ccd14631ab
ee1205a29433ff3fad5b5d90b9799a5f5cd5fe94
F20110216_AACFEZ mcgibbon_n_Page_081.tif
58b5947833a1ff3c91361e6d831ad397
c394279eb7a4b5fe35d6c0f401314eae0417b5fc
F20110216_AACEZT mcgibbon_n_Page_044.jp2
2e613bd406b281cedceb05f0dcdb664e
e1be97942ed519a255559e9e0ce5886ab67f791c
F20110216_AACFGC mcgibbon_n_Page_119.tif
6600d8129d5cbda01b8f19ce9b11c016
441a9b9ea046736b3c7b0147c270ee3275818d3f
6783 F20110216_AACEZU mcgibbon_n_Page_025thm.jpg
32f17bc6b7dc7d3531d599061e8836e9
e2dfa0bd8e986a4e1020cbed61eb514d661c6d29
F20110216_AACFGD mcgibbon_n_Page_121.tif
69b928d959adf3faadaef7c21733d523
55d6ce76479230180552a2629011390b50577570
F20110216_AACFFO mcgibbon_n_Page_099.tif
affe3123c1b22ca67813ab7e9f92acde
127b4410cef381640ec0024a306f0112ee888fc5
F20110216_AACEZV mcgibbon_n_Page_045.jp2
2eac39417f492824fc9630d08df366d7
bec59c4d7677ee9995ba4ad70ad3580ff0d1866c
F20110216_AACFGE mcgibbon_n_Page_122.tif
fa7c1eab455362f27031ec6b2139ec26
cca4580515c0bbb9c8b90b2d987ddb1d042c59ea
F20110216_AACFFP mcgibbon_n_Page_101.tif
706fd29e4ea591fc7ebd292216e788eb
5b847374233f1f1cbb5c7eb7b9dac71212a051df
F20110216_AACEZW mcgibbon_n_Page_016.txt
05928e0282e41b4d59e53f9c40ff5500
cbc3ee4d25dd91f6e5469ae101b0355c0f2786f5
523 F20110216_AACFGF mcgibbon_n_Page_001.txt
7cb0b91392f5fca5ae326285b66e2171
7475382dd400e8eb9f143fcf099de5447225dcca
F20110216_AACFFQ mcgibbon_n_Page_102.tif
500e9c4067937ff338f7a55234452aee
e13cf8b0ab9db880bbfe7108ea45c5f58633ca56
F20110216_AACEZX mcgibbon_n_Page_110.jp2
2574cffbd239fb695391fc84698a41a5
e40703d14bee3b8abd7eba4e22d93b2a4e196998
80 F20110216_AACFGG mcgibbon_n_Page_003.txt
6ebe47670d1bf8952fbd11ca5fa89def
1c01421b48fccf8acdc7d91dd8789b863c5be566
F20110216_AACFFR mcgibbon_n_Page_104.tif
8ab9090bfd33faf505af7ac6ccad95cc
9050fbb310a20f1a7737699fd10108a073c7c99f
1560 F20110216_AACEZY mcgibbon_n_Page_103.txt
a4644d9b2a6240ab4e86c062d2ffa01f
4e93e9b4bb58895de06c6a1e1802c73ef5aa0094
4264 F20110216_AACFGH mcgibbon_n_Page_005.txt
f74aefcb341b26674548af7ad15aa541
fb208c8279c736ef8bfa3f311be49d308d52b149
F20110216_AACFFS mcgibbon_n_Page_105.tif
7dbf781f26606fa61af2ab35cd68e418
80fd4d9fb6782b9c8d0cdc93733296da7fd956bf
2144 F20110216_AACEZZ mcgibbon_n_Page_020.txt
8e65e8c261e8088e8a31d2e8e61740a0
5908db5bf0daf3b6887f912d3c33b2791335acb8
816 F20110216_AACFGI mcgibbon_n_Page_008.txt
c30d1e83dcfaa1ab65d0c5d1be17099b
2b9d61cc27cfb54d271f2048fb1c7e30836d149b
F20110216_AACFFT mcgibbon_n_Page_106.tif
803ef531757ea4479039e2a27156cc07
7888453a93e12b64eba76a8e4e8c0aca8f2d9c6d
1439 F20110216_AACFGJ mcgibbon_n_Page_009.txt
7f237748df59d67690c678e92d5fa909
6b7104a1d3b7755193244499a5e592c78b531d58
F20110216_AACFFU mcgibbon_n_Page_109.tif
b8afffec4b52fcca4c5e11d9188600f1
cc4a796fa2eee16e8ff3888548d819f3a3031ed0
2067 F20110216_AACFGK mcgibbon_n_Page_010.txt
682f11ff14e6a2e98a40147ed41c0708
2c78499b9a3fbd9163fedf1777cf61806f8655dc
F20110216_AACFFV mcgibbon_n_Page_110.tif
92df02b730a9956af04a92ef69495585
fc237c4488a76f5af7e6693ec4c3bb5d221e07e2
635 F20110216_AACFGL mcgibbon_n_Page_011.txt
0662d80ec5f1309e15bc674fa430b4b0
13a443c06c7d6ae5b30b8b16c86a2c205e2a82b8
F20110216_AACFFW mcgibbon_n_Page_111.tif
0edd17690586cc26da4811818ebd33fb
9aa22aea13e317c8f256801f6f649115ceca1236
2141 F20110216_AACFHA mcgibbon_n_Page_033.txt
1b07a7560ced89f9568e641adbedfa2a
9fd27f10af2a5c8440f77b1b87b5ae89540f1d1e
2334 F20110216_AACFGM mcgibbon_n_Page_012.txt
5ea85c9ed8f3d1b4f8a3a09e4c01528d
b6c363e455373a58d3385667e6874233c3c6da41
F20110216_AACFFX mcgibbon_n_Page_113.tif
197d39fd65836e8275897adaf3f37fb6
5ef389f22dbbd4f72f96155470a02321804e6319
2151 F20110216_AACFHB mcgibbon_n_Page_035.txt
4899a05305af6ac214cf456ba152e67e
1acaf56efa3c1652b479a5d0f306359f6944f154
2211 F20110216_AACFGN mcgibbon_n_Page_014.txt
51fbdcc5d42fa27b7d07cbf77b22383e
55a49d5596a55b74e8e856ba681d323c89a97869
F20110216_AACFFY mcgibbon_n_Page_114.tif
ef87f86e211586b3b8515c49cfc78790
b7b31e885872724edc79707dabed0748e10e2171
2066 F20110216_AACFHC mcgibbon_n_Page_036.txt
b9110ffa5df5e34450f521973c3ddcb9
ccd2688792db3a571e2ca9e4d28cd5afacee7ab3
2056 F20110216_AACFGO mcgibbon_n_Page_015.txt
49b35c9207c121990a464ee72ab73a29
dc906c4163d44725fedb6a99fa633ef601724b1b
F20110216_AACFFZ mcgibbon_n_Page_115.tif
9e18aac6b954e1857ffebdd2871ede4b
7f31268f3d732cb73bca074c62ee7d3e688bbaef
666 F20110216_AACFHD mcgibbon_n_Page_037.txt
4acbf2c3f77ac91027320a31696afabe
ed4001e79f62c950f4804b780c8d23ed91d13688
2118 F20110216_AACFGP mcgibbon_n_Page_017.txt
00f519c905862b902c80b0fa5d0b3347
c471ae2f854015a07632baf7756453f96f27c02e
2174 F20110216_AACFHE mcgibbon_n_Page_038.txt
4e0344d5f3112c6a5847232999309c97
2fe086959d820834a3f06563a258663be9bbf135
F20110216_AACFGQ mcgibbon_n_Page_021.txt
640f5f2720a6013e5360a4624b9c8c38
6069bbae96f29a698dff140898cb29c07cb573f5
2114 F20110216_AACFHF mcgibbon_n_Page_039.txt
41d1a31a9d0dfdbcf4f7e1e52cddeb4d
913242de712c576611f104659500bd8a63cc4663
2285 F20110216_AACFGR mcgibbon_n_Page_022.txt
0f90255f78491fbc3b76e4e63820c956
b4b1bdba5428f1843d78481110c945206f788c55
2161 F20110216_AACFHG mcgibbon_n_Page_042.txt
32cbd63e62e19df8940739d7b6b2c3d5
ad2189d89f4d1538331b5d487f1342042ccf7822
2190 F20110216_AACFGS mcgibbon_n_Page_023.txt
033ebdb0d2613cf8c7324d6de297dd33
c5157460c73822fe55760787858f67a58d8ac7bf
2251 F20110216_AACFHH mcgibbon_n_Page_043.txt
1b07e2eb5550da0c68c83faaf6479b84
ca2212a2256586d388f0cf7ecbaf4c07813903ad
2113 F20110216_AACFGT mcgibbon_n_Page_024.txt
2794d12181c1a3b0cf97e421131f944c
657d44b0539c3d50fc5682327868bf38bb4caea0
2091 F20110216_AACFHI mcgibbon_n_Page_044.txt
864729e10430ce04da5137e45719457d
38822d5e8ffdc39444767cc85352e01ec2de6b78
2098 F20110216_AACFGU mcgibbon_n_Page_025.txt
b54971edbe035b32047b97c05a7fadc2
3ae1d2d708f15fc7d67b20d4a1d2c93ea7d870b2
2143 F20110216_AACFHJ mcgibbon_n_Page_045.txt
b92d6d70632d27ae09b3f75ab6cd14b5
124a747f4729acc1d639eee037d1e4926e65238e
2298 F20110216_AACFGV mcgibbon_n_Page_026.txt
425cca80441f133337db99c03615afd5
28631da929a2642dd7a6486cea97c286f7252701
1987 F20110216_AACFHK mcgibbon_n_Page_046.txt
5b6887192d1b1c4fe8bc066968df1e8e
5890f119deb181a34e1818a09a9d979ff591c9ea
2208 F20110216_AACFGW mcgibbon_n_Page_027.txt
0397baca8637e4b038d3f0e79b879aee
05d87582ab2b0fe1c2b3efa46d3d2eedac343b95
F20110216_AACFHL mcgibbon_n_Page_047.txt
216fd37f12a48817eff25e402b6e9d9a
49df9454508838cf2d49d2973c78ed833cb6c32b
2410 F20110216_AACFGX mcgibbon_n_Page_028.txt
b2f8b7785836b307bf8ba7f3a277f491
778f52b752621abc6d7f7c2d20488f55f4a453e7
F20110216_AACFIA mcgibbon_n_Page_068.txt
e2d57a567e799bf9f9a6b995c4c95560
200dc4928f9c462b7d6f091ddf88a12f55760ec3
2134 F20110216_AACFHM mcgibbon_n_Page_049.txt
4487c8f4dbc7df6016dfd47d409907a0
882ccd79a637d6a2a4918737a88fd8d50c843a0c
2135 F20110216_AACFGY mcgibbon_n_Page_030.txt
3c58393027d884d484b7dac92ff833fc
da710f73fb5a7b3c41ba43571e4e95a24191a8a6
1304 F20110216_AACFIB mcgibbon_n_Page_070.txt
d89680a50c4acd51ec2c53f552e530a0
7e5678f8c700af88e71778b42a8d8a70e0786682
F20110216_AACFHN mcgibbon_n_Page_050.txt
ba937b13f091310a5f4dc67ae5581d77
69387374ae64615526f76c4ced53a068ce972a76
2062 F20110216_AACFGZ mcgibbon_n_Page_031.txt
ab525dae917c6c967cf473e6acc271d2
283aabe49384066b2ee54478775f16974b2df038
1314 F20110216_AACFIC mcgibbon_n_Page_071.txt
995d59e7c9e6501b65e316a0fba3bf21
dab760a312f78ffcb302b583b5f7ed19b6fe9fc6
1956 F20110216_AACFHO mcgibbon_n_Page_052.txt
b19983262e1b83ccbd691d6f0ca77ee2
11191ab7731ade19fd87f4cf509b8f5590caabfe
1281 F20110216_AACFID mcgibbon_n_Page_072.txt
edc5f4ac0c7e43cb0cdd0847cb192adf
0e4cbc6dd993e5ddaac3051ea7951f651a18b609
1902 F20110216_AACFHP mcgibbon_n_Page_053.txt
e04f341e0069fca1d505934e452b989f
15b5696ebe8fc69b4281b2dc73e41ec7fc76515c
1406 F20110216_AACFIE mcgibbon_n_Page_073.txt
8e9efd813eda80b0434c4d1d80ac6165
9e72f6f454124608c9cfc6f080587c455e538082
2209 F20110216_AACFIF mcgibbon_n_Page_075.txt
c1d75c81d467a5d46d1a20cd6d5a075b
759d81861dcf2b08e8ba47c48700b8686a8c5548
1979 F20110216_AACFHQ mcgibbon_n_Page_054.txt
ffd5c113b30a111903314e5878a77e42
36e79ccf1df62bc6b4db2707d7a42a8ec652bab2
2402 F20110216_AACFIG mcgibbon_n_Page_076.txt
507030c1d76a50a05cf33cd548e5683a
8e6555032841af22603477540e4f7b4b59f367e7
2147 F20110216_AACFHR mcgibbon_n_Page_056.txt
4c73ddf20c6c187805d8abca9dd5c274
f946232677704add137cff282ce74444c1af3ffd
2427 F20110216_AACFIH mcgibbon_n_Page_077.txt
ce5274a09ea56991ca73ccdb96d401cd
25fa0922499a798a22e916e54bbb7d4548c2409b
2078 F20110216_AACFHS mcgibbon_n_Page_057.txt
dca525c0e64c0bf5b34dccbffd7cefd8
66df6877baf34bd4e7debbf9117a7c6cf119b3a8
F20110216_AACFII mcgibbon_n_Page_080.txt
4d944fb2fb9bf4f582fb080348626658
1ed7bd4a70ce0e9672edc7ec5390d954b3c4a9d5
2153 F20110216_AACFHT mcgibbon_n_Page_058.txt
b95980ce818703a534e2bd902f24c26e
df413aa7da8b5f0e5f5280aff27fd48a92b36aa2
2295 F20110216_AACFIJ mcgibbon_n_Page_081.txt
32b65a5c30987c12bb453d51026ae91f
145d2e8771fab61ae0df02ca27c416388aa8ace4
2293 F20110216_AACFHU mcgibbon_n_Page_059.txt
1a622cbeab52efdcae00df097d74361e
f306afa51209ff04491354f5447dd23030b0af44
665 F20110216_AACFIK mcgibbon_n_Page_086.txt
66c98853662f50a42ceff47fcf797c95
dc434385541642b2c7948adeedfcb69b020a60f7
2060 F20110216_AACFHV mcgibbon_n_Page_060.txt
e27736f4df30f4c83840c3beae65515a
2d0db4a132a41e77619be62fbc92090868584745







RESCUING OUR PAST
THE ROLE OF SENSE OF PLACE IN THE PRESERVATION OF RESIDENTIAL
INTERIORS



















By

NALO ALEXANDRA MCGIBBON


A MASTER'S THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2009


































2009 Nalo McGibbon




































To my Mom









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It takes a village to write a thesis and I would like to thank everyone involved in helping

me write mine.

First I would like to thank my thesis advisor Professor Maruja Torres-Antonini for keeping

me on topic when I wandered. I would also like to thank my co-chair Professor Roy Graham for

first getting me interested in the field of historic preservation. I would also like to thank

Professor Peter Prugh, it is because of the lectures in Nantucket that I became aware of the effect

of gut rehabs on historic houses.

Next, I would like to thank all of the employees of the various State Historic Preservation

Office's and Easement organizations who took time to answer my questions. Special thanks to

Kate Ryan at the Georgia Trust for helping me arrange interviews.

To my friends, thank you for laughing with me and sometimes at me over the years. I

would especially like to thank both Christie Moore-Yonover and Jenifer Ruske for their

friendship, love and laughter since college. Also, I would like to thank Greg Fortner, Amanda

Zenteno and Vanessa Schneller for their years of friendship. Lastly, I want to thank Danielle

Palow, Iris Patten, James Wall, and Ryan Thompson for attempting to keep me sane throughout

the thesis process.

I would like to thank my adopted parents, Liz and Lee Synder, for their love and support.

Lastly, I would like to thank my mom for everything. I would not be the person I am today

without your love and support









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

LIST OF TABLES ......... ........... .............................................. 8

LIST O F FIG U RE S ................................................................. 9

ABSTRACT ........................................... .. ...... .......... 10

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION .......................................................................... .. ... .... 12

W hy Preserve the Past? ....................... ..... .. ...... ................................... 12
Preservation for Practical vs. Emotional Reasons.........................................................13
P ra ctic a l re a so n s ................................................................... ...................................14
Emotional reasons ......................... ...................................16
Factors that Impact Historic Preservation..................................................................... 17
S ty le ................... ............................................................ ................ 1 7
C raftsm an ship ................................................................................................. .... 19
P ro p erty rig h ts ............... .... ... .. ...............................................................2 0
How are Historic Residential Interiors Being Lost? ...........................................................21
Insensitive rehabilitations ............................................. .. ...... ................. 22
M arket-driven teardow ns............................. ........................................................ 23
Interior shell viewed as being of secondary importance .............................................24
H historic P reserve action T ools ....................................................................................................24
Legislation ........................................................................ 25
N national Register for H historic Places ........................... ... ..... ............... ... 26
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Proprieties ....................28
H historic interiors vs. recreated interiors ........................................ ....... ............... 29
A availability of Financial Incentives................................................ ............................ 31
F federal incentives ..................................................................... ................. 3 1
State rehabilitation tax credit for homeowners.....................................................33
E asem ents ..............................................................................................34

2 THEORETICAL FRAM EW ORK .............................................. .............................. 38

E nvironm ental B ehavior............ .... .............................................................. ........... .. 38
S en se o f self ............................................................................... 3 9
S o c ia l id e n tity ......................................................................................................4 0
P la c e id e n tity .............................................................................4 1
T territorial m parking .............................. ........................ .... ........ .... ..... ...... 42
P e rso n a liz a tio n ................................................................................................... 4 3
Place attach ent ................................................................. ........ 44









Fam iliarity, security, em otional com fort............................................................... 44
D destruction of interiors .............................................. ........ ......................... 45
N nostalgia ....................................................................................................... ..... 46
N narrative ....................................................................................................... ....... 47
S u m m ary ................... ...................4...................8..........

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ........................................................................................................... 4 9

Sen se of self ........................................................................................................ 5 1
W o rth in e ss ................................................................................................................. 5 1
Place attach ent ...................................................................... ........ 53
N o stalg ia ............................................................................... 5 4

4 C A SE ST U D Y .....................................................56

Case Study Background ............................................. 56
Case Study 1 G ainesville, FL .............................................................. 59
C ase Study 2 G ainesville, FL ................................................................................... 62
Case Study 3 Lithonia, G A .......................................................... 64
C ase Study 4 A tlanta, G A ............................................................66
Case Study 5 Carnesville, G A ............................................................. 67
Environmental Autobiographies..................... ......... .......... 69
C ro ss C a se A n aly sis ............................................................................................................... 7 4

5 CON CLU SION .... .................................................83

APPENDIX

A NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BY AGE ...................................... ...............87

B LEGISLATION FOR STATE REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT FOR
H O M E O W N E R S ........................................................................................88

C NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT USED STATE REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT
FOR HOMEOWNERS BY STATE ............... ............... ......... 91

D NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES (2006) COMPARED TO TOTAL
NUMBER OF APPROVED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES THAT HAVE USED
STATE REHABILITATION tax credit, by state ........ .......................... 93

E STATES WITH EASEMENT ENABLING LEGISLATION AND NUMBER OF
EASEMENT HOLDING ORGANIZATIONS ..........................................94

F EASEMENTS BY ORGANIZATIONS BY STATE.................................. ............... 96

G TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES (2006) COMAPERD TO TOTAL
NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL EASEMENTS .............................................. 108









H PARTICIPANT CONSENT LETTER.......... ... ........... .................. 110

I INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ........................................................... .. ............... 112

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ..................................................................................... ..................116

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ......................................................................... ........................ 123
















































7









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

5-1 Case Study House Status Historic or "Historic"... ........................ ..........59

5-2 Case Study Subjects Treatment of House............................ ..... ................... 59

5-3 Cross Case Analysis Finding of Role of Sense of Self............... .... ...............76

5-4 Cross Case Analysis Role of W orthiness........................... ..... .... ............... 77

5-5 Cross Case A analysis Role of Sense of Place ...................................................................78

5-6 Cross Case Analysis Role of N ostalgia ........................................ ......................... 79









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

3-1 Role of sense of self in decision making for homeowners. .................. ...............52

3-2 Role of worthiness in decision making for homeowners .............................................53

3-3 Role of Sense of Place Attachment in decision making for homeowners......................54

3-4 Role of Nostalgia in decision making for homeowners............................................... 55

5-1 Case Study House Interiors. Photographs of Subject 1's house.....................................61

5-2 Case Study House Interiors. Photographs of Subject 2's house.......................................63

5-3 Case Study House Interiors. Photographs of Subject 3's house.....................................65

5-4 Case Study House Interiors. Photographs of Subject 5's house.........................................69

5-5 Environmental Autobiography drawing Subject 1 ................................ .................70

5-6 Environmental Autobiography drawing, Subject 3 ................................. ............... 71

5-7 Environmental Autobiography drawing Subject 4 ................................. ............... 72

5-8 Environmental Autobiography drawing, Subject 5 ................................. ............... 73









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Interior Design

RESCUING OUR PAST
THE ROLE OF SENSE OF PLACE IN THE PRESERVATION OF RESIDENTIAL
INTERIORS

By

Nalo Alexandra McGibbon

August 2009

Chair: Maruja Torres-Antonini
Major: Interior Design

Historic residential interiors are being lost due to multiple causes. There are several

strategies for fighting this loss including government supported financial incentives for

rehabilitation or restoration as well as individual efforts to recreate "historic" interiors. The

purpose of this thesis is to examine some of the reasons that might explain the restoration,

preservation or reconstruction of residential interiors. Despite of the wide availability of

financial incentives for their preservation, these initiatives are rarely used and historic residential

interiors continue to be lost. Counteracting this phenomenon, some individuals are motivated

enough to attempt saving interiors of the past on their own terms, and chose to create interiors to

match their own interpretation of the history of their house.

Case study research was conducted to describe and help explain individual choices in

rehabilitating or restoring residential interiors. Case studies are well suited to examine

contemporary phenomena within their real-life context. Cases were controlled for single family

house owners living in houses generally referred to as "historic." Semi-structured informal

interviews following approved protocols inquired about homeowner reasons for rehabilitating or

restoring their house interiors. The case study participants emotional attachment, and









identification with, their house were examined through interview questions and use of

environmental autobiography methods. The information was then interpreted and a cross-case

analysis was generated to identify recurring connections between psychosocial factors and the

interpretive recreation of house interiors.

This thesis summarizes the theoretical background, method and results of this study, and

findings from the case studies suggesting possible answers to the question: Why do people

preserve, through rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction, residential interiors of the past?









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Why Preserve the Past?

What preservation is really about is the retention and active relationship of the buildings of
the past to the community's functioning present. You don't erase history to get history; a
city's character and quality are a product of continuity. (Huxtable, 1986, p.62)

Preservation is about maintaining an active relationship between the past and present. As

Huxtable mentions, the history of a town can be seen in the various building types that survive to

the present. Preservation saves the historic and architectural legacy of our culture.

Documentary evidence, such as photographs and blue prints, may allow for examination of

historic structures but they do not capture the spirit of place. One reason to preserve buildings is

to safeguard these tangible links to the past and help individuals recognize who we are, how we

became so, and to serve as an anchor for society's memories (Bathel, 1996; Stipe, 2003). The

goal of historic preservation is neither to mothball, closing up a building to protect it while it is

vacant, nor make every "historic" structure into a museum; but to maintain an interactive

relationship with these structures so they are in use and relevant to the present. The historic

buildings and interiors that surround us as part of our daily life also become part of our identity;

as individuals are part of a continuous exchange through which our surroundings create our

identity and our identity creates our surroundings (Stipe, 2003). So, historic preservation helps

create a bond between the community and the individuals who live there (Rypkema, 2005).

Some buildings are preserved because of their association with either significant events or

people of the past. Preserving these historic buildings protects the irreplaceable memories

connected to historic events. However, historic buildings are preserved for reasons beyond their

association with famous events or people. Some buildings are saved because they exemplify the

distinctive characteristics of a type or period; some because of their intrinsic artistic value (Stipe,









2003). Some people may preserve for feelings of nostalgia for the past and others may choose to

preserve historic buildings because they regard modern construction as uniform and therefore an

inadequate means for maintaining the individuality and identity they seek (Stipe, 2003). Finally

some may preserve historic buildings out of pragmatic or economic needs. In general, the

decision to preserve historic buildings is affected by social motives and these motives are

themselves shaped by social structure and experiences with the historic building (Bathel, 1996).

Preservation for Practical vs. Emotional Reasons

In the modem world, the idea that houses can be loved and beautiful has been eliminated
altogether. For most of the world's housing, the task of building houses has been reduced
to a grim business of facts and figures, an uphill struggle against the relentless surge of
technology and bureaucracy, in which human feeling has almost been forgotten. (Franklin,
2001, p.79)

For many centuries, houses have been viewed primarily as a shelter from the elements and

little attention was paid to their aesthetic design (Rybczynski, 1986). Originally houses were just

a shelter for sleeping but during the middle ages the house evolved to also be the primary

location of a family's business (Rybczynski, 1986). These buildings were simply designed and

could be either one large room where furniture was moved to suit individual needs, or a building

of several stories where business was conducted on street level and the upper level was where the

family and apprentices slept (Rybczynski, 1986). Today such buildings would be classified as

mixed use. As the Industrial era began business began to move out of private houses and into

commercial buildings, thus allowing residential buildings to be used for a single purpose.

Residential interiors began to change to accommodate newly developing notions of family and

privacy.

The idea of home as a place that reflected individual identity, privacy and comfort began in

Europe in the late 17th and 18th Centuries and in America in the late 18th/early 19th Centuries

(Matt, 2005, p. 16). The concept of the family home developed with the removal of business









activities from the house (Rybczynski, 1986). Prior to this time, the idea of a close knit nuclear

family did not exist since children were frequently sent to work as apprentices or servants as

soon as they were old enough (Rybczynski, 1986). Once houses were no longer the main

workplace, households grew smaller and contained only an individual family. This change

caused for houses to shift from being one or two large rooms to being further subdivided which

coincided with developing ideas of boundaries between the public and private realms in a

person's life (Rybczynski, 1986). Over the centuries, these ideas developed into rooms for

specific purposes and the arrangement of rooms to suit the intimacy gradient that developed

(Alexander, 1977). These layouts are part of the physical evidence reflecting the time they were

built and society's views on privacy. Historic residential buildings are evidence of the

progression of the ideas of family and privacy.

Practical reasons

One of the main reasons to rehabilitate and reuse historic structures besides emotional

reasons is the financial and environmental benefits of preservation, which are closely tied. The

financial benefits of reusing an historic building reside in their potential for creating direct jobs

and indirect revenue, for example from visitors to historic houses and districts (Rypkema, 1994).

First, preservation or rehabilitation of a house is labor intensive process that not only creates

construction jobs but also uses more highly skilled labor than traditional construction work.

These jobs help boost the local economy where the work is taking place by increasing the

income base which then affects the community as a whole as individuals spend their earned

money in their community (Rypkema, 1994). Another financial benefit is cultural heritage

tourism, which is defined as "traveling to experience the places, artifacts and activities that

authentically represent the stories and people of the past and present. It includes cultural, historic

and natural resources" (NTHPa, 2008). Cultural tourism is a growing industry. It includes









visiting properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places as well as other historic

neighborhoods, districts, towns and villages. Cultural tourism attracts visitors to both large cities

and small towns (NTHPa, 2008). Studies have found that cultural heritage visitors "spend more

per day, stay longer, and visit more places than tourists in general" (Rypkema, 1994, p.2).

Individuals visit these places to experience "a place first hand using all of their senses" in order

to be "where history occurred" (Rypkema, 2005, p.78).

Historic preservation has many environmental benefits from reduction of materials in

landfills, the reuse of the embodied energy in buildings, the reduction of suburban sprawl, and

the conservation of energy. First, preservation of historic buildings reduces the amount of debris

entering the waste stream (Rypkema, 2005). According to the National Trust for Historic

Preservation, construction debris accounts for at least 25% of waste stream each year (NTHPb,

2008) this figure does not take into account the transportation costs for debris removal or

construction of new landfills (Rypkema, 2005).

Secondly, preserving a building saves embodied energy. Embodied energy is defined as

the total expenditure of energy involved in the creation of the building and its constituent

materials (Rypkema, 2008). The average embodied energy in existing buildings is 5 to 15

gallons of gasoline per square foot and it takes approximately 65 years for an energy efficient

new building to save the amount of energy lost in demolition of an existing building (NTHPb,

2008). According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the amount of energy used to

demolish and rebuild 82 billion square feet of space could be used to power the entire state of

California for 10 years and if 10% of the 82 billion square feet was rehabilitated it would save

enough energy to power the state of New York for well over a year (NTHPb, 2008).









Third, historic preservation contributes to more compact development patterns and reduces

suburban sprawl by increasing density and promoting infill (Rypkema, 2005). Most historic

neighborhoods were designed for pedestrians so residents rely less upon cars for local

transportation. Also, historic neighborhoods generally tend to be near public transportation and

within walking distance of basic goods and services and employment (Rypkema, 2005).

Fourth, historic buildings were for the most part constructed to be compatible with the

environment in which they were built, thus reducing energy consumption. According to the

National Trust for Historic Preservation, buildings constructed prior to 1920 are as or more

energy efficient than buildings constructed through the year 2000 (NTHPb, 2008). Historic

buildings, especially houses, were constructed with natural materials and considered the local

climate and the building siting.

Emotional reasons

The emotional reasons for the preservation of residential buildings include the connection

the physical evidence provides to the past and the aesthetic impact of the spaces. The buildings

a society chooses to preserve or destroy reflect its values; as the evolution of building style

illustrates specific variations that respond to the circumstances and the needs of that community.

Buildings consist of series of sequenced spaces that have specific uses that provide context for

social activity and framework for individual and social identifications (Alexander, 1977).

Environments therefore reflect the time and society in which they were built; in turn, individuals

views towards their environment are determined by the meaning they attribute to it (Wilson &

Mackenzie, 2000).

Historic buildings and especially historic residential buildings not only convey a

community's self image but also help differentiate communities (Rypkema, 2005). The

perceived importance of buildings is thought to lie in their aesthetic impact. One condition for









preserving an historic building is that it exemplifies high artistic values and skilled craftsmanship

(Weeks, 1995). The aesthetic impact of a building is "comprised of the various elements of a

building; size, scale, proportion, massing and volume, relationship of parts to each other and to

the whole, ornamentation, rhythm, light and shadow, texture, decoration and color" (Sudjic,

2005, p.85). Some claim that an individual's desire to live in a given space depends on the

beauty attributed to it. A study found that, aesthetically, individuals prefer rooms that are

familiar, warm, stimulating and orderly, not decorative, fancy, complex, formal and stimulating

(Ritterfeld & Cupchik, 1996). The study does not however state what characteristics make a

room feel one way or another but does state that people associate aesthetic characteristics to, and

develop aesthetic preferences for, specific room types.

Factors that Impact Historic Preservation

There are many different issues that impact on whether a building and its interiors will be

preserved, a few factors are: style, quality of craftsmanship, property rights. The negative

impact of these factors on a building's interior can lead to insensitive renovations and market-

driven teardowns.

Style

Public perception of architecture styles is one obstacle that historic preservation must

overcome. Popular or vernacular styles are what people encounter on a regular, long-term basis

in their daily lives (Nasar, 1989; Purcell & Nasar, 1992). Popular styles commonly encountered

in the United States include Mediterranean, Prairie School, Craftsman, Period/French,

Contemporary, Farm, Colonial or Tudor (Stamps & Nasar, 1997). Popular styles are so

prevalent that little importance is placed on them because they are viewed as ordinary or

pedestrian. This applies equally to architectural shell and the interior. The interior in popular

styles is what most individuals are exposed to on a regular basis throughout their lives. Due to









this constant exposure these spaces are not viewed as special so less importance is placed on

protecting them.

Vernacular buildings such as the Sears Roebuck and Levittown houses are examples of

historic buildings that are viewed with less importance. Over a 32 year period, starting in the

1908 season, Sears Roebuck and Co. sold over 70,000 mail order houses in a variety of styles

(Sears, 2008). Few, if any, Sears Roebuck houses are considered landmarks. In 2007, the city

of Washington, D.C. bulldozed a 1925 Sears Roebuck house with cheers from neighbors who

viewed it as blight due to lack of maintenance (Foster, 2007). The house was relatively intact

and was one of the few examples of a Sears Roebuck house remaining in Washington, D.C. Of

the remaining Sears Roebuck homes few retain original elements like windows, doors, or siding

(Thorton, 2002).

Levittown, NY began in 1947 as a community of mass produced houses built for returning

G.I.s from WWII (Matarrese, 1997). In the four-year building boom ending in 1951 a total of

17,447 Levitt houses were built; nearly all of which today have either been expanded or

remodeled (Matarrese, 1997). While people may not rate either a Levitt home or Sears mail order

house as "significant" structures to preserve they are vitally important. These houses represent a

shift in technology with the use of mass production that made houses affordable for more

individuals (Arieff, 2002).

High style architecture can be defined as buildings that are designed by an architect (Nasar,

1989). These face the opposite problem of popular styles as an architect designed building is

either created for a specific client or in a unique style, or are site specific, or appeal to the client's

psychological and emotional impact. Buildings commissioned by architects are built with better

quality materials than vernacular buildings since they are constructed to last and usually on a









larger scale. These buildings are shaped by the egos of those who commissioned them as well as

those who designed them; the building is thus used as a symbol of their wealth and power

(Sudjic, 2005).

However, even houses built by famous architects are threatened. An example of this is

Phillip Johnson's "livable" Glass House built in 1953 for Alice Ball in New Canaan, CT

(Newman, 2008). The Ball House is considered as one of the progeny of Johnson's famous

Glass House constructed in 1949 almost entirely of sheet glass. In the Ball House, Johnson

explored many of the same ideas of "separation of public and private spaces, open and closed

volumes, the linkages between these opposition, and the relation of the whole to the surrounding

natural environment" that he had in the original building (Jenkins & Mohney, 2001, p.96). The

threat of destruction to the 1,773 square foot house ties to its current owner's lack of use and

prospective buyers for the house (Newman, 2008). New Canaan had over 90 modernist

buildings designed by famous architects, including Johnson, however, over the years two dozen

have been torn down in favor of large "McMansion" style buildings, bulky, out-of scale new

houses on small parcels that do not fit the existing character of a community (Newman, 2008).

Craftsmanship

A building maybe an excellent example of superior craftsmanship and not be designed by

an architect. Individuals rate older buildings higher on having physical features contributing to

visual richness such as decoration, natural materials, curves, articulated walls, distinctiveness,

and mystery (Herzog & Shier, 2000). In responding to the requirements of industrial processes,

the mass production of homes has lead to a lack of details and features which are identified as

important in a home: prospect and refuge, enticement, peril, and complex order, which enhance

the experience of home (Gallagher, 2006, p. 6; Hiss, 1990). Not surprisingly, most people think









older homes are more beautiful and are more charming and have a sense of history when

compared to new standard houses (Gram-Hanssen & Beth-Danielsen, 2004).

However, some people will not purchase an old house because of the maintenance work

that is necessary for its upkeep (Gram-Hanssen & Beth-Danielsen, 2004; Herzog & Shier, 2000;

Rowe, 2004). But, for those who do purchase an older home, the individual investment and

sweat equity used to maintain and improve their house creates a special feeling of being at home.

This may partly explain why some people spend so much time and money on their house. These

homeowners not only maintain and decorate a house but in their eyes their efforts equal to

building a home and family (Gram-Hanssen & Beth-Danielsen, 2004).

Property rights

Private property rights give the owner the right to the unrestricted and exclusive use to the

property and exclude interference from everyone else (Black, 1983). They ensure that an

individual has the right to do what they wish with their property as long as it causes no harm to

others. Property rights extend to the effects of listing a building on the National Register of

Historic Places. While no property can be listed on the National Register without consent of the

property owners, the owner still maintains the right to intervene the property as they wish

provided no federal funding is involved. However, there is no responsibility upon the owners to

restore or maintain their buildings (Tyler, 2000).

The rights of the individual versus those of the greater population are at odds when

discussing historic preservation. According to Black's Law Dictionary (2004), historic

preservation falls under "police power" which encompasses community values and aesthetics as

well as the power to make laws to preserve the public security, order, health, morality, and

justice". This power grants the government the right to designate buildings or districts as

historic properties without the owner's approval (Black's, 2004). The Supreme Court has ruled









that this power is not deemed a taking, a government appropriation of land where the owner is

not fairly compensated, as the designation does not result in the property being beyond

reasonable use but is another form of land use regulation (Black's, 2004; Leichenko, 2001;

Ziegler, 2008). The strength of historic preservation lies in local government since they have the

power to require private property owners to preserve their properties (Mallard, 2002).

The preservation of the exteriors of homes is commonplace with the use of city, state and

national ordinances that create historic districts. Impact of private buildings on a historic district

is limited to what may affect the public. As the majority of historic buildings are privately

owned, it is only the exteriors that can be seen by others. As a consequence, historic

preservation has a tendency to put greater emphasis on the preservation of facades. This means

historic interiors are either overlooked or treated as being of secondary importance to the exterior

(Andrus, 1988; Sidwell, 1, 2006). While the interiors and exteriors of buildings are interrelated,

the significance of some buildings is based more heavily on their interiors either because of

craftsmanship or relationship with a historic figure.

How are Historic Residential Interiors Being Lost?

Like people, houses are created, live and grow old. Like us, they eventually
disappear. Houses that survive to be studied, explored, and admired by distant
generations should be regarded as emissaries from another time, as gateways into
our past. (Larkin, 2006, p. 4)

The difference between the loss of the architecture of a building and its interior is

significant. House interiors include material culture and social customs handed down from

previous generations (Lawrence, 1987). Interiors are socially constructed environments whose

form relates partly to the social qualities of the time and place that created them (Wilson &

Mackenzie, 2000). Because of this, the history of a house can be told through its interior









renovations. There is a logical progression in houses from public to private areas which is a

reflection of the time and era in which the interior was built.

Insensitive rehabilitations

Insensitive rehabilitations, where the historic character of the interiors are damaged or

destroyed, are another reason why interiors of historic buildings are lost. During rehabilitations,

the interiors of buildings in general receive alterations. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards

for Rehabilitation's set a threshold at which replacement rather than repair of historic materials,

such as moldings and windows occurs. However, this threshold is set very low (Fisher, 1998).

Historic character is defined as "tangible architectural components that... convey the

building's sense of time and place" (Jandl, 1988, p. 1). These tangible elements of a building's

past which may include the building's floor plan, spaces and volumes, individual architectural

features, as well as the finishes and materials, are vulnerable because owners of a historic house

are private property owners and are under no obligation to preserve or maintain these elements.

"Gut rehabilitations", or "gut rehabs", are defined as the "removal, or gutting, of the

interior elements in a structure, leaving only the structural elements standing (Burden, 2004).

This trend is on the rise, as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates

that 1.8 million houses will be demolished nationwide during this decade due to redevelopment

efforts involving residential demolition and gut rehabilitation of older substandard housing.

However, it is not just substandard housing that is affected by gut rehabilitations. An example of

this can be seen in the historic district ofNantucket, MA. In 2000, Nantucket was placed on the

National Trust for Historic Preservation list of "America's 11 Most Endangered Places" because

of the increased threat to the island's houses due to development (National Trust for Historic

Preservation, 2007). Acknowledgement of this issue has prompted the National Park Service to

recommend a study to measure the impact of gut rehabilitations and poor restorations on the









District compared to the conditions a decade or two ago. It also calls for the inventory of the

condition of 800 identified pre-Civil War structures to determine what has been lost due to

economic changes (Landmarks, 2008).

Market-driven teardowns

A teardown is the trend of demolishing an old building to build a new building on the same

site. The houses that replace these older houses are frequently out of scale with the rest of the

buildings in the community, which affect the fabric of the neighborhood (NTHP, 2008a). The

trend has been driven by a thriving economy where land values increase sharply and individuals

look to live in urban or close suburban neighborhoods, however the large homes they are looking

for are not available in these older neighborhoods (NTHPc, 2008). In 2002, 100 communities in

20 states were identified as suffering market-driven teardowns; as of March 2008 over 500

communities in 40 states were reporting the trend (NTHP, 2008). Since states track data

differently, it is difficult to find out exactly how many houses are being destroyed each day.

Nonetheless if they aren't facing teardown it is conceivable that they may be undergoing

insensitive renovations removing the historic fabric of the home leaving only a shell. An

example of the teardown trend is the case of John Henry, owner of the Boston Red Sox, who

purchased a 1930s Georgian revival with seven bedrooms and 11 bathrooms on a 7-acre property

in Brookline, MA(Reed, 2007). A month after purchasing the property, paperwork was filed to

demolish the house. The Brookline Historic Preservation Committee delayed the paperwork for

nine months but finally gave Mr. Henry permission to tear down the house, after he agreed to

give the town some photographs and artifacts from house (Press, 2008). Another example of the

regularity of teardowns is Westport, Connecticut, where the trend is documented by the local

newspaper in a "Teardown of the Day" interactive map that follows the progression of teardowns

from demolition permit to destruction (Matlow, 2008). Claims are that 7746 houses were torn









down in 2007, ranking it second in building demolitions in the state of Connecticut (Boynton,

2008).

Interior shell viewed as being of secondary importance

Architecture over time "takes on the patina and the resonance of the events that have taken

place inside it, and of the people who have occupied it. Buildings are historical markers that

show the passing of time..."(Sudjic, 2005, p.13). However, the historic character of an interior is

frequently viewed as secondary to facade. An example is Washington, D.C. where because of

height limitations developers keep the facade of a building but build to maximum height limit

behind the facade (Tyler, 2000). The exterior of a building may give the observer cues about

how to behave but it is the interior of a building which contains symbolic elements that inform

people about whom and what to expect (Cherulnik & Wilderman, 1986; J. L. Nasar & Devlin,

2000). The interior with its physical and symbolic qualities is central to the human experience

(Rullo, 1987). Without interiors, all that remains are facades where the sense of the past is lost

once a person enters inside of a building (Mallard, 2001-2002).

Historic Preservation Tools

Are there any tools available to help preservation and encourage rehabilitation of

residential interiors? A brief examination of historic preservation tools in America show that

two major tools are the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties and the National Register for Historic Places.

The early preservation efforts in America were mainly conducted by private non-profit

organizations that were dedicated to purchasing and preserving buildings (Tyler, 2000). The

Antiquities Act of 1906 was the United States first preservation legislation which beyond

designating parks as national landmarks also established "historic landmarks, historic and

prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest" (Mallard, 2001-2002;









Tyler, 2000). During the early part of the twentieth century, however historic significance was

perceived as being associated with a famous person or event, not with architectural significance.

After World War II, returning soldiers dreamt of owning "the American dream" of a newly built

single family house on an individual lot in the suburbs. In order to meet these needs the

government issued programs such as slum clearance and urban redevelopment (Lea, 2003).

These programs were aided by government policy making based on the idea that it was cost

effective to destroy entire (historic) neighborhoods to make way for modern buildings and

highways (Lea, 2003). These policies continued across the country but it was the destruction of

New York City's Pennsylvania Station which brought the issue of lost architectural heritage to

light. In 1963 McKim, Mead and White's Pennsylvania Station was destroyed partially due to

pressures from urban renewal policies, however when the issue was placed before New York

City's Planning Commission all they could vote on was the proposed use of the land and not on

its existing use or importance (Huxtable, 1986, p. 47). Writing about the ruins of Pennsylvania

Station in the Secaucus Meadowlands, architectural critic Ada Louise Huxtable said, "... They

pose disturbing questions and touch problems that go to the core of a culture in which destruction

and regeneration, art and nihilism, are becoming indistinguishable" (Huxtable, 1986, p.52).

Legislation

Before 1966, some states had already passed their own historic preservation ordinances

which took one of two forms-registration of landmarks and enabling legislation. However, in

1966, the National Trust for Historic Preservation published their report With Heritage So Rich

which documented what had been lost of American architectural heritage (Tyler, 2000). This

report called for an expanded role for preservation supported by the federal government (Tyler,

2000). The report's recommendations included:









1. A comprehensive survey of historically and architecturally significant buildings, sites,
structures, districts, and objects, and their inclusion in a National Register.

2. A partnership of federal, state, and local governments to deal specifically with
preservation, including the establishment of a national advisory council on historic
preservation and the designation of preservation officers in every state.

3. A program of financial incentives for preservation to balance the incentives for new
construction. (Tyler, 2000, p 45)

The same year Congress passed the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA),

which stated that "preserving historic sites is a benefit to the cultural, educational, aesthetic,

inspirational, economic and energy needs of America". One of the first actions taken following

the Act was establishing the National Register of Historic Places (Mallard, 2001-2002), the

nation's inventory of recognized historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are

significant in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture (Tyler, 2000).

The passage of the NHPA has lead to development of many preservation initiatives; one of

the most influential being the Tax Reform Act of 1976. This act removed the incentive for

demolishing older commercial buildings and provided a tax write-off for certified rehabilitations

(Tyler, 2000). In order to qualify for the Federal Tax Incentives under this act, the project must

meet several different criteria, the most important being that the work must follow the Secretary

of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. It should be noted that this

power was placed with the Secretary of the Interior due to its in charge to coordinate the internal

growth of the country and protect the welfare of the people.

National Register for Historic Places

The process for a building or district to qualify for the National Register for Historic Places

is related to the structures historical significance. In general, the property should be of a certain

age, usually over 50 years old, or have established cultural significance.









The application for listing a building on the National Register requires scholarly research.

First, a physical inspection of the property should be conducted to check property's historic

integrity because the property should retain its "historic appearance, as well as physical

materials, design features, and aspects of construction dating from the period when it attained

significance" (McClelland, 2008). Next historical research needs to be conducted with the

applicants gathering facts regarding the property's "physical characteristics, date of construction,

changes to the property over time, historic functions and activities, association with events and

persons, and the role of the property in the history of the community, State, or the nation"

(McClelland, 2008). This documentation is used for evaluating the historic worth of the

property.

There are four criteria that are used for evaluation of an historic structure or site for the

National Register for Historic Preservation which are: Criterion A applies to properties

associated with significant events; Criterion B applies to properties associated with the life of a

significant person; Criterion C applies to properties of significant design and construction;

Criterion D applies to properties or sites that have or are likely to yield archeological information

pertaining to history or prehistory (Tyler, 2000). Furthermore, the property's significance relates

to its integrity of both material and place. The property should be close to original condition and

not have been greatly altered over time or relocated from its original site. However, if an altered

structure has historical significance then that becomes the criterion for its evaluation.

Criterion C as mentioned includes "distinctive characteristics" which are physical features

or traits that commonly recur in individual types, periods, or methods of construction. To be

eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true

representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction. Interior characteristics can









be expressed in terms such of the buildings form, the rooms proportions, the plan, period/style,

or materials (Andrus, 1990). Nonetheless, while listing buildings on the National Register

encourages preservation by documenting its significance, it does not restrict the rights of private

property owners to alter the interiors if any important interior elements are not clearly described

in the statement of significance (Tyler, 2000). Beyond removal from the National Register, there

are no penalties to altering or destroying a building listed on the National Register.

Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Proprieties

The Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, developed in

1979, was created as design guidelines for appropriate interventions for preservation and

rehabilitation work (Tyler, 2000). The Secretary of Interiors Standards is the prevailing

guideline used by every state for any historic preservation work to be done on a certified historic

restoration. While the Standards are "...neither technical nor prescriptive, but intended to

promote responsible preservation practices" (Weeks, 1995), if a project is to receive federal tax

credit or be included on the National Register for Historic Places the work must comply with the

Standards (Sidwell, 2006, p 15). The Standards identify four treatment options for buildings:

preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction, which are described as follows:

Preservation is defined as the retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along
with the building's historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over
time.

Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet
continuing or new uses while retaining the building's historic character

Restoration is defined as allowing for the depiction of a building at a particular time
in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing
materials from other periods

Reconstruction establishes a limited framework for re-creating a vanished or non-
surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes.(Weeks,
1995)









These treatments are designed to work with a variety of historic resource from buildings,

sites, structures, objects and districts. The Standards recommend examining the relative

importance of the building to history by asking, is it an example of the work of a master builder

or did a historic event occur in it? A property's historic significance affects which treatment

Standard should be followed. If a building is highly significant then a Preservation or

Restoration approach would be recommended (Weeks, 1995). Other questions posed are, what is

its physical condition or degree of material integrity? Is the building largely intact or has it been

greatly altered and are these alterations part of the building's history? If period materials,

features and finishes are present then the Standards recommend Preservation; however, if the

building requires extensive repairs, replacement or alterations then Rehabilitation would be

recommended (Weeks, 1995).

The Standards require the preservation of interior and exterior elements characteristic of

the building's style and period of construction. Interiors include everything from the finishes

and materials on the floors, walls and ceilings, the building's plan and spaces such as the

sequences of spaces and rooms and their volumes as well as individual architectural features

(Jandl, 1988). Interior elements could include spaces that interrelate functionally and visually or

floor plans which could be distinctive and characteristic of a style of architecture or a region or

fixtures and finishes (Jandl, 1988). Frequently historic interiors are lost to allow for new use

even though the Standards state that character-defining features and materials are not to be

negatively impacted (Sidwell, 2006).

Historic interiors vs. recreated interiors

The interiors of a building, whether simply detailed or richly ornate, convey important

information about its early inhabitants (Jandl, 1988). Some interiors have undergone extensive

renovations through the years leaving little of the original fabric. There are several options of









how to treat spaces where there is little left of the original interior--to update the interior, to

preserve the existing fabric, or to recreate the period (Volz, 1993). Similarly, there are several

different approaches for recreating period interiors.

One approach involves first listing the building on the National Register. Due to the

scholarly research involved for listing a building on the National Register the merit of the

building is examined to determine whether it truly is a historic building. First this requires

research on the building's history. This archival research entails examination of historic

documents such as tax records and deeds which may provide information on changes to the

building (Quenzel, 1993). Maintaining historic status involves completing work according to the

Secretary of the Interiors Standards. The next step is a thorough investigation of the rooms to

search for clues of what fixtures and finishes were originally in the space. This includes

examining the walls and woodwork for hardware holes, searching for remains of old wallpaper,

paint colors or floor covers (Volz, 1993). The Standards encourage analysis of samples to reveal

information about composition of the elements, such as plaster, paint and mortar, and any

replacement elements should be constructed using the same techniques as the original elements

(McDonald, 1993). Remaining original materials are not to be destroyed in order to replace

them with a replica (Seale, 1993). This academic approach following the Secretary's Standards

confirms the appropriateness of the intervention and the continued authenticity of a certified

historic structure.

Restored or rehabilitated interiors, where the building has not been certified by the

National Register or rehabilitation work does not follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards,

may involve the same degree of scholarship as that demanded by a historic interior. Whereas

interior restorations or rehabilitations technically involve research to rebuild spatial components









and features, the more frequently found rehabilitations recreate or reintroduce "missing"

elements with varying degrees of accuracy. To assess missing components or features, this

approach relies on conjecture over research. In the absence of original elements, reasonably

styled reproductions and approximations are used. The resulting interior spaces are

manufactured replicas of a chosen period that may look appropriate to the period of significance

of the building but may not be historically accurate to it. It should be noted that recreated or

reconstructed interiors contain elements of a desired style or period; however, they make no

attempt at going back to earlier technology but integrate contemporary technology with the

period elements (Rybczynski, 1986).

Availability of Financial Incentives

An examination of two financial incentives for homeowners which requires the use of

either the Secretary of Interior's Standards or listing on the National Register will provide a look

into the extent of the certified historic housing stock. Among others, federal and state

governments have created rehabilitation tax credits and other legal instruments such as historic

preservation easements to conserve the nation's architectural heritage.

Federal incentives

The Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit, perhaps the most well known financial incentive

available for Historic Preservation, is only available or commercial or income producing

residential structures and not for residential homeowners. In order to qualify for the federal tax

incentives, the project must meet several criteria the most important of which is that the work

must follow the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Certified historic structures are eligible for a Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit equal to 10 20

percent or of the cost of rehabilitation depending on which criteria the building meets (Kass,

1993).









There are several other federal programs that are currently available for building or

neighborhood restoration or revitalization including the HOPE VI, 203 K Rehab Loans and

Community Development Block Grant program.

HOPE VI is a program developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) to provide funding to Public Housing Authority's, not individuals. The Public Housing

Authority, created by an act of Congress in 1937, currently provides affordable housing to 1.3

million households (HUD, 2008). This program does provide revitalization grants for major

rehabilitation and other physical improvements for existing housing but is not directly designed

for historic preservation, (HUD, 2008).

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) is a program overseen by HUD to

provide monies to cities or communities with citizen involvement (HUD, 2008). The program is

designed to help low and moderate income persons prevent or eliminate blight by making certain

that decent affordable housing is available. It also aims to create jobs through the expansion and

retention of businesses (HUD, 2008). While not specifically designed as a historic preservation

program, CDBGs help maintain the fabric of neighborhoods by keeping the neighborhood viable.

Another program offered by the Federal Housing Administration is the 203K Rehab Loans

which provides single family mortgage insurance programs (HUD, 2008). The program is to be

used for rehabilitation and/or improvement of an existing one -to four-unit dwelling (HUD,

2008). The program allows one of the following options: to purchase a dwelling and

rehabilitate, to purchase a dwelling on another site and move it onto a new foundation on a

mortgage property and rehabilitate, or refinance existing properties indebtedness and rehabilitate

(HUD, 2008). The loan is only approved for such things as painting, room additions, decks and









other items also all health, safety and energy conservation items must be addressed (HUD,

2008).

Two main incentives that are available for homeowners are the state rehabilitation tax

credit and/or placing a preservation easement on the house.

State rehabilitation tax credit for homeowners

State rehabilitation tax credit (SRTC) allows for a percentage of the cost of rehabilitation

of a structure to reduce the tax liability instead of a deduction which reduces taxable income by a

percentage (Kass, LaBelle, & Hansell, 1993). The State Rehabilitation Tax Credit is similar to

the Federal policy in that it allows for a credit on eligible rehabilitation expenses. However, each

state establishes their own criteria for which buildings may qualify for credit, ensuring that

rehabilitation preserves the historic and architectural character of the building through

submission of plans before the project begins and documentary evidence of the work once

completed. Additionally the majority of states require homeowners to meet the Secretary of

Interiors Standards (Schwartz, 2007). While each state's tax credit programs vary in

effectiveness; some keys have been identified as contributing to a good State Rehabilitation Tax

Credit program. These are: eligibility of buildings, use of the Secretary of the Interior's

Standards for Rehabilitation as a guideline, and transferability of the tax credit (Schwartz, 2007).

Of the 50 states, 22 states have a state rehabilitation tax credit for homeowners as of

November 2008. These states, as listed on Appendix B, are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,

Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New

Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah,

Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. State Rehabilitation Tax Credit for Homeowner

(SRTC) vary from 10% 30% but they all require the rehabilitation work to comply with the

Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties (Appendix A). The









Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic

Buildings require the preservation of interior and exterior elements characteristic of the

building's style and period of construction. Homeowners seeking to use their state SRTC are

required to preserve or be sensitive to the interior of their house.

As shown in Appendix B, in all 22 states that have a State Rehabilitation Tax Credit for

Homeowners as of November 2008 only 11,397 projects have been approved. This total number

of houses that have been approved for SRTC is relatively a small amount. According to

Appendix A from the US Census bureau, there are approximately 75,647,000 single family

houses from 2009 to earlier than 1919; this figure includes attached and detached houses.

Approximately 23,098,000 or 30% of these homes were constructed prior to 1959. Only .05% of

properties eligible by age, not by any other of the National Register criteria such as condition or

historic significance, have used the State Rehabilitation Tax Credit for Homeowners. This also

does not factor the number of single family house owners who preserved their houses and did not

apply for the SRTC.

Easements

There are two different types of easements under English Law, which is the basis for

American Law; easements appurtenant and easements in gross. These two types of easements

allow for owners to relinquish part of the "bundle of rights" which is purchased with the property

(Butler, 1985). Appurtenant easements benefit an adjoining landowner and subsequent owners

are bound by restrictions while easements in gross are conveyed to a third party other than an

adjoining landowner and subsequent owners are not bound by it (Morgan, 1999). Historic

preservation easements can be used to protect a range of property types. Scenic and open space

easements protect open spaces, historic and scenic views as well as the surroundings of

significant buildings; exterior and facade easements protect the outside appearance of buildings









by controlling alterations and requiring maintenance; and lastly interior easements protect all or

part of building interiors (Maddex, 1990).

The fundamental concept of property ownership is the idea of fee-simple title which is the

legal right to ownership of land. A property owner's land rights include the ability to treat the

property as a marketable commodity (Morgan, 1999). However, a property owner can grant a

portion of their property rights in the form of an easement to an organization. The grantor and

grantee share stewardship of historic property under an easement agreement which is granted in

perpetuity so all subsequent owners are also bound to honor the easement agreement (Morgan,

1999). In the case of historic preservation easements, if the property is a "certified historic

structure" then the property owner is eligible for federal income and estate tax deductions

(Morgan, 1999). The property must be assessed by a qualified appraiser to determine the fair

market value before and after the easement is placed on the structure to determine the value of

the easement (NPS, 2008). The easement must meet certain qualifications put forward by the

IRS: the building or structure must be listed on the National Register of Historic Places or

located in an historic district and certified by the U.S. Dept of the Interior as being historically

significant. Also, the property must be made accessible to the public for a minimum of two days

a year. Lastly, to qualify for the annual federal tax deductible of up to 50% for the donation of a

preservation easement, the easement must cover the entire exterior of the building ("Pension

Protection Act of 2006," 2006).

Preservation easements can be written to cover either the exterior or the interior of a

building. They can help to protect buildings from demolition, neglect or insensitive alterations

as well as help ensure that property owner will maintain a certain level of maintenance on

property. Easements can help protect interiors when significance of the interiors is not fully









stated on the National Register nomination. An interior easement is written specifically to

protect the character defining or significant features of a certified historic building. Typically, an

interior easement contains restrictions that regulate activities such as the change of use that may

have an adverse impact on significant historic or decorative features found throughout the

building (Morgan, 1999).

Forty Six states have easement enabling legislation for historic preservation easements

with only Iowa, Maryland, Missouri and Ohio without legislation. Maine, Massachusetts and

North Carolina have legislation that states interiors are to be included in a historic preservation

easement (Appendix E).

Background research found that at the time of this research there were 9,398 commercial

and residential easements held by the 100 local or state wide easement organizations and 8

regional or national easement organizations. Only 2,616 easements covered interiors, 1241 were

residential, and 165 covered residential interior (Appendix F). Nationally, only about 6% of all

interior easements are residential interiors and only approximately 13% of all historic

preservation residential easements include interiors. These numbers appear to be extremely

small and beg a comparison to the national residential housing stock. As shown in Appendix A,

approximately 23,098,000 houses are over 50 years old; this number does not consider housing

conditions or historic significance. Of the residential housing stock constructed prior to 1959,

only 0.005% is protected by a residential easement. Of that only 0.0007% of the housing stock

by age is protected by residential interior easements. These figures do not calculate the number

of individuals who have preserved or restored their historic residential interiors and without

using an easement as a financial incentive. Nonetheless, this is an insignificant number of

historic residential interiors being protected.









Since neither of these incentives are greatly used this indicates that people are not being

driven by incentives to preserve their historic residences. The number of certified historic

residences that are preserved through these methods is very minimal. The number of recreated

or reconstructed period interiors is unknown since this data is not tracked; however, experience

suggests that this number may not be negligible. In light of this evidence, the question is, Are

there perhaps psychosocial factors that drive people to preserve-through rehabilitation,

restoration or reconstruction-residential interiors of the past?









CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A search of the literature established that few articles looked into the psychological

reasons for why people choose to restore, rehabilitate or reconstruct interiors of old houses. This

issue may be approached from the environmental behavior psychology which examines the

"transactions between individuals and their physical settings" (Gifford, 2002, p.1). While the

field of environmental psychology is broad this study particularly examined its sense of self,

social identity, place identity and place attachment theories as possibly issues bearing on

individual decisions in favor or against preservation of historic houses and the interpretive

reconstruction of historic interiors.

Environmental Behavior

The meaning of residential interiors has changed in response to the ideology of the times

(Sparke, 2004). Environmental behavior literature review suggests that the choice to preserve

historic residential interiors, or not, may be attributed to several factors, including perceptions of

sense of self, social identity, place identity, and/or place attachment. How individuals appraise

their environment is based on personal impressions of place which is related to how individuals

see themselves and how they want others to see them (sense of self and social identity); these

impressions then directly affect how the place makes them feel (place identity and place

attachment) (Gifford, 2002). The place that a person feels attached to is where they feel

comfortable and safe to reveal their inner self; similarly the place reflects and reinforces their

sense of self (Cooper Marcus, 1997). Environmental behavior offers some insights into these

issues. The underlying theme is that home represents more than just the physical setting-the

domestic residence-but also encompasses emotional connection. The feeling of security creates

a feeling of having a home which creates in individuals a sense of control over their fate (Steele,









1981). How individuals choose to live in their homes reflects, expresses and forms the "the

social relationships among household members, kin, neighborhoods, and even more distant

social partners" (Saergert, 1992, p. 293).

Sense of self

An individual's sense of self is the answer to the question "Who am I?" (Myers, 2008)

Sense of self is how individuals identify with certain environments, form attachments, and define

themselves by their experiences with those environments (Kopek, 2006); and focuses on the

individual's "beliefs, interpretations, and evaluation of oneself' (Proshansky, Fabian, &

Kaminoff, 1983, p.58). Identity is not static but is affected by different variables. Social identity

and place identity are all factors that affect an individual's sense of self (Twigger-Ross,

Bonaiuto, & Breakwell, 2003), however, individuals adjust their sense of self in relation to

situations and the environment (Manzo, 2003). Sense of self both defines "the unique person at a

certain stage in life and it expresses conformity to social norms or self conscious challenges to

those norms" (Saegert, 1992, p. 291).

Another factor in sense of self is the individual's personal preferences. These preferences

are the result of who they are and also guide their decision making process. Preference types can

be separated into three categories which Steele calls things-, people-, and place-people ()(Steele,

1981). Things-people are concerned with the things they do such as work or other activities.

People-people relationships are mainly concerned by such as friends and family. Finally, place-

people are more likely to feel attachment between their sense of self and their place (Steele,

1981). Place-people are more likely to be drawn to the architecture and interiors of buildings as

part of their self and social identity. Place-people may be more likely to be attracted to older

buildings since they are more likely than the other preference types to have their sense of self

become entwined with a place.









Individual's sense of self is reflected in their choices of dwellings. People search for a

congruence between the symbolic image of their dwellings and their sense of self. On a

conscious or unconscious level, individuals may feel congruence with popularly held ideals and

meanings associated with certain architectural features and furnishing. When this occurs, they

may see their sense of self reflected in certain architectural styles and identify with it. Some

argue that moveable objects are more accurate symbols of self than the physical fabric of the

house (Cooper-Marcus, 1995). However, that argument does not seem to consider the

importance of personalization and adaption of the physical space to match an individual's sense

of self.

Social identity

One factor affecting how people view themselves and their surroundings is social identity.

Social identity is defined by the social groups or categories an individual belongs to and their

social identification of who they are and who they are not (Twigger-Ross et al., 2003) However,

social identity, as with all forms of identity, is not static and individuals may have multiple social

identities which relate to their relationships with their house, neighborhood, state or country.

Communication of an individual's identity requires that social cues are able to be read and

understood. As American society has undergone a high degree of intensive mobility over time,

the home has taken the role as a marker of acquired social status and is viewed as a reflection of

self(Busch, 1999; Cherulnik & Wilderman, 1986; Cooper Marcus, 1997; Gallagher, 2006;

Gram-Hanssen & Beth-Danielsen, 2004). The interior of a house is a place where social

aspirations can be expressed in terms of aesthetics (Sparke, 2004). The rooms of a house are

empty stages where individuals enact the rituals and improvisations of their identity and social

identity (Moore, Allen, & Lyndon, 1974). The home is considered the primary symbol of self

and its interior design is a representation of an individual's identity. Houses have through time









obtained cues about the previous inhabitant's social status, which may or may not be read the

same at the present. Some individuals may choose to align their social identity with older

residences as a tribute to what they perceive the social cues to represent.

The choice of a house to in live reflects how individuals ideally like to see themselves. The

motivation for choosing where to live is affected by several variables such as cost, location, and

socioeconomic status of neighborhood, style and upkeep but maybe the most important is the

symbolic role of the house as expression of social identity (Cooper Marcus, 1997; Gram-Hanssen

& Beth-Danielsen, 2004; Sirgy, Grzeskowiak, & Su, 2005; Wilson & Mackenzie, 2000). The

greater the match between home and neighborhood image, and the individual's actual and social

image of self, the more likely the homebuyer is to purchase the home (Sirgy et al., 2005).

Neighborhoods have a tendency to attract people of similar background and values, social-

economic status, stages of family life cycle, and career patterns. People have a tendency to

choose homes in neighborhoods that have people with similar self and social identity (Wilson &

Mackenzie, 2000).

The style of a house is a symbol that has social meaning that is continuously in flux. Every

material can be manipulated to express identity however exteriors can be misrepresentative due

to regulations while interiors are where individuals have the most freedom to express themselves

and create a sense of place identification (Kron, 1983). Individuals may choose to live in a old

house because of the congruence between the neighborhood and their image of self or perhaps

because of congruence between the interior shell of the house and their image of self.

Place identity

The difference between social identity and identification with place resides in the emphasis

placed on place and social groups (Twigger-Ross et al., 2003). Place identity is defined as how

"people incorporate a place into the larger concept of their own identities of senses and self"









which usually provides a sense of continuity and so reinforces self identity (Kopek, 2006). An

individual's identity is partially derived from place since "places embody social symbols"

(Twigger-Ross et al., 2003, p. 210). Places are a repository for accumulated memories, values

and preferences for generations of users (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983). Since place

identity evolves from the past experiences with places, the individual is able to adapt these prior

experiences to behavior and expectations in the present. It should be noted that place identity,

like sense of self and social identity, is fluid and complex and is modified and changed with each

experience.

Place can refer to any environment a person encounters in their lives whether natural or

man made. As stated earlier, place is the backdrop against which people's lives are enacted.

Individuals are usually unaware of the attitudes and preferences which influence their response

to the physical world (Proshansky et al., 1983). Individuals may be unconscious of why they

choose to live in a older building. Some theories posit that place identity refers to home as the

center point of existence and involves the degree to which important activities revolve around the

home (Proshansky et al., 1983). Then old houses may, conscious or unconsciously, become a

way to convey information about the individual to themselves and to others through territorial

marking and personalization (Steele, 1981).

Territorial marking

The main aspect of a personal place is that it is viewed as the domain of an individual

who is in control of the space; it is also a place where the individual feels confident and has

altered the place to reflect his or her identity (Gifford, 2002; Steele, 1981). The places where

individuals most identify have clearly defined boundaries; one of architecture's goals is to

establish a territory for an individual or group which they can use to set them apart from others

(Moore et al., 1974). Territoriality also serves to control privacy by limiting access to the









individual. It implies that the ordering of rooms in a house responds to individual needs for

separation of public and private spaces (Moore et al., 1974). It is through the appropriation of

space that children learn about their identity and social relationships (Saegert, 1985). The

appropriation of space is part of both personalization and territoriality since both require the

individual to exercise control over the space (Giuliani, 2003).

Personalization

Possessions are another way of marking appropriation of spaces; they also increase an

individual's sense of being in control and security of their environment (Belk, 1992; Gifford,

2002). Possessions are generally objects whether small or large, from a paperweight to a house,

that an individual feels control over. Perhaps for some being in possession of an old house

provides a sense of control over their environment whether through rehabilitation or renovation.

Throughout history humans have modified their homes to ease burdens. Humans are the

only species which repeatedly transformed their surroundings to increase their understanding and

accomplishments (Hiss, 1990). Personalization is a way of marking a space with the individual's

identity (Gifford, 2002). Personalization through home improvement is a way of psychologically

creating spaces to meet the individual's needs. As stated earlier, personalization of the home is a

way of expressing an individual's identity. Home can also become part of an individual's

identity with the merging of person and place so that either person reflects place or place reflects

person. Individuals both give and receive their identities from their homes (Dovey, 1985). An

individual unites the material possessions of their life together with their dreams to make a house

their own (Moore et al., 1974). The interior of a house is a material manifestation of an

individual's personal identities as well as a mirror of the individual (Sparke, 2004). While

people choose surroundings that are congruent with their identity, they also modify their settings

increase congruency with their self image (Manzo, 2003). Individuals may rehabilitate or









renovate older residential interiors because of their desire for a match between where they live

and self image

Place attachment

Attachment to place consists of social relations so that the meanings and experiences in a

place are usually connected to relationships (Low & Altman, 1992). Place attachment is defined

as a "person's bond with the social and physical environments of a place" they have deep

meaning because their identities are woven intricately into those places (Kopek, 2006). Place

attachment involves the relation of affect, emotions, and feelings in reference to a place (Low &

Altman, 1992). The intensity of place attachment is affected by the "congruity between needs

and the physical and social resources" (Giuliani, 2003, p. 149).

Individuals identify themselves with their houses and use this symbolic identity to

differentiate themselves from others (Steele, 1981). This attachment is understandable since

home is the key expression of identity and a source of security for individuals (Belk, 1992). The

desire for "hominess seems to result in feelings of attachment to home" (Belk, 1992, p. 39),

however, increased mobility is undermining place attachment in modern society because places

are viewed as functional and lack emotional significance (Giuliani, 2003). People may not be

aware that they are attached to a place until that bond is threatened (Giuliani, 2003). Perhaps the

desire to live in an old residence may be an attempt to reestablish that bond.

Familiarity, security, emotional comfort

A house is an object while a home means different things to different people. Home is

defined as a preferred space and a fixed point of reference, a social network and a reflection of

individual's ideas and values (Kron, 1983). Home can be viewed as either a recreation or a

reaction against the childhood home (Busch, 1999; Cooper Marcus, 1997). Home can be so

defined as "ties to the land and nature, and memories of extended family, prove stronger than the









mere number of days spent in a particular dwelling" (Cooper Marcus, 1997, p. 2). Lastly, home

can be a private refuge that provides comfort, meaning, privacy and beauty (Gallagher, 2006).

Home encompasses many different meanings and roles in a person's life but home is metaphor

for an individual's relationship to place, familiarity, security, and comfort (Manzo, 2003).

Destruction of interiors

Houses are commodities but they are also where personal and social identities are formed

and shaped (Saegert, 1985). People impact their environment through how they care for and

design their settings; this impact can be positive or negative (Steele, 1981). Home is a socio-

cultural artifact of the customs and beliefs of their inhabitants. However, it is in the interior of

houses that the cyclical events of domestic life are conducted (Lawrence, 1985; Saegert, 1985).

Over the years, as construction and design of houses has shifted from individuals to corporate

organizations some of the forms of housing were lost (Saegert, 1985). House environments have

acquired values and meaning through the ages. The preservation of domestic spaces should take

into account the time and period the house was built however the house should be frozen in that

era but should be a livable space for current residents (Lawrence, 1985).

Individuals evaluate classic examples of buildings the quickest and prefer small

discrepancies from a known style; people's expectations affect how they view objects since

individuals learn through prior experiences (Ritterfeld, 2002). It is through prior experiences

that an individual can understand the environment and be able to use, change or maintain the

environment to increase congruence and lessen discrepancies of identity (Proshansky et al.,

1983). Discrepancies from the known structures influence judgment (Purcell & Nasar, 1992).

Recognition of the relationship of a place to the observer is dependent on previous experience

with other places (Hershberger, 1970). This relationship informs the individual of what









appropriate behaviors are and what their expectations are for the place, as well as what is right

and wrong with the physical setting (Proshansky et al., 1983).

Nostalgia

The relationship between building form, its use, meaning and time is a transactional

process between physical and affective factors. The loss and destruction of places leads to

nostalgic feelings (Kopek, 2006). Nostalgia refers to a general longing for the past rather than a

specific place (Matt, 2005). Buildings maybe reconstructed in an attempt to capture the past the

feel of the spaces can never be recreated since "the way rooms looked made sense because they

were a setting for a particular type of behavior which was conditioned by the way people

thought" (Rybczynksi, 1986, p. 219). The concept of nostalgia entered the English language

during the 1750s and was considered a physical disease not a psychological condition (Matt,

2005, p. 96). During the period of westward expansion in America, writers criticized the

tendency for people to move and began creating a romantic image of "cozy homes with white

picket fences, green yards, and colorful gardens" and this image also became the ideal for

morality (Matt, 2005, p. 91). This image remains part of the American Dream part of the

cultural mythos for what individuals should strive.

As modern nations and economies developed and the more transient people became, like

the colonists, the settlers, and those that left rural areas moved to cities, homesickness became

more apparent. The speed and scale of changes that occur make it difficult when a person's

identity is rooted to a place; a sense of continuity is required to assimilate changes and sense of

identity to new images (Dovey, 1985). Individuals want homes that appear to be permanent even

if they are living in new homes to try to create a sense of rootedness in a mobile society (Matt,

2005).









Narrative

Narrative is defined as the attachment to a place through a romantic or idealistic stories

(Kopek, 2006). If dissatisfied with the present, people attach their ideals to the intangible

memories of the past; some use possessions to strengthen the attachment (Belk, 1992). People

want homes that reflect their lifestyle and values and hope architecture will help them create

them (Matt, 2005 p. 108; Dovey, 1985). Part of narrative is connected to the concept of

rootedness which is "an unconscious state of deep familiarity with a place, which implies long

continuous residence". It is argued when this is not possible then sense of place which is a

"conscious force of creation or conservation of 'places' through words, actions, and the

construction of artifacts" is all that is left for modern society (Giuliani, 2003, p. 146). Due to the

quality of architecture, buildings are built for permanence and represent society's heritage

(Lawrence, 1985). Most buildings imitate some past or distant style of architecture in an

attempt by the designers or clients to associate themselves with the values which they felt that

period or architectural style represented (Hershberger, 1970). An individual's desire to return to

the past is not possible because both the individual and setting have both changed (Proshansky et

al., 1983).

The mythology of the single family home away from the corruption and unhealthy

atmosphere of the city has been part of the culture since the founding of America (Saegert,

1985). "The Old-House Journal" sells house plans from all periods in American architectural

history and while these floor plans do not acknowledge changes in society or economics

affecting modern lives they are still desirable (Busch, 1999). The intangible qualities of home

are often identified once lost. Matt in her article describes Wallace Nutting, who in the early

twentieth century tapped into people's beliefs about home as a representation of self popularizing

the "countrified suburban home with the picket fence as the American dream house". Nutting









manufactured products, furniture to pictures, so the average American could purchase objects to

not only create a genteel colonial feel to their homes but also purchase a piece of the American

dream. People may not necessarily want a genuine old home but want its appealing details and

features such as woodwork and fireplaces (Gallagher, 2006). Part of homelessness comes from

viewing the house as a commodity; a house can be purchased but the experience of home cannot

(Dovey, 1985).

Summary

Perhaps some individuals are more apt to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct older

residences because of congruency between their sense of self and social identity and place

identity and place attachment. While research has not been conducted into the link between

historic preservation and these concepts, they do present an insight into why people may choose

to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct period residences. Sense of self seems to indicate that

people whose preference type is place-people are more likely form attachments with their

environs and perhaps this is a factor in why some people preserve or reconstruct their residences.

Social identity seems to indicate individuals choose houses and neighborhoods based on the

congruence between the location and their sense of self; this maybe a reason why some people

choose to live in older neighborhoods and houses. It seems that through place identity people

incorporate places as part of their identity that is congruent with their sense of self. It would

seem that people who choose to live in a old house do so because what they believe the house is

symbolizes or represents. Place attachment seems to indicate that individual's attachment to

place is affected by their emotional connection to the location. Perhaps individual who live in

older houses are nostalgic.









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The need for this study arose from hypotheses suggested from the literature review, which

might yield answers as to why people rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct the interior of their old

houses. Answering this question required the use of qualitative research methods. The

qualitative research approach describes the "variation in a phenomenon, situation, issue, etc"

(Kumar, 2005), or the potential explanations for why individuals preserve residential interiors.

Stemming from the literature review, as described in chapter 2, psychosocial reasons, such

as sense of self, place attachment, and nostalgia were isolated as potential explanations of why

individuals may rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct residential interiors. Case study strategy was

chosen as the best way to explore these issues. More adequately than others, the case study

research strategy allows for uncovering the real-life contextual conditions surrounding the issue

under investigation and to examine the evidence in light of predicted response patterns to the

research question (Yin, 2003).

The case study research followed Yin's methodology (2003) to describe and potentially

explain individual choices in rehabilitating, restoring or recreating residential interiors. Cases

were controlled for single family old houses and owners were chosen for convenience. Two of

the houses were located in Gainesville, FL and three were located around Atlanta, GA. The

houses ranged in age from 1830 to 1940 and were not of comparable size. Two of the houses

had undergone restorations, another two had undergone interpretive reconstruction and one had

gone through rehabilitation.

Interviews were conducted to obtain information for the case studies. Information

collected through these interviews aimed to uncover possible reasons for the rehabilitation,

restoration or reconstruction of their residential interiors. Interviews were to be conducted in the









homeowner's residence at their convenience and photographs were taken with homeowner

consent (see Appendix H). The interview was audio taped and documentary photographs were

taken of the interiors of the house. Audio tapes once transcribed were erased. References to the

homeowner's identity were removed from photographs as needed. A copy of the interview

transcript and photographs were sent to the homeowner for corroboration ensuring faithfulness

prior to its publication in the thesis.

Semi-structured interviews following approved protocols inquired about homeowner

reasons for rehabilitating, restoring or reconstructing their houses. The questions examined

homeowner's sense of self, sense of place, and nostalgia in the loss of historic residential

interiors. The interview questions covered reasons for purchasing a "historic" house as well as

reasons for rehabilitating, restoring or reconstructing it (see Appendix I). Additional questions

dealt with residents' definition of their own identity and how it is expressed in their residential

environment. Also, homeowner's emotional attachment to, and identification with, their house

were examined through interview questions and use of environmental autobiographies.

Environmental autobiography is a "method of bringing out a person's conscious and unconscious

affective ties" to their environments (Allen, 2008, p. 39) by eliciting verbal, written, and graphic

responses to emotive questions. Exercises drawn from Cooper Marcus' environmental

autobiography methods (1997) were used to partially answer these questions. Participants were

asked to write about and do simple drawings about feelings they have for their house. The

transcripts were evaluated using cross-case analysis which "forces investigators to look beyond

initial impressions and see evidence through multiple lenses"(Eisenhardt, 1989).

Four criteria emerging from the literature review were used to interpret the data. In order

to understand why people preserve, the initial hypothesis is that owners will rehabilitate, restore









or reconstruct the interior of an old residence to a chosen period if the house reflects their sense

of self, they deem the house as worthy, they feel a sense of place attachment with the house, are

nostalgic for the past, or a combination of these factors.

Sense of self

The first factor examined an individual's sense of self and whether people would

rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct the interior of their house if there was congruence between the

house and their sense of self. The premise in this case is that the rehabilitation, restoration or

reconstruction of either the exterior or the interior of an old residence implies that the

architectural and design features in some way reflect the homeowners' sense of self. Four

conditions as listed in Figure 3-1 could exist for why this could occur: 1) owner rehabilitated,

restored or reconstructed the architecture and the interior of their house because they both reflect

their sense of self; 2) owner rehabilitated, restored or reconstructed the architecture and the

interior of their house but they do not feel that the residence reflects their sense of self; 3)

owner rehabilitated, restored or reconstructed the architecture of the house but does not

rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct the interior of the house because they feel it does not match

their sense of self; or lastly, 4) owner does not rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct either the

architecture or the interior of the residence because neither match their sense of self. This

matrix, illustrated in Figure 3-1, looks at sense of self as playing a role in homeowners' decision

to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct their house, but not at the extent to which sense of self is a

decisive factor.

Worthiness

The second factor examined was whether the structure was considered worthy of

rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction, the criteria for assigning worthiness to a building

was either it was designed by a famous architect or exhibited exceptional craftsmanship. There



































Figure 3-1. Role of sense of self in decision making for homeowners.


were four possible conditions as listed in Figure 3-2 that could exist which were: 1) either the


house was considered worthy of rehabilitation, restoration or recreation and both the architecture


and interior are rehabilitated, restored or reconstructed; 2) the house was considered worthy of


rehabilitation, restoration or recreation but the only the architecture of the house was


rehabilitated, restored or reconstructed not the interior; 3) the house was not considered worthy


of rehabilitation, restoration or recreation but the architecture and residential interiors are still


rehabilitated, restored or reconstructed; or finally, 4) the house was not considered worthy of


rehabilitation, restoration or recreation and the homeowners rehabilitated, restored or


reconstructed neither the architecture nor the interior.


These conditions may shed light on whether people rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct


structures based on their view of a structure as valuable. The premise behind this is that if a


house deemed worthy by virtue of its style, decor, or other architectural characteristics,


homeowners are more likely to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct it.


,__WHOEELSTHIR SENSE OF = IS REFLECTE


HOMECWNER DOES NOT
FEEL THEI R S EN S E 0 F SELF
IS KEP LEU LL) b Y I HhIK
HOUSE BUT REHABILIATES,
RESTORES OR RECONTRUCTS
THE EXTERIOR AND INTE.IORS
OFTHEIR HISTORIC' HCUSE


HI0 M OlN ERF li-L TH l Rl

SIE SEl FS LF lIS RELECTEDll

Iii T-IEIIlO lliiAND


IDMEWNE! FEEllLSt THE

IXTEl,Ill', OFTHE HOUS
RELECTSll TEIili1S O
SELFAND DOESllTl
REAilAlTE, ESOR O


ilM3W*4E FEELS THE liiIRfl


SENSElOF SELFIS NOTtll
REFLECTEDiBYTilll--U
AND DCESilOTliti
iEHAillTES, RESORE





















I------"HISTORIC' ---HOUSE-


Figure 3-2. Role of worthiness in decision making for homeowners


Place attachment


The third possible reason why people might rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct their house,


examined if homeowners felt a sense of place attachment to their home were more likely to


rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct the interior of their house. As shown in Figure 3-3, four


conditions could exist to answer this question either: 1) the owner feels a sense of place


attachment and chose to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct interior of their house; 2) the owner


has a sense of place attachment to the architecture or other external factors, like neighborhood,


but feels no sense of attachment to the interior of the building and chose to rehabilitate, restore,


or reconstruct the interior of their house ; 3) the owner feels no sense of place attachment but


decides to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct the architecture and interior of the residence; or 4)


the owner feels no sense of attachment and decides to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct neither


the architecture nor interior of the residence. These conditions examine to what extent place


attachment plays a role in people's decision to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct their


HOMEOWNER VIEWS HOUSE
AWORTHYAND
REHABILITATES. RESTORES
OR RECONSTRUCTS THE
INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR
STORIC" HOUSI


HOMEOWNERil VIEWSI HOUSE AS

WORTHY~ ANDEHAILITATE,
RESOREiRRCONTRUT


T4nmFnwmF.R T)nF..q mnT
VIEW HOUSE AS WORTHY
BUT REHABILITATES
RESTORES OR
RECONSTRUCTS
THE INTERIOR AND
EXTERIOROFTHEIR
"HISTORIC" HOUSE


hUMEUVNEK DUES
NOTVIEWTHEHOUSE
AS WORTHYAND DOES
NOT REHABILITATE,
RESTORE
ORRECOHSTRUCTS THEIR
"HISTORIC" HOUSE











residences. The premise is that if people feel a sense of place attachment to their residence then


they will rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct their residence the interiors.


Figure 3-3. Role of Sense of Place Attachment in decision making for homeowners

Nostalgia

The final condition examined refers to the nostalgic feelings that may underlie people's


desire to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct their house. The premise for this is if homeowners


feel a sense of nostalgia they are more likely to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct the interior of


their house. As shown in Figure 3-4, four conditions could exist to explain this were: 1) either


the owner rehabilitates, restores or reconstruct s the interior of the house because they are


nostalgic for the past; or 2) the owner rehabilitates, restores or reconstruct s the interior of their


house but is not nostalgic for the past; 3) the owner does not rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct


the interior of their house but is nostalgic for the past; or lastly 4) the homeowner is not nostalgic


for the past and hence does not rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct the interior in their house.


The premise of these questions is to determine what if any role nostalgia plays in people's desire


to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct the interior their house.


nn Ou n HOL AEC T N


Ia N Dd VI~l DlmI iAL FEL A S E

I FPLA-l CET'i llOTH iRi
HISTOICi OUSE AND~

EIiTHER REA IT ES
RESTORES IIOR~


INIV ID IIIUALIII FEELS A ISE I


OF iICEO TIARCITECTii

IIOR OTHE EXTERNAI~LI FACTORS
BUTIIIIII~I FEELS NOSENSE O


INDIVIDUA DOES NOTI FEEII!!i lI ] LIi

A SENSE OF PLACETO~ THE~iIR~II

"IITO-C"HOUSE BUTI~


IND:VIDUAL DOES NOT FEEL
ASENS--OFPLACEAND
DECIDES TO REHABILITATE,
RESTORE OR RE'ONSTRUCTS
NEITHER THE ARCHITECTU_.,E
NOR THE INTERIOR OF THEIR
HOUSE













































Figure 3-4. Role of Nostalgia in decision making for homeowners


=----- .-ELY-TO--EA I-T-T-RESTRE


HOMEOWNER IS NOSTALGIC
F-)RTHF,0Aq-AND
REHA3ILITATE, RESTORE OF
RECONSTRUCTSTHE
INTERIOROFTHE[R
"HISTORIC" HOUSE


HOMEOWNER IS NOT
H03TALGIC FOR TEE PAST
BUTREFIABILITATES,
RESTORES OR
RECID14STRUCTSTHE
INTERIOR OFTHEIR
"HISTORIC'HOUSE


HOMEOVVIITER IS NOSTALGIC
FORT-HE PASTBU7 DOES YOT
R --H ARTTTTATF,, R --,qTnRF. -)R
R.ECO.1TST__1=TSTHE
NTER"OR OFTHEIR "HISTORIC
HOUSE


HOMEOWNER IS NOT
NOSTALGIC FOURTH PASTAND
DOES
NOT REH-ABIL-TATE, RESTORE
OR RECONSTRUCTS THE
INTERIOR OFTHEIR "HISTORIC'
HOUSE









CHAPTER 4
CASE STUDY

Interviews for the case studies were conducted between November 2008 and January 2009.

Two interviews were conducted in Gainesville, FL and three interviews were conducted in and

around Atlanta, GA. Criteria emerging from the literature review were used to formulate a series

of interview questions examining each interview subject's reasons for purchasing an older house

and for rehabilitating, restoring or recreating the interior of their house to a chosen period. The

interviews examined whether owners rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct the interior of their

house if the residence reflects their sense of self, or view of the worthiness of the house, or they

felt a sense of place with the house, or if they are nostalgic for the past, or if perhaps a

combination of these factors influence individuals to rehabilitate, restore, or reconstruct their old

house. Additional questions focused on the residents' definition of their identity and how it was

expressed in their residential environment. Cases were then analyzed using cross-case analysis

examining the four criteria to see if there was a consensus of opinion between the interview

subj ects.

Case Study Background

The first two case studies took place in Gainesville, FL. The town was founded on

September 6, 1853 when Alachua County residents voted to create a new town on the Florida

Railroad line. Within seven years, the town's population had reached 269. The town grew

quickly to meet the needs of the arriving passenger trains with a general store and three hotels to

serve visitors. Two skirmishes occurred in 1864 since Gainesville was the site of a Confederate

Army storehouse during the Civil War. It was during Reconstruction that Colonel Dutton helped

make Gainesville become one of the largest shipping stations in the state. Gainesville benefitted

from the land boom that occurred throughout the state from WW I to the Depression with new









neighborhoods being developed. In 1925, M.M. Parrish began development of several

neighborhoods including Highland Heights (the "Duck Pond Neighborhood") (Alachua County

Library, 2009). Both of the interviews conducted in Gainesville, FL were in the Duck Pond

neighborhood which is located in Northeast Gainesville.

The third interview took place in Lithonia, GA which is part of the Greater Atlanta area.

Lithonia, located 20 miles east of Atlanta, was one of the first three cities founded in DeKalb

County (DeKalb History Center, 2009). According to the DeKalb History Center (2009), the

early settlers were of English, Scotch and Irish descent and were poor, hardworking small

farmers coming from Virginia and the Carolinas. This area was never part of the plantation

system as other parts of the state were (DeKalb History Center, 2009).

The fourth interview took place in Atlanta, GA. The city originally began as the terminal

point for the Western and Atlantic Railroads in 1837 (NPS Atlanta, 2009). Eight years later, the

city was renamed Atlanta. During the Civil War, Union General William Sherman burned about

70% of the city (NPS Atlanta, 2009). The city rapidly rebuilt and grew after the Civil War.

During this time Grant Park, one of Atlanta's oldest neighborhoods, was founded. Colonel

Lemuel P. Grant owned vast land holdings in the city and in 1883 he donated 100 acres toward

what was the city's first large scale park (NPS Atlanta, 2009). The Olmstead Brothers helped

plan the park's landscape. The neighborhood that developed from the late 19t to early 20th

century includes commercial clusters, schools and churches, as well as Victorian mansions

overlooking the park, modified Queen Anne houses, one story Victorian cottages and Craftsman

bungalows (NPS Atlanta, 2009).

The fifth interview was conducted in Carnesville, GA which is located approximately 85

miles northeast of Atlanta, GA. Carnesville is the seat of Franklin County which was created in









1784 (Franklin County, 2009). Carnesville was named after Judge Thomas Peter Carnes, a

Revolutionary War lawyer and Congressman (Franklin County, 2009). There is not much else

known about this rural city.

The houses were divided into two categories to describe them. They were considered

either historic-the house is a certified historic structure either listed individually on the National

Register or has a preservation easement, or "historic"-the house is old but of no real historic

significance Per Table 5-1, the subject's houses were listed by criteria. Subject l's house was

previously listed individually on the National Register but appears to have been removed as it is

not listed in the National Register database; however, the house is still part of the Northeast

Gainesville Residential District. Subject 2's house is also part of the Northeast Gainesville

Residential District. Subject 1 and 2's houses will be referred to as "historic". Subject 3's house

has a preservation easement on the house and immediate yard. While there is no listing of the

house on the National Register, in order for the house to have qualified for any tax benefits it

would have had to receive a certificate of significance from the Department of the Interior.

Therefore Subject 3's house will be referred to as historic. Subject 4's house is located in the

Grant Park Historic District, which is listed on the National Register. However the house is not

listed individually, thus by the criteria laid out Subject 4's house will be referred to as "historic".

Lastly, Subject 5's house is individually listed on the National Register hence it will be referred

to as historic.

Subjects were also divided into categories depending on which preservation method they

used on the interior of the house, which can seen in table 5-2. Secretary of the Interior Standards

for the Treatment of Historic Properties definitions were the basis for this classification. Subject

1 undertook a rehabilitation of her house as she altered the "historic" building to meet continuing









uses while retaining the building's exterior historic character. Subjects 3 and 5 undertook

restorations of their historic houses as they removed materials from other periods bringing their

interiors back to their respective period of significance. Subjects 2 and 4 both did period

reconstructions of the interiors of their "historic" houses. Through conjecture both have

reintroduced missing elements, with varying degrees of accuracy, for the perceived period of

significance which they are attempting to recreate.

Table 5-1 Case Study House Status Historic or "Historic"
House listed House in district House has
individually on on the National preservation
National Register Register easement
Subject 1 No Yes No
Subject 2 No Yes No
Subject 3 No No Yes
Subject 4 No Yes No
Subject 5 Yes Yes Yes

Table 5-2. Case Study Subjects Treatment of House
Rehabilitation Restoration Recreation
Subject 1 Yes
Subject 2 Yes
Subject 3 Yes
Subject 4 Yes
Subject 5 Yes

Case Study 1 Gainesville, FL

Subject 1 lives in a 105 year old "historic" house. Subject 1 is a woman in her late 30s

who lives in the house with her husband, their 3 children: an infant son and toddler daughters,

and Subject l's mother. She is a realtor but she and her husband also own a business located in

Gainesville, FL. According to Subject 1, the house was originally built as a barn in 1892 and

was in the 1920s modified into a Mediterranean Colonial house. The author conducted

additional research and discovered the building was originally a barn which was cut into two

sections and moved from its original location (Burton & Gowan, 2002). The split barn became









the basis for two different houses; one is a shingle style and the other, the case study house, was

stuccoed and converted to Mediterranean Colonial style.

The house was in extreme disrepair in 2007 when Subject 1 purchased the house with her

husband. The house had extreme termite damage, wood rot and structural issues. However,

since the house used to be a barn the beams are approximately 3 ft x 3 ft in section and were able

to withstand damage. The house has undergone extensive rehabilitation: it was stripped to the

wall studs and frames and was rebuilt. The house was lifted so new footers and perimeter beams

could be installed; also all of the systems (electric, plumbing, and HVAC) were replaced as well.

However, the owners have kept the original floors and windows. While the level of intervention

on the house appears severe, the owners actually removed years of inappropriate divisions made

to it. Subject 1 said she had an image of an open Mediterranean villa as the best way to

maximize the space, light and openness of the house, illustrated in Figure 5-1. Subject 1 did no

research on any specific period or style and purposefully chose not to use reproductions of

finishes. For her, those things make the home more about the individual's ego and take away

from it being a home; since she has small children she was concerned that the house not feel

formal or museum-like.

Subject 1 views the idea of sense as place as relating to concept of home as sanctuary. For

her, her house is a barrier acting as both protection and a way of controlling who she comes into

contract with. Subject 1 believes that when people see her house they see it as a reflection of her

success. First and foremost though, she views her house in terms of her family. When asked

about her feelings towards her house, Subject 1 felt that her house represents how connected her

family is. She said, "We are a big family and this is a big house. We have a lot that we want to









accomplish and this house has a lot of the space to accommodate all of us and our imaginations

and journeys and dreams and hopes".

The house had an "untapped beauty" which is what made Subject 1 want to preserve the

house. She also thought the house had enough architectural style that it was worth preserving.

The house gave her an opportunity to express her and her family's creativity. The design of the

house has been a group effort as each person's bedroom is a reflection of their style.


Figure 5-1. Case Study House Interiors. Photographs of Subject l's house. A) Subject l's
kitchen B) view of Subject l's living room C) view from front door into house.
Photographs provided by homeowner.

Subject 1 wanted to live in an old house. She and her husband looked at houses in this

specific neighborhood because they liked the location and the fact the houses were in general

larger than in some of the other older neighborhoods in Gainesville. When she was asked how

she would describe nostalgia, she said it is "the emotional recall you experience from past









memories that bring back a certain feeling". While she views herself as nostalgic she does not

attach nostalgic feelings to her house. Rehabilitating the house for her was not out of nostalgia

or attempting to recreate the past but about taking a "sad, sagging house that had very little

appeal and bringing it back to life". Subject 1 said she never considered purchasing a new house

because for her they are lacking character and feeling. She states that she likes the flaws in older

homes because it gives them character which reminds her of humanity since nothing is perfect in

them. For Subject 1 restoring the house was a personal mission since "there are already plenty of

things in the world already so you restore and bring vitality back to something that had lost it".

By rehabilitating an existing building, Subject 1 felt that house has become a symbol of hope.

Case Study 2 Gainesville, FL

Subject 2 lives by himself in a 68 year old house. He is in his early 60s and owns a

business located in Gainesville, FL. According to Subject 2, the house was originally built in

1940. The house was originally platted as part of the Highland Terrace neighborhood in 1925.

Little is known about the history of the house except that the original family lived in the house

from 1940 -1979 and owned a small department store downtown in Gainesville. Another family

lived in the house from 1979-1991; then Subject 2 purchased the house in 1991.

Describing the "historic" interior spaces of his house, Subject 2 says they are Colonial

Williamsburg and the exterior is Southern Georgia style. It should be noted that, rather, the

house architecture corresponds with the Colonial Revival style. When asked what made him

purchase the house, Subject 2 said that he was driving around and saw the "for sale" sign and

thought that the house was beautiful. No major alterations had been made to the house since its

construction in 1940. However, the original paint and wallpaper were chipping and falling off

the walls and the hardwood floors needed to be stripped. He spent years restoring every square

inch of the house. The house is a "historic" reconstruction. Subject 2 has added Colonial style









elements that he felt were missing from the house, such as crown molding, chair rails and

wainscoting, seen in Figure 5-2, that were not originally in the house. The interiors of the house

are recreations of Colonial Williamsburg style. Subject 2 did research reading books on the style


Figure 5-2. Case Study House Interiors. Photographs of Subject 2's house. A) View of Living
Room. B) View of Dining Room. C) View of Kitchen

to ensure that new features such as the wainscoting and built in cabinetry were designed to be

true to the Colonial period. He also used reproduction paints and wallpapers. When recreating

the interiors of his house, he wanted it to be beautiful and attempt to bring out the original

designer's intent however the finishes chosen are true to the Colonial Williamsburg style but not

Colonial Revival style.









Subject 2 believes that sense of place is means being comfortable at home. When asked to

define nostalgia, he thought it referred to remembering past times. While he never lived in an

older house, his grandfathers were craftsmen and his mother loved Colonial Williamsburg style.

Perhaps because of this he feels nostalgic towards his house.

Case Study 3 Lithonia, GA

Subject 3 is in his early 40s. He owns a 100 year old house and property located in

Lithonia, GA. He purchased the house as an investment and runs a plant nursery from there. An

employee rents the house. However, Subject 3 answered the questions regarding sense of place,

place attachment and nostalgia thinking about the "historic" house he lives in Atlanta, GA. The

Lithonia house was constructed sometime in the 1890s with various older outbuildings located

on the property: a log cabin and corn crib built between 1830s and 1850s, and a barn that is

about 100 years old. According to Subject 3, the house was originally owned by a family called

the Housworth's who received the land in a grant in the 1790s. After the Civil War, the family

lost the land but was able to purchase it back into the family in the 1880s (Georgia Trust, 2009).

The Housworth family lived in the house until they sold it to Subject 3.

The house is a four square Carpenter Gothic or Folk Victorian style house. Originally the

front porch had more Queen Anne wood features which have since been removed. The exterior

has Queen Anne features but the interior of the house is southern vernacular. When Subject 3

purchased the house he said it looked like a "rental house" floors were carpeted, acoustic tiles

had been installed and there was faux wood paneling on the walls. Since purchasing the house,

Subject 3 stripped the interiors back to their historic state. Subject 3 describes the interiors of the

house as "very simple and very stark" with everything being handmade and "no frills". This is

illustrated in Figures 5-3.









The term sense of place is very important Subject 3, since it relates to his work as a garden

designer. To him, sense of place is about honoring the site by letting the land and materials

speak for themselves. Raised on a farm in rural Tennessee, the first time Subject 3 saw the

property in Lithonia he immediately felt that the place reminded him of growing up.

Professionally Subject 3 is required to visit other people's houses but he generally feels

uncomfortable when in most people's houses. The houses he feels the most comfortable in are

quirky and odd and reflect the individuals who live there; they feel "lived in". Subject 3

appreciates good design whether new or old. He has lived in an "historic" house in Atlanta for

15 years and currently owns another historic property. Subject 3 admits that older buildings are

burdens to maintain and he would at some time in the future love to live in a "glass, steel and

cement box in the middle of the woods".















Figure 5-3. Case Study House Interiors. Photographs of Subject 3's house.

Subject 3 has complicated feelings towards nostalgia; he feels that nostalgia is something

to be carefully avoided. To him nostalgia is a "revisionist version of the historical truths that

may or may not be accurate". He sees it as a fear-based reaction to the rapid changes in society

adding that the comfort it brings is at the expense of preparing for the future. While he does not

view himself as nostalgic he admits he has been nostalgic in the past. "Nostalgia is not









interesting to me anymore. Too many people suffered to live that way. The only guy that won

was the man, the white man. Everybody else suffered so he could live comfortably. Nostalgia is

not that fun and people need to look back at and be honest". Subject 3 states he has grown to be

less nostalgic about his house and respect and honor it for what it is, and likes it aesthetically.

Case Study 4 Atlanta, GA

Subject 4 lives in a 106 year old house located in the Grant Park historic district in Atlanta,

GA (NPS Atlanta, 2009). Subject 4 is an attorney in her mid 40s and lives in the house with her

husband and her father. The interview was not conducted at Subject 4's house so photographs

were not taken. According to Subject 4, the house was built in 1903 in Grant Park which was

part of the first suburban neighborhood in Atlanta. She describes her house as a Victorian

Foursquare Bungalow, the house has an 8 ft wide central hall with 14 ft high ceilings and the

rooms located off of the central hall. The house has Victorian features such as wood moldings

and tall ceilings, wooden floors, double sliding doors for the salon, and four fireplaces.

The interiors of Subject 4's house are "historic" recreations. When she saw the house, she

was surprised to find that the house had not been subdivided into smaller rooms. The house

survived years of insensitive rehabilitations: the front porch had been removed, the original wood

roof shingles had been covered over the years with four different roof layers, and the walls were

covered with sheet rock, but all of the original woodwork was in place. The house had to have

all of its systems replaced. The support for the house and retaining walls for the basement also

had to be redone.

Subject 4 views sense of place in terms of connections, for her it is about being "part of

something that is larger than you, however which is also a part of you". She has always been

attracted to and more interested in things that were from the past. Subject 4 grew up in a

Spanish Colonial town in South America where houses surrounded the town center. The lack of









modern conveniences, creaking sounds and imperfections in older houses are not seen by Subject

4 a drawback but as benefit, since they are part of the character of the house. Subject 4 respects

tradition and sense of history; she feels that when other people visit her house they can tell that

she has a great appreciation for traditional beauty and architecture. While she sometimes enjoys

visiting other people's houses; Subject 4 is more comfortable at her own house. In her opinion,

taking care and improving her house is a way of caring for her family.

When asked what made her purchase her home Subject 4 said it was her love of older

architecture and how it is perfect yet imperfect. The thought of living in modern house has been

fleeting when there is a list of repairs to make to the house, however, she would never choose to

live in a newly constructed house. "Historic" buildings give her a sense of permanence if each

generation they will be there for the next to appreciate. She likens historic preservation to links

in a chain "Your job is to make sure that you do not break your link. You build your link

strongly, like the people before you did, then it will be up to the next person to put the next link

on."

Nostalgia for Subject 4 is about linkage of the past to the future, "nostalgia is a connector

to the past and to your future." She views herself as nostalgic. To her nostalgia is about

"honoring the labor and dedication of what was built in the past. There was a tremendous

amount of love and dedication [that went into making it] and it is good to honor it". Subject 4

believes that "historic" houses and antiques belong to the community of people who see beauty

in the objects, not necessarily to any specific family if they do not appreciate their beauty.

Continuity matters in the honoring the past.

Case Study 5 Carnesville, GA

Subject 5 lives in a 180 year old house in Carnesville, GA. She is an economist in her mid

50s. This house is Subject 5's weekend house but this is what she defines as her home,









weekdays she works and lives in Atlanta. Subject 5 lives in a Federal/Greek revival transition

house that was built sometime between 1820 and 1830. The house originally was built by

Marcus Strange who came to Georgia from South Carolina after the Revolutionary War with his

son. Eventually, he and his son put together about 2,000 acres and a saw mill and built this

house. The family stayed until 1864 when they sold it to the Duncan family at the end of the

Civil War and went back to South Carolina.

Subject 5 describes her historic house as Federal/Greek revival transitional since it shows

features of both styles. Subject 5's restoration of her house removed elements that had been

added in the 1960s. The trim had been removed from the interior and a few windows had been

rearranged in the back of the house but otherwise the ceilings were still the same height, the

walls were still plaster. She always wanted to restore an old house, "I've always liked to fix

things that were messed up and broken and see the potential in them".

When asked what sense of place meant, Subject 5 said it was about belonging to a

community. She feels a strong sense of place with her house and the community. The area she

lives in is surrounded by bicentennial farms, farms that have been in the same family for two

hundred years, and she believes that most of the people in the area also feel a strong sense of

place. When asked where she feels the most comfortable in her house is in her kitchen which is

where she spends most of her time. While she would consider moving into a new house, she

would like to live in a new house built of salvaged goods.

To her, the age of the building is not as important as the quality of the design, construction

and materials. Subject 5 likes the Federal/Greek Revival style because of the attention to

symmetry and sense of light incorporated in the design. The design of her house brings a sense









of harmony to her. The house is sited so that there is always sunlight somewhere in the house.

She appreciates things that are handcrafted with quality materials, usually wood or stone.

When asked what nostalgia meant to her, Subject 5 said "nostalgia is a longing for the past

that might not reflect a reality". To her nostalgia is more than trying to recreate a period, she

found it interesting that when people did not have things available to them they took what they

had and were incredibly creative. While she does not view herself as nostalgic she appreciates

the spirit of the period. Subject 5 says she would feel uncomfortable if everything in her house

was a recreation. She likes things for their artistry and creativity and the mix of styles.























A

Figure 5-4. Case Study House Interiors. Photographs of Subject 5's house.

Environmental Autobiographies

Environmental Autobiography examines people's feelings toward their surroundings.

Subject 2 asked to be excused from participating in this section. The drawings created by the









other four subjects were examined to see what the participants viewed as important. The core

symbol for Subject 1 of what her house means to her was a heart (see Figure 5-5). Her drawing

included children playing and wrote the words "family", "love", "playing" and "happy". She

also drew smiling faces around the picture as for her house is vibrant and full of warmth and

comfort. One of the important things to her was the happy memories that her children will grow

up with living in this house; as she said this she drew a jungle gym. She drew wings on the

heart, because "the whole point of a home is so that your kids can get confidence and fly away."

Then across the heart with wings she wrote "memories for children". Subject 1's drawing

reflects her love of her family and the importance of creating a space for her children to develop

happy memories of childhood.






















Figure 5-5. Environmental Autobiography drawing Subject 1

The core symbol for Subject 3 was a box within a box (see Figure 5-6). He was thinking

of his house in Atlanta which he feels a very personal connection to, for him, he feels kindred

with the house as though it is a second skin. However, the house is located in an unsafe









neighborhood and now that he has young children he worries about them since the neighborhood

keeps him feeling threatened. However, Subject 3 drew a heart in the middle of the box because

"when I am home I feel like I am the nucleus of something". He then wrote the following words

under his image: comfort, personal, home, kindred, second skin, private and warm. Subject 3's

drawing reflects his feelings of he is as he said the "nucleus" of his house and it is a second skin

or protective shell around him.



















Figure 5-6. Environmental Autobiography drawing, Subject 3

The core image that came to Subject 4s mind when thinking about her house was a heart.

She then drew ornate frames around the heart (see Figure 5-7). Everything is symmetrical in her

drawing as she drew a shape around the edge that could be the profile of a house and four

triangles at each of the corners. For Subject 4, her house to her is vibrant, happy and central. At

the bottom of the drawing she wrote "home is happiness". Subject 4's drawing speaks of her

love for her house as expressed by her writing "home is happiness" The symmetry of the

drawing could reflect the symmetrical floor plan or the stability she feels her house represents.









The ornate frame she drew around the house may be symbolic of the Victorian details in her

house.























Figure 5-7. Environmental Autobiography drawing Subject 4

Lastly, the central image that Subject 5 drew when thinking about her house was a small

hand. When masons were working on the chimney they found a brick with a small child's hand

print. The brick had come from a plantation approximately 10 miles away and so it might have

been the hand print of a slave child. Finding this brick had a great impact on Subject 5, "It

started me thinking about houses in the south and who built the houses. It totally rotates your

way of thinking. There is a whole legacy but you only think of the owners". She also drew

images of her house including her stove. Subject 5 said she spent most of her time in the kitchen

but she added the caveat that it was the only room of the house that had been completed. She

drew an image of roof beams that were scribed with roman numerals and put together with

mortise-and-tenon construction. Subject 5 also drew an image of the wood ceilings that she had

stripped of previous layers of paint by hand, injuring her shoulder. Lastly, she drew a snake.









Subject 5 recounted the story of going underneath the house to examine the chimney she ran into

a rat snake under the house with no place to go. Subject 5's drawings are related to the stories

she uncovered while working on renovating the house.





*\ \ ...... ... ...
/ ,',, l ....



S/













Figure 5-8. Environmental Autobiography drawing, Subject 5

When examining the drawings for similarities, a theme that surfaces in the drawings is the

concept of home as sanctuary. Three of the subjects (Subjects 1, 3, and 4) mentioned variations

on the words warmth, comfort, happiness. Their respective houses provided them with

protection and emotional solace. These three subjects also drew the same central image of a

heart (see figures 5-5, 5-6 and 5-7). This core image of love was directed toward their families

and to their houses. Subject 5's drawing was unique as she drew isolated images showing

experiences she had while working on her house and reflected mainly on the elements of the

house such as the roof, the ceiling or the bricks. As opposed to the other subjects, she did not

draw a comprehensive image of "home." However, all of these individuals felt a deep emotional









connection with their houses. These drawings explored the link between the past and present

which can create a meaningful sense of place. (Allen, 2008, p. 39)

Another topic that came out of the drawings is the concept of "historic" as a museum.

Subject 2 did research to ensure the "historic" recreation of the interiors was true to historic

Colonial Williamsburg style and used reproductions of Colonial Williamsburg wall papers and

colors. Subject 3 thinks it is not practical to maintain a historic property as a museum piece. He

believes that historic residences need to be places where people live amongst historic

architecture but still can have a modern lifestyle. Subject 4 did not raise this issue in the

interview; however, her interiors are "historic" recreations. Lastly, Subject 5 said she wanted to

bring the spirit of the period back however she would feel uncomfortable if everything in the

house was a period recreation. While the paint colors she has chosen are similar to the ones that

were originally used she said "I think you can have contemporary furnishings that have the feel

of the period through the quality or the sense of formality". It should be acknowledged that

while acknowledging the past, revivals of past styles are not necessarily meant to be authentic

replications of past living conditions but an adaptation of the style to contemporary conditions

(Rybczyknski, 1986) It would appear that an individual's feelings towards the rehabilitation,

restoration or reconstruction of period interiors are mostly related to their attitudes to nostalgia

and their sense of self.

Cross Case Analysis

Several similarities surfaced when examining each case study in terms of the subject's

views towards sense of self, worthiness of architecture, sense of place and nostalgia. Other

themes emerged which appear to affect why homeowner's rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct

their interiors. These unexpected themes were: homebuyers seeing the inherent potential in a

house, narrative, and their perception of reconstructed interiors.









The case study subjects were asked a series of questions to try and determine if they had

rehabilitated, restored or reconstructed either the interior and/or the architecture of their house

because they felt it matched their sense of self. As defined before, sense of self is reflected in

how individuals identify with certain environments and define themselves by their experiences

with those environments (Kopek, 2006). Subject 1 rehabilitated her house. She saw the

potential in the house and wanted to bring out its inner beauty; "I guess from a psychological

standpoint, I saw the potential in myself and I saw the potential in the house." Subject 2 said

when he drove by the house he was immediately attracted to the house. Subject 3 said that he

too was immediately attracted to both his house in town and the rental property he owns.

Subjects 4 and 5 made no specific comment about immediately feeling a connection with their

houses but each felt their house was a reflection of their personality. All of the subjects felt the

most comfortable in their own house. It appears that some individuals do choose historic or

potentially historic houses because the building matches their sense of self as seen in Table 5-3.

However, it appears that there is also an impetus for some individuals to purchase them because

the exterior speaks to their sense of self, and then modify their residential interiors to achieve

even better congruence.

Another topic of interest in this study is the view of the worthiness of the house as an

influence on the subjects' choice to rehabilitate, restore or recreate the architecture or the interior

of their house (see table 5-4). As stated earlier the worthiness of residential interior has been

linked to physical features contributing to visual richness such as decoration, natural materials,

curves, articulated walls, distinctiveness, and mystery. Subject 2 said he had always liked the

Colonial style and his view of the house's worthiness influenced him to recreate the interiors.

Subject 3 claimed his house in Atlanta and his farm property in Lithonia were worthy of









recreation and restoration respectively because each has been relatively unchanged by time.

Subject 4 said she was very driven to live in a Victorian house which inherently made the house

worthy. She feels her role is as caretaker of the past for future generations. What made Subject

5 want to preserve her house was that she saw the worthiness in the house and wanted to

preserve the interiors. Subject 1 rehabilitated the first floor, but kept the second floor as it was

with few changes and also kept the original wood floors throughout the house. She thought the

house had enough architectural style to preserve but the interiors had to be modified so they

better matched her sense of self.

Table 5-3. Cross Case Analysis Finding of Role of Sense of Self
Subject
1 2 3 4 5
Homeowner feels their sense of self is reflected by the house and X X X X X
rehabiliates, restores or recreates the exterior and interiors of
their "historic" house
Homeowner does not feel their sense of self is reflected by their
house But rehabiliates, restores or recreates the exterior and
Interiors of their historic house
Homeowner feels the exterior of the house reflects their sense of
self and does not rehabilitate restore or recreate the interiors of
their "historic" house
Homeowner feels their sense of self is not reflected by the house
and does not rehabilitate, restore or recreate the exterior or the
interiors of their "historic" house

It appears that how the individual views the worthiness of a residence does affect whether

they are likely to preserve or historically reconstruct its architecture, interior or both. However,

definitions of"worthiness" widely varied across subjects.


The next topic that was discussed with the case studies was sense of place. Questions were

asked to determine if they felt a sense of place with their house. Sense of place is a combination

of place identity and place attachment. Place identity is how "people incorporate a place into the

larger concept of their own identities of senses and self;" place attachment is defined as a

"person's bond with the social and physical environments of a place." Such places have deep









Table 5-4. Cross Case Analysis Role of Worthiness
Subject
1 2 3 4 5
Homeowner views house as worthy and rehabilitates, restores or X X X X
reconstructsthe interior and exterior of their "historic" house
Homeowner views house as worthy and rehabilitate, restore or X
reconstructs the exterior of their "historic" house not the interior
Homeowner does not view house as worthy but rehabilitates
restores or reconstructs the interior and exterior of their
"historic" house
Homeowner does not view the house as worthy and does
not rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct their "historic" house

meaning to individuals because their identities are woven intricately into those places (Kopek,

2006). Case study subjects were asked what the term "sense of place" meant to them and if they

felt a sense of place with their house (see table 5-5). Subject 1 viewed sense of place as having a

"private sanctuary" because "when you walk out the door you are forced to deal with people you

do not want to deal with. In your home you can control what you have to be confronted with on

a daily basis". For Subject 1, her home acts like a marked territory protecting her and her family

where they can feel safe. When asked why she chose to live in a historic house, Subject 1 said it

was because they have character and are the sort of environment where she wants to raise her

children. Subject 2 defined the phrase sense of place as being "comfortable at home". He said

he found his house to be "warm, safe, quiet and peaceful." While Subject 3 defined sense of

place as honoring the site and letting the space speak for itself. Subject 3 was attracted to both of

his "historic" properties. He felt that they were special because they are still very similar to how

they were when constructed. Subject 4 defined sense of place as "being part of something that is

larger than you, but that is very much. It is someplace you feel roots coming out of your feet."

Subject 4 wanted to live in a "historic" house because of the connection to the past. Lastly,

Subject 5 defined sense of place as belonging to a community. She actually feels more a sense

of connection to her house in Carnesville than her house in Atlanta.









Sense of place is a very complicated issue since it is difficult to separate elements of the

individual's house and the neighborhood they live in. It seems that sense of place is a motivator

for people to rehabilitate, restore or recreate the interiors of their historic houses. However, it

appears that an individual can feel a sense of place with the architecture of their house and still

rehabilitate or recreate their house to be in congruence with their sense of self.

Table 5-5. Cross Case Analysis Role of Sense of Place
Subject
1 2 3 4 5
Individuals feels a sense of place to their "historic" house and X X X X
either rehabilitates, restores or reconstructs the interior of
their house
Individual feels a sense of place to the architecture or other X
external factors but feels no sense of attachment to the
"historicresidential interior and does not rehabilitate, restore or
reconstruct the interior of their house
Individual does not feel a sense of place to their "historic" house
but rehabilitates, restores or reconstructs the architecture and
interior of their house
Individual does not feel a sense of place and decides to
rehabilitate, restore or reconstructs neither the architecture nor the
interior of their house

A final topic discussed with the case study participants was nostalgia. As defined earlier,

nostalgia refers to the relationship between building form, its use, meaning and time; it is a

transactional process between physical and affective factors. The loss and destruction of places

leads to nostalgic feelings since nostalgia in general refers to a longing for what is gone rather

than a specific place. The case study participants were asked what nostalgia meant to them and

if they viewed themselves as nostalgic people and if they had nostalgic feelings associated with

their house (see table 5-6). Subject 1 defined nostalgia as the emotional recall experienced from

past memories that bring back certain feelings. She defined herself as nostalgic but she said she

does not have nostalgic feelings associated with her house. While she acknowledges that

nostalgia might be a factor for some individuals. Her motive for rehabilitating her house is the









idea of making the world a better place. Subject 2 defined nostalgia as remembering past times

and views himself as nostalgic. He does acknowledge he has nostalgic feelings towards his

house. His grandfather restored antiques and his mother was an interior decorator who loved

colonial style architecture. He believes that this family history may have given him his interest

in historic houses. Subject 3 defines nostalgia as a revisionist version of the historical truths that

may or may not be accurate. Subject 3 does not view himself as nostalgic but he acknowledges

that he is developing his own nostalgia for when he first moved in Atlanta 15 years ago.

However, he says he is learning to be less nostalgic about his house and honor it for what it is.

Subject 4 defined nostalgia as a connector to the past and to the future. Subject 4 admits she is

nostalgic and has nostalgic feelings associated with her house. For her, "my reality is the one

with the link and the continuity". Subject 5 defined nostalgia as a longing for the past, however

a past the individual has in the mind that might not reflect reality.

Table 5-6. Cross Case Analysis Role of Nostalgia
Subject
1 2 3 4 5
Homeowner is nostalgic for the past and rehabilitate, restore or X X
reconstructs the interior of their "historic" house
Homeowner is not nostalgic for the past but rehabilitates, X X X
restores or reconstructs the interior of their "historic "house
Homeowner is nostalgic for the past but does not rehabilitate,
restore or reconstructs the interior of their "historic house
Homeowner is not nostalgic for the past and does
not rehabilitate, restore or reconstructs the interior of their
"historic house

Three unexpected issues came out of the case studies-the role of potential and effort in

the view of worthiness, the role of narrative and nostalgia, and finally the perception of recreated

interiors.

First, it seems that whether homeowners deem a house worthy is resides in part in their

appreciation of intrinsic beauty and effort that went into making the house. Subject 1 said she









appreciated the structure of the house with the large number of historic windows and the historic

24 ft long wood floors in the house. Subject 4 felt that an individual cannot make something

beautiful without putting their self into it. For her, rehabilitation, restoration and recreation are

about respecting the effort someone put into making a house. Previous research indicated that

individuals were more likely to purchase a historic house if it had been maintained (Gram-

Hanssen & Beth-Danielsen, 2004). Both Subjects 1 and 5 said they saw the potential in the

house. When Subject 1 was speaking of her house she elaborated on the untapped beauty and

potential she saw in the house and which was what made her want to rehabilitate the house. For

her it was about bringing out the potential in her house and giving something back to the

neighborhood. For Subject 1, the idea was that an individual can repair rather than replace a

house and "restore and bring vitality back to something that had lost it". Subject 5 said she has

always liked to fix things that were "messed up and broken and see the potential in them".

Narrative, as defined earlier, is an individual attaching ideas to their intangible memories

of the past; some use possessions to strengthen this attachment. Both Subject 3 and Subject 5

were aware of individual's propensity to believe a narrative and that people have a tendency to

look at the past but they do not seem to take into account its realities. Subject 3 stated it most

succinctly "...Nostalgia is not interesting to me anymore. Too many people suffered to live that

way. The only guy that won was the man, the white man. Everybody else suffered so he could

live comfortably. That nostalgia is not fun and people need to look back at the past and be

honest." When Subject 5 found physical evidence of a child's handprint in a brick it made her

realize that there was more to think about than who owned and lived in the house. She started

thinking about how these houses were built by slaves but how the legacy is about the owners and

not the individuals whose labor built this culture. Nostalgia is a double edge sword for while it









can elicit feelings of comfort and security these feelings are often in lieu of a willingness to face

the changes of the future (Kopek, 2006). It appears that both nostalgia and narrative may play an

active role in why some individuals rehabilitate, restore or recreate the interiors of their house.

Subjects 1, 3, and 5 said they did not view themselves as nostalgic yet they were all attracted to

historic buildings. Subjects 1 and 5 mentioned seeing the potential in the interiors of their house

which may relate more directly to sense of self since neither saw this self as nostalgic. Perhaps

sense of self and place have a more active role in preservation than nostalgia.

While each case study participant appreciated various aspects of the "historic" houses they

lived in, the "historically" reconstructed interiors made some participants think of a house

museum. Subject 1 for example didn't want a period renovation of her house since she viewed

them as sterile; she didn't want to do anything she felt was "ostentatious or pretentious" which to

her meant using vintage wall paper. For her, the idea of historically recreating the interiors using

period finishes would have made her house feel staged and inaccessible, as in a museum. While

Subject 2 did research to ensure the "historic" recreation of the interiors was true to historic

Colonial Williamsburg style. He used reproductions of Colonial Williamsburg wall papers and

colors. Subject 3 thinks it is not practical to maintain a historic property as a museum piece. He

believes that historic residences need to be places where people live amongst historic

architecture but still can have a modern lifestyle. Subject 4 did not raise this issue up in the

interview; however, her interiors are "historic" recreations. Lastly, Subject 5 said she wanted to

bring the spirit of the period back however she would feel uncomfortable if everything in the

house was a period recreation. While the paint colors she has chosen are similar to the ones that

were originally used she said "I think you can have contemporary furnishings that have the feel

of the period through the quality or the sense of formality". It would appear that an individual's









feelings towards the rehabilitation, restoration or recreation of period interiors are mostly related

to their attitudes to nostalgia and their sense of self.









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

Psycho-social factors appear to influence people to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct

historic or period interiors. Five case study subjects were identified and asked a series of

questions to see if sense of self, the perceived worthiness of architecture, sense of place and

nostalgia may have been conscious or unconscious factors playing on their choice to preserve or

not preserve the architecture and interiors of their residences.

Sense of self does appear to be a factor in why some individuals rehabilitate, restore or

reconstruct their residence. All of the case study participants modified the interiors of their

residences from the state they were in when they purchased their house. However, only one

individual gutted the house to completely remodel it. The rest removed additions that, in their

views, were inconsistent with the period in which the house was constructed, and either restored

or recreated the interiors to a chosen period. It appears that there is a need for individuals to

modify their interiors to create a greater congruence between their residential environment and

their sense of self. However, it seems that for individuals who purchase a "historic" house the

impulse is to rehabilitate the house back to its original state and not completely modify it.

The perceived worthiness of the residence also appears to be a factor. Part of what

individuals deemed worthy of preservation in their residences was the quality of materials used

in the construction. Several subjects mentioned the quality and artistry of the materials used in

constructing the house. It appears that how the individual views the worthiness of a residence

does affect whether individuals are likely to preserve the architecture, the interior or both. While

previous research indicated that individuals were more likely to purchase an older house if it had

been maintained (Gram-Hassen & Beth-Danielsen, 2004), the subjects in the case study suggest

that for some individuals the ability to see the potential in a rundown house is as also an









important a factor. It seems that the individuals were attracted to houses that still had the

majority of their original features. However, the appraisal of a "historic" period residence as

being worthy of preservation appears to relate directly back to self identification issues. Further

research needs to be conducted to assess this relationship.

The concept of sense of place as related to the preservation or historic reconstructions of

historic residences does appear to be a factor in why individuals preserve them. Almost all of the

individuals in the case study mentioned at some point how they liked "historic" period residences

for the connection to and sense of history the houses embodied. It appears that while some

individuals feel a sense of place with the architecture and interiors of their historic house, they

rehabilitate or reconstruct the interiors so they are consistent with the style and period it

represents. Other individuals feel a greater sense of place with the architecture or other external

factors, such as the neighborhood in which the house is located, and renovate the interior of their

house to be greater congruence with their sense of self.

It was difficult to appraise how great a role nostalgia and narrative played in whether

individuals were likely to preserve or reconstruct the interiors of their historic residences. Three

of the case study participants admitted that they were not nostalgic. Two of the participants

appreciated their residences for their artistry but they tried not to glorify the past. The other two

individuals admitted they were nostalgic for the past. While each of their houses were filled with

pieces of the past, both seemed to collect these items out of respect for their craftsmanship and

aesthetics, nonetheless their interpretation of the historic narrative was not clearly understood.

It should be noted that this is a small case study and the results do not carry enough weight

for the findings to be generalized, so the data should be considered preliminary findings

suggesting further research. However, individual's sense of self, perception of the worthiness of









the historic house and sense of place arise as potential indicators of whether individuals will

preserve historic residences.

Preservation is an attempt to maintain the tangible connection between the past and present

through saving the buildings of previous eras. It is important to safeguard the past for future

generations. "Historic" period buildings were constructed to endure since to waste valuable

resources, such as money and effort, were inconceivable in the past (Kunstler, 1996). Since

technology such as electricity and air conditioning were not available these buildings were

designed to suit their environment. These earlier construction approaches which were once

viewed as outdated are experiencing a revival as individuals look at the environmental impact of

what they build. Historic period buildings are physical representations of a society's beliefs,

including its approach to the use of earth's resources. Historic buildings provide an example of

successful strategies that should inspire our quest for more sustainable ways of building.

A good house is a created thing made of many parts economically and meaningfully
assembled. It speaks not just of materials from which it is made, but of the intangible
rhythms, spirits, and dreams of people's lives. Its site is only a tiny piece of the real world,
yet this place is made to seem like an entire world. In its parts it accommodates important
human activities, yet in sum it express an attitude toward life.

(Moore et al., 1974, p. 49)

Why people preserve residential interiors is a complicated issue. However, this study has

uncovered several areas for possible future research, from research into individual's preferences

for historic residential interiors to more comprehensive research on why individuals preserve

historic residential interiors. A commonly used research strategy uses images of interiors to

assess people's perceptions of them; however often the images used have been taken from

current house design magazines and do not clearly describe the style or period or contents of the

interiors that are being judged (Nasar, 1989; Purcell & Nasar, 1992; Stamps & Nasar, 1997).

Future research could use Clare Cooper Marcus' Environmental Autobiography techniques to









examine different reactions to residential interiors and comparing new construction versus

historic structures. Further research could be done into how sense of self and sense of place

affect individual's willingness to preserve historic residential interiors. Another potential

research area is the concept of worthiness: How does an individual determine the worthiness of

a historic structure and what role does it play in their decision to rehabilitate a house? Lastly, the

role of worthiness of a historic residence for preservation could be examined in terms of its

existing condition and its effect on its possible purchase.










APPENDIX A
NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BY AGE1


Year Structure Built
2005 to 2009
2000 to 2004
1995 to 1999
1990 to 1994
1985 to 1989
1980 to 1984
1975 to 1979
1970 to 1974
1960 to 1969
1950 to 1959
1940 to 1949
1930 to 1939
1920 to 1929
1919 or earlier
Total


Total
2,964,000
6,344,000
6,189,000
4,988,000
5,267,000
4,198,000
7,860,000
5,759,000
8,979,000
8,382,000
4,423,000
3,062,000
2,676,000
4,555,000
75,647,000


1 family detached
2,471,000
5,029,000
4,492,000
3,775,000
3,899,000
2,955,000
6,408,000
4,453,000
8,099,000
8,015,000
4,062,000
2,688,000
2,265,000
3,901,000
62,512,000


1 family attached
235,000
449,000
336,000
347,000
479,000
349,000
424,000
266,000
185,000
167,000
156,000
162,000
185,000
301,000
4,042,000


1 Data taken from American Housing Survey Table 3-25. Units in Structure by Selected Characteristics--Owner-
Occupied Units. Information compiled for U.S. Census Bureau
American Housing Survey (2008). Units in Structure by Selected Characteristics-Owner Occupied Units. Retrieved
from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs07/tab3-25.pdf on November 1, 2008









APPENDIX B
LEGISLATION FOR STATE REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT FOR HOMEOWNERS

State Name State Rehabilitation Tax State Rehab Tax Credit Percent of State
Credit for Homeowners includes Interior Rehab Tax Credit for
and Year of Enactment Preservation homeowners


Alabama


Alaska
Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana



Maine


Maryland


No rehabilitation tax
credit
No state income tax
No rehabilitation tax
credit
No rehabilitation tax
credit
No rehabilitation tax
credit
YES (1991)
YES(2000)
YES (2001)
No rehabilitation tax
credit for homeowner
No state income tax
YES(2002)

No rehabilitation tax
credit
No rehabilitation tax
credit
No rehabilitation tax
credit
YES (2000)
YES(2000)
YES(2001)
YES (2005)
YES (2006)



No rehabilitation tax
credit for
homeowner
YES (1997)


NA

NA
NA


NA

20%
30%
30%
NA


DOI
DOI
DOI
NA

NA
DOI


NA
25% non target areas
30% target areas
NA


DOI
DOI
DOI
DOI
DOI


20%
25%
25%
30%
10% 25%
dependent on
owners adjusted
gross income
NA


DOI


20%


1 DOI Department of Interior Standards











State Name State Rehabilitation Tax State Rehab Tax Credit Percent of State
Credit for Homeowners includes Interior Rehab Tax
and Year of Enactment Preservation Credit for
homeowners


Louisiana


Maine

Maryland
Massachusetts

Michigan
Minnesota

Mississippi
Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey

New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania


YES (2006)


No rehabilitation tax
credit for homeowner
YES (1997)
No rehabilitation tax
credit for homeowner
YES(1999)
No rehabilitation tax
credit
YES (2006)
No rehabilitation tax
credit for homeowner
No rehabilitation tax
credit for homeowner
No rehabilitation tax
credit
No state income tax
No state income tax
No rehabilitation tax
credit
YES (1984)
YES (2007)
YES (1988)
YES (2000)
No rehabilitation tax
credit for homeowner
No rehabilitation tax
credit for homeowner
No rehabilitation tax
credit
No rehabilitation tax
credit


DOI


10% 25%
dependent on
owners adjusted
gross income
NA


DOI
NA

DOI
NA

DOI
NA


20%
NA

25%
NA

25%
NA


DOI
DOI
DOI
DOI
NA


50%
20%
30%
25%
NA










State Name State Rehabilitation Tax State Rehab Tax Credit Percent of State
Credit for Homeowners includes Interior Rehab Tax
and Year of Enactment Preservation Credit for
homeowners
Rhode Island YES (1989) DOI 20%
South Carolina YES (2003) DOI 25%
South Dakota No state income tax NA NA
Tennessee No state income tax NA NA
Texas No state income tax NA NA
Utah YES (1993) DOI 20%
Vermont No rehabilitation tax credit NA NA
for homeowner
Virginia YES (1997) DOI 25%
Washington No state income tax NA NA
West Virginia YES (2001) DOI 20%
Wisconsin YES (1989) DOI 25%
Wyoming No state income tax NA NA









APPENDIX C
NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT USED STATE REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT FOR
HOMEOWNERS BY STATE


State Name


Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico


Number of homes that
have used SRTC
0
0
0
0
0
440
253
41
0
0
425
0
0
0
82
16
600
59
0
0
2500
0
600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
580











State Name


New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total


Number of homes that
have used SRTC
3
871
0
0
0
0
0
unknown
58
0
0
0
827
0
Unknown
0
42
4000
0
11397











APPENDIX D
NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES (2006) COMPARED TO TOTAL NUMBER OF
APPROVED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES THAT HAVE USED STATE REHABILITATION
TAX CREDIT, BY STATE


STATE Total Number of Total Number of Percentage of Single
Single Family SRTC Family Houses that
Houses1 successfully have used
SRTC
Colorado 1,474,000 440 .03%
Connecticut 924,000 253 .027%
Delaware 270,000 41 .015%
Georgia 2,689,000 425 .002%
Indiana 2,077,000 82 .0039%
Iowa 1,018,000 16 .0015%
Kansas 934,000 600 .065%
Kentucky 1,310,000 59 .0045%
Maryland 1,678,000 2500 .015%
Michigan 3,420,000 600 .0017%
New Mexico 575,000 580 .104%
New York 3,684,000 3 .00008%
North Carolina 2,744,000 871 .032%
Rhode Island 266,000 Unknown Unknown
South Carolina 1,271,000 58 .0046%
Utah 661,000 827 .13%
Virginia 2,356,000 Unknown Unknown
West Virginia 641,000 42 .0066%
Wisconsin 1,790,000 4000 .228%


1 Data retrieved from American Community Survey Tables. U.S. Census Bureau
American Community Survey Tables (2006). U.S. Census Bureau Housing Units by Units in Structure and State
2006. Retrieved from www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0952.xls on November 1, 2008.









APPENDIX E
STATES WITH EASEMENT ENABLING LEGISLATION AND NUMBER OF EASEMENT
HOLDING ORGANIZATIONS

State Name Has Enabling Enabling Legislature that Number of
Legislature allowing for allows Preservation of Easement
Historic Preservation Interior Spaces Holding
Easements Organization
s in State
Alabama Yes No 2
Alaska Yes No 0
Arizona Yes No 0
Arkansas Yes No 0
California Yes No 1
Colorado Yes No 4
Connecticut Yes No 1
Delaware Yes No 4
District of Yes No 2
Columbia
Florida Yes No 2
Georgia Yes No 5
Hawaii Yes No 1
Idaho Yes No 0
Illinois Yes No 1
Indiana Yes No 2
Iowa No NA 1
Kansas Yes No 0
Kentucky Yes No 4
Louisiana Yes NA 3
Maine Yes Yes 3
Maryland No NA 4
Massachusetts Yes Yes 3
Michigan Yes No 1
Minnesota Yes No 0











State Name




Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming


Has Enabling
Legislature allowing for
Historic Preservation
Easements
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes


Has Enabling Legislature Number of
that allows Preservation of Easement
Interior Spaces Holding
Organization
No 2
No 1
No 0
No 0
No 1
No 4
Yes 2
No 1
No 8
Yes 5
Yes 1
No 3
No 0
No 1
No 2
No 1
No 6
No 1
No 3
No 4
No 1
No 1
No 3
No 4
No 0
No 1
No 0


TOTAL









APPENDIX F
EASEMENTS BY ORGANIZATIONS


BY STATE


State Name of Total Total Total Total
Easement Number of Number of Number of Number of
Holding Easements Interior Residential Interior
Organizations held by Easements Preservation Residential
Organization held by Easements Preservation
Organization Easements
AL The Alabama 85 25 58 19
Historical
Commission


Mobile
Historic
Development
Commission
None

None

None

San Francisco
Architectural
Heritage
Colorado
Historical
Foundation
Historic
Denver, Inc

Historic
Georgetown,
Inc
Yampa Valley
Land Trust
Connecticut
Trust for
Historic
Preservation


NA1


1 NA Not Available











State Name of Total Total Total Total
Easement Number of Number of Number of Number of
Holding Easements Interior Residential Interior
Organizations held by Easements Preservation Residential
Organization held by Easements Preservation
Organization Easements
DE Delaware Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Natural
Resources &
Environmental
Control


First State
Preservation
Revolving
Fund, Inc

Preservation
Delaware, Inc

State of
Delaware

Foundation for
the
Preservation of
Historic
Georgetown

The L'Enfant
Trust

Dade Heritage
Trust

Preservation
Foundation of
Palm Beach

Athens-Clarke
Heritage
Foundation,
Inc


1107


1064


2 NR No Response









State Name of Total Total Total Total
Easement Number of Number of Number of Number of
Holding Easements Interior Residential Interior
Organizations held by Easements Preservation Residential
Organization held by Easements Preservation
Organization Easements
GA Easements 41 0 1 0


Atlanta
Georgia Trust
for Historic
Preservation
Historic
Columbus
Foundation,
Inc
Historic
Savannah
Foundation
Historic
Hawaii
Foundation
None

Landmarks
Preservation
Council of
Illinois
Historic
Landmarks
Foundation of
Indiana
Historic
Madison, Inc
Clayton
County
Conservation
Board
None

The Bluegrass
Conservancy


307


Unknown











State Name of Total Total Total Total
Name Easement Number of Number of Number of Number of
Holding Easements Interior Residential Interior
Organizations held by Easements Preservation Residential
Organization held by Easements Preservation
Organization Easements
KY Jefferson NR
County Office
of Historic
Preservation
& Archives
Kentucky 8 8 4 4
Trust for
Historic
Preservation,
Inc.
River Fields, 22 1 6 1
Inc.
LA Louisiana NR
Division of
Archaeology
Preservation 115 0 64 0
Resource
Center of
New Orleans
Vieux Carre 19 0 16 0
Commission
ME Harpswell NR
Heritage Land
Trust
Maine NR
Historic
Preservation
Commission
Maine 25 3 7 3
Preservation
MD Historic 150 15 139 9
Annapolis
Foundation











State Name of Total Total Total Total
Easement Number of Number of Number of Number of
Holding Easements Interior Residential Interior
Organizations held by Easements Preservation Residential
Organization held by Easements Preservation
Organization Easements
MD Maryland 961 21 Unknown Unknown
Environmental
Trust
Maryland NR
Historic Trust
Peerless 4 2 1 0
Rockville
Historic
Preservation,
Ltd.
MA Cambridge 45 1 18 1
Historical
Commission
The Trustees 322 0 100 0
of
Reservations
MI Michigan 104 25 14 2
Historical
Center
MN None 0 0 0 0

MS Mississippi 913 913 Unknown
Department of
Archives and
History
Vicksburg 3 3 3 3
Foundation for
Historic
Preservation
MO Landmarks NR
Historic Trust
Corporation
MT None 0 0 0 0










State Name of Total Total Total Total
Easement Number of Number of Number of Number of
Holding Easements Interior Residential Interior
Organizations held by Easements Preservation Residential
Organization held by Easements Preservation
Organization Easements
NB None 0 0 0 0


Nevada State
Historic
Preservation
Office
Division of
Historical
Resources
Manchester
Historic
Association
New
Hampshire
Land &
Community
Heritage
Investment
Program
New
Hampshire
Preservation
Alliance
Historic
Society of
Princeton
New Jersey
Historic Trust

American
Studies
Foundation
Adirondack
Architectural
Heritage


NM


Unknown Unknown Unknown


NA











State Name of Total Total Total Total Number
Easement Number of Number of Number of of Interior
Holding Easements Interior Residential Residential
Organizations held by Easements Preservation Preservation
Organization held by Easements Easements
Organization
NY The Catskill NR
Center for
Conservation
and
Development
Landmark 37 18 31 14
Society of
Western New
York
Mohonk NR
Preserve, Inc.
New York 43 0 Unknown 0
Landmarks
Conservancy
Preservation 2 1 1 1
League of
New York
State
Saratoga 25 0 0 0
Springs
Preservation
Foundation
Society for the 8 8 8 8
Preservation
of Long Island
Antiquities
NC Capital Area 22 19 19 19
Preservation,
Inc
Conservation NA NA NA NA
Trust for
North Carolina










State Name of Total Total Total Total Number
Easement Number of Number of Number of of Interior
Holding Easements Interior Residential Residential
Organizations held by Easements Preservation Preservation
Organization held by Easements Easements
Organization
NC Preservation NR
Society of
Asheville &
Buncombe
County, Inc.
Preservation NR
Society of
Chapel Hill
Uptown NR
Shelby
Association,
Inc
ND North Dakota NA NA NA NA
Parks and
Recreation
Department
OH Cincinnati 81 2 71 2
Preservation
Association
Cleveland 1 0 0 0
Restoration
Society
Heritage Ohio 1 0 1 0
OK None 0 0 0 0

OR Historic NR
Preservation
League of
Oregon
PA Brandywine 28 0 26 0
Conservancy,
Inc










State Name of Total Total Total Total Number
Easement Number of Number of Number of of Interior
Holding Easements Interior Residential Residential
Organizations held by Easements Preservation Preservation
Organization held by Easements Easements
Organization
PA Preservation 220 6 125 3


Alliance for
Greater
Philadelphia
Rhode Island
Historical
Preservation
& Heritage
Commission
Historic
Beaufort
Foundation
Historic
Charleston
Foundation
Historic
Columbia
Foundation
Nation Ford
Land Trust
The Palmetto
Trust for
Historic
Preservation
The
Preservation
Society of
Charleston
Preserve
South Dakota


100




30


236


2











State Name of Total Total Total Total Number
Easement Number of Number of Number of of Interior
Holding Easements Interior Residential Residential
Organizations held by Easements Preservation Preservation
Organization held by Easements Easements
Organization
TN Historic NR
Nashville
Knox 0 0 0 0
Heritage, Inc
Memphis 6 0 2 0
Heritage, Inc
TX Galveston NR
Historical
Foundation,
Inc.
San Antonio 20 1 19 0
Conservation
Society
Texas NR
Historical
Commission
Texas NR
Historical
Commission
UT Utah Heritage 116 0 106 0
Foundation


Preservation
Trust of
Vermont, Inc.
Office of
Historic
Alexandria
Virginia
Department
of Historic
Resources
Virginia
Outdoors
Foundation


449



2,234


Unknown Unknown


Unknown



0










State Name of Total Total Total Total Number
Easement Number of Number of Number of of Interior
Holding Easements Interior Residential Residential
Organizations held by Easements Preservation Preservation
Organization held by Easements Easements
Organization
WA Jefferson NA NA NA NA


Land Trust
The San Juan
Preservation
Trust
Spokane
City/County
Historic
Preservation
Office
Washington
State Office
of
Archaeology
& Historic
Preservation
None

State
Historical
Society of
Wisconsin
None

American
Farmland
Trust
Civil War
Preservation
Trust
Frank Lloyd
Wright
Building
Conservancy


WV


WY


National
Orgs










State Name of Total Total Total Total Number
Name Easement Number of Number of Number of of Interior
Holding Easements Interior Residential Residential
Organizations held by Easements Preservation Preservation
Organization held by Easements Easements
Organization
Historic New 74
England
National NR
Architectural
Trust
The National 103 Unknown Unknown unknown
Trust for
Historic
Preservation
The Nature NA NA NA NA
Conservancy
Trust for NA NA NA NA
Public Land
TOTAL 9398 2616 1241 165










APPENDIX G
TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES (2006) COMAPERD
NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL EASEMENTS


TO TOTAL


STATE Total Number Total Percent of Number of Percent of
of Single Number of Residential Interior Interior
Family Residential Easements Residential Residential
Houses Easements Easements in Easements
state


Alabama
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North
Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South
Carolina
Tennessee


1,469,000
8,580,000
1,474,000
924,000
270,000

114,000
5,088,000
2,689,000
303,000
2,077,000
1,310,000
1,256,000
487,000
1,678,000
1,560,000
3,420,000
876,000

399,000
2,195,000
3,684,000

2,744,000
3,663,000
4,088,000
266,000

1,271,000
1,903,000


193
56
28
20
6
1164

3
65
1
1
4
80
7
140
118
14
3
2

10
44
19

72
151
6
234

2


.0131%
.00066%
.0019%
.0022%
.0023%
1.1%

.00006%
.00032%
.000003%
.00005%
.0003%
.0060%
.0015%
.0085%
.0077%
.00042%
.00035%
.0005%

.0005%
.0012%
.00071%

.0019%
.0037%
.0023%
.019%

.00011%


19
1
1
1
2
0


.0013%
.000012%
.000071%
.00011%
.000759%
0

0
.00002%
0
0
.0003%
0
.0006
0
.000065%
.0000592%
.00035
0

.0000027%
.00065%
.00071%

.000055%
.000074%
0
.0028%


1 Data retrieved from American Community Survey Tables. U.S. Census Bureau
American Fact Finder Community Survey Tables (2006). U.S. Census Bureau Housing Units by Units in Structure
and State 2006 Table 947. Retrieved from www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0952.xls on
November 1, 2008.











STATE Total Number Total Percent of Number of Percent of
of Single Number of Residential Interior Interior
Family Residential Easements Residential Residential
Houses Easements Easements in Easements
state
Texas 6,244,000 19 .00031% 0 0
Utah 661,000 106 .0167% 0 0
Vermont 218,000 37 .01746% 2 .00094%
Washington 1,784,000 5 .000287% 2 .00012%









APPENDIX H
PARTICIPANT CONSENT LETTER

Department of Interior Design
College of Design Construction and Planning

University of Florida
Gainesville, FL


Dear Participant,
My name is Nalo McGibbon and I am a graduate student at the University of Florida.

My master's thesis is examining the circumstances surrounding the loss of historic residential

interiors. As part of my thesis I am conducting interviews to learn about the connections

established between homeowners and the interior design of their historic residences. I am asking

you to participate in this interview in your capacity as owner of an historic house. The interview

is expected to last no longer than one hour; in it you will be asked a series of questions and asked

to create a basic drawing regarding your house. No specific drawing skills are required for this

purpose. You will not have to answer any questions that you do not wish to during the interview.

Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary. You are advised that there are no

anticipated risks, compensations or other direct benefits to you or your family. You are free to

withdraw your consent to participate and may discontinue your participation in the study at any

time without consequence. With your written permission, I will audio tape the interview. Only I

and my academic advisor will have access to these recordings which I will personally transcribe

removing any reference to your identity during the transcription process. The tape will then be

erased after it is transcribed to protect your identity. With your consent, I will also take

documentary photographs of your house interiors. Any direct reference to your identity will be

removed from the photographs using photo editing software. Your identity will be kept

confidential to the extent provided by law and your identity will not be revealed in the final









manuscript. The interview will be conducted at your home at your convenience by me in person.

A copy of the transcript of the interview and photographs taken will be sent to you for your

approval.

If you have any additional questions about the research protocol, please contact me at

(718) 852-4567 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Maruja Torres-Antonini at (352)392-0252 x335.

Questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant may be directed to the UF IRB

office, University of Florida, Box 11250, Gainesville, FL 32611; ph (352) 392-0433.

This letter serves as a contract for your participation in this study. If you agree to these

terms, please sign and return this copy in the enclosed envelope or via fax to (352) 392-7266

Attn: Dr. Maruja Torres Antonini. This study may be published in the future however this will

not entail compensation for me or for any participants. By signing this letter, you give me

permission to report your responses anonymously in the final thesis manuscript to the submitted

to my faculty supervisors and derivative publications.






I have read the procedure described above for the loss of historic residential interiors

Master's thesis. I voluntarily agree to participate in the interview and I have received a copy of

this description.




Signature of Participant /Date









APPENDIX I
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Homeowner information:

Name

Age

Gender

Occupation

Household composition:

Number of member's ages:

Genders:

Occupations:

Relationship to owner

Building information:

Address:

Age of building:

Square footage:

Approximate cost of purchase:

Questions relating to house period and owner knowledge of the house history

What period/style does your house belong to?

What year was your house built?

Can you give me a brief historical background on your house, including year built and

historical period and style it belongs to?









Questions regarding the preservation of the building

Describe the interior spaces of your house?

Did you have an image in mind before rehabilitating or remodeling the interior of your

house?

How preserved was the house when you moved in? What preservation measures have you

taken?

What research did you do on the house before you began preservation?

Have you thought of listing your house on the National Register of Historic Places? What

advantages and disadvantages do you foresee in listing your property with the National

Register of Historic Places?

How has the research you have done on your property affected your decision to list/not list

the house?

Questions regarding financial incentives

Prior to rehabilitating your property, did you research what incentives, financial or

otherwise, were available? Were there any reasons why you chose to use/not use them?

Have you ever thought about placing an easement to protect your house? Why?

If you were to place an easement on your house, what specific features would you protect?

Would it be acceptable to you, in order to receive a financial incentive for the rehabilitation

of your house, to have to go through a yearly inspection to make sure no major changes

were made? Why?

Would it be acceptable to you, in order to receive financial incentive for the rehabilitation

work on your house, to be required to open your house to the public for a few days of the

year? Why?









Would it be acceptable to you, in order to receive a financial incentive for rehabilitation

work on your house, to have to follow guidelines stating what could or could not be done

to it? Why?

Questions related to place identity and place attachment

What does the phrase "sense of place" mean to you? Do you feel a "sense of place" in

your house? Why?

Can you describe some place from your past and/or childhood where you felt at home?

Is there any place in your house now that has a similar feeling to it?

What do you think others can tell about you from visiting your house?

What do you think others can tell about you from visiting your house?

How do you feel when you are a visitor to someone else's house vs. when you are at your

own house?

Would you consider moving to a new house? Why or why not?

What do you feel your house says about you?

What made you want to preserve your house? Can you describe what is it about your

house that makes you want to/made you preserve it?

Drawing exercise

Please draw a symbol of what your house means to you whatever core image comes to

your mind put in the center of the page and continue with whatever other images, colors,

shapes, or words emerge. If any other houses or dwellings flash through your mind as

you do this a grandparent's house, a current neighbor's home, a childhood place. Note

which room or image or shape or word seemed to trigger that memory. Be aware of any

sensations in your body as you do this. Are you conscious of any feelings of warmth or









sadness, any sensation of relaxation or tension? Imagining that this picture is your friend

and start to tell it how you feel.

Questions related to nostalgia and place attachment

What made you purchase your house?

What do you think your house represents about you/your household members?

What does the design of your house say about you/your household members?

How does the design of your house make you feel?

Do you feel your house reflects this? Why?

Is there a particular room that represents you and/or your household members?

How would you define nostalgia?

Do you view yourself as nostalgic?

Do you acknowledge having nostalgic feelings associated to your house?









LIST OF REFERENCES


Pension Protection Act of 2006, House of Representatives, Second Session Sess.(2006).

Alexander, C. (1977). A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press.

Allen, A. D. (2008). Environmental Autobiography as a Means of Understanding Memories of a
Small-town Theater. International Journal of Spatial Design & Research, 8.

Andrus, P. (1988). The National Register of Historic Places and Significant Interiors. In The
Interiors Handbookfor Historic Buildings (pp. 1-1 1-3).

American Fact Finder Community Survey Tables (2006). U.S. Census Bureau Housing Units
by Units in Structure and State 2006 Table 947. Retrieved from
www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0952.xls on November 1, 2008.

American Housing Survey (2009). Units in Structure by Selected Characteristics-Owner
Occupied Units. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs07/tab3-25.pdf on November 1, 2008

Andrus, P. (1990). How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Retrieved from
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb 15/ on September 20, 2008.

Bathel, D. (1996). Getting in Touch with History: The Role of Historic Preservation in Shaping
Collective Memories. Qualitative Sociology, 19(3), 345-364.

Belk, R. W. (1992). Attachment to Possessions. In I. Altman & S. Low (Eds.), Place Attachment
(Vol. 12, pp. 37-62). New York: Plenum Press.

Bennefield, R & Bonnette, R. (2003) Structural and Occupancy Characteristics of Housing:
2000. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-32.pdf. Retrieved on December 1, 2008

Black, H. C. (Ed.) (1983) Black's Law Dictionary Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of
American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern. St. Paul, Minn: West
Publishing.

Boynton, C.W. (2008, November 21, 2008). Connecticut towns see the effect of teardowns on
their community. The New York Times, retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/nyregion/connecticut/23tearct.html on December 1,
2008.

Busch, A. (1999). Geography ofHome. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Burden, E. (Ed.) (2004) Illustrated Dictionary of Architectural Preservation. New York: McGraw
Hill.









Butler, D. R. (1985). The use of easements on historic structures: A survey and analysis of
easement holding organizations in Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, S.,,n Carolina,
and Virginia. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Cherulnik, P. D., & Wilderman, S. K. (1986). Symbols of Status in Urban Neighborhoods:
Contemporary Perceptions of Nineteenth-Century Boston. Environment and Behavior,
18(5), 604-622.

Cooper Marcus, C. (1997). House as a Mirror of Self: Exploring the Deeper Meaning ofHome.
Berwick, Maine: Nicolas-Hays.

Dekalb History Center (2008). Dekalb History. Retrieved from
www.dekalbhistory.org/02_history/02.html on February 15, 2009.

Dovey, K. (1985). Home and Homelessness. In I. Altman & C. Werner (Eds.), Home
Environments (1 ed., Vol. 8, pp. 33-64). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Fisher, C. E. (1998). Promoting the Preservation of Historic Buildings: Historic Preservation
Policy in the United States. APTBulletin, 29(3/4), 7-11.

Foster, M. (2007). DC bulldozes 1925 Sears House. From Preservation Magazine Dec 2007.
Retrieved from http://www.preservationnation.org/magazine/2007/todays-news-2007/dc-
bulldozes-1925-sears.html on December 1, 2008.

Franklin, B. J. (2001). Discourses of Design: Perspectives on the Meaning of Housing Quality
and 'Good' Housing Design. Housing, Theory & Society, 18, 79-92.

Gallagher, W. (2006). House Thinking: A Room by Room look at how we live. New York, NY:
Harper Collins.

Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice. Victoria: Optimal
Books.

Giuliani, M. V. (2003). Theory of Attachment and Place Attachment. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee & M.
Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues (pp. 137-170).
Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Co.

Gram-Hanssen, K., & Beth-Danielsen, C. (2004). House, Home and Identity from a
Consumption Perspective. Housing, Theory & Society, 21(1), 17-26.

Hershberger, R. G. (1970). Architecture and Meaning. Journal ofAesthetic Education, 4(4), 37-
55.

Herzog, T. R., & Shier, R. L. (2000). Complexity, Age and Building Preference. Environment
andBehavior, 32(4), 557-575.









Hiss, T. (1990). The Experience ofPlace: A new way of looking at and dealing / ith our
radically changing cities and countryside. New York: Vintage Books.

Huxtable, A. L. (1986). Goodbye History, Hello Hamburger. Washington, D.C.: Preservation
Press.

Jandl, H. W. (1988). Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic Buildings: Identifying and Preserving
Character-defining Elements. Retrieved. from.

Jenkins, S., & Mohney, D. (2001). The Houses of Philip Johnson. New York: Abbeville Press
Publishers.

Kass, S. L., LaBelle, J., M., & Hansell, D. A. (1993). Rehabilitating Older and Historic
Buildings: Law, Taxation, Strategies (2nd Edition ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons.

Kopek, D. (2006). Environmental Psychology for Design. New York: Fairchild.

Kron, J. (1983). Home-Psych: The Social Psychology of Home and Decoration. New York:
Clarkson N. Potter, Inc.

Kuenstler, J.H. (1996). Home from Nowhere. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kumar, R. (2005). Research Methodology: A step by step guide for beginners. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.

Landmarks, N. H. (2008). Nantucket Historic District. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from
http://www.nr.nps.gov/iwisapi/explorer.dll?IWSSCHEMA=NRIS &IWSLOGIN=I&I
WS REPORT=100000044

Lawrence, R. J. (1987). What makes a House a Home? Environment and Behavior, 19(2), 154-
168.

Leichenko, R. M., Coulson, N. E., & Listokin, D. (2001). Historic Preservation and Residential
Property Values: An Analysis of Texas Cities. Urban Studies, 38(11), 1973-1987.

Low, S., & Altman, I. (1992). Place Attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman & S. Low
(Eds.), Place Attachment (Vol. 12, pp. 1-12). New York: Plenum Press.

Maddex, D. (Ed.). (1990). Landmark Yellow Pages. Where to find all the names, addresses,
facts and figures you need/National Trustfor Historic Preservation (Rev. and enl. ed of:
'The Brown book' c1983 ed. Vol. ). Washington, DC: Preservation Press.

Mallard, R. (2001-2002). Avoiding the "Disneyland Facade": The Reach of Architectural
Controls Exercised by Historic Districts over Internal Features of Structures. Widener
Law Symposium Journal, 8(2), 23.

Manzo, L. C. (2003). Beyond house and haven: toward a revisioning of emotional relationships
with places. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 23(1), 47-61.


118









Matarrese, L. (1997). The Levittown Historical Society's History of Levittown. Retrieved from
http://www.levittownhistoricalsociety.org/history.htm on December 1, 2008.

Matlow, D. (2008). Teardown of the Day Westport News. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from
http://www.westportnow.com/index.php?/v2/teardowns

Matt, S. J. (2005). There's No Place Like Home. In P. N. Steams (Ed.), American Behavioral
History. New York: New York University Press.

McDonald, T. C. (1993). Restoration as History: Are there Different Standards? In M. J. Auer,
C. E. Fisher, T. Jester & M. E. Kaplan (Eds.), The Interiors Handbook for Historic
Buildings (Vol. II). Washington, DC: Historic Preservation Education Foundation.

Morgan, J. C. (1999). An Analysis of the Use of Preservation Easements for Historic Interiors.
University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Moore, C., Allen, G., & Lyndon, D. (1974). The Place ofHouses. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.

Myers, D. G. (2008). Social Psychology (9th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic Meanings of House Styles. Environment andBehavior, 21(3), 235-
257.

Nasar, J. L., & Devlin, A. S. (2000). Regional Variation in Preferences for Vernacular Houses.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(1), 41-66.

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO). (2008) Retrieved on
September 8, 2008, from http://ncshpo.org/current/statetaxincentives.htm

National Conference of State Legislatures 1999 State Historic Preservation Laws Easements
(NCSLa). (2008) Retrieved on May 21, 2008, from
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/arts/statehist99.cfm

National Conference of State Legislatures 1999 State Historic Preservation Laws State Tax
Credits (NCSLb). (2008) Retrieved on May 21, 2008, from
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/arts/statehist99.cfm

National Park Service National Register Database (NPS). (2008). Retrieved on August 3, 2008,
from http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/research/nris.htm

National Trust of Historic Preservation (NTHPa) (2008). Heritage Tourism. Retrieved from
http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/heritage-tourism/ Retrieved on December 26,
2008.









National Trust of Historic Preservation (NTHPb) (2008). Sustainability by Numbers: The costs
of construction and demolition. Retrieved from
http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/sustainability/sustainability-numbers.html
Retrieved on December 26, 2008.

National Trust of Historic Preservation (NTHPc) (2008). Teardowns and McMansions.
Retrieved from http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/teardowns/ Retrieved on
December 1, 2008.

National Trust for Historic Preservation State Tax Credits for Historic Preservation A State by
State Summary (NTHP). (August, 2007) Retrieved on May 23, 2008 from,
http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/rehabilitation-tax-credits/addtional-
resources/state-by-state-tax-credit-summary-chart.pdf

Newman, A. (2008, May 25, 2008). A Tiny Masterpiece, Unloved, Faces Threat. New York
Times,

Press, A. (2008). Panel says Red Sox owner can tear down Brookline mansion. Boston Globe,
pp. Retrieved from
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/2005/2020/panel_says_re
d sox owner can tear down brookline mansion/?rss id=Boston.com+--
+Massachusetts+news on December 2001, 2008,

Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place Identity: Physical World
Socialization of the Self. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 3, 57-83.

Purcell, A. T., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Experiencing Other People's Houses: A Model of
Similarities and Differences in Environmental Experience. Journal ofEnvironmental
Psychology, 12, 199-211.

Quentzel, F. N. (1993). Assessing the Condition of Histroic Interiors Prior to Work. In M. J.
Auer, C. E. Fisher, T. Jester & M. E. Kaplan (Eds.), The Interiors Handbook for Historic
Buildings (Vol. II). Washington, DC: Historic Preservation Education Foundation.

Reed, K. (2007, August 25, 2007). John Henry on base with his bid for McCourt mansion. The
Boston Globe,

Ritterfeld, U. (2002). Social Heuristics in Interior Design Preferences. Journal ofEnvironmental
Psychology, 22, 369-386.

Ritterfeld, U., & Cupchik, G. C. (1996). Perceptions of Interior Spaces. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 16, 349-360.

Rowe, R. E. (2004). Can Historic Neighborhoods Compete? Analysis of and Recommendations
for Local Incentives for Owner-Occupied Residential Structures. Texas A&M.

Rybczynski, W. (1986). Home: A .\/Nht History of an Idea. New York: Penguin Book.









Rypkema, D. D. (2005). The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader's Guide
(2nd Edition ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Rypkema, D. D. (2008). Sustainability, Smart GI em ith and Historic Preservation. Economic
Benefits ofPreservation. Paper presented at the Historic Districts Council Annual
Conference.

Saegert, S. (1985). The Role of Housing in the Experience of Dwelling In I. Altman & C.
Werner (Eds.), Home Environments (1 ed., Vol. 8). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Schofield, C. (2003). Historic Preservation Easements: A Directory of Historic Preservation
Easement Holding Organizations. Washington DC: National Parks Service.

Seale, W. (1993). Architecture, Furnishings, Fixtures, and the Authentick Interior. In M. J. Auer,
C. E. Fisher, T. Jester & M. E. Kaplan (Eds.), The Interiors Handbook for Historic
Buildings (Vol. II). Washington, DC: Historic Preservation Education Foundation.

Sidwell, K. A. (2006). An Analysis of Protection of Historic Interiors. Goucher College,
Baltimore.

Sirgy, M. J., Grzeskowiak, S., & Su, C. (2005). Explaining housing preference and choice: The
role of self-congruity and functional congruity. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 20, 329-347.

Sparke, P. (2004). The domestic interior and the construction of self: the New York homes of
Elsie de Wolfe. In S. McKellar & P. Sparke (Eds.), Interior design and identity (pp. 218).
Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Stamps III, A. E., & Nasar, J. L. (1997). Design Review and Public Preferences: Effects of
Geographical Location, Public Consensus, Sensation Seeking and Architectural Styles
Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 17(1), 11-32.

Steele, F. (1981). The Sense ofPlace. Boston: CBI Publishing Company.

Stipe, R. E. (2003). A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century.
Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Sudjic, D. (2005). The Edifice Complex. New York: Penguin Books.

Schwartz, H. K. (2007). State Tax Credits for Historic Preservation.

Thorton, R. (2002). Windows on the Past. Retrieved from www.oldhouseweb.com/architecture-
and-design/windows-on-the-past.shtml Retrieved on December 1, 2008.

Twigger-Ross, C., Bonaiuto, M., & Breakwell, G. (2003). Identity Theories and Environmental
Psychology. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological Theories for
Environmentallssues (pp. 203-233). Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Co.









Tyler, N. (2000). Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice
(2nd Edition ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.

U.S. Census Bureau (2008). Annual Estimates of Housing Units for the United States and
States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/HU-EST2007.html on November 1, 2008.

Volz, C. (1993). Documenting the Period Interior: A Method of Investigation, Recording and
Analysis. In M. J. Auer, C. E. Fisher, T. Jester & M. E. Kaplan (Eds.), The Interiors
Handbook for Historic Buildings (Vol. II). Washington, DC: Historic Preservation
Education Foundation.

Weeks, K., D. and Grimmer, Anne E. (1995). The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties n i/h Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress.

What is a Sears Modern Home? (2008). Retrieved from
http://www.searsarchives.com/homes/index.htm on December 1, 2008.

Wilson, M. A., & Mackenzie, N. E. (2000). Social Attributions Based on Domestic Interiors.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 343-354.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design andMethods (3rd Edition ed. Vol. 5).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ziegler, E., Rathkopf, A., & Rathkopf, D. (2008). Rathkopfs The Law of Zoning and Planning
(4th ed.). Eagen Thomson West.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Nalo Alexandra McGibbon was born in Detroit, Michigan but grew up in the Albany, NY

region. It was her experiences growing up in Albany and Altamont that exposed her to the

quirks and joys of living in an older house. She graduated from Guilderland Central High

School. After high school, Nalo moved to New York City where she attended Barnard College,

Columbia University. She graduated with Bachelor of Arts in Theater with Departmental

Honors. After college, Nalo moved to London, England for several months. When she returned

to America, she moved back to New York City where she worked in various capacities in the

performing arts for several years. While she loved working in the performing arts, Nalo longed

to return to school to pursue a degree in Interior Design. Finally, Nalo decided to follow her

passion and moved from New York to Florida and applied to the University of Florida for their

master program in Interior Design. Nalo's two main interests are: historic preservation and

environmentally responsible design. These interests have lead Nalo to believe that good design

should respect and acknowledge the past and embrace the future.





PAGE 1

1 RESCUING OUR PAST THE ROLE OF SENSE OF PLACE IN THE PRESERVATION OF RESIDENTIAL INTERIORS By NALO ALEXANDRA MCGIBBON A MASTERS THESIS PRESENTE D TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Nalo McGibbon

PAGE 3

3 To my Mom

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It takes a village to write a thesis and I w ould like to thank everyone involved in helping m e write mine. First I would like to th ank my thesis advisor Professor Ma ruja Torres-Antonini for keeping me on topic when I wandered. I would also like to thank my co-chair Professor Roy Graham for first getting me interested in the field of historic preservation. I w ould also like to thank Professor Peter Prugh, it is because of the lectures in Nantucket that I became aware of the effect of gut rehabs on historic houses. Next, I would like to thank all of the employees of the various State Historic Preservation Offices and Easement organizations who took time to answer my questions. Special thanks to Kate Ryan at the Georgia Trust for helping me arrange interviews. To my friends, thank you for laughing with me and sometimes at me over the years. I would especially like to thank both Christie Moore-Yonover and Jenifer Ruske for their friendship, love and laughter sin ce college. Also, I w ould like to thank Greg Fortner, Amanda Zenteno and Vanessa Schneller for their years of friendship. Lastly, I wa nt to thank Danielle Palow, Iris Patten, James Wall, and Ryan Thomps on for attempting to keep me sane throughout the thesis process. I would like to thank my adopted parents, Liz and Lee Synder, fo r their love and support. Lastly, I would like to thank my mom for ever ything. I would not be the person I am today without your love and support

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................8LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............10 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 12Why Preserve the Past? ........................................................................................................ ..12Preservation for Practical vs. Emotional Reasons ........................................................... 13Practical reasons ............................................................................................................. .14Emotional reasons ........................................................................................................... 16Factors that Impact Hi storic Preservation ...............................................................................17Style ......................................................................................................................... ........17Craftsmanship ................................................................................................................. .19Property rights ............................................................................................................... ..20How are Historic Residential Interiors Being Lost? ...............................................................21Insensitive rehabilitations ................................................................................................22Market-driven teardowns .................................................................................................23Interior shell viewed as be ing of secondary importance .................................................24Historic Preservation Tools ................................................................................................... .24Legislation .......................................................................................................................25National Register for Historic Places .............................................................................. 26Secretary of the Interior Standards fo r Treatment of Historic Proprieties ...................... 28Historic interiors vs. recreated interiors .......................................................................... 29Availability of Financial Incentives ........................................................................................ 31Federal incentives ............................................................................................................ 31State rehabilitation tax credit for homeowners ................................................................ 33Easements ..................................................................................................................... ...342 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..........................................................................................38Environmental Behavior ........................................................................................................ .38Sense of self .....................................................................................................................39Social identity ............................................................................................................... ...40Place identity ................................................................................................................ ...41Territorial marking ................................................................................................... 42Personalization ......................................................................................................... 43Place attachment .............................................................................................................. 44

PAGE 6

6 Familiarity, security, emotional comfort .................................................................. 44Destruction of interiors ............................................................................................. 45Nostalgia ................................................................................................................... 46Narrative ................................................................................................................... 47Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........483 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 49Sense of self .....................................................................................................................51Worthiness .................................................................................................................... ...51Place attachment .............................................................................................................. 53Nostalgia ..................................................................................................................... .....544 CASE STUDY ........................................................................................................................56Case Study Background ..........................................................................................................56Case Study 1 Gainesville, FL ..........................................................................................59Case Study 2 Gainesville, FL .........................................................................................62Case Study 3 Lithonia, GA ............................................................................................. 64Case Study 4 Atlanta, GA .............................................................................................. 66Case Study 5 Carnesville, GA ........................................................................................67Environmental Autobiographies ...................................................................................... 69Cross Case Analysis ........................................................................................................... ....745 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... ...83APPENDIX A NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BY AGE ........................................................... 87B LEGISLATION FOR STATE REHABI LTATION TAX CREDIT FOR HOMEOWNERS .................................................................................................................... 88C NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT USED STATE REHABILT ATION TAX CREDIT FOR HOMEOWNERS BY STATE ....................................................................................... 91D NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES (20 06) COMPARED TO TOTAL NUMBER OF APPROVED SINGLE FAMI LY HOUSES THAT HAVE USED STATE REHABILITATION tax credit, by state ................................................................... 93E STATES WITH EASEMENT ENABLI NG L EGISLATION AND NUMBER OF EASEMENT HOLDING ORGANIZATIONS ......................................................................94F EASEMENTS BY ORGANIZATIONS BY STATE ............................................................. 96G TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES (2006) COMAPERD TO TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL EASEMENTS .................................................................... 108

PAGE 7

7 H PARTICIPANT CONSENT LETTER .................................................................................110I INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................................................................................................. 112LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................116BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................123

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 5-1 Case Study House Status Historic or Historic ................................................................ 595-2 Case Study Subjects Treatment of House .......................................................................... 595-3 Cross Case Analysis Finding of Role of Sense of Self ...................................................... 765-4 Cross Case Analysis Role of Worthiness ...........................................................................775-5 Cross Case Analysis Role of Sense of Place ..................................................................... 785-6 Cross Case Analysis Role of Nostalgia .............................................................................79

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Role of sense of self in decision making for homeowners. ............................................... 523-2 Role of worthiness in decision making for homeowners ................................................... 533-3 Role of Sense of Place Attachment in decision making for homeowners ......................... 543-4 Role of Nostalgia in de cision making for homeowners ..................................................... 555-1 Case Study House Interiors. P hotographs of Subject 1s house. ......................................615-2 Case Study House Interiors. P hotographs of Subject 2s house. ......................................635-3 Case Study House Interiors. P hotographs of Subject 3s house. ......................................655-4 Case Study House Interiors. P hotographs of Subject 5s house. ......................................695-5 Environmental Autobiog raphy drawing Subject 1 ........................................................... 705-6 Environmental Autobiog raphy drawing, Subject 3 ........................................................... 715-7 Environmental Autobiog raphy drawing Subject 4 ........................................................... 725-8 Environmental Autobiog raphy drawing, Subject 5 ........................................................... 73

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Interior Design RESCUING OUR PAST THE ROLE OF SENSE OF PLACE IN THE PRESERVATION OF RESIDENTIAL INTERIORS By Nalo Alexandra McGibbon August 2009 Chair: Maruja Torres-Antonini Major: Interior Design Historic residential interiors are being lost due to multiple causes. There are several strategies for fighting this loss including government suppor ted financial incentives for rehabilitation or restoration as well as individual efforts to recreate historic interiors. The purpose of this thesis is to ex amine some of the reasons that might explain the restoration, preservation or reconstruction of residential interiors. Despit e of the wide availability of financial incentives for their preservation, these initi atives are rarely used and historic residential interiors continue to be lost. Counteracting this phenomenon, some individuals are motivated enough to attempt saving interiors of the past on th eir own terms, and chose to create interiors to match their own interpretation of the history of their house. Case study research was conducted to describe and help explain individual choices in rehabilitating or restoring resi dential interiors. Case studies are well suited to examine contemporary phenomena within thei r real-life context. Cases we re controlled for single family house owners living in houses generally referred to as historic. Semi-structured informal interviews following approved prot ocols inquired about homeowner reasons for rehabilitating or restoring their house interiors. The case study participants emotional attachment, and

PAGE 11

11 identification with, their house were examin ed through interview questions and use of environmental autobiography methods. The information was then interp reted and a cross-case analysis was generated to identify recurring c onnections between psychosocial factors and the interpretive recreat ion of house interiors. This thesis summarizes the theoretical b ackground, method and results of this study, and findings from the case studies suggesting possi ble answers to the question: Why do people preserve, through rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction, resi dential interiors of the past?

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Why Preserve the Past? What preservation is really abou t is the retention and active re lationship of the buildings of the past to the communitys functioning presen t. You dont erase hist ory to get history; a citys character and qualit y are a product of continu ity. (Huxtable, 1986, p.62) Preservation is about maintaini ng an active relationship between the past and present. As Huxtable mentions, the history of a town can be seen in the various building types th at survive to the present. Preservation sa ves the historic and architectu ral legacy of our culture. Documentary evidence, such as photographs and blue prints, may allow for examination of historic structures but they do not capture the spirit of place. On e reason to preserve buildings is to safeguard these tangible links to the past and help individual s recognize who we are, how we became so, and to serve as an anchor for societ ys memories (Bathel, 1996; Stipe, 2003). The goal of historic preservation is neither to mothball, closing up a building to protect it while it is vacant, nor make every historic structure in to a museum; but to ma intain an interactive relationship with these structures so they are in use and relevant to the present. The historic buildings and interiors that surround us as part of our daily life also become part of our identity; as individuals are part of a continuous exch ange through which our surroundings create our identity and our identity creates our surroundings (Stipe, 2003). So, historic preservation helps create a bond between the commun ity and the individuals who live there (Rypkema, 2005). Some buildings are preserved because of their as sociation with either significant events or people of the past. Preserving these historic buildings protec ts the irreplaceable memories connected to historic events. However, historic buildings are preserved for reasons beyond their association with famous events or people. Some buildings are saved because they exemplify the distinctive characteristics of a type or period; some because of their intrinsi c artistic value (Stipe,

PAGE 13

13 2003). Some people may preserve for feelings of nostalgia for the past and others may choose to preserve historic buildings because they regard modern construction as uniform and therefore an inadequate means for maintaining the individuality and identity they seek (Stipe, 2003). Finally some may preserve historic buildings out of pr agmatic or economic needs. In general, the decision to preserve historic buildings is affected by social motives and these motives are themselves shaped by social struct ure and experiences with the hist oric building (Bathel, 1996). Preservation for Practical vs. Emotional Reasons In the m odern world, the idea that houses can be loved and beautiful has been eliminated altogether. For most of the world's housing, th e task of building houses has been reduced to a grim business of facts and figures, an uphill struggle against the relentless surge of technology and bureaucracy, in which human fee ling has almost been forgotten. (Franklin, 2001, p.79) For many centuries, houses have been viewed primarily as a shelter from the elements and little attention was paid to thei r aesthetic design (Rybczynski, 1986). Originally houses were just a shelter for sleeping but duri ng the middle ages the house evol ved to also be the primary location of a familys business (Rybczynski, 1986). These buildings were simply designed and could be either one large room where furniture was moved to suit individual needs, or a building of several stories where busine ss was conducted on street level a nd the upper level was where the family and apprentices slept (Rybczynski, 1986). Today such buildings would be classified as mixed use. As the Industrial era began business began to move out of private houses and into commercial buildings, thus allowing residential bu ildings to be used for a single purpose. Residential interiors began to change to accomm odate newly developing notions of family and privacy. The idea of home as a place that reflected indi vidual identity, privacy and comfort began in Europe in the late 17th and 18th Centuries and in America in the late 18th/early 19th Centuries (Matt, 2005, p. 16). The concept of the family home developed with the removal of business

PAGE 14

14 activities from the house (Rybczyns ki, 1986). Prior to this time, the idea of a close knit nuclear family did not exist since children were frequently sent to work as appr entices or servants as soon as they were old enough (Rybczynski, 1986). Once houses were no longer the main workplace, households grew smaller and containe d only an individual family. This change caused for houses to shift from being one or tw o large rooms to being further subdivided which coincided with developing ideas of boundaries between the public and private realms in a persons life (Rybczynski, 1986). Over the centu ries, these ideas deve loped into rooms for specific purposes and the arrangement of rooms to suit the intimacy gradient that developed (Alexander, 1977). These layouts are part of the physical evidence reflecting the time they were built and societys views on privacy. Historic residential buildings are evidence of the progression of the ideas of family and privacy. Practical reasons One of the m ain reasons to rehabilitate and reuse historic structures besides emotional reasons is the financial and environmental benefi ts of preservation, which are closely tied. The financial benefits of reusing an historic building reside in their potential for creating direct jobs and indirect revenue, for example from visitors to historic houses and districts (Rypkema, 1994). First, preservation or rehabilitation of a house is labor intensive process that not only creates construction jobs but also uses more highly sk illed labor than traditional construction work. These jobs help boost the local economy where the work is taking place by increasing the income base which then affects the community as a whole as individuals spend their earned money in their community (Rypkema, 1994). Anot her financial benefit is cultural heritage tourism, which is defined as traveling to e xperience the places, artif acts and activities that authentically represent the stories and people of the past and present. It includes cultural, historic and natural resources (NTHPa, 2008). Cultural tourism is a growing industry. It includes

PAGE 15

15 visiting properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places as well as other historic neighborhoods, districts, towns and villages. Cultural tourism attract s visitors to both large cities and small towns (NTHPa, 2008). Studies have found that cultural heritage visitors spend more per day, stay longer, and visit more places than tourists in general (Rypkema, 1994, p.2). Individuals visit these places to e xperience a place first hand using all of their senses in order to be where history occu rred (Rypkema, 2005, p.78). Historic preservation has many environmental benefits from reduction of materials in landfills, the reuse of the embodied energy in buildings, the reduction of suburban sprawl, and the conservation of energy. First, preservation of historic buildings reduces the amount of debris entering the waste stream (Rypkema, 2005). Acco rding to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, construction debris accounts for at least 25% of waste stre am each year (NTHPb, 2008) this figure does not take into account th e transportation costs for debris removal or construction of new landf ills (Rypkema, 2005). Secondly, preserving a building saves embodied energy. Embodied energy is defined as the total expenditure of energy involved in th e creation of the building and its constituent materials (Rypkema, 2008). The average embodied energy in existing buildings is 5 to 15 gallons of gasoline per square f oot and it takes approximately 65 years for an energy efficient new building to save the amount of energy lost in demolition of an existing building (NTHPb, 2008). According to the National Trust for Histor ic Preservation, the amount of energy used to demolish and rebuild 82 billion squa re feet of space could be used to power the en tire state of California for 10 years and if 10% of the 82 billi on square feet was rehabilitated it would save enough energy to power the state of New York for well over a year (NTHPb, 2008).

PAGE 16

16 Third, historic preservation contributes to mo re compact development patterns and reduces suburban sprawl by increasing density and prom oting infill (Rypkema, 2005). Most historic neighborhoods were designed for pedestrians so residents rely less upon cars for local transportation. Also, historic neighborhoods generally tend to be near public transportation and within walking distan ce of basic goods and services and employment (Rypkema, 2005). Fourth, historic buildings were for the most part constructed to be compatible with the environment in which they were built, thus reducing energy consumption. According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, buildings constructed prior to 1920 are as or more energy efficient than buildings constructed th rough the year 2000 (NTHPb, 2008). Historic buildings, especially houses, were constructed with natural materials and considered the local climate and the building siting. Emotional reasons The em otional reasons for the preservation of residential buildings include the connection the physical evidence provides to the past and the aesthetic impact of the spaces. The buildings a society chooses to preserve or destroy reflec t its values; as the evolution of building style illustrates specific variations that respond to the circumstances and the needs of that community. Buildings consist of series of sequenced spaces that have specific uses that provide context for social activity and framework for individual and social identifications (Alexander, 1977). Environments therefore reflect the time and society in which they were built; in turn, individuals views towards their environment are determined by the meaning they attribute to it (Wilson & Mackenzie, 2000). Historic buildings and especially histor ic residential buildings not only convey a communitys self image but also help di fferentiate communities (Rypkema, 2005). The perceived importance of buildings is thought to lie in their aesthetic impact. One condition for

PAGE 17

17 preserving an historic building is that it exemplifies high artistic values and skilled craftsmanship (Weeks, 1995). The aesthetic impact of a building is "comprised of the various elements of a building; size, scale, proportion, massing and volume, relationship of parts to each other and to the whole, ornamentation, rhythm, light and sh adow, texture, decorati on and color" (Sudjic, 2005, p.85). Some claim that an i ndividuals desire to live in a given space depends on the beauty attributed to it. A study found that, aesthetically, indi viduals prefer rooms that are familiar, warm, stimulating and orderly, not decorative, fancy, complex, formal and stimulating (Ritterfeld & Cupchik, 1996). The study does not however state what characteristics make a room feel one way or another but does state that people associate aesthetic characteristics to, and develop aesthetic preferences for, specific room types. Factors that Impact Historic Preservation There are many different issues that im pact on whether a building and it s interiors will be preserved, a few factors are: style, quality of craftsmanship, property rights. The negative impact of these factors on a bu ildings interior can lead to insensitive renovations and marketdriven teardowns. Style Public perception of architectur e styles is one obstacle that historic preservation m ust overcome. Popular or vernacular styles are wh at people encounter on a regular, long-term basis in their daily lives (Nasar, 1989; Purcell & Nasar, 1992). Popular styles commonly encountered in the United States include Mediterranean, Prairie School, Craftsman, Period/French, Contemporary, Farm, Colonial or Tudor (Stamp s & Nasar, 1997). Popular styles are so prevalent that little importance is placed on them because they are viewed as ordinary or pedestrian. This applies equally to architectural she ll and the interior. Th e interior in popular styles is what most individuals are exposed to on a regular basis throughout their lives. Due to

PAGE 18

18 this constant exposure these spaces are not view ed as special so less im portance is placed on protecting them. Vernacular buildings such as the Sears Roebuck and Levittown houses are examples of historic buildings that are viewed with less im portance. Over a 32 year period, starting in the 1908 season, Sears Roebuck and Co. sold over 70 ,000 mail order houses in a variety of styles (Sears, 2008). Few, if any, Sears Roebuck houses are considered landmarks. In 2007, the city of Washington, D.C. bulldozed a 1925 Sears Ro ebuck house with cheers from neighbors who viewed it as blight due to lack of maintenance (Foster, 2007 ). The house was relatively intact and was one of the few examples of a Sears Roeb uck house remaining in Washington, D.C. Of the remaining Sears Roebuck homes few retain or iginal elements like windows, doors, or siding (Thorton, 2002). Levittown, NY began in 1947 as a community of mass produced houses built for returning G.I.s from WWII (Matarrese, 1997). In the fo ur-year building boom ending in 1951 a total of 17,447 Levitt houses were built; nearly all of which today have either been expanded or remodeled (Matarrese, 1997). While people may not rate either a Levitt home or Sears mail order house as significant structures to preserve they are vitally important. These houses represent a shift in technology with the us e of mass production that made houses affordable for more individuals (Arieff, 2002). High style architecture can be de fined as buildings that are de signed by an architect (Nasar, 1989). These face the opposite problem of popular styles as an architect designed building is either created for a specific client or in a unique styl e, or are site specific, or appeal to the clients psychological and emotional impact. Buildings commissioned by architects are built with better quality materials than vernacular buildings since they are constructed to last and usually on a

PAGE 19

19 larger scale. These buildings are shaped by the egos of those who commi ssioned them as well as those who designed them; the building is thus used as a symbol of their wealth and power (Sudjic, 2005). However, even houses built by famous architects are threatened. An example of this is Phillip Johnsons livable Glass House built in 1953 for Alice Ball in New Canaan, CT (Newman, 2008). The Ball House is considered as one of the progeny of Johnsons famous Glass House constructed in 1949 almo st entirely of sheet glass. In the Ball House, Johnson explored many of the same ideas of separati on of public and private spaces, open and closed volumes, the linkages between these oppositions, a nd the relation of the whole to the surrounding natural environment that he had in the orig inal building (Jenkins & Mohney, 2001, p.96). The threat of destruction to the 1,773 square foot house ties to its current ow ners lack of use and prospective buyers for the house (Newman, 2008). New Canaan had over 90 modernist buildings designed by famous architects, incl uding Johnson, however, over the years two dozen have been torn down in favor of large McM ansion style buildings, bulky, out-of scale new houses on small parcels that do no t fit the existing char acter of a community (Newman, 2008). Craftsmanship A building m aybe an excellent example of s uperior craftsmanship and not be designed by an architect. Individuals rate older buildings higher on having physical features contributing to visual richness such as decoration, natural materi als, curves, articulated walls, distinctiveness, and mystery (Herzog & Shier, 2000). In respondi ng to the requirements of industrial processes, the mass production of homes has lead to a lack of details and features wh ich are identified as important in a home: prospect and refuge, enticement, peril, and complex order, which enhance the experience of home (Gallaghe r, 2006, p. 6; Hiss, 1990). Not surprisingly, most people think

PAGE 20

20 older homes are more beautiful and are more charming and have a sense of history when compared to new standard houses (Gram-Hanssen & Beth-Danielsen, 2004). However, some people will not purchase an old house because of the maintenance work that is necessary for its upkeep (Gram-Hanssen & Beth-Danie lsen, 2004; Herzog & Shier, 2000; Rowe, 2004). But, for those who do purchase an older home, the individual investment and sweat equity used to maintain and improve their h ouse creates a special feeling of being at home. This may partly explain why so me people spend so much time and money on their house. These homeowners not only maintain and decorate a ho use but in their eyes their efforts equal to building a home and family (Gram-Hanssen & Beth-Danielsen, 2004). Property rights Private property rights give th e owner the right to the unrestricted and ex c lusive use to the property and exclude interferen ce from everyone else (Black, 1983). They ensure that an individual has the right to do what they wish with their property as long as it causes no harm to others. Property rights extend to the effects of listing a build ing on the National Register of Historic Places. While no propert y can be listed on the National Re gister without consent of the property owners, the owner still maintains the ri ght to intervene the property as they wish provided no federal funding is involved. However, there is no responsib ility upon the owners to restore or maintain their buildings (Tyler, 2000). The rights of the individual versus those of the greater population are at odds when discussing historic preservati on. According to Blacks Law Dictionary (2004), historic preservation falls under police power which encompasses community values and aesthetics as well as the power to make laws to preserve th e public security, orde r, health, morality, and justice. This power grants the government th e right to designate buildings or districts as historic properties without the owners approva l (Blacks, 2004). The Supreme Court has ruled

PAGE 21

21 that this power is not deemed a taking, a govern ment appropriation of land where the owner is not fairly compensated, as the designati on does not result in the property being beyond reasonable use but is another form of la nd use regulation (Blacks, 2004; Leichenko, 2001; Ziegler, 2008). The strength of historic preserva tion lies in local government since they have the power to require private property owners to preserve their proper ties (Mallard, 2002). The preservation of the exteriors of homes is commonplace with the use of city, state and national ordinances that create hist oric districts. Impact of privat e buildings on a historic district is limited to what may affect the public. As th e majority of historic buildings are privately owned, it is only the exteriors that can be seen by others. As a consequence, historic preservation has a tendency to put greater emphasis on the preservation of facades. This means historic interiors are either overl ooked or treated as being of sec ondary importance to the exterior (Andrus, 1988; Sidwell, 1, 2006). While the interiors and exterior s of buildings are interrelated, the significance of some buildings is based more heavily on thei r interiors either because of craftsmanship or relationship with a historic figure. How are Historic Residential Interiors Being Lost? Like people, houses are created, live and grow old. Like us, they eventually disappear. Houses that survive to be studied, explored, and admired by distant generations should be regarded as emissari es from another time, as gateways into our past. (Larkin, 2006, p. 4) The difference between the loss of the archite cture of a building and its interior is significant. House interiors in clude material culture and so cial customs handed down from previous generations (Lawrence, 1987). Interior s are socially constructed environments whose form relates partly to the social qualities of the time and place that created them (Wilson & Mackenzie, 2000). Because of this, the histor y of a house can be told through its interior

PAGE 22

22 renovations. There is a logical pr ogression in houses from public to private areas which is a reflection of the time and era in which the interior was built. Insensitive rehabilitations Insensitiv e rehabilitations, where the historic character of the interiors are damaged or destroyed, are another reason why in teriors of historic buildings ar e lost. During rehabilitations, the interiors of buildings in general receive alterations. Th e Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitations set a threshold at which replacement rath er than repair of historic materials, such as moldings and windows occurs. However, th is threshold is set very low (Fisher, 1998). Historic character is defined as tangibl e architectural compon ents that convey the buildings sense of time and place (Jandl, 1988, p. 1). These tangible elements of a buildings past which may include the buildings floor pl an, spaces and volumes, individual architectural features, as well as the finishes and materials, are vulnerable because owners of a historic house are private property owners and are under no obliga tion to preserve or maintain these elements. Gut rehabilitations, or gut rehabs, are defined as the removal, or gutting, of the interior elements in a structur e, leaving only the structural elements standing (Burden, 2004). This trend is on the rise, as the U.S. Departme nt of Housing and Urban Development estimates that 1.8 million houses will be demolished nationw ide during this decade due to redevelopment efforts involving residential demolition and gut rehabilitation of older substandard housing. However, it is not just substandard housing that is affected by gut rehabilitations. An example of this can be seen in the historic district of Nantucket, MA. In 2000, Nantucket was placed on the National Trust for Historic Preservation list of Americas 11 Most Endangered Places because of the increased threat to the islands houses due to developmen t (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2007). Acknowledgement of this issu e has prompted the National Park Service to recommend a study to measure the impact of gut rehabilitations and poor restorations on the

PAGE 23

23 District compared to the conditions a decade or tw o ago. It also calls for the inventory of the condition of 800 identified pre-Ci vil War structures to determin e what has been lost due to economic changes (Landmarks, 2008). Market-driven teardowns A teardown is the trend of de molishing an old building to build a ne w building on the same site. The houses that replace these older houses are frequently out of scal e with the rest of the buildings in the community, which affect the fabric of the neighborhood (NTHP, 2008a). The trend has been driven by a thriving economy wher e land values increase sharply and individuals look to live in urban or close suburban neighbor hoods, however the large homes they are looking for are not available in these older neighbor hoods (NTHPc, 2008). In 2002, 100 communities in 20 states were identified as suffering mark et-driven teardowns; as of March 2008 over 500 communities in 40 states were reporting the trend (NTHP, 2008). Sin ce states track data differently, it is difficult to find out exactly how many houses are being destroyed each day. Nonetheless if they arent facing teardown it is conceivabl e that they may be undergoing insensitive renovations removing the historic fabr ic of the home leaving only a shell. An example of the teardown trend is the case of John Henry, owner of the Boston Red Sox, who purchased a 1930s Georgian revival with seven bedrooms and 11 bathrooms on a 7-acre property in Brookline, MA(Reed, 2007). A month after pu rchasing the property, paperwork was filed to demolish the house. The Brookline Historic Pr eservation Committee delayed the paperwork for nine months but finally gave Mr Henry permission to tear down the house, after he agreed to give the town some photographs and artifacts fr om house (Press, 2008). Another example of the regularity of teardowns is Westport, Connectic ut, where the trend is documented by the local newspaper in a Teardown of the Day interactiv e map that follows the progression of teardowns from demolition permit to destruction (Matlow, 2008). Claims are that 7746 houses were torn

PAGE 24

24 down in 2007, ranking it second in building demoliti ons in the state of Connecticut (Boynton, 2008). Interior shell viewed as be ing of secondary importance Architecture over tim e "takes on the patina and the resonance of the events that have taken place inside it, and of the people who have occupi ed it. Buildings are historical markers that show the passing of time..."(Sudjic, 2005, p.13). However, the historic characte r of an interior is frequently viewed as secondary to faade. An example is Washington, D.C. where because of height limitations developers keep the faade of a building but build to maximum height limit behind the faade (Tyler, 2000). The exterior of a building may give the observer cues about how to behave but it is the interior of a buildi ng which contains symbolic elements that inform people about whom and what to expect (Cherulnik & Wilderman, 1986; J. L. Nasar & Devlin, 2000). The interior with its physic al and symbolic qualities is cen tral to the human experience (Rullo, 1987). Without interiors, all that remains are faades where the sens e of the past is lost once a person enters inside of a building (Mallard, 2001-2002). Historic Preservation Tools Are there an y tools available to help pres ervation and encourage rehabilitation of residential interiors? A brief examination of historic pres ervation tools in America show that two major tools are the Secretary of the Interi ors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the National Register fo r Historic Places. The early preservation efforts in America were mainly conducted by private non-profit organizations that were dedicated to purchasi ng and preserving buildi ngs (Tyler, 2000). The Antiquities Act of 1906 was the United States first preservation legislation which beyond designating parks as national landmarks also established historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientif ic interest (Mallard, 2001-2002;

PAGE 25

25 Tyler, 2000). During the early part of the twen tieth century, however historic significance was perceived as being associated with a famous person or event, not with arch itectural significance. After World War II, returning soldiers dreamt of owning the American dream of a newly built single family house on an individual lot in the suburbs. In order to meet these needs the government issued programs such as slum clear ance and urban redevelopment (Lea, 2003). These programs were aided by government polic y making based on the idea that it was cost effective to destroy entire (historic) nei ghborhoods to make way for modern buildings and highways (Lea, 2003). These policies continued acro ss the country but it wa s the destruction of New York Citys Pennsylvania St ation which brought the issue of lost architectural heritage to light. In 1963 McKim, Mead and Whites Pennsy lvania Station was destroyed partially due to pressures from urban renewal policies, however when the issue was placed before New York Citys Planning Commission all they could vote on was the proposed use of the land and not on its existing use or importance (Huxtable, 1986, p. 47). Writing about the ruins of Pennsylvania Station in the Secaucus Meadowlands, architectura l critic Ada Louise Huxtable said, They pose disturbing questions and touch problems that go to the core of a culture in which destruction and regeneration, art and nihilism, are becomi ng indistinguishable (Huxtable, 1986, p.52). Legislation Before 1966, som e states had already passed th eir own historic pres ervation ordinances which took one of two formsregistration of landmarks and enabli ng legislation. However, in 1966, the National Trust for Historic Preservation publishe d their report With Heritage So Rich which documented what had been lost of American architectural heritage (Tyler, 2000). This report called for an expanded role for preserva tion supported by the federal government (Tyler, 2000). The reports recommendations included:

PAGE 26

26 1. A comprehensive survey of hist orically and architecturally significant buildings, sites, structures, districts, and objects, and their inclusion in a National Register. 2. A partnership of federal, state, and lo cal governments to deal specifically with preservation, including the establishment of a national advisory council on historic preservation and the designation of pres ervation officers in every state. 3. A program of financial incentives for preser vation to balance the incentives for new construction. (Tyler, 2000, p 45) The same year Congress passed the National Historic Preservati on Act of 1966 (NHPA), which stated that preserving historic sites is a benefit to the cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic and energy needs of Amer ica. One of the first actions taken following the Act was establishing the Na tional Register of Historic Places (Mallard, 2001-2002), the nations inventory of recognized hist oric districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeol ogy, and culture (Tyler, 2000). The passage of the NHPA has lead to developmen t of many preservation initiatives; one of the most influential being the Tax Reform Act of 1976. This act removed the incentive for demolishing older commercial buildings and provided a tax write-off for certified rehabilitations (Tyler, 2000). In order to qualify for the Federa l Tax Incentives under this act, the project must meet several different criteria, the most important being that the work must follow the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. It should be noted that this power was placed with the Secretary of the Interior due to its in charge to coordinate the internal growth of the country and protec t the welfare of the people. National Register for Historic Places The process for a building or dist rict to qualify for the National Register f or Historic Places is related to the structures hist orical significance. In general, the property should be of a certain age, usually over 50 years old, or have established cultural significance.

PAGE 27

27 The application for listing a building on the Natio nal Register requires scholarly research. First, a physical inspection of the property should be conducted to check propertys historic integrity because the property should retain its historic appearance, as well as physical materials, design features, and aspects of constr uction dating from the period when it attained significance (McClelland, 2008). Next historical research need s to be conducted with the applicants gathering facts regard ing the propertys physical charac teristics, date of construction, changes to the property over time, historic functions and activities association with events and persons, and the role of the property in the hi story of the community, State, or the nation (McClelland, 2008). This documentation is used for evaluating the historic worth of the property. There are four criteria that are used for eval uation of an historic st ructure or site for the National Register for Historic Preservation which are: Cr iterion A applies to properties associated with significant events; Criterion B ap plies to properties associ ated with the life of a significant person; Criterion C applies to prope rties of significant design and construction; Criterion D applies to properties or sites that have or are likely to yield archeological information pertaining to history or prehisto ry (Tyler, 2000). Furthermore, th e propertys significance relates to its integrity of both material and place. The property should be close to original condition and not have been greatly altered over time or relocated from its original site. However, if an altered structure has historical signifi cance then that becomes the criterion for its evaluation. Criterion C as mentioned include s "distinctive characteristics" which are physical features or traits that commonly recur in individual types, pe riods, or methods of construction. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristi cs to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of constructi on. Interior characteristics can

PAGE 28

28 be expressed in terms such of the buildings fo rm, the rooms proportions, the plan, period/style, or materials (Andrus, 1990). Nonetheless, wh ile listing buildings on the National Register encourages preservation by documen ting its significance, it does not restrict the rights of private property owners to alter the interiors if any impor tant interior elements are not clearly described in the statement of significance (Tyler, 2000). Beyond removal from the National Register, there are no penalties to altering or destroying a building listed on the National Register. Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Histo ric Proprieties The Secretary of Interior Standards for the Tr eatment of Historic Pr operties, developed in 1979, was created as design guidelines for appr opriate interventions for preservation and rehabilitation work (Tyler, 2000). The Secretar y of Interiors Standard s is the prevailing guideline used by every state for an y historic preservation work to be done on a certified historic restoration. While the Standards are ...neither technical nor prescrip tive, but intended to promote responsible preservation practices (Weeks, 1995), if a project is to receive federal tax credit or be included on the Nationa l Register for Historic Places the work must comply with the Standards (Sidwell, 2006, p 15). The Standards id entify four treatment options for buildings: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction, which are described as follows: Preservation is defined as the retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along with the buildings historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over time. Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaini ng the buildings historic character Restoration is defined as allowing for the de piction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods Reconstruction establishes a limited framework for re-creating a vanished or nonsurviving building with new materials, pr imarily for interpretive purposes.(Weeks, 1995)

PAGE 29

29 These treatments are designed to work with a variety of historic resource from buildings, sites, structures, objects a nd districts. The Standards recommend examining the relative importance of the building to history by asking, is it an example of the work of a master builder or did a historic event occur in it? A propertys historic significance affects which treatment Standard should be followed. If a building is highly significant then a Preservation or Restoration approach would be recommended (Weeks, 1995). Other qu estions posed are, what is its physical condition or de gree of material integrity? Is the bu ilding largely intact or has it been greatly altered and are these alterations part of the buildings history? If period materials, features and finishes are present then the Standards recommend Preser vation; however, if the building requires extensive repairs, replacement or alterations then Rehabilitation would be recommended (Weeks, 1995). The Standards require the preservation of interi or and exterior elements characteristic of the buildings style and period of construction. Interiors include everything from the finishes and materials on the floors, walls and ceilings, the buildings plan and spaces such as the sequences of spaces and rooms and their volumes as well as individual architectural features (Jandl, 1988). Interior elements could include sp aces that interrelate func tionally and visually or floor plans which could be distinc tive and characteristic of a styl e of architecture or a region or fixtures and finishes (Jandl, 1988) Frequently historic interior s are lost to allow for new use even though the Standards state that characterdefining features and ma terials are not to be negatively impacted (Sidwell, 2006). Historic interiors vs. recreated interiors The interiors of a building, whet her simply detailed or rich ly ornate, convey important information about its early inhabitants (Jandl, 1988). Some interiors have undergone extensive renovations through the years leaving little of the original fabric. There are several options of

PAGE 30

30 how to treat spaces where there is little left of the original interior--to update the interior, to preserve the existing fabric, or to recreate the pe riod (Volz, 1993). Similarly, there are several different approaches for recr eating period interiors. One approach involves first listing the build ing on the National Register. Due to the scholarly research involved for listing a building on the National Register the merit of the building is examined to determine whether it trul y is a historic building. First this requires research on the buildings history. This archiv al research entails ex amination of historic documents such as tax records and deeds whic h may provide information on changes to the building (Quenzel, 1993). Maintain ing historic status involves co mpleting work according to the Secretary of the Interiors Standard s. The next step is a thorou gh investigation of the rooms to search for clues of what fixtures and finishes were originally in the space. This includes examining the walls and woodwork for hardware holes, searching for remains of old wallpaper, paint colors or floor covers (Volz, 1993). The St andards encourage analysis of samples to reveal information about composition of the elements, such as plaster, paint and mortar, and any replacement elements should be constructed using the same techniques as the original elements (McDonald, 1993). Remaining original materials ar e not to be destroyed in order to replace them with a replica (Seale, 1993). This academ ic approach following the Secretarys Standards confirms the appropriateness of the intervention and the continued authenticity of a certified historic structure. Restored or rehabilitated interiors, wher e the building has not been certified by the National Register or rehabilitation work does not fo llow the Secretary of the Interiors Standards, may involve the same degree of scholarship as that demanded by a historic interior. Whereas interior restorations or rehabilitations technically involve resear ch to rebuild spatial components

PAGE 31

31 and features, the more frequently found reha bilitations recreate or reintroduce missing elements with varying degrees of accuracy. To assess missing components or features, this approach relies on conjecture ov er research. In the absence of original elements, reasonably styled reproductions and approximations are used. The resulting interior spaces are manufactured replicas of a chosen period that ma y look appropriate to the period of significance of the building but may not be historically accurate to it. It sh ould be noted that recreated or reconstructed interiors contain elements of a desired style or period; however, they make no attempt at going back to earlier technology but integrate contemporary technology with the period elements (Rybczynski, 1986). Availability of Financial Incentives An exa mination of two financial incentives for homeowners which requires the use of either the Secretary of Interio rs Standards or listing on the Nati onal Register will provide a look into the extent of the certified historic housing stock. Among others, federal and state governments have created rehabilitation tax credits and other legal instruments such as historic preservation easements to conserve th e nations architectural heritage. Federal incentives The Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit, perh aps the m ost well known financial incentive available for Historic Preservation, is only available or commercial or income producing residential structures and not for residential homeo wners. In order to qualify for the federal tax incentives, the project must meet several criteria the most important of which is that the work must follow the Secretary of the Interior Standard s for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Certified historic structures are eligible for a Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit equal to 10 20 percent or of the cost of rehabilitation depending on which criteria the building meets (Kass, 1993).

PAGE 32

32 There are several other federal programs that are currently available for building or neighborhood restoration or revitalization in cluding the HOPE VI, 203 K Rehab Loans and Community Development Block Grant program. HOPE VI is a program developed by the Depa rtment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide funding to Public Housing Aut horitys, not individuals. The Public Housing Authority, created by an act of Congress in 1937, currently provides affordable housing to 1.3 million households (HUD, 2008). This program doe s provide revitalization grants for major rehabilitation and other physical improvements for existing housing but is not directly designed for historic preservati on, (HUD, 2008). The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) is a program overseen by HUD to provide monies to cities or communities with citizen involvement (HUD, 2008). The program is designed to help low and moderate income persons prevent or eliminate blight by making certain that decent affordable housing is av ailable. It also aims to cr eate jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses (HUD, 2008) While not specifically designe d as a historic preservation program, CDBGs help maintain the fabric of neighborhoods by keeping the neighborhood viable. Another program offered by the Federal Hous ing Administration is the 203K Rehab Loans which provides single family mortgage insuranc e programs (HUD, 2008). The program is to be used for rehabilitation and/or improvement of an existing one -to four-unit dwelling (HUD, 2008). The program allows one of the follo wing options: to purchase a dwelling and rehabilitate, to purchase a dw elling on another site and move it onto a new foundation on a mortgage property and rehabilitate or refinance existing properties indebtedness and rehabilitate (HUD, 2008). The loan is only approved for such things as painting, room additions, decks and

PAGE 33

33 other items also all health, safety and ener gy conservation items must be addressed (HUD, 2008). Two main incentives that are available for homeowners are the state rehabilitation tax credit and/or placing a preserva tion easement on the house. State rehabilitation tax credit for homeowners State rehabilita tion tax credit (SRTC) allows fo r a percentage of the cost of rehabilitation of a structure to reduce the tax liability instead of a deduction which reduces taxable income by a percentage (Kass, LaBelle, & Hansell, 1993). Th e State Rehabilitation Ta x Credit is similar to the Federal policy in that it allows for a credit on eligible rehabilitation ex penses. However, each state establishes their own criteria for which bu ildings may qualify for credit, ensuring that rehabilitation preserves the hi storic and architectural char acter of the building through submission of plans before the project begins and documentary evidence of the work once completed. Additionally the majority of states require homeowners to meet the Secretary of Interiors Standards (Schwartz, 2007). While each states tax credit programs vary in effectiveness; some keys have been identified as contributing to a good State Rehabilitation Tax Credit program. These are: eligibility of build ings, use of the Secret ary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation as a guideline, and tr ansferability of the tax credit (Schwartz, 2007). Of the 50 states, 22 states have a state reha bilitation tax credit for homeowners as of November 2008. These states, as listed on Appe ndix B, are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, L ouisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. St ate Rehabilitation Tax Credit for Homeowner (SRTC) vary from 10% 30% but they all require the rehabilitation work to comply with the Secretary of Interiors Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties (Appendix A). The

PAGE 34

34 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabil itation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings require the preservati on of interior and exterior el ements characteristic of the buildings style and period of construction. Home owners seeking to use their state SRTC are required to preserve or be sensitive to the interior of their house. As shown in Appendix B, in all 22 states th at have a State Rehabilitation Tax Credit for Homeowners as of November 2008 only 11,397 projects have been approved. This total number of houses that have been approved for SRTC is relatively a small amount. According to Appendix A from the US Census bureau, th ere are approximately 75,647,000 single family houses from 2009 to earlier than 1919; this figu re includes attached and detached houses. Approximately 23,098,000 or 30% of these homes we re constructed prior to 1959. Only .05% of properties eligible by age, not by any other of the Nationa l Register criteria such as condition or historic significance, have used the State Rehabilitation Tax Credit for Homeowners. This also does not factor the number of single family house owners who preserved their houses and did not apply for the SRTC. Easements There are tw o different types of easements under English Law, which is the basis for American Law; easements appurtenant and easements in gross. These two types of easements allow for owners to relinquish part of the bundl e of rights which is purchased with the property (Butler, 1985). Appurtenant eas ements benefit an adjoining la ndowner and subsequent owners are bound by restrictions while easements in gross are conveyed to a third party other than an adjoining landowner and subsequent owners are not bound by it (Morgan, 1999). Historic preservation easements can be used to protect a range of property types. Scenic and open space easements protect open spaces, historic and scenic views as well as the surroundings of significant buildings; exterior and faade easements protect the out side appearance of buildings

PAGE 35

35 by controlling alterations a nd requiring maintenance; and lastly interior easements protect all or part of building interiors (Maddex, 1990). The fundamental concept of property ownership is the idea of fee-simple title which is the legal right to ownership of land. A property owner's land rights include the ability to treat the property as a marketable commodity (Morgan, 1999) However, a property owner can grant a portion of their property rights in the form of an easement to an organization. The grantor and grantee share stewardship of hist oric property under an easement agreement which is granted in perpetuity so all subsequent owners are also bound to honor the easement agreement (Morgan, 1999). In the case of historic preservation easeme nts, if the property is a certified historic structure then the property ow ner is eligible for federal in come and estate tax deductions (Morgan, 1999). The property must be assessed by a qualified appraiser to determine the fair market value before and after the easement is pl aced on the structure to determine the value of the easement (NPS, 2008). The easement must m eet certain qualificatio ns put forward by the IRS: the building or structure must be listed on the National Register of Historic Places or located in an historic district a nd certified by the U.S. Dept of th e Interior as being historically significant. Also, the property must be made accessible to the public for a minimum of two days a year. Lastly, to qualify for the annual federal tax deductible of up to 50% for the donation of a preservation easement, the easement must cover the entire exterior of the building ("Pension Protection Act of 2006," 2006). Preservation easements can be written to cover either the exterior or the interior of a building. They can help to protect buildings fr om demolition, neglect or insensitive alterations as well as help ensure that property owner w ill maintain a certain level of maintenance on property. Easements can help protect interiors when significance of the interiors is not fully

PAGE 36

36 stated on the National Register nomination. An interior easement is written specifically to protect the character defining or si gnificant features of a certified historic building. Typically, an interior easement contains restrictions that regulate activities such as the change of use that may have an adverse impact on si gnificant historic or decora tive features found throughout the building (Morgan, 1999). Forty Six states have easement enabling legislation for historic preservation easements with only Iowa, Maryland, Missour i and Ohio without legislati on. Maine, Massachusetts and North Carolina have legislation that states interi ors are to be included in a historic preservation easement (Appendix E). Background research found that at the time of this research there were 9,398 commercial and residential easements held by the 100 local or state wide easement organizations and 8 regional or national easement organizations. On ly 2,616 easements covered interiors, 1241 were residential, and 165 covered reside ntial interior (Appendix F). Na tionally, only about 6% of all interior easements are residential interiors and only approximately 13% of all historic preservation residential easement s include interiors. These numbers appear to be extremely small and beg a comparison to the national reside ntial housing stock. As shown in Appendix A, approximately 23,098,000 houses are over 50 years old; this number does not consider housing conditions or historic signifi cance. Of the residential housi ng stock constructed prior to 1959, only 0.005% is protected by a residential easement. Of that only 0.0007% of the housing stock by age is protected by residential interior easements. These fi gures do not calculate the number of individuals who have preserve d or restored their historic re sidential interiors and without using an easement as a financial incentive. N onetheless, this is an insignificant number of historic residential inte riors being protected.

PAGE 37

37 Since neither of these incentives are greatly used this indica tes that people are not being driven by incentives to preserve their historic residences. The number of certified historic residences that are preserved th rough these methods is very mini mal. The number of recreated or reconstructed period interiors is unknown since this data is not tracked; however, experience suggests that this number may not be negligible. In light of this eviden ce, the question is, Are there perhaps psychosocial fact ors that drive people to pr eservethrough rehabilitation, restoration or reconstructionresidential interiors of the past?

PAGE 38

38 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK A search of the literature established that few articles looked into the psychological reasons for why people choose to re store, rehabilitate or reconstruc t interiors of old houses. This issue m ay be approached from the environmental behavior psychology which examines the transactions between individuals and their physical settings (Gifford, 2002, p.1). While the field of environmental psychology is broad this study particularly examin ed its sense of self, social identity, place identity and place attach ment theories as possibly issues bearing on individual decisions in favor or against pres ervation of historic hous es and the interpretive reconstruction of hist oric interiors. Environmental Behavior The m eaning of residential inte riors has changed in response to the ideology of the times (Sparke, 2004). Environmenta l behavior literature review sugge sts that the choice to preserve historic residential interi ors, or not, may be attributed to seve ral factors, including perceptions of sense of self, social identity, place identity, and/ or place attachment. How individuals appraise their environment is based on personal impression s of place which is rela ted to how individuals see themselves and how they want others to see th em (sense of self and social identity); these impressions then directly affect how the pl ace makes them feel (place identity and place attachment) (Gifford, 2002). The place that a pe rson feels attached to is where they feel comfortable and safe to reveal their inner self; similarly the pl ace reflects and reinforces their sense of self (Cooper Marcus, 1997). Environmenta l behavior offers some insights into these issues. The underlying theme is th at home represents more than just the physical settingthe domestic residencebut also encompasses emotiona l connection. The feeling of security creates a feeling of having a home which cr eates in individuals a sense of control over their fate (Steele,

PAGE 39

39 1981). How individuals choose to live in their homes reflects, expresses and forms the the social relationships among household members, kin, neighborhoods, and even more distant social partners (Saergert, 1992, p. 293). Sense of self An individuals sense of self is the answer to the question "Who a m I?" (Myers, 2008) Sense of self is how individuals identify with certain environments form attachments, and define themselves by their experiences with those environments (Kopek, 2006); and focuses on the individuals beliefs, interp retations, and evaluation of one self (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983, p.58). Identity is not static but is a ffected by different variab les. Social identity and place identity are all factor s that affect an individuals sense of self (Twigger-Ross, Bonaiuto, & Breakwell, 2003), however, individuals adjust their se nse of self in relation to situations and the enviro nment (Manzo, 2003). Sense of self both defines the unique person at a certain stage in life and it expre sses conformity to social norms or self conscious challenges to those norms (Saegert, 1992, p. 291). Another factor in sense of se lf is the individuals personal preferences. These preferences are the result of who they are and also guide th eir decision making process. Preference types can be separated into three categories which Steele calls things-, people-, and place-people ()(Steele, 1981). Things-people are concerned with the things they do such as work or other activities. People-people relationships are mainly concerned by such as friends and family. Finally, placepeople are more likely to feel attachment between their sense of self and their place (Steele, 1981). Place-people are more likely to be drawn to the architecture and interiors of buildings as part of their self and social id entity. Place-people may be more li kely to be attracted to older buildings since they are more likely than the other preference types to have their sense of self become entwined with a place.

PAGE 40

40 Individuals sense of self is reflected in their choices of dwellings. People search for a congruence between the symbolic image of their dwellings and their sense of self. On a conscious or unconscious level, individuals may feel congruence with po pularly held ideals and meanings associated with certain architectural features and furn ishing. When this occurs, they may see their sense of self reflected in certain architectural styles and identify with it. Some argue that moveable objects are more accurate sym bols of self than the physical fabric of the house (Cooper-Marcus, 1995). However, that argument does not seem to consider the importance of personalization and adaption of the physical space to match an individuals sense of self. Social identity One factor affecting how people view them selves and their surroundings is social identity. Social identity is defined by the social groups or categories an i ndividual belongs to and their social identification of who they are and who they are not (Twi gger-Ross et al., 2003) However, social identity, as with all forms of identity, is not static and individuals may have multiple social identities which relate to their relationships with their house, neighborhood, state or country. Communication of an indivi duals identity requires that social cues are able to be read and understood. As American society has undergone a high degree of intensive mobility over time, the home has taken the role as a marker of acquired social status and is viewed as a reflection of self (Busch, 1999; Cherulnik & Wilderman, 1986; Cooper Marcus, 1997; Gallagher, 2006; Gram-Hanssen & Beth-Danielsen, 2004). The interior of a house is a place where social aspirations can be expressed in terms of aesthet ics (Sparke, 2004). The rooms of a house are empty stages where individuals enact the rituals and improvisations of their identity and social identity (Moore, Allen, & Lyndon, 1974). The home is considered the primary symbol of self and its interior design is a repr esentation of an individuals id entity. Houses have through time

PAGE 41

41 obtained cues about the previous inhabitants social status, whic h may or may not be read the same at the present. Some individuals may c hoose to align their social identity with older residences as a tribute to what they perceive the social cues to represent. The choice of a house to in live reflects how individuals ideally like to see themselves. The motivation for choosing where to live is affected by several variables such as cost, location, and socioeconomic status of nei ghborhood, style and upkeep but maybe the most important is the symbolic role of the house as expression of social identity (Cooper Marcus, 1997; Gram-Hanssen & Beth-Danielsen, 2004; Sirgy, Grzeskowiak, & Su, 2005; Wilson & Mackenzie, 2000). The greater the match between home an d neighborhood image, and the individuals actual and social image of self, the more likely the homebuyer is to purchase the home (Sirgy et al., 2005). Neighborhoods have a tendency to attract peop le of similar background and values, socialeconomic status, stages of family life cycle, and career patterns. Peopl e have a tendency to choose homes in neighborhoods that have people w ith similar self and social identity (Wilson & Mackenzie, 2000). The style of a house is a symbol that has social meaning that is continuously in flux. Every material can be manipulated to express identity however exterior s can be misrepresentative due to regulations while interiors are where individuals have the most freedom to express themselves and create a sense of place id entification (Kron, 1983). Individuals may choose to live in a old house because of the congruence between the neighborhood and their image of self or perhaps because of congruence between the interior she ll of the house and their image of self. Place identity The difference between s ocial identity and iden tification with place resides in the emphasis placed on place and social groups (Twigger-Ross et al., 2003). Place identity is defined as how people incoporate a place into th e larger concept of their own id entities of senses and self

PAGE 42

42 which usually provides a sense of continuity and so reinforces self identity (Kopek, 2006). An individuals identity is partially derived from place since places embody social symbols (Twigger-Ross et al., 2003, p. 210). Places are a repository for accumulated memories, values and preferences for generations of users (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983). Since place identity evolves from the past experiences with places, the individual is able to adapt these prior experiences to behavior and expectations in the present. It should be noted that place identity, like sense of self and social identity, is fluid and complex and is modified and changed with each experience. Place can refer to any environment a person en counters in their lives whether natural or man made. As stated earlier, place is the back drop against which peoples lives are enacted. Individuals are usually unaware of the attitudes and preferences which influence their response to the physical world (Proshansky et al., 1983). Individuals may be unconscious of why they choose to live in a older building. Some theories posit that place identity refers to home as the center point of existence and i nvolves the degree to which important activities revolve around the home (Proshansky et al., 1983). Then old houses may, conscious or unconsciously, become a way to convey information about the individual to themselves and to others through territorial marking and personalization (Steele, 1981). Territorial marking The m ain aspect of a personal place is that it is viewed as the domain of an individual who is in control of the space; it is also a place where the i ndividual feels confident and has altered the place to reflect his or her identity (Gifford, 2002; Steele, 1981). The places where individuals most identify have clearly defined boundaries; one of architectures goals is to establish a territory for an indivi dual or group which they can use to set them apart from others (Moore et al., 1974). Territoriality also serves to control privacy by limiting access to the

PAGE 43

43 individual. It implies that the ordering of rooms in a house responds to individual needs for separation of public and private sp aces (Moore et al., 1974). It is through the appropriation of space that children learn about their identity and social relationships (Saegert, 1985). The appropriation of space is part of both personalization and territoriality since both require the individual to exercise control over the space (Giuliani, 2003). Personalization Possessions are another way of m arking appropriation of spaces ; they also increase an individuals sense of being in control and security of their environment (Belk, 1992; Gifford, 2002). Possessions are generally ob jects whether small or large, from a paperweight to a house, that an individual feels contro l over. Perhaps for some bei ng in possession of an old house provides a sense of control over their environment whether through rehabilita tion or renovation. Throughout history humans have modified thei r homes to ease burdens. Humans are the only species which repeatedly transformed thei r surroundings to increase their understanding and accomplishments (Hiss, 1990). Personalization is a way of marking a space with the individuals identity (Gifford, 2002). Persona lization through home improvemen t is a way of psychologically creating spaces to meet the individuals needs. As stated earlier, personalization of the home is a way of expressing an individuals identity. Home can also become part of an individuals identity with the merging of person and place so that either person reflects place or place reflects person. Individuals both give and receive their identities from their homes (Dovey, 1985). An individual unites the material posessions of their life together with their dreams to make a house their own (Moore et al., 1974). The interior of a house is a material manifestation of an individuals personal identities as well as a mirror of the i ndividual (Sparke, 2004). While people choose surroundings that are congruent with their identity, they also modify their settings increase congruency with their self image (Manzo, 2003). Individuals may rehabilitate or

PAGE 44

44 renovate older residiential interiors because of th eir desire for a match between where they live and self image Place attachment Attachm ent to place consists of social relati ons so that the meanings and experiences in a place are usually connected to relationships (Low & Altman, 1992). Place attachment is defined as a persons bond with the social and physical environments of a place they have deep meaning because their identities are woven intr icately into those places (Kopek, 2006). Place attachment involves the relation of affect, emotions, and feelings in reference to a place (Low & Altman, 1992). The intensity of place attachme nt is affected by the congruity between needs and the physical and social reso urces (Giuliani, 2003, p. 149). Individuals identify themselves with their houses and use this symbolic identity to differentiate themselves from others (Steele, 1981). This attachment is understandable since home is the key expression of identity and a source of security for individuals (Belk, 1992). The desire for hominess seems to result in feelings of attachment to home (Belk, 1992, p. 39), however, increased mobility is undermining place at tachment in modern society because places are viewed as functional and lack emotional significance (Giuliani, 2003) People may not be aware that they are attached to a place until that bond is threatened (Giuliani, 2003). Perhaps the desire to live in an old residence may be an attempt to reestablish that bond. Familiarity, security, emotional comfort A house is an object while a hom e means different things to different people. Home is defined as a preferred space and a fixed point of reference, a social network and a reflection of individuals ideas and values (Kron, 1983). Home can be viewed as either a recreation or a reaction against the childhood home (Busch, 1999; Cooper Marcus, 1997). Home can be so defined as "ties to the land and nature, and memo ries of extended famil y, prove stronger than the

PAGE 45

45 mere number of days spent in a particular dwelling (Cooper Marcus, 1997, p. 2). Lastly, home can be a private refuge that provides comfort, meaning, privacy and be auty (Gallagher, 2006). Home encompasses many different meanings and roles in a persons life but home is metaphor for an individuals relationship to place, familia rity, security, and comfort (Manzo, 2003). Destruction of interiors Houses are c ommodities but they are also wher e personal and social identities are formed and shaped (Saegert, 1985). People impact thei r environment through how they care for and design their settings; this impact can be positive or negative (Steele, 1981). Home is a sociocultural artifact of the customs and beliefs of their inhabitants. However, it is in the interior of houses that the cyclical events of domestic lif e are conducted (Lawrence, 1985; Saegert, 1985). Over the years, as construction and design of houses has shifted from i ndividuals to corporate organizations some of the forms of housing were lost (Saegert, 1985). House environments have acquired values and meaning through the ages. The preservation of domes tic spaces should take into account the time and period the house was bu ilt however the house should be frozen in that era but should be a livable space for current residents (Lawrence, 1985). Individuals evaluate classic examples of buildings the quickes t and prefer small discrepancies from a known style; peoples expect ations affect how they view objects since individuals learn through prior experiences (Ritterfeld, 2002). It is through prior experiences that an individual can understand the environment and be able to use, change or maintain the environment to increase congruence and lessen di screpancies of identity (Proshansky et al., 1983). Discrepancies from the known structures influence judgment (Purcell & Nasar, 1992). Recognition of the relationship of a place to the observer is depe ndent on previous experience with other places (Hershberger, 1970). This relationship informs the individual of what

PAGE 46

46 appropriate behaviors are and what their expectations are for the place, as well as what is right and wrong with the physical setting (Proshansky et al., 1983). Nostalgia The relationship between building f orm, its use, meaning and time is a transactional process between physical and aff ective factors. The loss and de struction of places leads to nostalgic feelings (Kopek, 2006). Nostalgia refers to a general longing for the past rather than a specific place (Matt, 2005). Buildings maybe recons tructed in an attempt to capture the past the feel of the spaces can never be recreated since the way rooms looked made sense because they were a setting for a particular type of behavior which was conditioned by the way people thought (Rybczynksi, 1986, p. 219). The concept of nostalgia entered the English language during the 1750s and was considered a physical disease not a psychol ogical condition (Matt, 2005, p. 96). During the period of westward expa nsion in America, wr iters criticized the tendency for people to move and began creating a romantic image of "cozy homes with white picket fences, green yards, and colorful gardens" and this image also became the ideal for morality (Matt, 2005, p. 91). This image remains part of the American Dream part of the cultural mythos for what indivi duals should strive. As modern nations and economies developed and the more transient people became, like the colonists, the settlers, and those that left rural areas moved to cities, homesickness became more apparent. The speed and scale of change s that occur make it difficult when a persons identity is rooted to a place; a sense of continu ity is required to assimilate changes and sense of identity to new images (Dovey, 1985). Individuals want homes that appear to be permanent even if they are living in new homes to try to create a sense of rootedness in a mobile society (Matt, 2005).

PAGE 47

47 Narrative Narrative is defined as the attachm ent to a place through a romantic or idealistic stories (Kopek, 2006). If dissatisfied with the present, people attach their ideals to the intangible memories of the past; some use possessions to st rengthen the attachment (Belk, 1992). People want homes that reflect their lif estyle and values and hope archite cture will help them create them (Matt, 2005 p. 108; Dovey, 1985). Part of narrative is connected to the concept of rootedness which is an unconscious state of deep familiarity with a place, which implies long continuous residence. It is ar gued when this is not possible th en sense of place which is a conscious force of creation or conservation of places through words, actions, and the construction of artifacts is all that is left for modern society (Giuliani, 2003, p. 146). Due to the quality of architecture, buildings are built fo r permanence and represent societys heritage (Lawrence, 1985). Most buildi ngs imitate some past or distan t style of architecture in an attempt by the designers or client s to associate themselves with the values which they felt that period or architectural styl e represented (Hershberger, 1970). An individuals desire to return to the past is not possible because both the individu al and setting have both changed (Proshansky et al., 1983). The mythology of the single family home away from the corruption and unhealthy atmosphere of the city has been part of th e culture since the founding of America (Saegert, 1985). "The Old-House Journal" sells house plans from all periods in Am erican architectural history and while these floor plans do not acknowledge changes in society or economics affecting modern lives they are still desirable (Busch, 1999). The intangib le qualities of home are often identified once lost. Matt in her article describes Wallace Nutting, who in the early twentieth century tapped into peop les beliefs about home as a re presentation of self popularizing the "countrified suburban home with the picket fence as the American dream house". Nutting

PAGE 48

48 manufactured products, furniture to pictures, so the average American c ould purchase objects to not only create a genteel colonial feel to their homes but also purchase a piece of the American dream. People may not necessarily want a genuin e old home but want its appealing details and features such as woodwork and fireplaces (Galla gher, 2006). Part of homelessness comes from viewing the house as a commodity; a house can be purchased but the experience of home cannot (Dovey, 1985). Summary Perhaps some individuals are m ore apt to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct older residences because of congruency between their sense of self and social identity and place identity and place attachment. While research has not been conducted into the link between historic preservation and these concepts, they do present an insight into why people may choose to rehabilitate, restore or rec onstruct period residences. Sense of self seems to indicate that people whose preference type is place-people are more likely form attachments with their environs and perhaps this is a factor in why some people preserve or recons truct their residences. Social identity seems to indicate individuals choose houses and ne ighborhoods based on the congruence between the location and their sense of self; this maybe a reason why some people choose to live in older neighbor hoods and houses. It seems that through place identity people incorporate places as part of thei r identity that is congruent with their sense of self. It would seem that people who choose to live in a old hou se do so because what they believe the house is symbolizes or represents. Place attachment seem s to indicate that individuals attachment to place is affected by their emotional connection to the location. Perhaps individual who live in older houses are nostalgic.

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The need for this study arose from hypotheses suggested from the lite rature review, which might yield answers as to why peopl e rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct the interior of their old houses. Answering this question required th e use of qualitative research methods. The qualitative research approach describes the variation in a phenomenon, situation, issue, etc (Kumar, 2005), or the potential explanations for w hy individuals preserve re sidential interiors. Stemming from the literature review, as descri bed in chapter 2, psychosocial reasons, such as sense of self, place attachment, and nostalgia were isolated as potential explanations of why individuals may rehabilitate, rest ore or reconstruct residential in teriors. Case study strategy was chosen as the best way to explore these issu es. More adequately than others, the case study research strategy allows for uncovering the real -life contextual conditi ons surrounding the issue under investigation and to examine the evidence in light of predicted response patterns to the research question (Yin, 2003). The case study research followed Yins met hodology (2003) to descri be and potentially explain individual choices in re habilitating, restori ng or recreating resi dential interiors. Cases were controlled for single family old houses a nd owners were chosen for convenience. Two of the houses were located in Gainesville, FL a nd three were located around Atlanta, GA. The houses ranged in age from 1830 to 1940 and were not of comparable size. Two of the houses had undergone restorations, another two had under gone interpretive reco nstruction and one had gone through rehabilitation. Interviews were conducted to obtain information for th e case studies. Information collected through these interviews aimed to uncover possible reasons for the rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction of th eir residential interior s. Interviews were to be conducted in the

PAGE 50

50 homeowners residence at their convenience a nd photographs were ta ken with homeowner consent (see Appendix H). The interview was audio taped and documenta ry photographs were taken of the interiors of the house. Audio tapes once transcribed we re erased. References to the homeowners identity were removed from photogr aphs as needed. A copy of the interview transcript and photographs were sent to the homeowner for corroboration ensuring faithfulness prior to its publication in the thesis. Semi-structured interviews following appr oved protocols inquire d about homeowner reasons for rehabilitating, restoring or recons tructing their houses. The questions examined homeowners sense of self, sense of place, and nostalgia in the loss of historic residential interiors. The interview ques tions covered reasons for purchasing a historic house as well as reasons for rehabilitating, restoring or recons tructing it (see Appendix I). Additional questions dealt with residents definition of their own identity and how it is expressed in their residential environment. Also, homeowners emotional att achment to, and identification with, their house were examined through interview questions a nd use of environmental autobiographies. Environmental autobiography is a method of bri nging out a persons conscious and unconscious affective ties to their environments (Allen, 200 8, p. 39) by eliciting verbal, written, and graphic responses to emotive questions. Exercise s drawn from Cooper Marcus environmental autobiography methods (1997) were used to partially answer thes e questions. Participants were asked to write about and do simple drawings ab out feelings they have for their house. The transcripts were evaluated usi ng cross-case analysis which f orces investigators to look beyond initial impressions and see evidence th rough multiple lenses(Eisenhardt, 1989). Four criteria emerging from the literature review were used to interpret the data. In order to understand why people preserve, the initial hypot hesis is that owners will rehabilitate, restore

PAGE 51

51 or reconstruct the interior of an old residence to a chosen period if the house reflects their sense of self, they deem the house as worthy, they feel a sense of place attachment with the house, are nostalgic for the past, or a combina tion of these factors. Sense of self The first factor exam ined an individuals sense of self and whether people would rehabilitate, restore or reconstr uct the interior of their house if there was congruence between the house and their sense of self. The premise in this case is that the rehab ilitation, restoration or reconstruction of either the exte rior or the interior of an old residence implies that the architectural and design features in some way reflect the homeo wners sense of self. Four conditions as listed in Figure 3-1 could exist for why this could occur: 1) owner rehabilitated, restored or reconstructed the arch itecture and the interi or of their house because they both reflect their sense of self; 2) owner rehabilitated, rest ored or reconstructed the architecture and the interior of their house but they do not feel that the residence reflects their sense of self; 3) owner rehabilitated, restored or reconstructed th e architecture of the house but does not rehabilitate, restore or reconstr uct the interior of th e house because they feel it does not match their sense of self; or lastly, 4) owner does not rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct either the architecture or the interior of the residence because neither match their sense of self. This matrix, illustrated in Figure 3-1, looks at sense of self as playing a role in homeowners decision to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct their house, but not at the extent to wh ich sense of self is a decisive factor. Worthiness The second factor exam ined was whether the structure was considered worthy of rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction, the criteria for assigning worthiness to a building was either it was designed by a famous architect or exhibited exceptional craftsmanship. There

PAGE 52

52 Figure 3-1. Role of sense of self in decision making for homeowners. were four possible conditions as li sted in Figure 3-2 that could ex ist which were: 1) either the house was considered worthy of rehabilitation, rest oration or recreation a nd both the architecture and interior are rehabilitated, re stored or reconstructed; 2) th e house was considered worthy of rehabilitation, restoration or recreation but the only the architecture of the house was rehabilitated, restored or rec onstructed not the interior; 3) th e house was not considered worthy of rehabilitation, restoration or recreation but the architecture a nd residential interiors are still rehabilitated, restored or rec onstructed; or finally, 4) the house was not considered worthy of rehabilitation, restoration or recreation and the homeowners rehabilitated, restored or reconstructed neither the architecture nor the interior. These conditions may shed light on whether people rehabilitate, rest ore or reconstruct structures based on their view of a structure as valuable. The pr emise behind this is that if a house deemed worthy by virtue of its style, dcor, or other architect ural characteristics, homeowners are more likely to rehabilit ate, restore or re construct it.

PAGE 53

53 Figure 3-2. Role of worthiness in decision making for homeowners Place attachment The third possible reason why people m ight rehab ilitate, restore or reconstruct their house, examined if homeowners felt a sense of place at tachment to their home were more likely to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruc t the interior of their house. As shown in Figure 3-3, four conditions could exist to answer this question either: 1) th e owner feels a sense of place attachment and chose to rehabilita te, restore or reconstruct interi or of their house; 2) the owner has a sense of place attachment to the architect ure or other external factors, like neighborhood, but feels no sense of attachment to the interior of the building and chose to rehabilitate, restore, or reconstruct the interior of their house ; 3) the owner feels no sense of place attachment but decides to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct the architec ture and interior of the residence; or 4) the owner feels no sense of attachment and decides to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct neither the architecture nor interi or of the residence. These condi tions examine to what extent place attachment plays a role in peoples decision to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct their

PAGE 54

54 residences. The premise is that if people feel a sense of place attachment to their residence then they will rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct their residence the interiors. Figure 3-3. Role of Sense of Place Attach ment in decision making for homeowners Nostalgia The final condition exam ined refers to the nos talgic feelings that may underlie peoples desire to rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct their house. The premise for this is if homeowners feel a sense of nostalgia they are more likely to rehabilitate, restor e or reconstruct the interior of their house. As shown in Figure 3-4, four conditions could exist to explain this were: 1) either the owner rehabilitates, restores or reconstruc t s the interior of the house because they are nostalgic for the past; or 2) the ow ner rehabilitates, restores or rec onstruct s the inte rior of their house but is not nostalgic for the past; 3) the owne r does not rehabilitate, re store or reconstruct the interior of their house but is nostalgic for the past; or lastly 4) the homeowner is not nostalgic for the past and hence does not rehabilitate, restor e or reconstruct the in terior in their house. The premise of these questions is to determine what if any role nostalgia pl ays in peoples desire to rehabilitate, restore or recons truct the interior their house.

PAGE 55

55 Figure 3-4. Role of Nostalgia in decision making for homeowners

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDY Interviews for the case studies were c onducted between Novem ber 2008 and January 2009. Two interviews were conducted in Gainesville, FL and three interviews were conducted in and around Atlanta, GA. Criteria emerging from the liter ature review were used to formulate a series of interview questions examining each interview subjects reasons for purchasing an older house and for rehabilitating, restoring or recreating the in terior of their house to a chosen period. The interviews examined whether owners rehabilitate restore or reconstruct the interior of their house if the residence reflects their sense of self, or view of the worthiness of the house, or they felt a sense of place with the hous e, or if they are nostalgic for the past, or if perhaps a combination of these factors influence individuals to rehabilitate, restore, or reconstruct their old house. Additional questions focused on the reside nts definition of their identity and how it was expressed in their reside ntial environment. Cases were then analyzed using cross-case analysis examining the four criteria to see if there was a consensus of opinion between the interview subjects. Case Study Background The first tw o case studies took place in Ga inesville, FL. The town was founded on September 6, 1853 when Alachua County residents voted to create a new town on the Florida Railroad line. Within seven years, the towns population had reached 269. The town grew quickly to meet the needs of the arriving passenger trains with a general store and three hotels to serve visitors. Two skirmishes occurred in 1864 since Gainesville was the site of a Confederate Army storehouse during the Civil War. It was during Reconstruction that Colonel Dutton helped make Gainesville become one of the largest shipping stations in the state. Gainesville benefitted from the land boom that occurred throughout the state from WW I to the Depression with new

PAGE 57

57 neighborhoods being developed. In 1925, M.M. Parrish began development of several neighborhoods including Highla nd Heights (the "Duck Pond Ne ighborhood") (Alachua County Library, 2009). Both of the in terviews conducted in Gainesvill e, FL were in the Duck Pond neighborhood which is located in Northeast Gainesville. The third interview took place in Lithonia, GA which is part of the Greater Atlanta area. Lithonia, located 20 miles east of Atlanta, was on e of the first three cities founded in DeKalb County (DeKalb History Center, 2009). According to the DeKa lb History Center (2009), the early settlers were of English, Scotch and Irish descent and were poor, hardworking small farmers coming from Virginia and the Carolinas. This area was never part of the plantation system as other parts of the state were (DeKalb History Center 2009). The fourth interview took place in Atlanta, GA. The city originally began as the terminal point for the Western and Atlantic Railroads in 1837 (NPS Atlanta, 2009). Eight years later, the city was renamed Atlanta. During the Civil Wa r, Union General William Sherman burned about 70% of the city (NPS Atlanta, 2009). The city ra pidly rebuilt and grew after the Civil War. During this time Grant Park, one of Atlant as oldest neighborhoods, was founded. Colonel Lemuel P. Grant owned vast land holdings in th e city and in 1883 he donated 100 acres toward what was the citys firs t large scale park (NPS A tlanta, 2009). The Olmstead Brothers helped plan the parks landscape. The neig hborhood that developed from the late 19th to early 20th century includes commercial clusters, schools an d churches, as well as Victorian mansions overlooking the park, modified Queen Anne houses one story Victorian cottages and Craftsman bungalows (NPS Atlanta, 2009). The fifth interview was conducted in Carnes ville, GA which is located approximately 85 miles northeast of Atlanta, GA. Carnesville is the seat of Franklin County which was created in

PAGE 58

58 1784 (Franklin County, 2009). Carn esville was named after Judge Thomas Peter Carnes, a Revolutionary War lawyer and Congressman (Fra nklin County, 2009). There is not much else known about this rural city. The houses were divided into two categories to describe them. They were considered either historicthe house is a ce rtified historic structure either listed individually on the National Register or has a preser vation easement, or historicthe hous e is old but of no real historic significance Per Table 5-1, the su bjects houses were listed by criteria. Subject 1s house was previously listed individually on th e National Register but appears to have been removed as it is not listed in the National Register database; however, the house is still part of the Northeast Gainesville Residential District. Subject 2s house is also part of the Northeast Gainesville Residential District. Subject 1 a nd 2s houses will be referred to as historic. Subject 3s house has a preservation easement on the house and immedi ate yard. While there is no listing of the house on the National Register, in order for the ho use to have qualified for any tax benefits it would have had to receive a certificate of significance from the Department of the Interior. Therefore Subject 3s house will be referred to as historic. Subject 4s house is located in the Grant Park Historic Dist rict, which is listed on th e National Register. However the house is not listed individually, thus by the criteria laid out Subj ect 4s house will be referred to as historic. Lastly, Subject 5s house is individually listed on the National Register hence it will be referred to as historic. Subjects were also divided into categories depending on which pr eservation method they used on the interior of the house, which can seen in table 5-2. Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Prope rties definitions were the basis for this classification. Subject 1 undertook a rehabilitation of her house as she altered the his toric building to meet continuing

PAGE 59

59 uses while retaining the buildings exterior historic character. Subjects 3 and 5 undertook restorations of their historic houses as they re moved materials from other periods bringing their interiors back to their respective period of significance. Subjects 2 and 4 both did period reconstructions of the interiors of their h istoric houses. Through c onjecture both have reintroduced missing elements, with varying degr ees of accuracy, for the perceived period of significance which they are attempting to recreate. Table 5-1 Case Study House Status Historic or Historic House listed House in district House has individually on on the National preservation National Register Register easement Subject 1 No Yes No Subject 2 No Yes No Subject 3 No No Yes Subject 4 No Yes No Subject 5 Yes Yes Yes Table 5-2. Case Study Subjects Treatment of House Rehabilitation Restoration Recreation Subject 1 Yes Subject 2 Yes Subject 3 Yes Subject 4 Yes Subject 5 Yes Case Study 1 Gainesville, FL Subject 1 lives in a 105 year old historic house. Subject 1 is a woman in her late 30s who lives in the house with her husband, their 3 children: an in fant son and toddler daughters, and Subject 1s mother. She is a realtor but sh e and her husband also ow n a business located in Gainesville, FL. According to Subject 1, the hou se was originally built as a barn in 1892 and was in the 1920s modified into a Mediterrane an Colonial house. The author conducted additional research and discovere d the building was originally a barn which was cut into two sections and moved from its original location (Burton & Gowan, 2002). The split barn became

PAGE 60

60 the basis for two different houses; one is a shin gle style and the other, the case study house, was stuccoed and converted to Medi terranean Colonial style. The house was in extreme disrepair in 2007 wh en Subject 1 purchased the house with her husband. The house had extreme termite damage, wood rot and structural issues. However, since the house used to be a barn the beams are a pproximately 3 ft x 3 ft in section and were able to withstand damage. The house has undergone exte nsive rehabilitation: it was stripped to the wall studs and frames and was rebuilt. The house was lifted so new footers and perimeter beams could be installed; also all of the systems (electric, plumbing, and HVAC) were replaced as well. However, the owners have kept th e original floors and windows. While the level of intervention on the house appears severe, the owners actually removed years of inappropriate divisions made to it. Subject 1 said she had an image of an open Mediterranean vill a as the best way to maximize the space, light and openness of the house, illustrated in Figure 5-1. Subject 1 did no research on any specific period or style and purposefully chos e not to use reproductions of finishes. For her, those things make the home more about the individual s ego and take away from it being a home; since she has small childre n she was concerned that the house not feel formal or museum-like. Subject 1 views the idea of sense as place as re lating to concept of home as sanctuary. For her, her house is a barr ier acting as both protection and a wa y of controlling who she comes into contract with. Subject 1 believes that when peopl e see her house they see it as a reflection of her success. First and foremost though, she views her house in terms of her family. When asked about her feelings towards her house, Subject 1 fe lt that her house repres ents how connected her family is. She said, We are a big family and this is a big house. We have a lot that we want to

PAGE 61

61 accomplish and this house has a lot of the space to accommodate all of us and our imaginations and journeys and dreams and hopes. The house had an untapped beauty which is wh at made Subject 1 want to preserve the house. She also thought the house had enough architectural style that it was worth preserving. The house gave her an opportunity to express her and her familys creativity. The design of the house has been a group effort as each persons be droom is a reflection of their style. Figure 5-1. Case Study House Interiors. Photog raphs of Subject 1s house. A) Subject 1s kitchen B) view of Subject 1s living room C) view from front door into house. Photographs provided by homeowner. Subject 1 wanted to live in an old house. She and her husband looked at houses in this specific neighborhood because they liked the location and the fact the houses were in general larger than in some of the other older neighbor hoods in Gainesville. When she was asked how she would describe nostalgia, she said it is t he emotional recall you experience from past

PAGE 62

62 memories that bring back a certain feeling. While she views herself as nostalgic she does not attach nostalgic feelings to her house. Rehabili tating the house for her wa s not out of nostalgia or attempting to recreate the past but about taking a sad, sagging house that had very little appeal and bringing it back to life. Subject 1 said she never considered purchasing a new house because for her they are lacking ch aracter and feeling. She states th at she likes the flaws in older homes because it gives them character which reminds her of humanity since nothing is perfect in them. For Subject 1 restoring the house was a pe rsonal mission since there are already plenty of things in the world already so you restore and bring vitality back to something that had lost it. By rehabilitating an existing build ing, Subject 1 felt that house ha s become a symbol of hope. Case Study 2 Gainesville, FL Subject 2 lives by him self in a 68 year old hous e. He is in his early 60s and owns a business located in Gainesville, FL. Accordi ng to Subject 2, the house was originally built in 1940. The house was originally platted as part of the Highland Terrace neighborhood in 1925. Little is known about the history of the house ex cept that the original fa mily lived in the house from 1940 -1979 and owned a small department stor e downtown in Gainesville. Another family lived in the house from 1979-1991; then S ubject 2 purchased the house in 1991. Describing the historic interi or spaces of his house, Subj ect 2 says they are Colonial Williamsburg and the exterior is Southern Georgia style. It should be noted that, rather, the house architecture corresponds with the Colonial Revival style. When asked what made him purchase the house, Subject 2 said that he wa s driving around and saw th e for sale sign and thought that the house was beautiful. No major a lterations had been made to the house since its construction in 1940. However, the original pa int and wallpaper were chipping and falling off the walls and the hardwood floors needed to be stri pped. He spent years restoring every square inch of the house. The house is a historic r econstruction. Subject 2 has added Colonial style

PAGE 63

63 elements that he felt were missing from the house, such as crown molding, chair rails and wainscoting, seen in Figure 5-2, that were not originally in the house. The interiors of the house are recreations of Colonial Williamsburg style. Subject 2 did research reading books on the style Figure 5-2. Case Study House Interiors. Photographs of Subject 2s house. A) View of Living Room. B) View of Dining Ro om. C) View of Kitchen to ensure that new features such as the wainscot ing and built in cabinetry were designed to be true to the Colonial period. He also used re production paints and wallp apers. When recreating the interiors of his house, he wanted it to be beautiful and attempt to bring out the original designers intent however the finishes chosen are true to the Colonial Williamsburg style but not Colonial Revival style.

PAGE 64

64 Subject 2 believes that sense of place is mean s being comfortable at home. When asked to define nostalgia, he thought it referred to remembering past times. While he never lived in an older house, his grandfathers were craftsmen and his mother loved Colonial Williamsburg style. Perhaps because of this he feels nostalgic towards his house. Case Study 3 Lithonia, GA Subject 3 is in his early 40s He owns a 100 year old house and property located in Lithonia, G A. He purchased the house as an investment and runs a plant nursery from there. An employee rents the house. However, Subject 3 answ ered the questions regarding sense of place, place attachment and nostalgia thinking about the historic house he lives in Atlanta, GA. The Lithonia house was constructed sometime in the 1890s with various older outbuildings located on the property: a log cabin and corn crib built between 1830s and 1850s, and a barn that is about 100 years old. According to Subject 3, the house was origin ally owned by a family called the Housworths who received the la nd in a grant in the 1790s. Af ter the Civil War, the family lost the land but was able to pur chase it back into the family in the 1880s (Georgia Trust, 2009). The Housworth family lived in the house until they sold it to Subject 3. The house is a four square Carpenter Gothic or Folk Victorian style house. Originally the front porch had more Queen Anne wood features which have since been removed. The exterior has Queen Anne features but the interior of the house is southern vernacular. When Subject 3 purchased the house he said it looked like a rental house floors were carpeted, acoustic tiles had been installed and there was faux wood pane ling on the walls. Since purchasing the house, Subject 3 stripped the interiors back to their historic state. Subject 3 describes the interiors of the house as very simple and very stark with ever ything being handmade and no frills. This is illustrated in Figures 5-3.

PAGE 65

65 The term sense of place is very important Subjec t 3, since it relates to his work as a garden designer. To him, sense of place is about honoring the site by letting the land and materials speak for themselves. Raised on a farm in ru ral Tennessee, the first time Subject 3 saw the property in Lithonia he immedi ately felt that the place re minded him of growing up. Professionally Subject 3 is requ ired to visit other peoples ho uses but he generally feels uncomfortable when in most peoples houses. The houses he feels the most comfortable in are quirky and odd and reflect the individuals who live there; they feel lived in. Subject 3 appreciates good design whether new or old. He has lived in an historic house in Atlanta for 15 years and currently owns another historic prop erty. Subject 3 admits that older buildings are burdens to maintain and he would at some time in the future love to live in a glass, steel and cement box in the middle of the woods. Figure 5-3. Case Study House Interiors. Photographs of Subject 3s house. Subject 3 has complicated feelings towards nosta lgia; he feels that nostalgia is something to be carefully avoided. To him nostalgia is a revisionist versi on of the historical truths that may or may not be accurate. He sees it as a f ear-based reaction to the rapid changes in society adding that the comfort it brings is at the expens e of preparing for the future. While he does not view himself as nostalgic he admits he has b een nostalgic in the past. Nostalgia is not A

PAGE 66

66 interesting to me anymore. Too many people su ffered to live that way. The only guy that won was the man, the white man. Everybody else suffere d so he could live comfortably. Nostalgia is not that fun and people need to l ook back at and be honest. Subject 3 states he has grown to be less nostalgic about his house and respect and honor it for what it is, and likes it aesthetically. Case Study 4 Atlanta, GA Subject 4 lives in a 106 year old house located in the Grant Park historic district in Atlanta, GA (NPS Atlanta, 2009). Subject 4 is an attorney in her m id 40s and lives in the house with her husband and her father. The interview was not conducted at Subject 4 s house so photographs were not taken. According to Subject 4, the house was built in 1903 in Grant Park which was part of the first suburban ne ighborhood in Atlanta. She describes her house as a Victorian Foursquare Bungalow, the house has an 8 ft wide central hall with 14 ft high ceilings and the rooms located off of the central hall. The house has Victorian features such as wood moldings and tall ceilings, wooden floors, double sliding doors for the salon, and four fireplaces. The interiors of Subject 4s house are historic r ecreations. When she saw the house, she was surprised to find that the house had not b een subdivided into smaller rooms. The house survived years of insensitive rehabilitations: th e front porch had been removed, the original wood roof shingles had been covered over the years with four different roof layers, and the walls were covered with sheet rock, but all of the original woodwork was in place. The house had to have all of its systems replaced. The support for the h ouse and retaining walls for the basement also had to be redone. Subject 4 views sense of place in terms of conne ctions, for her it is about being part of something that is larger than you, however which is also a part of you. She has always been attracted to and more interested in things that were from the past. Subject 4 grew up in a Spanish Colonial town in South America where hous es surrounded the town center. The lack of

PAGE 67

67 modern conveniences, creaking sounds and imperf ections in older houses are not seen by Subject 4 a drawback but as benefit, since they are part of the character of the hou se. Subject 4 respects tradition and sense of history; she feels that when other people vis it her house they can tell that she has a great appreciation for tr aditional beauty and architecture. While she sometimes enjoys visiting other peoples houses; Subject 4 is more comfortable at her own house. In her opinion, taking care and improving her house is a way of caring for her family. When asked what made her purchase her home Subject 4 said it was her love of older architecture and how it is perfect yet imperfect. The thought of living in modern house has been fleeting when there is a list of repairs to make to the house, however, she would never choose to live in a newly constructed house. Historic build ings give her a sense of permanence if each generation they will be there for the next to appreci ate. She likens historic preservation to links in a chain Your job is to make sure that you do not break your li nk. You build your link strongly, like the people before you did, then it will be up to the next person to put the next link on. Nostalgia for Subject 4 is about linkage of the past to the future, nos talgia is a connector to the past and to your future. She views he rself as nostalgic. To her nostalgia is about honoring the labor and dedicati on of what was built in the past. There was a tremendous amount of love and dedication [that went into ma king it] and it is good to honor it. Subject 4 believes that historic houses and antiques belo ng to the community of people who see beauty in the objects, not necessarily to any specific family if they do not appreciate their beauty. Continuity matters in the honoring the past. Case Study 5 Carnesville, GA Subject 5 lives in a 180 year ol d house in Carnesville, GA. Sh e is an econom ist in her mid 50s. This house is Subject 5s weekend house but this is what she defines as her home,

PAGE 68

68 weekdays she works and lives in Atlanta. Subject 5 lives in a Federal/Greek revival transition house that was built sometime between 1820 a nd 1830. The house originally was built by Marcus Strange who came to Georgia from South Carolina after the Revolutionary War with his son. Eventually, he and his son put together about 2,000 acres and a saw mill and built this house. The family stayed until 1864 when they sold it to the Duncan family at the end of the Civil War and went back to South Carolina. Subject 5 describes her historic house as Fe deral/Greek revival tran sitional since it shows features of both styles. Subject 5s restora tion of her house removed elements that had been added in the 1960s. The trim had been removed from the interior and a few windows had been rearranged in the back of the hous e but otherwise the ceilings we re still the same height, the walls were still plaster. She always wanted to restore an old house, Ive always liked to fix things that were messed up and broken and see the potential in them. When asked what sense of place meant, Subject 5 said it was about belonging to a community. She feels a strong sense of place wi th her house and the community. The area she lives in is surrounded by bicentennial farms, farms that have been in the same family for two hundred years, and she believes that most of the people in the area also feel a strong sense of place. When asked where she feels the most comf ortable in her house is in her kitchen which is where she spends most of her time. While sh e would consider moving into a new house, she would like to live in a new hous e built of salvaged goods. To her, the age of the building is not as impor tant as the quality of the design, construction and materials. Subject 5 likes the Federal/Greek Revival style because of the attention to symmetry and sense of light incorporated in the design. The design of her house brings a sense

PAGE 69

69 of harmony to her. The house is s ited so that there is always s unlight somewhere in the house. She appreciates things that are handcrafted with quality material s, usually wood or stone. When asked what nostalgia meant to her, Subjec t 5 said nostalgia is a longing for the past that might not reflect a reality. To her nostalg ia is more than trying to recreate a period, she found it interesting that when people did not have things available to them they took what they had and were incredibly creative. While she doe s not view herself as nostalgic she appreciates the spirit of the period. Subject 5 says she would feel uncomfortable if everything in her house was a recreation. She likes things for their ar tistry and creativity a nd the mix of styles. Figure 5-4. Case Study House Interiors. Photographs of Subject 5s house. Environmental Autobiographies Environm ental Autobiography examines peoples feelings toward their surroundings. Subject 2 asked to be excused fr om participating in this section. The drawings created by the

PAGE 70

70 other four subjects were examined to see what th e participants viewed as important. The core symbol for Subject 1 of what her house means to her was a heart (see Fi gure 5-5). Her drawing included children playing and wrote the words f amily, love, playing and happy. She also drew smiling faces around the picture as fo r her house is vibrant and full of warmth and comfort. One of the important things to her was the happy memories that her children will grow up with living in this house; as she said this she drew a jungle gym. She drew wings on the heart, because the whole point of a home is so that your kids can get confidence and fly away. Then across the heart with wings she wrote m emories for children. Subject 1s drawing reflects her love of her family and the importance of creating a space for he r children to develop happy memories of childhood. Figure 5-5. Environmental Auto biography drawing Subject 1 The core symbol for Subject 3 was a box with in a box (see Figure 5-6). He was thinking of his house in Atlanta which he feels a very personal connection to, for him, he feels kindred with the house as though it is a second skin. However, the house is located in an unsafe

PAGE 71

71 neighborhood and now that he ha s young children he worries a bout them since the neighborhood keeps him feeling threatened. However, Subject 3 drew a heart in the midd le of the box because when I am home I feel like I am the nucleus of something. He then wrote the following words under his image: comfort, personal, home, kindr ed, second skin, private and warm. Subject 3s drawing reflects his feelings of he is as he said the nucleus of his hous e and it is a second skin or protective shell around him. Figure 5-6. Environmental Auto biography drawing, Subject 3 The core image that came to Subject 4s mind when thinking about her house was a heart. She then drew ornate frames around the heart (see Figure 5-7). Everything is symmetrical in her drawing as she drew a shape around the edge th at could be the profile of a house and four triangles at each of the corners. For Subject 4, her house to her is vibrant, happy and central. At the bottom of the drawing she wr ote home is happiness. Subject 4s drawing speaks of her love for her house as expressed by her writing home is happiness The symmetry of the drawing could reflect the symmetric al floor plan or th e stability she feels her house represents.

PAGE 72

72 The ornate frame she drew around the house may be symbolic of the Victorian details in her house. Figure 5-7. Environmental Auto biography drawing Subject 4 Lastly, the central image that Subject 5 drew when thinking about her house was a small hand. When masons were working on the chimne y they found a brick with a small childs hand print. The brick had come from a plantation ap proximately 10 miles away and so it might have been the hand print of a slave child. Finding this brick had a great impact on Subject 5, It started me thinking about houses in the south an d who built the houses. It totally rotates your way of thinking. There is a whole legacy but you only think of the owners. She also drew images of her house including her stove. Subject 5 sa id she spent most of her time in the kitchen but she added the caveat that it was the only room of the house that had been completed. She drew an image of roof beams that were scribe d with roman numerals and put together with mortise-and-tenon construction. Subject 5 also dr ew an image of the wood ceilings that she had stripped of previous layers of paint by hand, injuring her shoulder Lastly, she drew a snake.

PAGE 73

73 Subject 5 recounted the story of going underneath the house to examine the chimney she ran into a rat snake under the house with no place to go. S ubject 5s drawings are related to the stories she uncovered while working on renovating the house. Figure 5-8. Environmental Au tobiography drawing, Subject 5 When examining the drawings for similarities, a theme that surfaces in the drawings is the concept of home as sanctuary. Three of the subj ects (Subjects 1, 3, and 4) mentioned variations on the words warmth, comfort, happiness. Th eir respective houses provided them with protection and emotional solace. These three subjects also drew the same central image of a heart (see figures 5-5, 5-6 and 5-7). This core im age of love was directed toward their families and to their houses. Subject 5s drawing was unique as she drew isolated images showing experiences she had while working on her house and reflected mainly on the elements of the house such as the roof, the ceiling or the bricks. As opposed to the other subjects, she did not draw a comprehensive image of home. However, all of these individuals felt a deep emotional

PAGE 74

74 connection with their houses. These drawings explored the li nk between the past and present which can create a meaningful sense of place. (Allen, 2008, p. 39) Another topic that came out of the drawings is the concept of historic as a museum. Subject 2 did research to ensure the historic re creation of the interiors was true to historic Colonial Williamsburg style and used reproductions of Colonial Williamsburg wall papers and colors. Subject 3 thinks it is not practical to ma intain a historic property as a museum piece. He believes that historic residences need to be places where people live amongst historic architecture but still can have a modern lifestyle. Subject 4 di d not raise this issue in the interview; however, her interiors are historic re creations. Lastly, Subject 5 said she wanted to bring the spirit of the period back however she w ould feel uncomfortable if everything in the house was a period recreation. While the paint colors she has chosen are similar to the ones that were originally used she said I think you can have contemporary furnishings that have the feel of the period through the quality or the sense of formality. It should be acknowledged that while acknowledging the past, reviva ls of past styles are not nece ssarily meant to be authentic replications of past living conditions but an ad aptation of the style to contemporary conditions (Rybczyknski, 1986) It would appear that an individuals feelings towards the rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction of period interiors are mostly related to their attitudes to nostalgia and their sense of self. Cross Case Analysis Several s imilarities surfaced when examining each case study in terms of the subjects views towards sense of self, worthiness of arch itecture, sense of place and nostalgia. Other themes emerged which appear to affect why hom eowners rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct their interiors. These unexpected themes were : homebuyers seeing the in herent potential in a house, narrative, and their perception of reconstructed interiors.

PAGE 75

75 The case study subjects were asked a series of questions to try and determine if they had rehabilitated, restored or recons tructed either the interior and/ or the architecture of their house because they felt it matched their se nse of self. As defined before, sense of self is reflected in how individuals identify with cer tain environments and define themselves by their experiences with those environments (Kopek, 2006). Subjec t 1 rehabilitated her house. She saw the potential in the house and wanted to bring out its inner beauty ; I guess from a psychological standpoint, I saw the potential in myself and I saw the potential in the house. Subject 2 said when he drove by the house he was immediately attr acted to the house. Subject 3 said that he too was immediately attracted to both his house in town and the rental property he owns. Subjects 4 and 5 made no specific comment about immediately feeling a connection with their houses but each felt their house was a reflection of their personality. All of the subjects felt the most comfortable in their own house. It appear s that some individuals do choose historic or potentially historic houses because the building matc hes their sense of self as seen in Table 5-3. However, it appears that there is also an impetu s for some individuals to purchase them because the exterior speaks to their sense of self, and th en modify their residential interiors to achieve even better congruence. Another topic of interest in this study is the view of th e worthiness of the house as an influence on the subjects choice to rehabilitate, restore or recreate the architecture or the interior of their house (see table 5-4). As stated earlier the worthiness of residential interior has been linked to physical features contri buting to visual richness such as decoration, natural materials, curves, articulated walls, distinctiveness, and my stery. Subject 2 said he had always liked the Colonial style and his view of the houses worthine ss influenced him to recreate the interiors. Subject 3 claimed his house in Atlanta and hi s farm property in Lithonia were worthy of

PAGE 76

76 recreation and restoration resp ectively because each has been relatively unchanged by time. Subject 4 said she was very driven to live in a Victorian house which inherently made the house worthy. She feels her role is as caretaker of the past for future generations. What made Subject 5 want to preserve her house was that she saw the worthiness in the house and wanted to preserve the interiors. Subject 1 rehabilitated the first floor, but kept the second floor as it was with few changes and also kept the original w ood floors throughout the ho use. She thought the house had enough architectural style to preserve but the interiors had to be modified so they better matched her sense of self. Table 5-3. Cross Case Analysis Fi nding of Role of Sense of Self Subject 1 2 3 4 5 Homeowner feels their sense of self is reflected by the house and rehabiliates, restores or recreates the exterior and interiors of their "historic" house X X X X X Homeowner does not feel their sense of self is reflected by their house But rehabiliates, restores or recreates the exterior and Interiors of their historic house Homeowner feels the exterior of the house reflects their sense of self and does not rehabiliate restore or recreate the interiors of their "historic" house Homeowner feels their sense of self is not reflected by the house and does not rehabiliate, restore or recreate the exterior or the interiors of their "historic" house It appears that how the indivi dual views the worthiness of a re sidence does affect whether they are likely to preserve or historically reconstruct its architect ure, interior or both. However, definitions of worthiness widely varied across subjects. The next topic that was discussed with the case studies was sense of place. Questions were asked to determine if they felt a sense of place w ith their house. Sense of place is a combination of place identity and place attachment. Place identity is how people incorporate a place into the larger concept of their own identities of senses and self; place attachment is defined as a persons bond with the social and physical envi ronments of a place. Such places have deep

PAGE 77

77 Table 5-4. Cross Case Anal ysis Role of Worthiness Subject 1 2 3 4 5 Homeowner views house as worthy and rehabilitates, restores or reconstructsthe interior and exterior of their "historic" house X X X X Homeowner views house as worthy and rehabilitate, restore or reconstructs the exterior of their "historic" house not the interior X Homeowner does not view house as worthy but rehabilitates restores or reconstructs the interior and exterior of their "historic" house Homeowner does not view the house as worthy and does not rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct their "historic" house meaning to individuals because th eir identities are w oven intricately into those places (Kopek, 2006). Case study subjects were asked what the te rm sense of place meant to them and if they felt a sense of place with their hous e (see table 5-5). Subject 1 view ed sense of place as having a private sanctuary because when you walk out the door you are forced to deal with people you do not want to deal with. In your home you can control what you have to be confronted with on a daily basis. For Subject 1, her home acts like a marked territory protecting her and her family where they can feel safe. When asked why she chos e to live in a historic house, Subject 1 said it was because they have character and are the sort of environment where she wants to raise her children. Subject 2 defined the phrase sense of pl ace as being comfortable at home. He said he found his house to be warm, safe, quiet and p eaceful. While Subject 3 defined sense of place as honoring the site and letting the space speak for itself. Subject 3 was attracted to both of his historic properties. He felt that they were special because they are still very similar to how they were when constructed. Subject 4 defined se nse of place as being part of something that is larger than you, but that is very much. It is someplace you feel roots coming out of your feet. Subject 4 wanted to live in a historic house be cause of the connection to the past. Lastly, Subject 5 defined sense of place as belonging to a community. She actually feels more a sense of connection to her house in Carnesv ille than her house in Atlanta.

PAGE 78

78 Sense of place is a very complicated issue since it is difficult to separate elements of the individuals house and the neighborhood they live i n. It seems that sense of place is a motivator for people to rehabilitate, restore or recreate the interiors of their historic houses. However, it appears that an individual can f eel a sense of place with the ar chitecture of thei r house and still rehabilitate or recreate their house to be in congruence with their sense of self. Table 5-5. Cross Case Analysis Role of Sense of Place Subject 1 2 3 4 5 Individuals feels a sense of place to their "historic" house and either rehabilitates, restores or reconstructs the interior of their house X X X X Individual feels a sense of place to the architecture or other external factors but feels no sense of attachment to the "historicresidential interior and does not rehabilitate, restore or reconstruct the interior of their house X Individual does not feel a sense of place to their "historic" house but rehabilitates, restores or reconstructs the architecture and interior of their house Individual does not feel a sense of place and decides to rehabilitate, restore or reconstructs neither the architecture nor the interior of their house A final topic discussed with the case study partic ipants was nostalgia. As defined earlier, nostalgia refers to the relationship between build ing form, its use, meaning and time; it is a transactional process between physic al and affective factors. Th e loss and destruction of places leads to nostalgic feelings since nostalgia in general refers to a longing for what is gone rather than a specific place. The cas e study participants were asked wh at nostalgia meant to them and if they viewed themselves as nostalgic people and if they had nostalgic feelings associated with their house (see table 5-6). Subject 1 defined nosta lgia as the emotional recall experienced from past memories that bring back certain feelings. She defined herself as nostalgic but she said she does not have nostalgic feelings associated with her house. While she acknowledges that nostalgia might be a factor for some individuals. Her motive fo r rehabilitating he r house is the

PAGE 79

79 idea of making the world a better place. Subjec t 2 defined nostalgia as remembering past times and views himself as nostalgic. He does acknow ledge he has nostalgic feelings towards his house. His grandfather restored antiques and his mother was an interior decorator who loved colonial style architecture. He believes that this family history may have given him his interest in historic houses. Subject 3 defi nes nostalgia as a revisionist version of the historical truths that may or may not be accurate. Subject 3 does not view himself as nostalgic but he acknowledges that he is developing his own nostalgia for when he first m oved in Atlanta 15 years ago. However, he says he is learning to be less nostalgic a bout his house and honor it for what it is. Subject 4 defined nostalgia as a co nnector to the past and to the fu ture. Subject 4 admits she is nostalgic and has nostalgic feelin gs associated with her house. For her, my reality is the one with the link and the continuity. Subject 5 defi ned nostalgia as a longi ng for the past, however a past the individual has in the mind that might not reflect reality. Table 5-6. Cross Case Anal ysis Role of Nostalgia Subject 1 2 3 4 5 Homeowner is nostalgic for the past and rehabilitate, restore or reconstructs the interior of their "historic" house X X Homeowner is not nostalgic for the past but rehabilitates, restores or reconstructs the interior of their "historic "house X X X Homeowner is nostalgic for th e past but does not rehabilitate, restore or reconstructs the interior of their "historic house Homeowner is not nostalgic for the past and does not rehabilitate, restore or reconstructs the interior of their "historic house Three unexpected issues came out of the case st udiesthe role of potential and effort in the view of worthiness, the role of narrative and nostalgia, and finally the perception of recreated interiors. First, it seems that whether homeowners deem a house worthy is resides in part in their appreciation of intrinsic beauty and effort that went into making the house. Subject 1 said she

PAGE 80

80 appreciated the structure of the house with the large number of hi storic windows and the historic 24 ft long wood floors in the house. Subject 4 fe lt that an individual cannot make something beautiful without putting their self into it. For her, rehabilitation, restoration and recreation are about respecting the effort someone put into maki ng a house. Previous re search indicated that individuals were more likely to purchase a historic house if it had been maintained (GramHanssen & Beth-Danielsen, 2004). Both Subjects 1 and 5 said they saw the potential in the house. When Subject 1 was speaking of her hous e she elaborated on the untapped beauty and potential she saw in the house and which was what made her want to rehabilitate the house. For her it was about bringing out the potential in her house and giving something back to the neighborhood. For Subject 1, the idea was that an individual can repair rather than replace a house and restore and bring vitality back to someth ing that had lost it. Subject 5 said she has always liked to fix things that were messed up and broken and see the potential in them. Narrative, as defined earlier, is an individual attaching ideas to their intangible memories of the past; some use possessions to strengthen th is attachment. Both Subject 3 and Subject 5 were aware of individuals propens ity to believe a narrative and th at people have a tendency to look at the past but they do not seem to take into account its realities. Subject 3 stated it most succinctly ...Nostalgia is not interesting to me anymore. Too many people suffered to live that way. The only guy that won was the man, the wh ite man. Everybody else suffered so he could live comfortably. That nostalgia is not fun and people need to look back at the past and be honest. When Subject 5 found physical evidence of a childs handprint in a brick it made her realize that there was more to think about than who owned and liv ed in the house. She started thinking about how these houses were built by slaves but how the legacy is about the owners and not the individuals whose labor bu ilt this culture. No stalgia is a double edge sword for while it

PAGE 81

81 can elicit feelings of comfort and security these feelings are often in lieu of a willingness to face the changes of the future (Kopek, 2006). It appears that both nosta lgia and narrative may play an active role in why some individual s rehabilitate, restore or recreat e the interiors of their house. Subjects 1, 3, and 5 said they did not view themselv es as nostalgic yet they were all attracted to historic buildings. Subjects 1 a nd 5 mentioned seeing the potential in the interiors of their house which may relate more directly to sense of self since neither saw this self as nostalgic. Perhaps sense of self and place have a more active role in preservation than nostalgia. While each case study participant appreciated va rious aspects of the historic houses they lived in, the historically reconstructed interi ors made some particip ants think of a house museum. Subject 1 for example didnt want a period renovation of her house since she viewed them as sterile; she didnt want to do anything sh e felt was ostentatious or pretentious which to her meant using vintage wall paper. For her, the idea of historically recr eating the interiors using period finishes would have made her house feel st aged and inaccessible, as in a museum. While Subject 2 did research to ensure the historic re creation of the interiors was true to historic Colonial Williamsburg style. He used reproduc tions of Colonial Williamsburg wall papers and colors. Subject 3 thinks it is not practical to ma intain a historic property as a museum piece. He believes that historic residences need to be places where people live amongst historic architecture but still can have a modern lifestyle. Subject 4 di d not raise this issue up in the interview; however, her interiors are historic re creations. Lastly, Subject 5 said she wanted to bring the spirit of the period back however she w ould feel uncomfortable if everything in the house was a period recreation. While the paint colors she has chosen are similar to the ones that were originally used she said I think you can have contemporary furnishings that have the feel of the period through the quality or the sense of fo rmality. It would appear that an individuals

PAGE 82

82 feelings towards the rehabilitati on, restoration or recreation of pe riod interiors are mostly related to their attitudes to nostalgia and their sense of self.

PAGE 83

83 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Psycho-social factors ap pear to influence pe ople to rehabilitate, re store or reconstruct historic or period interiors. Five case study subjects were id entified and asked a series of questions to see if sense of se lf, the perceived worthiness of ar chitecture, sense of place and nostalgia may have been conscious or unconscious factors playing on their choice to preserve or not preserve the architecture and in teriors of their residences. Sense of self does appear to be a factor in why some individuals re habilitate, restore or reconstruct their residence. All of the case st udy participants modified the interiors of their residences from the state they were in when they purchased their house. However, only one individual gutted the house to completely remodel it. The rest removed additions that, in their views, were inconsistent with the period in which the house was constructed, and either restored or recreated the interiors to a c hosen period. It appear s that there is a need for individuals to modify their interiors to create a greater cong ruence between their residential environment and their sense of self. However, it seems that fo r individuals who purchase a historic house the impulse is to rehabilitate the hous e back to its original state and not completely modify it. The perceived worthiness of the residence also appears to be a factor. Part of what individuals deemed worthy of preservation in thei r residences was the quality of materials used in the construction. Several subjects mentioned th e quality and artistry of the materials used in constructing the house. It appe ars that how the individual views the worthiness of a residence does affect whether individuals are likely to preserve the architect ure, the interior or both. While previous research indicated that individuals were more likely to purchase an older house if it had been maintained (Gram-Hassen & Beth-Danielsen, 2004), the subjects in the case study suggest that for some individuals the ability to see the potential in a rundow n house is as also an

PAGE 84

84 important a factor. It seems th at the individuals were attracte d to houses that still had the majority of their original featur es. However, the appraisal of a historic period residence as being worthy of preservation appears to relate dir ectly back to self identification issues. Further research needs to be conducted to assess this relationship. The concept of sense of place as related to th e preservation or historic reconstructions of historic residences does appear to be a factor in why individuals pr eserve them. Almost all of the individuals in the case study mentioned at some poi nt how they liked historic period residences for the connection to and sense of history the houses embodied. It appears that while some individuals feel a sense of place with the architect ure and interiors of their historic house, they rehabilitate or reconstruct the interiors so th ey are consistent with the style and period it represents. Other individuals feel a greater sens e of place with the architecture or other external factors, such as the neighborhood in which the house is located, and renovate the interior of their house to be greater congruence with their sense of self. It was difficult to appraise how great a role nostalgia and narrative played in whether individuals were likely to preserve or reconstruct the interiors of their historic residences. Three of the case study participants adm itted that they were not nostalg ic. Two of the participants appreciated their residences for th eir artistry but they tried not to glorify the past. The other two individuals admitted they were nostalgic for the pa st. While each of their houses were filled with pieces of the past, both seemed to collect these items out of respect for their craftsmanship and aesthetics, nonetheless th eir interpretation of the historic narrative was not clearly understood. It should be noted that this is a small cas e study and the results do not carry enough weight for the findings to be generalized, so the data should be considered preliminary findings suggesting further research. Howe ver, individuals sense of self, perception of the worthiness of

PAGE 85

85 the historic house and sense of place arise as potential indicators of whether individuals will preserve historic residences. Preservation is an attempt to maintain the ta ngible connection between the past and present through saving the buildings of previous eras. It is important to safeguard the past for future generations. Historic period buildings were co nstructed to endure since to waste valuable resources, such as money and effort, were inconceivable in the past (Kunstler, 1996). Since technology such as electricity and air conditioni ng were not available these buildings were designed to suit their environmen t. These earlier construction approaches which were once viewed as outdated are experien cing a revival as individuals look at the environmental impact of what they build. Historic period buildings are physical representations of a societys beliefs, including its approach to the us e of earths resources. Historic buildings provide an example of successful strategies that shoul d inspire our quest for more su stainable ways of building. A good house is a created thing made of ma ny parts economically and meaningfully assembled. It speaks not just of materials fr om which it is made, but of the intangible rhythms, spirits, and dreams of pe oples lives. Its site is only a tiny piece of the real world, yet this place is made to seem like an entire world. In its parts it accommodates important human activities, yet in sum it express an attitude toward life. (Moore et al., 1974, p. 49) Why people preserve residential interiors is a complicated issue. However, this study has uncovered several areas for possible future research, from research into individuals preferences for historic residential interiors to more comp rehensive research on why individuals preserve historic residential interiors. A commonly used research strategy uses images of interiors to assess peoples perceptions of them; however of ten the images used have been taken from current house design magazines and do not clearly describe the style or period or contents of the interiors that are being judged (Nasar, 1989; Pu rcell & Nasar, 1992; Stamps & Nasar, 1997). Future research could use Clare Cooper Marc us Environmental Autobiography techniques to

PAGE 86

86 examine different reactions to residential in teriors and comparing new construction versus historic structures. Further res earch could be done into how se nse of self and sense of place affect individuals willingness to preserve historic residential interiors. Another potential research area is the concept of worthiness: How does an individual determine the worthiness of a historic structure and what role does it play in their decision to rehabilitate a house? Lastly, the role of worthiness of a historic residence for preservation could be examined in terms of its existing condition and its effect on its possible purchase.

PAGE 87

87 APPENDIX A NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BY AGE1 Year Structure Built Total 1 fami ly detached 1 family attached 2005 to 2009 2,964,000 2,471,000 235,000 2000 to 2004 6,344,000 5,029,000 449,000 1995 to 1999 6,189,000 4,492,000 336,000 1990 to 1994 4,988,000 3,775,000 347,000 1985 to 1989 5,267,000 3,899,000 479,000 1980 to 1984 4,198,000 2,955,000 349,000 1975 to 1979 7,860,000 6,408,000 424,000 1970 to 1974 5,759,000 4,453,000 266,000 1960 to 1969 8,979,000 8,099,000 185,000 1950 to 1959 8,382,000 8,015,000 167,000 1940 to 1949 4,423,000 4,062,000 156,000 1930 to 1939 3,062,000 2,688,000 162,000 1920 to 1929 2,676,000 2,265,000 185,000 1919 or earlier 4,555,000 3,901,000 301,000 Total 75,647,000 62,512,000 4,042,000 1 Data taken from American Housing Survey Table 3-25. Units in Structure by Sel ected Characteristics--OwnerOccupied Units. Information compiled for U.S. Census Bureau American Housing Survey (20 08). Units in Structure by Selected Characteristics-Owne r Occupied Units. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ah s/ahs07/tab3-25.pdf on November 1, 2008

PAGE 88

88 APPENDIX B LEGISLATION FOR STATE REHABILTATION TAX CREDIT FOR HOMEOWNERS State Nam e State Rehabilitation Tax Credit for Homeowners and Year of Enactment State Rehab Tax Credit includes Interior Preservation Percent of State Rehab Tax Credit for homeowners Alabama No rehabilitation tax credit NA NA Alaska No state income tax NA NA Arizona No rehabilitation tax credit NA NA Arkansas No rehabilitation tax credit NA NA California No rehabilitation tax credit NA NA Colorado YES (1991) DOI1 20% Connecticut YES(2000) DOI 30% Delaware YES (2001) DOI 30% District of Columbia No rehabilitation tax credit for homeowner NA NA Florida No state income tax NA NA Georgia YES(2002) DOI 25% non target areas 30% target areas Hawaii No rehabilitation tax credit NA NA Idaho No rehabilitation tax credit NA NA Illinois No rehabilitation tax credit NA NA Indiana YES (2000) DOI 20% Iowa YES(2000) DOI 25% Kansas YES(2001) DOI 25% Kentucky YES (2005) DOI 30% Louisiana YES (2006) DOI 10% 25% dependent on owners adjusted gross income Maine No rehabilitation tax credit for homeowner NA NA Maryland YES (1997) DOI 20% 1 DOI Department of Interior Standards

PAGE 89

89 State Name State Rehabilitation Tax Credit for Homeowners and Year of Enactment State Rehab Tax Credit includes Interior Preservation Percent of State Rehab Tax Credit for homeowners Louisiana YES (2006) DOI 10% 25% dependent on owners adjusted gross income Maine No rehabilitation tax credit for homeowner NA NA Maryland YES (1997) DOI 20% Massachusetts No rehabilitation tax credit for homeowner NA NA Michigan YES(1999) DOI 25% Minnesota No rehabilitation tax credit NA NA Mississippi YES (2006) DOI 25% Missouri No rehabilitation tax credit for homeowner NA NA Montana No rehabilitation tax credit for homeowner NA NA Nebraska No rehabilitation tax credit NA NA Nevada No state income tax NA NA New Hampshire No state income tax NA NA New Jersey No rehabilitation tax credit NA NA New Mexico YES (1984) DOI 50% New York YES (2007) DOI 20% North Carolina YES (1988) DOI 30% North Dakota YES (2000) DOI 25% Ohio No rehabilitation tax credit for homeowner NA NA Oklahoma No rehabilitation tax credit for homeowner NA NA Oregon No rehabilitation tax credit NA NA Pennsylvania No rehabilitation tax credit NA NA

PAGE 90

90 State Name State Rehabilitation Tax Credit for Homeowners and Year of Enactment State Rehab Tax Credit includes Interior Preservation Percent of State Rehab Tax Credit for homeowners Rhode Island YES (1989) DOI 20% South Carolina YES (2003) DOI 25% South Dakota No state income tax NA NA Tennessee No state income tax NA NA Texas No state income tax NA NA Utah YES (1993) DOI 20% Vermont No rehabilitation tax credit for homeowner NA NA Virginia YES (1997) DOI 25% Washington No state income tax NA NA West Virginia YES (2001) DOI 20% Wisconsin YES (1989) DOI 25% Wyoming No state income tax NA NA

PAGE 91

91 APPENDIX C NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT USED ST ATE REHABILTATI ON T AX CREDIT FOR HOMEOWNERS BY STATE State Name Number of homes that have used SRTC Alabama 0 Alaska 0 Arizona 0 Arkansas 0 California 0 Colorado 440 Connecticut 253 Delaware 41 District of Columbia 0 Florida 0 Georgia 425 Hawaii 0 Idaho 0 Illinois 0 Indiana 82 Iowa 16 Kansas 600 Kentucky 59 Louisiana 0 Maine 0 Maryland 2500 Massachusetts 0 Michigan 600 Minnesota 0 Mississippi 0 Missouri 0 Montana 0 Nebraska 0 Nevada 0 New Hampshire 0 New Jersey 0 New Mexico 580

PAGE 92

92 State Name Number of homes that have used SRTC New York 3 North Carolina 871 North Dakota 0 Ohio 0 Oklahoma 0 Oregon 0 Pennsylvania 0 Rhode Island unknown South Carolina 58 South Dakota 0 Tennessee 0 Texas 0 Utah 827 Vermont 0 Virginia Unknown Washington 0 West Virginia 42 Wisconsin 4000 Wyoming 0 Total 11397

PAGE 93

93 APPENDIX D NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES (20 06) COMPARED TO TOTAL NUMBER OF APPR OVED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES THAT HAVE USED STATE REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT, BY STATE 1 Data retrieved from American Community Survey Tables. U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey Ta bles (2006). U.S. Census Bureau Housing Units by Units in Structure and State 2006. Retrieved from www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0952.xls on November 1, 2008. STATE Total Number of Single Family Houses1 Total Number of SRTC Percentage of Single Family Houses that successfully have used SRTC Colorado 1,474,000 440 .03% Connecticut 924,000 253 .027% Delaware 270,000 41 .015% Georgia 2,689,000 425 .002% Indiana 2,077,000 82 .0039% Iowa 1,018,000 16 .0015% Kansas 934,000 600 .065% Kentucky 1,310,000 59 .0045% Maryland 1,678,000 2500 .015% Michigan 3,420,000 600 .0017% New Mexico 575,000 580 .104% New York 3,684,000 3 .00008% North Carolina 2,744,000 871 .032% Rhode Island 266,000 Unknown Unknown South Carolina 1,271,000 58 .0046% Utah 661,000 827 .13% Virginia 2,356,000 Unknown Unknown West Virginia 641,000 42 .0066% Wisconsin 1,790,000 4000 .228%

PAGE 94

94 APPENDIX E STATES WITH EASEMENT ENABLING LEGI SLATI ON AND NUMBER OF EASEMENT HOLDING ORGANIZATIONS State Name Has Enabling Legislature allowing for Historic Preservation Easements Enabling Legislature that allows Preservation of Interior Spaces Number of Easement Holding Organization s in State Alabama Yes No 2 Alaska Yes No 0 Arizona Yes No 0 Arkansas Yes No 0 California Yes No 1 Colorado Yes No 4 Connecticut Yes No 1 Delaware Yes No 4 District of Columbia Yes No 2 Florida Yes No 2 Georgia Yes No 5 Hawaii Yes No 1 Idaho Yes No 0 Illinois Yes No 1 Indiana Yes No 2 Iowa No NA 1 Kansas Yes No 0 Kentucky Yes No 4 Louisiana Yes NA 3 Maine Yes Yes 3 Maryland No NA 4 Massachusetts Yes Yes 3 Michigan Yes No 1 Minnesota Yes No 0

PAGE 95

95 State Name Has Enabling Legislature allowing for Historic Preservation Easements Has Enabling Legislature that allows Preservation of Interior Spaces Number of Easement Holding Organization Mississippi Yes No 2 Missouri No No 1 Montana Yes No 0 Nebraska Yes No 0 Nevada Yes No 1 New Hampshire Yes No 4 New Jersey Yes Yes 2 New Mexico Yes No 1 New York Yes No 8 North Carolina Yes Yes 5 North Dakota Yes Yes 1 Ohio No No 3 Oklahoma Yes No 0 Oregon Yes No 1 Pennsylvania Yes No 2 Rhode Island Yes No 1 South Carolina Yes No 6 South Dakota Yes No 1 Tennessee Yes No 3 Texas Yes No 4 Utah Yes No 1 Vermont Yes No 1 Virginia Yes No 3 Washington Yes No 4 West Virginia Yes No 0 Wisconsin Yes No 1 Wyoming Yes No 0 TOTAL 46 100

PAGE 96

96 APPENDIX F EASEMENTS BY ORGANIZATIONS BY STATE State Name of Easement Holding Organizations Total Number of Easements held by Organization Total Number of Interior Easements held by Organization Total Number of Residential Preservation Easements Total Number of Interior Residential Preservation Easements AL The Alabama Historical Commission 85 25 58 19 Mobile Historic Development Commission 160 0 135 0 AK None 0 0 0 0 AZ None 0 0 0 0 AR None 0 0 0 0 CA San Francisco Architectural Heritage 59 2 56 1 CO Colorado Historical Foundation 40 2 4 1 Historic Denver, Inc 55 1 22 0 Historic Georgetown, Inc 10 0 2 0 Yampa Valley Land Trust 64 NA1 NA NA CT Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation 21 2 20 1 1 NA Not Available

PAGE 97

97 State Name of Easement Holding Organizations Total Number of Easements held by Organization Total Number of Interior Easements held by Organization Total Number of Residential Preservation Easements Total Number of Interior Residential Preservation Easements DE Delaware Natural Resources & Environmental Control Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown First State Preservation Revolving Fund, Inc 2 0 2 0 Preservation Delaware, Inc 3 1 2 1 State of Delaware 2 1 2 1 DC Foundation for the Preservation of Historic Georgetown 105 1 100 0 The LEnfant Trust 1107 0 1064 0 FL Dade Heritage Trust 5 1 1 0 Preservation Foundation of Palm Beach 4 0 2 0 GA Athens-Clarke Heritage Foundation, Inc NR2 2 NR No Response

PAGE 98

98 State Name of Easement Holding Organizations Total Number of Easements held by Organization Total Number of Interior Easements held by Organization Total Number of Residential Preservation Easements Total Number of Interior Residential Preservation Easements GA Easements Atlanta 41 0 1 0 Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation 30 5 16 4 Historic Columbus Foundation, Inc 50 0 48 0 Historic Savannah Foundation 307 1 Unknown 0 HI Historic Hawaii Foundation 1 0 1 0 ID None 0 0 0 0 IL Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois NR IN Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana 125 6 ? ? Historic Madison, Inc 5 0 1 0 IA Clayton County Conservation Board 2 0 0 0 KS None 0 0 0 0 KY The Bluegrass Conservancy 36 0 0 0

PAGE 99

99 State Name Name of Easement Holding Organizations Total Number of Easements held by Organization Total Number of Interior Easements held by Organization Total Number of Residential Preservation Easements Total Number of Interior Residential Preservation Easements KY Jefferson County Office of Historic Preservation & Archives NR Kentucky Trust for Historic Preservation, Inc. 8 8 4 4 River Fields, Inc. 22 1 6 1 LA Louisiana Division of Archaeology NR Preservation Resource Center of New Orleans 115 0 64 0 Vieux Carre Commission 19 0 16 0 ME Harpswell Heritage Land Trust NR Maine Historic Preservation Commission NR Maine Preservation 25 3 7 3 MD Historic Annapolis Foundation 150 15 139 9

PAGE 100

100 State Name of Easement Holding Organizations Total Number of Easements held by Organization Total Number of Interior Easements held by Organization Total Number of Residential Preservation Easements Total Number of Interior Residential Preservation Easements MD Maryland Environmental Trust 961 21 Unknown Unknown Maryland Historic Trust NR Peerless Rockville Historic Preservation, Ltd. 4 2 1 0 MA Cambridge Historical Commission 45 1 18 1 The Trustees of Reservations 322 0 100 0 MI Michigan Historical Center 104 25 14 2 MN None 0 0 0 0 MS Mississippi Department of Archives and History 913 913 Unknown Vicksburg Foundation for Historic Preservation 3 3 3 3 MO Landmarks Historic Trust Corporation NR MT None 0 0 0 0

PAGE 101

101 State Name of Easement Holding Organizations Total Number of Easements held by Organization Total Number of Interior Easements held by Organization Total Number of Residential Preservation Easements Total Number of Interior Residential Preservation Easements NB None 0 0 0 0 NV Nevada State Historic Preservation Office 75 75 0 0 NH Division of Historical Resources 52 Unknown Unknown Unknown Manchester Historic Association 1 1 0 0 New Hampshire Land & Community Heritage Investment Program NA NA NA NA New Hampshire Preservation Alliance 3 3 2 0 NJ Historic Society of Princeton NR New Jersey Historic Trust 13 6 10 6 NM American Studies Foundation NA NY Adirondack Architectural Heritage 4 1 4 1

PAGE 102

102 State Name of Easement Holding Organizations Total Number of Easements held by Organization Total Number of Interior Easements held by Organization Total Number of Residential Preservation Easements Total Number of Interior Residential Preservation Easements NY The Catskill Center for Conservation and Development NR Landmark Society of Western New York 37 18 31 14 Mohonk Preserve, Inc. NR New York Landmarks Conservancy 43 0 Unknown 0 Preservation League of New York State 2 1 1 1 Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation 25 0 0 0 Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities 8 8 8 8 NC Capital Area Preservation, Inc 22 19 19 19 Conservation Trust for North Carolina NA NA NA NA

PAGE 103

103 State Name of Easement Holding Organizations Total Number of Easements held by Organization Total Number of Interior Easements held by Organization Total Number of Residential Preservation Easements Total Number of Interior Residential Preservation Easements NC Preservation Society of Asheville & Buncombe County, Inc. NR Preservation Society of Chapel Hill NR Uptown Shelby Association, Inc NR ND North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department NA NA NA NA OH Cincinnati Preservation Association 81 2 71 2 Cleveland Restoration Society 1 0 0 0 Heritage Ohio 1 0 1 0 OK None 0 0 0 0 OR Historic Preservation League of Oregon NR PA Brandywine Conservancy, Inc 28 0 26 0

PAGE 104

104 State Name of Easement Holding Organizations Total Number of Easements held by Organization Total Number of Interior Easements held by Organization Total Number of Residential Preservation Easements Total Number of Interior Residential Preservation Easements PA Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia 220 6 125 3 RI Rhode Island Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission 100 0 6 0 SC Historic Beaufort Foundation 30 1 25 0 Historic Charleston Foundation 236 38 208 35 Historic Columbia Foundation 2 0 1 0 Nation Ford Land Trust NR The Palmetto Trust for Historic Preservation NR The Preservation Society of Charleston NR SD Preserve South Dakota 6 0 0 0

PAGE 105

105 State Name of Easement Holding Organizations Total Number of Easements held by Organization Total Number of Interior Easements held by Organization Total Number of Residential Preservation Easements Total Number of Interior Residential Preservation Easements TN Historic Nashville NR Knox Heritage, Inc 0 0 0 0 Memphis Heritage, Inc 6 0 2 0 TX Galveston Historical Foundation, Inc. NR San Antonio Conservation Society 20 1 19 0 Texas Historical Commission NR Texas Historical Commission NR UT Utah Heritage Foundation 116 0 106 0 VT Preservation Trust of Vermont, Inc. 47 17 37 2 VA Office of Historic Alexandria NR Virginia Department of Historic Resources 449 Unknown Unknown Unknown Virginia Outdoors Foundation 2,234 0 0 0

PAGE 106

106 State Name of Easement Holding Organizations Total Number of Easements held by Organization Total Number of Interior Easements held by Organization Total Number of Residential Preservation Easements Total Number of Interior Residential Preservation Easements WA Jefferson Land Trust NA NA NA NA The San Juan Preservation Trust 204 0 0 0 Spokane City/County Historic Preservation Office 10 0 0 0 Washington State Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 42 4 5 2 WV None 0 0 0 0 WI State Historical Society of Wisconsin NR WY None 0 0 0 0 National Orgs American Farmland Trust NR Civil War Preservation Trust 93 0 0 0 Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy NR

PAGE 107

107 State Name Name of Easement Holding Organizations Total Number of Easements held by Organization Total Number of Interior Easements held by Organization Total Number of Residential Preservation Easements Total Number of Interior Residential Preservation Easements Historic New England 74 National Architectural Trust NR The National Trust for Historic Preservation 103 Unknown Unknown unknown The Nature Conservancy NA NA NA NA Trust for Public Land NA NA NA NA TOTAL 9398 2616 1241 165

PAGE 108

108 APPENDIX G TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES (2006) COMAPERD TO TOTAL NUMBE R OF RESIDENTIAL EASEMENTS STATE Total Number of Single Family Houses1 Total Number of Residential Easements Percent of Residential Easements Number of Interior Residential Easements in state Percent of Interior Residential Easements Alabama 1,469,000 193 .0131% 19 .0013% California 8,580,000 56 .00066% 1 .000012% Colorado 1,474,000 28 .0019% 1 .000071% Connecticut 924,000 20 .0022% 1 .00011% Delaware 270,000 6 .0023% 2 .000759% District of Columbia 114,000 1164 1.1% 0 0 Florida 5,088,000 3 .00006% 0 0 Georgia 2,689,000 65 .00032% 4 .00002% Hawaii 303,000 1 .000003% 0 0 Indiana 2,077,000 1 .00005% 0 0 Kentucky 1,310,000 4 .0003% 4 .0003% Louisiana 1,256,000 80 .0060% 0 0 Maine 487,000 7 .0015% 3 .0006 Maryland 1,678,000 140 .0085% 0 0 Massachusetts 1,560,000 118 .0077% 1 .000065% Michigan 3,420,000 14 .00042% 2 .0000592% Mississippi 876,000 3 .00035% 3 .00035 New Hampshire 399,000 2 .0005% 0 0 New Jersey 2,195,000 10 .0005% 6 .0000027% New York 3,684,000 44 .0012% 24 .00065% North Carolina 2,744,000 19 .00071% 19 .00071% Ohio 3,663,000 72 .0019% 2 .000055% Pennsylvania 4,088,000 151 .0037% 3 .000074% Rhode Island 266,000 6 .0023% 0 0 South Carolina 1,271,000 234 .019% 35 .0028% Tennessee 1,903,000 2 .00011% 0 0 1 Data retrieved from American Community Survey Tables. U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder Community Survey Tables (2006). U.S. Census Bureau Housing Units by Units in Structure and State 2006 Table 947. Retrieved from www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0952.xls on November 1, 2008.

PAGE 109

109 STATE Total Number of Single Family Houses Total Number of Residential Easements Percent of Residential Easements Number of Interior Residential Easements in state Percent of Interior Residential Easements Texas 6,244,000 19 .00031% 0 0 Utah 661,000 106 .0167% 0 0 Vermont 218,000 37 .01746% 2 .00094% Washington 1,784,000 5 .000287% 2 .00012%

PAGE 110

110 APPENDIX H PARTICIPANT CONSENT LETTER Departmen t of Interior Design College of Design Cons truction and Planning University of Florida Gainesville, FL Dear Participant, My name is Nalo McGibbon and I am a gradua te student at the University of Florida. My masters thesis is examining the circumstan ces surrounding the loss of historic residential interiors. As part of my thesis I am conduc ting interviews to lear n about the connections established between homeowners a nd the interior design of their hi storic residences. I am asking you to participate in this interview in your capacity as owner of an historic house. The interview is expected to last no longer than one hour; in it you will be asked a series of questions and asked to create a basic drawing regarding your house. No specific drawing skills are required for this purpose. You will not have to answer any questions that you do not wish to during the interview. Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary. You are advised that there are no anticipated risks, compensations or other direct benefits to you or your family. You are free to withdraw your consent to participate and may di scontinue your participation in the study at any time without consequence. With your written perm ission, I will audio tape the interview. Only I and my academic advisor will have access to thes e recordings which I will personally transcribe removing any reference to your identity during the transcription process. The tape will then be erased after it is transcribed to protect your identity. With your consent, I will also take documentary photographs of your house interiors. Any direct reference to your identity will be removed from the photographs using photo editing software. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law and your identity will not be revealed in the final

PAGE 111

111 manuscript. The interview will be conducted at your home at your convenience by me in person. A copy of the transcript of the interview a nd photographs taken will be sent to you for your approval. If you have any additional questions about the research prot ocol, please contact me at (718) 852-4567 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Maruja Torres-Antonini at (352)392-0252 x335. Questions or concerns about your ri ghts as a research participant may be directed to the UF IRB office, University of Florida, Box 11250, Gainesville, FL 32611; ph (352) 392-0433. This letter serves as a contra ct for your participation in th is study. If you agree to these terms, please sign and return this copy in the enclosed envelope or via fax to (352) 392-7266 Attn: Dr. Maruja Torres Antonini This study may be published in the future however this will not entail compensation for me or for any participants. By si gning this letter, you give me permission to report your responses anonymously in the final thesis manuscript to the submitted to my faculty supervisors and derivative publications. ______________________________________________________ I have read the procedure described above fo r the loss of historic residential interiors Masters thesis. I voluntarily ag ree to participate in the interview and I have received a copy of this description. Signature of Participant /Date

PAGE 112

112 APPENDIX I INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Hom eowner information: Name Age Gender Occupation Household composition: Number of members ages: Genders: Occupations: Relationship to owner Building information: Address: Age of building: Square footage: Approximate cost of purchase: Questions relating to house period and owner knowledge of the house history What period/style does your house belong to? What year was your house built? Can you give me a brief historical backgr ound on your house, incl uding year built and historical period a nd style it belongs to?

PAGE 113

113 Questions regarding the preservation of the building Describe the interior spaces of your house? Did you have an image in mind before rehabi litating or remodeling the interior of your house? How preserved was the house when you moved in ? What preservation measures have you taken? What research did you do on the house before you began preservation? Have you thought of listing your house on the Nationa l Register of Histor ic Places? What advantages and disadvantages do you fores ee in listing your property with the National Register of Historic Places? How has the research you have done on your prop erty affected your decision to list/not list the house? Questions regarding financial incentives Prior to rehabilitating your property, did you research wh at incentives, financial or otherwise, were available? Were there any reasons why you chose to use/not use them? Have you ever thought about placing an eas ement to protect your house? Why? If you were to place an easement on your house, what specific features would you protect? Would it be acceptable to you, in order to receive a financial incentive for the rehabilitation of your house, to have to go through a yearly inspection to make sure no major changes were made? Why? Would it be acceptable to you, in order to rece ive financial incentive for the rehabilitation work on your house, to be required to open your house to the public for a few days of the year? Why?

PAGE 114

114 Would it be acceptable to you, in order to rece ive a financial incentive for rehabilitation work on your house, to have to follow guidelines stating what could or could not be done to it? Why? Questions related to place identity and place attachment What does the phrase sense of place mean to you? Do you feel a sense of place in your house? Why? Can you describe some place from your past and/or childhood where you felt at home? Is there any place in your house now th at has a similar feeling to it? What do you think others can tell ab out you from visiting your house? What do you think others can tell about you from visiting your house? How do you feel when you are a visitor to so meone elses house vs. when you are at your own house? Would you consider moving to a new house? Why or why not? What do you feel your house says about you? What made you want to preser ve your house? Can you descri be what is it about your house that makes you want to /made you preserve it? Drawing exercise Please draw a symbol of what your house m eans to you whatever core image comes to your mind put in the center of the page and continue with whatever other images, colors, shapes, or words emerge. If any other houses or dwellings flash through your mind as you do this a grandparents house, a curren t neighbors home, a childhood place. Note which room or image or shape or word seemed to trigger that memory. Be aware of any sensations in your body as you do this. Are you conscious of any feelings of warmth or

PAGE 115

115 sadness, any sensation of relaxation or tension? Imagining that this picture is your friend and start to tell it how you feel. Questions related to nostal gia and place attachment What made you purchase your house? What do you think your house represents about you/your household members? What does the design of your house sa y about you/your household members? How does the design of your house make you feel? Do you feel your house reflects this? Why? Is there a particular room that repres ents you and/or your household members? How would you define nostalgia? Do you view yourself as nostalgic? Do you acknowledge having nostalgic fee lings associated to your house?

PAGE 116

116 LIST OF REFERENCES Pension Protection Act of 2006, House of Repr esentatives, Second Session Sess.(2006). Alexander, C. (1977). A Pattern Language New York: Oxford University Press. Allen, A. D. (2008). Environm ental Autobiography as a Means of Understanding Memories of a Small-town Theater. International Journal of Spatial Design & Research, 8 Andrus, P. (1988). The National Register of Historic Places and Signifi cant Interiors. In The Interiors Handbook for Historic Buildings (pp. 1-1 1-3). American Fact Finder Community Survey Tables (2006). U.S. Census Bureau Housing Units by Units in Structure and State 2006 Table 947. Retrieved from www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0952.xls on November 1, 2008. American Housing Survey (2009). Units in Structure by Selected Characteristics-Owner Occupied Units. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ ahs07/tab3-25.pdf on November 1, 2008 Andrus, P. (1990). How to Apply the National Regi ster Criteria for Evaluation Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/nr/public ations/bulletins/nrb 15/ on September 20, 2008. Bathel, D. (1996). Getting in Touc h with History: The Role of Historic Preservation in Shaping Collective Memories. Qualitative Sociology, 19 (3), 345-364. Belk, R. W. (1992). Attachment to Possessi ons. In I. Altman & S. Low (Eds.), Place Attachment (Vol. 12, pp. 37-62). New York: Plenum Press. Bennefield, R & Bonnette, R. ( 2003) Structural and Occupancy Characteristics of Housing: 2000. Census Bureau. U.S. Departme nt of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-32. pdf Retrieved on December 1, 2008 Black, H. C. (Ed.) (1983) Black's Law Dictionary Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, An cient and Modern. St. Paul, Minn: West Publishing. Boynton, C.W. (2008, November 21, 2008). Connectic ut towns see the effect of teardowns on their community. The New York Times, retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/nyregion/ connecticut/23tearct.html on December 1, 2008. Busch, A. (1999). Geography of Home New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Burden, E. (Ed.) (2004) Illustrated Dictionary of Architectural Preserva tion. New York: McGraw Hill.

PAGE 117

117 Butler, D. R. (1985). The use of easements on historic st ructures: A survey and analysis of easement holding organizations in Geor gia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Cherulnik, P. D., & Wilderman, S. K. (1986). Symbols of Status in Urban Neighborhoods: Contemporary Perceptions of Nineteenth-Century Boston. Environment and Behavior, 18(5), 604-622. Cooper Marcus, C. (1997). House as a Mirror of Self: Expl oring the Deeper Meaning of Home Berwick, Maine: Nicolas-Hays. Dekalb History Center (2008). Dekalb History. Retrieved from www.dekalbhistory.org/02_histor y/02.html on February 15, 2009. Dovey, K. (1985). Home and Homelessness. In I. Altman & C. Werner (Eds.), Home Environments (1 ed., Vol. 8, pp. 33-64). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Th eories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550. Fisher, C. E. (1998). Promoting the Preservation of Historic Buildings: Historic Preservation Policy in the United States. APT Bulletin, 29 (3/4), 7-11. Foster, M. (2007). DC bulldozes 1925 Sears H ouse. From Preservation Magazine Dec 2007. Retrieved from http://www.preservati onnation.org/magazine/2007 /todays-news-2007/dcbulldozes-1925-sears.html on December 1, 2008. Franklin, B. J. (2001). Discourses of Design: Perspectives on the Meaning of Housing Quality and 'Good' Housing Design. Housing, Theory & Society, 18 79-92. Gallagher, W. (2006). House Thinking: A Room by Room look at how we live New York, NY: Harper Collins. Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice Victoria: Optimal Books. Giuliani, M. V. (2003). Theory of Attachment and Place Attachment. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues (pp. 137-170). Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Co. Gram-Hanssen, K., & Beth-Danielsen, C. (2004). House, Home and Identity from a Consumption Perspective. Housing, Theory & Society, 21 (1), 17-26. Hershberger, R. G. (1970). Architecture and Meaning. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 4 (4), 3755. Herzog, T. R., & Shier, R. L. (2000). Co mplexity, Age and Building Preference. Environment and Behavior, 32 (4), 557-575.

PAGE 118

118 Hiss, T. (1990). The Experience of Place: A new wa y of looking at and dealing with our radically changing cities and countryside New York: Vintage Books. Huxtable, A. L. (1986). Goodbye History, Hello Hamburger Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press. Jandl, H. W. (1988). Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic Buildings: Identifying and Preserving Character-defining Elements Retrieved. from. Jenkins, S., & Mohney, D. (2001). The Houses of Philip Johnson New York: Abbeville Press Publishers. Kass, S. L., LaBelle, J., M., & Hansell, D. A. (1993). Rehabilitating Older and Historic Buildings: Law, Taxation, Strategies (2nd Edition ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons. Kopek, D. (2006). Environmental Psychology for Design New York: Fairchild. Kron, J. (1983). Home-Psych: The Social Psychology of Home and Decoration New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc. Kuenstler, J.H. (1996). Home from Nowhere. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kumar, R. (2005). Research Methodology: A step by step guide for beginners Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Landmarks, N. H. (2008). Nantuc ket Historic District. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from http://www.nr.nps.gov/iwisapi/explorer.dll?IWS_SCHEMA=NRIS1&IWS_LOGIN=1&I WS_REPORT=100000044 Lawrence, R. J. (1987). What makes a House a Home? Environment and Behavior, 19 (2), 154168. Leichenko, R. M., Coulson, N. E., & Listokin, D. (2001). Historic Preservation and Residential Property Values: An Analysis of Texas Cities. Urban Studies, 38(11), 1973-1987. Low, S., & Altman, I. (1992). Place Attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman & S. Low (Eds.), Place Attachment (Vol. 12, pp. 1-12). New York: Plenum Press. Maddex, D. (Ed.). (1990). Landmark Yellow Pages: Where to find all the names, addresses, facts and figures you need/National Trust for Historic Preservation (Rev. and enl. ed of: 'The Brown book' c1983 ed. Vol. ). Washington, DC: Preservation Press. Mallard, R. (2001-2002). Avoiding the "Disneyla nd Facade": The Reach of Architectural Controls Exercised by Historic Districts over Internal Features of Structures. Widener Law Symposium Journal, 8 (2), 23. Manzo, L. C. (2003). Beyond house and haven: towa rd a revisioning of emotional relationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (1), 47-61.

PAGE 119

119 Matarrese, L. (1997). The Levitt own Historical Societys History of Levittown. Retrieved from http://www.levittownhistoricalsociet y.org/history.htm on December 1, 2008. Matlow, D. (2008). Teardown of the Day Westpor t News. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from http://www.westportnow.com/index.php?/v2/teardowns Matt, S. J. (2005). There's No Place Like Home. In P. N. Stearns (Ed.), American Behavioral History New York: New York University Press. McDonald, T. C. (1993). Restoratio n as History: Are there Differe nt Standards? In M. J. Auer, C. E. Fisher, T. Jester & M. E. Kaplan (Eds.), The Interiors Handbook for Historic Buildings (Vol. II). Washington, DC: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Morgan, J. C. (1999). An Analysis of the Use of Preservati on Easements for Historic Interiors. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Moore, C., Allen, G., & Lyndon, D. (1974). The Place of Houses. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Myers, D. G. (2008). Social Psychology (9th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic Meanings of House Styles. Environment and Behavior, 21 (3), 235257. Nasar, J. L., & Devlin, A. S. (2000). Regional Variation in Preferences for Vernacular Houses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30 (1), 41-66. National Conference of State Historic Preser vation Officers (NCSHPO). (2008) Retrieved on September 8, 2008, from http://ncshp o.org/current/statetaxincentives.htm National Conference of State Legislatures 199 9 State Historic Preservation Laws Easements (NCSLa). (2008) Retrieved on May 21, 2008, from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/arts/statehist99.cfm National Conference of State Legislatures 199 9 State Historic Preservation Laws State Tax Credits (NCSLb). (2008) Retrieved on May 21, 2008, from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/arts/statehist99.cfm National Park Service National Register Da tabase (NPS). (2008). Retrieved on August 3, 2008, from http://www.nps.gov/hist ory/nr/research/nris.htm National Trust of Historic Preservation (NTHPa) (2008). Heritage Tourism. Retrieved from http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/he ritage-tourism/ Retrieved on December 26, 2008.

PAGE 120

120 National Trust of Historic Preservation (NTHPb) (2008). Sustainability by Numbers: The costs of construction and demolition. Retrieved from http://www.preservationnation.o rg/issues/sustainability/sustainability-numbers.html Retrieved on December 26, 2008. National Trust of Historic Preservation (N THPc) (2008). Teardowns and McMansions. Retrieved from http://www.preservationna tion.org/issues/teardowns/ Retrieved on December 1, 2008. National Trust for Historic Preservation State Tax Credits for Historic Preservation A State by State Summary (NTHP). (August, 20 07) Retrieved on May 23, 2008 from, http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/rehabilitation-ta x-credits/addtionalresources/state-by-state-t ax-credit-summary-chart.pdf Newman, A. (2008, May 25, 2008). A Tiny Ma sterpiece, Unloved, Faces Threat New York Times Press, A. (2008). Panel says Red Sox owner can tear down Brookline mansion Boston Globe, pp. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/2005/ 2020/panel_says_re d_sox_owner_can_tear_down_brookline_ma nsion/?rss_id=Boston.com+-+Massachusetts+news on December 2001, 2008, Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place Identity: Physical World Socialization of the Self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83. Purcell, A. T., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Expe riencing Other People's Houses: A Model of Similarities and Differences in Environmental Experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 199-211. Quentzel, F. N. (1993). Assessing the Condition of Histroic Interiors Prior to Work. In M. J. Auer, C. E. Fisher, T. Jest er & M. E. Kaplan (Eds.), The Interiors Handbook for Historic Buildings (Vol. II). Washington, DC: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Reed, K. (2007, August 25, 2007). John Henry on ba se with his bid for McCourt mansion The Boston Globe Ritterfeld, U. (2002). Social Heuristics in Interior Design Preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 369-386. Ritterfeld, U., & Cupchik, G. C. (1996) Perceptions of Interior Spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16 349-360. Rowe, R. E. (2004). Can Historic Neighborhoods Compete? Analysis of and Recommendations for Local Incentives for Owner-O ccupied Residential Structures. Texas A&M. Rybczynski, W. (1986). Home: A Short History of an Idea New York: Penguin Book.

PAGE 121

121 Rypkema, D. D. (2005). The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader's Guide (2nd Edition ed.). Washington, D.C.: Nati onal Trust for Historic Preservation. Rypkema, D. D. (2008). Sustainability, Smart Growth and Hi storic Preservation. Economic Benefits of Preservation Paper presented at the Hist oric Districts Council Annual Conference. Saegert, S. (1985). The Role of Housing in the Experience of Dwelling In I. Altman & C. Werner (Eds.), Home Environments (1 ed., Vol. 8). New Yo rk, NY: Plenum Press. Schofield, C. (2003). Historic Preservation Easements: A Directory of Historic Preservation Easement Holding Organizations Washington DC: National Parks Service. Seale, W. (1993). Architecture, Furnishings, Fixtur es, and the Authentick Interior. In M. J. Auer, C. E. Fisher, T. Jester & M. E. Kaplan (Eds.), The Interiors Handbook for Historic Buildings (Vol. II). Washington, DC: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Sidwell, K. A. (2006). An Analysis of Protecti on of Historic Interiors. Goucher College, Baltimore. Sirgy, M. J., Grzeskowiak, S., & Su, C. (2005). E xplaining housing preference and choice: The role of self-congruity and functional congruity. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20, 329-347. Sparke, P. (2004). The domestic in terior and the construction of self: the New York homes of Elsie de Wolfe. In S. McKellar & P. Sparke (Eds.), Interior design and identity (pp. 218). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Stamps III, A. E., & Nasar, J. L. (1997). Desi gn Review and Public Preferences: Effects of Geographical Location, Public Consensus, Sensation Seeking and Ar chitectural Styles Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17 (1), 11-32. Steele, F. (1981). The Sense of Place Boston: CBI Publishing Company. Stipe, R. E. (2003). A Richer Heritage: Historic Preser vation in the Twenty-First Century Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Sudjic, D. (2005). The Edifice Complex New York: Penguin Books. Schwartz, H. K. (2007). State Tax Credits for Historic Preservation. Thorton, R. (2002). Windows on the Past. Retr ieved from www.oldhouseweb.com/architectureand-design/windows-on-the-past.sht ml Retrieved on December 1, 2008. Twigger-Ross, C., Bonaiuto, M., & Breakwell, G. (2003). Identity Theories and Environmental Psychology. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues (pp. 203-233). Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Co.

PAGE 122

122 Tyler, N. (2000). Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice (2nd Edition ed.). New York: W.W. Norton. U.S. Census Bureau (2008). Annual Estimates of Housing Units for the United States and States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/HU-EST2007.html on November 1, 2008. Volz, C. (1993). Documenting the Period Interior : A Method of Investigation, Recording and Analysis. In M. J. Auer, C. E. Fisher T. Jester & M. E. Kaplan (Eds.), The Interiors Handbook for Historic Buildings (Vol. II). Washington, DC : Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Weeks, K., D. and Grimmer, Anne E. (1995). The Secretary of the Inte rior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstruc ting Historic Buildings Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. What is a Sears Modern Home ? (2008). Retrieved from http://www.searsarchives.com/home s/index.htm on December 1, 2008. Wilson, M. A., & Mackenzie, N. E. (2000). Social Attributions Based on Domestic Interiors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20 343-354. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd Edition ed. Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ziegler, E., Rathkopf, A., & Rathkopf, D. (2008). Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning (4th ed.). Eagen Thomson West.

PAGE 123

123 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Nalo Alexandra McGibbon was born in Detro it, Michigan but grew up in the Albany, NY region. It was her experiences growing up in Albany and Altamont that exposed her to the quirks and joys of living in an older house. She graduated from Guilderland Central High School. After high school, Nalo moved to New York City where she attended Barnard College, Columbia University. She graduated with Bach elor of Arts in Theat er with Departmental Honors. After college, Nalo moved to London, E ngland for several months. When she returned to America, she moved back to New York City where she worked in various capacities in the performing arts for several years. While she loved working in the performing arts, Nalo longed to return to school to pursue a degree in Inte rior Design. Finally, Nalo decided to follow her passion and moved from New York to Florida and a pplied to the University of Florida for their master program in Interior Design. Nalos two main interests are: historic preservation and environmentally responsible design. These interest s have lead Nalo to believe that good design should respect and acknowledge the past and embrace the future.



PAGE 2

n

PAGE 3

rr

PAGE 4

rr

PAGE 5

n

PAGE 6

r