Citation

## Material Information

Title:
Systemizing the search for significance
Creator:
Rice, Patty Jo Smith
Publication Date:
Language:
English

## Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Architectural design ( jstor )
Architectural history ( jstor )
Buildings ( jstor )
Construction materials ( jstor )
Cultural preservation ( jstor )
Empiricism ( jstor )
Historic preservation ( jstor )
Landmarks ( jstor )
National parks ( jstor )
United States history ( jstor )
City of Sarasota ( local )

## Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Patty Jo Smith Rice. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
22878720 ( ALEPH )
35116641 ( OCLC )

Full Text

SYSTEMIZING THE SEARCH FOR SIGNIFICANCE:
A POINT-BASED SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING ELIGIBILITY ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

By

PATTY JO SMITH RICE

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1996

by

Patty Jo Smith Rice

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of Paula Banes Twitchell, who understood all too well the perils of failing to preserve the recent past, to the memory of Edwin William Smith, my father, and to the memory of Eleanor Asker York and Florence Cox Smith, my grandmothers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all those who have helped me complete this project and were kind enough to provide me with information, Dr. Richard Longstreth, Mr. Harold Kalman, Mr. Richard Crisson, Mr. Stephen Lewotsky, Ms. Thayer Donham, Ms. Judith Collins, Mr. Marco D'Agostini, Dr. William Murtagh, Mr. Jef Joslin, Mr. Michael Cannizzo, Dr. Diana Bitz and Ms. Carol Shull. Thanks also to the members of my committee Professors William Tilson, Roy Hunt and R. Wayne Drummond. Special thanks go to Herschel E. Shepard, my committee cochair and mentor whose guidance, wisdom and support have been instrumental. I would also like to recognize those persons who, while not on my committee, volunteered to read and comment on the dissertation, Professor Emeritus F. Blair Reeves, Dr. William Murtagh, Dr. Diana Bitz, Professor Susan Tate, Mr. Gregory A. Hall and Ms. Vicki Jo Sandstead.

None of this would have been possible without the support of my husband, Bill, and my family, especially that of my mother, JoAnn L. Smith. Last, but not least, I want to thank Greg Hall and Jeanne Williams whose friendship and support have kept me sane and grounded throughout everything.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................... ..... iv

ABSTRACT .............................................................. vii

THE PROBLEM OF THE RECENT PAST ......................... ..... 1
O verview .......................................................... 1
Arrangement of Dissertation ................................... 8
M ethodology ................. ................................... 10

PRESERVATION THROUGH THE AGES .............. ...... .............. 14
Introduction .............................................. 14
England ............................................................. 16
France ........................................ 21
The United States ................... ..... .. ................. 23

A CHANGE IN THE WAY OF DOING BUSINESS THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 ................. 35

THE ENIGMA OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................ 50
Overview ....... ............................................... 50
Em piricist Thought ............................................ .... 52
Positivist Thought .................................... ...... ....... 56
Empiricist--Positivist Thought .................................... 60
Assessing Significance ..... ..................................... 62
Significance and the Federal Government ............................ 63

THE QUESTION OF THE RECENT PAST .................................. 68

THE NEED FOR INCLUSION OF THE RECENT PAST ................... .... 80

EVALUATING HISTORIC STRUCTURES ................................. 93
Overview ................................................. 93
Current Preservation Plans Incorporating Recent Buildings ............ 97
Point-based Systems for Evaluation ............................ ... 98

V

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED EVALUATION SYSTEM .................... ... 106

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? ....................................... 117

THE SARASOTA SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE ........................... 120

EVALUATION FORMS ........................................ 129

ICOMOS SEMINAR ON 20TH-CENTURY HERITAGE, JUNE 18-19, 1995 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 164

GLOSSARY ........................................ 166

LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................... 168

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................ 181

vi

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

SYSTEMIZING THE SEARCH FOR SIGNIFICANCE:
A POINT-BASED SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING ELIGIBILITY
ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

By

Patty Jo Smith Rice

May, 1996

Chairperson: R. Wayne Drummond Co-chairperson: Herschel E. Shepard Major Department: Architecture

Now there is an urgent need for experiment in criticism of a new kind which will consist largely in a logical and dialectical study of the terms used. In literary criticism we are constantly using terms which we cannot define, and defining other things by them. We are constantly using terms which have an intention and an extension which do not quite fit; but if they cannot, then some other way must be found of dealing with them so that we may know at every moment what we
mean.

T. S. Eliot

The National Park Service's insistence that historic resources be at least

fifty years of age to be considered for inclusion on the National Register of

Historic Places has resulted in the widespread alteration and destruction of

vii

buildings that meet the parallel criteria of historic significance. The problem is actually two-fold; the result of both an insistence that buildings be at least fifty years of age and the lack of a common understanding of the term "significance."

The dissertation looks at problems in having evaluative criteria (objective) based on the empiricist--positivist term "significance" -- a term which is both subjective and relative. It reviews the philosophical basis for the term and proposes evaluation criteria designed to provide a more objective assessment of sites. The proposed forms require the evaluator to state their reasoning, thus placing him/her in the context of the time the evaluation was made. The evaluative procedures suggested are also designed to minimize the impact of bias and personal preference.

A review of the preservation movement includes reasoning for the current fifty-year guideline and reminds the reader of why, at the time the guideline was designed, it was an innovative and bold move. Arguments are then presented as to why the existing fifty-year guideline is no longer necessary and should be dropped from inclusion criteria. These arguments are based on developments in the field of preservation, an increase in educational programs resulting in an increase in professionals, and a rapid increase in the rate of change.

The evaluative method proposed is ultimately point-based but blends both qualitative and quantitative procedures. Unlike methods in use today,

viii

the method proposed takes into account and documents the context of the evaluator as well as the resource.

ix

CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM OF THE RECENT PAST Overview

The fundamental reason for preservation is to bequeath to the future a
reliable representation of the architecture of the past.

Orin Bullock, 1966

Historic preservation is predicated on the belief that the past has something to offer the present. Preservation works to create lasting tangible images of the past. If done successfully, it possesses the ability to change the way people think of a specified period of time. Ada Louise Huxtable writes: "Preservation is the job of finding ways to keep those original buildings that provide the city's character and continuity and of incorporating them into its living mainstream" (1970, 212).

Historic preservation emerged in the United States in the nineteenth century during the rise of American nationalism. The movement began as an attempt to establish a national identity via cultural affiliation to past events, persons, sites and buildings. Schwarzer writes that:

impulses to forge a national identity were motivated by contradictory
interests: an estrangement from Great Britain with the goal of creating

1

2

an independent American nationality and an equally powerful struggle to overcome feelings of separation from British tradition. [It] concentrated on architecture associated with the revolutionary era and
neo-English institutions of democracy. (1994, 3)

These early efforts were often controlled by wealthy private citizens and societies and, generally, appealed to the political patriotism of upper classes.

Preservation allows for an individual understanding of what has gone on before. An accurate understanding can only be reached by assembling a rational and unbiased sample of data about the past and by making that data available to the public. This approach to preservation is the usual approach in the United States. It is, for the most part, a phenomenon of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Despite this systematic method, many aspects of preservation encourage value judgements and allow personal preferences to impact not only what we preserve, but how we preserve it. Value judgements impact the entire spectrum of preservation activities. Bias often takes the form of overemphasizing certain recognized styles or forms and preserving the past in terms of the positive. In an attempt to avoid bias, some state historic preservation officers adhere to an unofficial policy of selecting only one or two of the "best" examples. This thinking excludes most of the built environment and favors resources that are rare, unconventional, or exotic over those deemed commonplace (Longstreth, 1994, 41). Any selective

3

creation of an official past is nothing more than another form of bias, potentially as damaging as preserving no past at all.

In the same way, a preservation of the past represented only by sites and buildings of a certain age is a subtle yet persuasive form of discrimination. As Ada Louise Huxtable puts it: "You don't erase history to get history" (1970, 223). At its most extreme, when no traces of past events within a given time frame exist, the record of that time consists only of a blank screen. Longstreth writes:

Age poses a further set of problems. In this realm, taste is shaped less by aesthetic biases, perhaps, than by antiquarian ones. The older a remnant of the past, the more preservationists tend to venerate it, even though no historiographical method uses age alone as a measure
of significance. (43)

Because of the pervasiveness of age bias, it is often easier to gain support in saving secondary examples of earlier eras than for major milestones from more recent decades. Many people feel that a building less than twenty years old is too young to be considered a landmark, regardless of its reputation (Goff, 1988, 31). The public, however, sometimes unofficially declares a building a landmark upon its completion. The one occasion most often pointed to is Eero Saarinen's Dulles Airport Terminal Building in Chantilly, Virginia. Other examples include Saarinen's TWA Terminal building in New York, I. M. Pei's East Wing of the National Gallery of Art in Washington D. C. and Louis Kahn's Salk Institute Building in La Jolla, California.

4

The "Conclusion of the Findings of the U. S. Conference of Mayors, Special Committee on Historic Preservation" ends with this statement:

If we wish to have a future with greater meaning, we must concern ourselves not only with historical highlights, but we must also be concerned with the total heritage of the nation and all that is worth
preserving from our past as a living part of the present. (194)

The group clearly recognized the need for preserving our "total heritage." No mention is made of a requirement that buildings be at least fifty years of age and no room is allowed for bias. Preservationists have, to date, played a role in encouraging academic disciplines to conduct a more holistic scrutiny of the past and to move away from a purely textbook-oriented philosophy. This enhanced understanding of the past is our most valuable and our most vulnerable inheritance (Hiss, 1990, xxi). We need to continue to insist on an integrative, interdisciplinary, holistic view of the past; one that gives equal emphasis to all periods, phases, events and phenomena.

To achieve these objectives, preservationists need new tools and techniques as well as an awareness of the complex forces that impact communities, states, regions and the nation as a whole. In addition, today's preservationists must remember that ultimately their efforts will not just reflect the past, but will serve as a reflection of themselves and the present as well. Preservation must be accepted as a natural course of action, designed to protect valued qualities of landscapes that most people take for granted but

5

that will not be maintained without protection and which cannot be replaced in kind, should they be lost (Longstreth, 1991 b, 219).

Too often we lose our cultural legacy before we recognize its
importance.
Amy Worden

Unfortunately, buildings themselves often carry the seeds of their own destruction. Unlike other art forms, buildings must continue to serve an owner's functional needs, cannot easily be moved and are expensive to operate and maintain. The American people can no longer assume that sites developed within the last two generations will remain undisturbed for any length of time. Age is no longer a prerequisite for rarity. The recent history of many places has centered on change. As a result, we can no longer afford to expect that a building, regardless of its importance, will still be standing fifty years after completion. Honolulu, Hawaii, and the South Beach area of Miami Beach, Florida, area are clear examples. Hareven writes:

The demolition of dwellings wipes out a significant chapter of the history of a place. Even if it does not erase them from local memory, it tends to reduce or eliminate the recall of that memory, rendering less meaningful the communication of that heritage to a new generation.
(1981, 115)

Eighty percent of America's built environment has been constructed since the end of World War Two (Goldberg, 1995, II-12). Despite this, as of February 14, 1996, there were only 2, 069 listings under exemption G (less than fifty years of age) on the National Register of Historic Places. Carol Shull,

6

Keeper of the National Register, and Beth Savage have written that the average time lapse prior to a "modern" building being listed is slightly more than thirty years (1995, -3). There does not appear to be a pattern as to one particular type of structure or site being accepted to the National Register faster than another. Saarinen's Dulles Airport Terminal was "instantly regarded as a preeminently important building by the architectural community" (Shull, 1995, II-10) but not accepted for listing on the National Register for eighteen years, and then only because it was threatened. The Texas School Book Depository building from where Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly shot President John F. Kennedy was not listed until October of 1993, almost thirty years after the assassination, but Launch Complex 39 at the Kennedy Space Center was listed in 1973, not quite four years after the Apollo 11 launch carrying Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin and Michael Collins on the first manned mission to the moon. One of the latest construction dates listed for a building on the National Register is the 1963-64 construction date of the Whitney Museum. Like Dulles, the Whitney was listed on the Register only after being threatened.

History is not fixed, nor is it finite. Similarly, Perkins writes of architecture:

Architecture, as in the case with all art is a continuum. It does not develop in a straight line toward an ideal. Instead each successive group of ideas is based in part on those ideas which have preceded it.
No period -- old or new -- should be excluded from this continuum.
(1981, 110)

7

Both the present and the past are, and should be considered as,

inseparable parts of a whole. There was no mention of "historic" buildings being at least fifty years of age when the committee headed by Albert Rains and Lawrence Henderson concluded:

We do not use bombs and powder kegs to destroy irreplaceable
structures related to the story of America's civilization. We use the
corrosion of neglect or the thrust of bulldozers. Connections
between successive generations of Americans -- concretely linking their
ways of life -- are broken by demolition. Sources of memory cease to
exist. (United States Conference of Mayors, 1966, 19)

Nor was an age requirement mentioned when Robert Utley commented on the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act stating the National Register was to be "a product of professional evaluation and review rather than a mere list of antiquarian curiosities" (Glass, 1987, 282). Both statements recognize that all buildings play a role in the historical memory of a community. However, it was Robert Utley and his departmental historians who insisted one needed fifty years distance to recognize objectively whether something was historical or not (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). It makes sense that those buildings constructed within the last fifty years are a reasonable place to begin when constructing links to past generations. Documenting the history of a building should be viewed no differently than tracing a family's genealogy. Longstreth rightly points out:

When we exclude much of the 20th century from consideration, we are in effect creating an artificial separation between contemporary life and

8

that of our forebears. The greater the gap, the less a sense of continuity
there may be and the more the old stuff can seem foreign. (1991, 15)

Change and what is considered to be the past have an inverse relationship. Consequently, the faster the rate of change, the shorter the time it takes for something to be considered to be historic. Today, the rate of change is occurring faster than ever before. Because of that, the National Park Service needs to expand its definition of "historic" to include the recent past. In short, it should simply apply the definition of "past" commonly found in dictionaries. In doing so, the passage of a period of time would no longer serve as a guideline. In conjunction, the Park Service, along with other preservationists, needs to expand nationally recognized preservation activities, including eliminating time as a guideline for listing resources on the National Register of Historic Places.

Arrangement of Dissertation

The dissertation deals with philosophical arguments for the preservation of the recent past. In doing so, the issue of the subjective term "significance" and its relativity must be addressed. However, the focus here is not to do an in depth study of significance. Instead, significance is viewed in light of the role it plays in determining the eligibility of resources for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The emphasis is on the loss, both

9

potential and real, of valuable resources from the recent past and both the basis and the need for shortening the existing fifty-year guideline. The dissertation does not fully address either the personal or political realities of implementing such a change.

The dissertation is divided into nine chapters. Chapter one consists of a brief overview of the problem addressed along with discussions of arrangement, definitions and methodology. Chapter two provides an overview of preservation history. However, in tracing historical precedents, concentration is upon the last two centuries in Great Britain and the United States. This overview continues in chapter three with a detailed look at changes in preservation activity in the United States predicated by the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966. Chapter four addresses the role played by the empiricist--positivist term "significance" in historic preservation, and the problems using a term which is only defined by itself can present. The intent of the chapter is not to propose a redefinition of significance, nor is it to present either a history or overview of empiricist-positivist philosophies. Discussion is limited to the problems of each as they relate to the National Register of Historic Places and National Register Criteria. Chapter five explores problems that can result from continuing a preservation policy that is exclusionary of a given set of resources. Chapter six presents an argument for inclusion of buildings less than fifty years of age on the National Register, without having to meet the criteria of "exceptional

10

significance" as currently stated. Chapter seven summarizes the problems presented and looks at ways selected cities are currently handling the problem. Chapter eight presents a point-based system for evaluating buildings in which specific criteria for buildings less than fifty years of age are included. The point-based system presented is incomplete in that it excludes criterion D, those resources "that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history" (Code of Federal Regulations 36, 1974, 248). This criterion is most often used for archaeological resources and any examination should only be done by someone qualified in that field. Chapter nine looks at still unanswered questions and issues and explores where we can go from here.

For the purpose of this dissertation, certain definitions have been received from references. The terms preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction are defined according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Kevin Lynch's definition of memory, appearing in What Time Is This Place. is used, as is Richard Longstreth's definition of the recent past. The terms "building," "structure," "object," "site," "resource" and "district" are defined in accordance with National Park Service materials. Last, the terms "history," "past," "significant" and "significance" are defined as in Webster's New World Dictionary.

Methodology

I became aware of the Sarasota School of Architecture long before I was aware that architects and builders were two different sets of people. As a child growing up in the Sarasota area, I can remember longing to go into the Galloway Furniture Showroom and wanting to attend Riverview High School because everybody knew it was the "coolest" school in Sarasota County. I toured St. Paul's Lutheran Church with my catechism class and sat in the classrooms of Venice Junior High. As an adult, I taught in some of those same classrooms.

This idea for this dissertation is the result of several years of recent study regarding the "Sarasota School of Architecture." During this time I became painfully aware of just how few of these designs remained, despite the fact that they were several years shy of the fifty-year guideline established by the National Register criteria. For example, of the buildings I loved as a child, the Galloway Furniture Showroom has been stuccoed over and is unrecognizable, Riverview High School sports a new gabled roof that destroys both the lines and integrity of the building and at Venice Junior High (today part of Venice High School) the glass walls have been removed with the resultant voids filled using concrete block. In addition, its flat roofs have been replaced with gabled and hipped roofs of green metal. Like the Galloway

12

Showroom, it too is unrecognizable. Only St. Paul's Lutheran Church retains its integrity.

Research consisted of a review of past and current writings regarding both historic preservation and the issue of the preservation of the recent past. Of these writings, those by Richard Longstreth and an article by P. A. Faulkner became the guiding force. Conversations were held with various holders of the Beinecke-Reeves Distinguished Chair in Architectural Preservation at the University of Florida, including William Murtagh, Eduard Sekler and Jan Abell along with other noted professionals with an interest in the topic, such as Richard Crisson, de Teel Patterson, III, Nicholas Pappas and Vicki Jo Sandstead. Of these persons, William Murtagh is of paramount importance. As the first Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, his first hand knowledge of both the persons involved and the reasoning behind the creation of the current guideline was irreplaceable.

Several preservation plans from a variety of cities, including Portland, Oregon, Grants Pass, Oregon, Boston, Massachusetts, and San Francisco, California, were collected and reviewed and interviews with persons responsible for the writing and implementation of those plans were conducted. Special emphasis was placed on collecting material related to point-based systems of evaluation. In addition, Harold Kalman's The Evaluation of Historic Buildings was reviewed. It formed the basis for the point-based system proposed here.

13

Five noted professionals were gracious enough to read the dissertation and offer their comments. These were Dr. William Murtagh, first Keeper of the National Register, educator and author of Keeping Time: Professor Susan Tate, Professor of Interior Design at the University of Florida and past Director of the Preservation Institute: Nantucket, Vicki Jo Sandstead, former Director of the Northeast Region of the National Trust and currently a consultant specializing in the importance of local involvement in preservation efforts, Gregory A. Hall, architect, preservationist and former Associate Director of the Preservation Institute: Nantucket; and Professor Emeritus F. Blair Reeves. Professor Reeves developed the preservation program at the University of Florida, supervised documentation teams for the Historic American Buildings Survey, was active on the American Institute of Architect's Committee for Historic Buildings and was a cofounder of the Preservation Institute: Nantucket.

CHAPTER 2
PRESERVATION THROUGH THE AGES

Introduction

Isolated instances of deliberate preservation can be found throughout recorded history. The Greeks preserved architectural forms found in their wooden temples by recreating those forms in marble (Preamble, 1983, 5). Plato wrote, "let this tribute be paid to memory, which has caused us to enlarge upon it now, yearning for what we once possessed" (1952, 34). Later, Vitruvius wrote that the majesty of the (Roman) empire was expressed through "the eminent dignity of its public buildings" (1960, 3). Roman emperors preserved vestiges of the past in an attempt to identify themselves with earlier "legitimate" rulers (Preamble, 1983, 5). During his time as emperor of the western Roman empire, Julius Valerius Majorianus (Majorian), wrote a number of laws that were incorporated into the Theodosian Code. Among these was one strictly prohibiting the practice of tearing down ancient monuments.

During the Medieval period, throughout western Europe, the value of a building came to be determined by its historical associations rather than any

14

15

architectural qualities (Boulting, 1976, 19). The Renaissance introduced the concept of the past as attractive or desirable with the perception of classical antiquity being distinguished from and superior to the recent past. It was during the Renaissance that Raphael, as Commissioner of Antiquities, became the first to seek an end to the continual extinction of historic resources (Lowenthal, 1981, 10) and Brunelleschi's Ospedale degli Innocenti (Foundling Hospital) was begun in Florence. The design of the Foundling Hospital is generally regarded as the first expression of a passionate interest in the past (Fitch, 1992, 13).

A letter believed to have been written by Raphael with the help of Baldassare Castiglione to Leo X, around 1519, may be considered one of the first treatises to be written on preservation. In the missive, Raphael writes about the usefulness of accurate measurements and drawings of the monuments. He stresses the need to produce precise ground-plans, crosssections and elevations showing all details. He offers advise as to what has to be done to reconstruct ancient Rome accurately and how to do it by combining the methods of architects and the recording practices of archaeologists. Ettinger writes: "Despite Raphael's inclusion of the often repeated complaint that antiquities were constantly being destroyed, the letter was clearly intended not as an archaeological report, but as an investigation into how the Rome of the past was a prelude to the Rome of the future" (1987, 200).

16

In direct contrast with Raphael's beliefs, during the fifteenth century, rich individuals began building vast private collections of antiquities. Collections became so popular that artifacts were created in order to satisfy demand. The content of these collections was unimportant and most had no unifying theme; the only thing that mattered was size (Skarmeas, 1983, 24). Sweden is believed to be the first western European nation to pass laws regarding the preservation of historic resources, in 1677 (Hunter, 1981, 24).

England

In 1751, the English Society of Dilettanti financed an expedition to Greece to record and illustrate the monuments of ancient Athens (Skarmeas, 1983, 25). These drawings were later published under the title Antiquities of Athens and spawned a widespread interest in what became known as Greek Revival architecture. Despite the Society's interest in documenting resources in situ, during the early nineteenth century removing sculptures from the Acropolis continued. Even Phidias' friezes on the Parthenon were removed, taken to London and eventually placed in the British Museum (Skarmeas, 1983, 24).

The first widely documented British architect involved with preservation issues was James Wyatt (1747 1813). Wyatt was responsible for the restoration of several English cathedrals. He took enormous liberties in

17

his projects. In various efforts he removed screens, funerary monuments, porches and chapels. In others, he shortened naves. The quality of his work further suffered when he continued to accept jobs even after securing far more than he could adequately handle or properly oversee. Wyatt was widely vilified for his efforts. The Reverend John Milner's comments were typical: "[Wyatt] has dishonoured, disfigured, destroyed, and is in the constant practice of dishonouring, disfiguring and destroying the most beautiful and instructive monuments" (Pevsner, 1976, 39). Wyatt continued to secure commissions via influential friends until his untimely accidental death.

The Church Building Act of 1818 led to the restoration of more than seven thousand churches in England between 1840 and 1873. The work that took place during this period formed the basis for widespread philosophical discussions on restoration practices and appropriate methods. One of the persons involved in these discussions was Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin (1812 1852). An expert in Gothic architecture, Pugin believed that truth and honesty were basic to any architecture considered beautiful. Under his influence, Gothic became the dominant theme, influencing both ongoing restoration efforts and what became known as Gothic Revival architecture (Skarmeas, 1983, 38).

Sir George Gilbert Scott (1811 1878) was involved in approximately seven hundred fifty restoration projects. Scott developed a set of procedures related to building restoration to guide his efforts. These consisted of

18

documentation of the resource via measured drawings and, for the first time, photography, followed by examination of the resource's fabric. The third and final step involved conjectural restoration based on evidence collected in the first two steps, with missing features being reconstructed. In addition, conjectural restoration was based on knowledge of elements in the original structure, knowledge of local/regional architecture and building practices and knowledge gained in studying other buildings by the same architect.

Edward Freeman (1823 1892) is widely recognized as the first to put the questions of restoration in perspective. In his writings, Freeman emphasized the importance of knowledge and precision:

A restoration requires no less eminent qualities in an architect than even an original design: this is not the same scope indeed for a creative genius, but taste and judgement are quite as necessary and even a deeper acquaintance with antiquarian lore is required. The restorer has to look carefully to the transmutations of an edifice which may have received as many successive alterations as there are styles of Christian architecture All this cannot be accomplished without patient inquiry and sound judgement Architectural genius and antiquarian precision must preside over both .. (Skarmeas, 1983, 39)

Freeman believed there were two types of architectural remains: monuments which were legitimate objects of restoration and structures to be protected from further damage.

For the most part, English preservation philosophy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was dominated by the similar views of four men: John Ruskin, William Morris, Philip Webb and W. R. Lethaby.

19

Ruskin gained prominence in 1849, Lethaby died in 1931. For the eighty years between these events, Ruskin's philosophy, commonly referred to as antiscrape, prevailed. John Ruskin (1819 1900) became widely recognized for his book The Seven Lamps of Architecture. The chapter entitled "The Lamp of Memory" contained his views on preservation. Ruskin wrote that time represented historical memory and should be protected in all historic buildings. In short, he favored preservation over restoration. He wrote:

It is the centralization and protectress of this sacred influence, that Architecture is to be regarded by us with the most serious thought. We may live without her, and worship without her, but we cannot remember without her. For indeed the greatest glory of a building is not in its stones or in its gold. Its glory is in its Age. (Skarmeas, 1983,
58-59)

and

[Restoration] means the most total destruction out of which no remnants can be gathered Do not let us talk then of restoration.
The thing is a lie from beginning to end. The principle of modern times is to neglect buildings first, and restore them afterwards. Take proper care of your monuments, and you will not need to restore
them. (Skarmeas, 1983, 60)

The philosophy of custodianship was first advocated in England by Nicholas Hawksmoor in 1751 but did not become popular until the cause was taken up by William Morris (1834 1896). Morris viewed custodianship of the past by the present an important aspect of providing evidence of the needs and aspirations of ordinary people. He further believed that the vernacular architecture of the future could only develop with a study of forms and

20

techniques of the past. Morris was already a leader in the Arts and Crafts Movement when he became interested in preservation. It was William Morris who was responsible for founding the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) in 1877. Most members of the society were antirestorationists. He wrote:

It has been most truly said that these old buildings do not belong to us only; that they have belonged to our forefathers and they will belong to our descendants unless we play them false. They are not in any sense our property, to do as we like with. We are only trustees for
those who come after us. (Boulting, 1976, 16)

During his time, Philip Speakman Webb (1831 1915) was considered to be one of England's greatest architects during the late Victorian English domestic revival period. He knew William Morris and, for a period, worked with Morris designing furniture. Webb is known for his assimilation of medieval and classical vernacular elements into his building designs. He preferred that his architecture express "an absence of style" (Gebhard, 1982, 383). Webb is significant in preservation as a co-founder of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. Today, his fame is largely the result of his friendship with Morris.

William Richard Lethaby (1857 1931) built very little but was highly influential as a teacher and writer. He founded the Modern Architecture Constructive Group which defined architecture as "a developing structural art satisfying the requirements of the time by experiment" (Rubens, 1982, 693).

21

Lethaby was a leading figure in the Arts and Crafts movement and principle of the Central School of Arts and Crafts in London. While serving as surveyor of Westminster Abbey, he applied the Society for the Protection of Ancient Building's program of preservation, pioneering the cleaning and conservation of the fabric instead of restoring the structure.

One of the least recognized voices during this time was John J. Stevenson (1832 1908). Stevenson was trained in the office of Sir Gilbert Scott, where he met and became friends with William Morris. He served on the original committee of the SPAB and was a leading member of the organization. As an architect, Stevenson was respected by both restorers and anti-restorers. In his article "The View of the Anti-Restorers" in 1878, he made three points: 1) the best protection for a building is its continued use; 2) regular maintenance is necessary in every building, either preventative or for repair; and 3) unnecessary alterations should be avoided. He "detested all attempts to tamper with [a building's] history under the guide of 'restoration"' (Troup, 1908, 482). Stevenson was one of the leading architects working in the vernacular revival style that became known as "Queen Anne." He was the first architect to design interior decoration for the principle rooms in large steamships. At the time of his death, Stevenson was working with William Lethaby on papers regarding a proposed restoration of the mausoleum at Halicarnassos.

22

France

In France during the late nineteenth century, the voice of preservation belonged to Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc (1814 1879). Viollet-le-Duc believed the basis of restoration was a complete understanding of historical form. This included knowledge of style variations within a region and among architects. He believed the process of restoration required an identification of the style of each building member, followed by the dating of each member and a determination of the building's evolution. Once this was complete, a study of the nature of materials and building techniques would be used to determine the building's durability. This would result in the architect's understanding of the nature of the structure, documentation of the building's present state and, finally, selection of building materials and techniques that would best enhance the overall architectonic composition. Viollet-le-Duc devoted his life to effective restorations and the creation of a doctrine for historical restoration. He believed preservation of the design of a building was of greater importance than preservation of its fabric. He recognized that by preserving the idea enshrined in the design, he was preserving the true heritage of the building. Viollet-le-Duc considered architecture to be an expression of the history of a society. He believed that

23

structure and decoration were one and felt that a building was an ensemble consisting of both its parts and its furnishings (Dupent, 1983, 12). He wrote:

knowing that restoration inevitably unsettles old buildings, one must compensate for this curtailment of strength by giving power to the new parts, by perfecting the structure, by clamping walls and by introducing greater resistances, for prolonging the life of the building is the true
tack of restoration. (Dupent, 1983, 13)

The United States

The historic preservation movement in the United States evolved in two distinct phases. The first was concerned with the associative value of buildings; the second with a building's architectural importance. Early American preservation efforts were undertaken by private individuals, sometimes working for or under the auspices of patriotic organizations. Early efforts centered on sites associated with nationally recognized individuals or events. The first successful acquisition of a property for preservation purposes took place in New York in 1850 when the state purchased the Hasbrouck House in Newburgh which had served as George Washington's headquarters at the end of the American Revolution for $2,000.00. The first national effort in preservation was headed by Ann Pamela Cunningham of South Carolina and centered on the acquisition of Mt. Vernon. Mount Vernon had been an important and well-known site since the Revolutionary War. In 1848 and 1850, petitions were presented to 24 Congress calling for the purchase of Mount Vernon by the federal government and, in 1846, John A. Washington, on behalf of his mother Jane, made an unsuccessful offer to sell Mount Vernon to the federal government for$100,000. By 1851, the property had passed to John Washington and the asking price increased to 200,000. It was still privately owned in December of 1853 when Ann Pamela Cunningham appealed to the ladies of the South to purchase and preserve Mount Vernon. Miss Cunningham aided her fund raising appeals with articles such as one which appeared in the Charleston, South Carolina, Charleston Mercury signed by "A Southern Matron." It was directed to the "Ladies of the South" and read: Can you still be with closed souls and purses, while the world cries 'Shame on America,' and suffer Mount Vernon, with all its sacred associations, to become, as is spoken of the probable, the seat of manufacturers and manufactories? Never! Forbid it, shades of the dead... (Hosmer, 1965, 44) On March 17, 1856, the Virginia legislature chartered the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union, and offered to accept the title of the Mount Vernon property but not to help raise the purchase money. In 1858, the Ladies' Association successfully purchased Mount Vernon. The group maintains ownership today. The success of the Mount Vernon Ladies' Society was well publicized. As a result, the Society was contacted by individuals hoping to replicate their 25 successful efforts. Among those requesting guidance from the Society were Mrs. William Holstein, hoping to save Washington's headquarters at Valley Forge; Mrs. Andrew Jackson, hoping to preserve the Hermitage; Mrs. Mary Longyear, active in saving houses associated with Mary Baker Eddy (the founder of Christian Science); and representatives for the sites of Meadow Garden, in Georgia; Gunston Hall and Monticello, in Virginia; Theodore Roosevelt's birthplace, in New York City; and the many local groups throughout New England that eventually merged into the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities. Despite involvement by state governments, the federal government did not become active in preservation efforts until 1862 with the passage of the National Battlegrounds and Cemeteries Act. With the creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, the federal government began to assume a leadership position in the conservation of lands. However, preservation movements in 1876 still had a distinctly regional flavor. In New England, homes of revolutionary leaders and places deemed "faithful reproductions of the primitive Colonial life of New England" (King, 1977, 17) were emphasized. In the Middle Atlantic States, interest was on sites of important events during the American Revolution. Movements in the South put major emphasis on homes of nationally recognized figures, and in the West interest centered upon Spanish-Mexican missions. 26 At the turn of the century, buildings began to be recognized as "worthwhile objects in their own right" (Murtagh, 1988, 31). In 1889, the architectural critics John Calvin Stevens and Albert Winslow Cobb wrote: wherever the democratic spirit was earliest developed and most marked, there the work done by our American Carpenter-Architects of the Colonial and early National times exhibits most of pure beauty. In and around Philadelphia and along the New England coast from Plymouth to Portland; throughout the territory where the protest against black slavery rang out long before the protest against tyrannies of the Crown; there, especially, we find the genuine refinement and delicacy, the temperate, telling use of detail, so desirable in architectural composition. (Hosmer, 1965, 119) Restoration of buildings such as the John Whipple house in Ipswich, Massachusetts, and the Paul Revere house in Boston was done to what was thought to be their earliest appearance "emphasizing the importance of architectural merit" rather than their association with recognized individuals (Murtagh, 1988, 31). In 1877, Charles McKim, William Rutherford and Stanford White of McKim, Mead and White, along with another architect, William Bigelow, conducted a walking tour of selected New England towns and documented several colonial houses in measured drawings. Because of writings and actions such as these, buildings began to be appreciated not for their associative value to famous persons or well-known events, but for their unique cultural and artistic qualities. In addition, by the turn of the century, historic preservation efforts began to actively involve the middle class. 27 The Antiquities Act was proposed in Congress in 1900 but did not become law until 1906. The act gave the President broad discretion to set aside lands containing important cultural or scientific resources and forbade disturbance of ruins or archaeological sites on federal lands without permission of the responsible land managing agency. These sites were to be called national monuments. The next year the Secretaries of War, Agriculture and the Interior agreed to uniform rules and regulations for administering the Antiquities Act. Each department retained authority for the issuing of permits, subject to recommendations by the Smithsonian. The Secretary of the Interior would administer federal monument sites. This triumvirate would remain in control until 1916 when the responsibility for management of federally owned historic properties was placed within the Department of the Interior. The National Park Service (NPS), a bureau within the Department, became the agency responsible for managing all national parks, monuments and historic sites. In 1910, the face of preservation in America began to change with the founding of the Society for the Prevention of New England Antiquities (SPNEA) by William Sumner Appleton. Appleton pioneered the concept of adaptive use and placed architectural representativeness over patriotic considerations as criteria for preservation. He believed that the private sector should assume full responsibility for the preservation of the nation's heritage. Appleton was largely responsible for the concept of the historic 28 house museum as an educational tool; a physical link to the past, parallel in importance to written documentation (Murtagh, 1988, 80). His beliefs on how buildings should be treated can be traced to those of John Ruskin in the midnineteenth century. Appleton believed in keeping as much original material as possible and clearly identifying any additions. This anti-scrape philosophy still serves as the basis for preservation efforts in the United States today. In 1926, the most ambitious preservation project to date was undertaken at Williamsburg, Virginia. With this, the concept of the outdoor museum, established in the late nineteenth century in Sweden, was brought to the United States (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). Privately financed by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and under the direction of the Reverend William A. R. Goodwin, sites along designated streets were documented, regardless of their original purpose or occupants. The work ranged from preservation to restoration and, occasionally, reconstruction. Using archaeological fieldwork as a basis for architectural reconstruction became an important part of the work at Williamsburg. The idea behind the project -- that of regarding whole towns or large areas as preservation units -is now accepted as a basic preservation concept (King, 1977, 21). One of the most important by-products of the Williamsburg project was the development of a group of well-educated preservation professionals (Tomlan, 1994, 187). 29 In 1930, the first federally funded reconstruction project took place at Pope's Creek (George Washington's birthplace) in Westmoreland County, Virginia, with the creation of an eighteenth century style house. The house was opened to the public in 1931. Unfortunately, Park Service officials later acknowledged that not only was the house not an accurate reproduction, archaeological digs confirmed it was not properly sited. Also in 1931, the concept of the historic district was born in Charleston, South Carolina. With the advent of historic districts, a third major form of preservation developed in the United States and attention was drawn to the "little" (i.e. vernacular) houses of neighborhoods (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order transferring all national military parks, battlefields and national monuments to the National Park Service division of the Department of the Interior. The action quadrupled the number of historic areas administered by the NPS and moved it to the forefront of government supported preservation activities. The Great Depression served to increase the role of the federal government in architectural preservation. Its efforts, however, remained rooted in patriotic and commercial themes. In November of 1933, Charles Peterson, then restoration architect for the National Park Service, proposed funding for the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) for the purpose of enhancing the cultural life of the nation by establishing a comprehensive 30 archive of historic architecture, similar to those in Europe, while putting unemployed architects and draftsmen to work. When initiated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934, the project was designed to employ one thousand architects for a total of six months. Responsibility for the project was divided among the National Park Service, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the Library of Congress. The NPS oversaw the administered surveys and conducted fieldwork based on advise from the AIA, who also provided personnel. The Library of Congress received the records and arranged the collection of materials for public use. The project proved to be useful, and in 1935, local chapters of the AIA, along with the National Park Service and the Library of Congress, created a new funding source. With the creation of Historic American Building Survey, the federal government began to show an interest in historic buildings, regardless of ownership. The goal of HABS was to record data regarding American architecture. HABS did not acquire or take an active role in the physical preservation of historic resources. The project became an important training ground for preservationists within the federal system and provided a means for the introduction of preservation into various projects overseen by the National Park Service. HABS remained in operation until the outbreak of World War Two, at which time the program had documented a total of 6,389 resources. It was revived in 1957 as a summer program for students and remains such today. 31 The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) also helped with preservation efforts during the depression. Among their early efforts were the creation of the Colonial National Historical Park at Yorktown, Virginia, and the Morristown National Historical Park in Morristown, New Jersey. In 1935 the nation's preservation efforts were recognized legally with the passage of the Historic Sites Act. This act established a national policy of preservation for public use historic sites, buildings and objects of national significance. It stressed documentation and the development of educational programs and empowered the Secretary of the Interior via the National Park Service "to collect historical data, survey historical buildings and sites, make investigations, accept gifts and bequests, contract with individuals or local governments to protect important property and restore properties of national significance" (Preservation Technology Class Notes, Herschel Shepard, Instructor, Fall, 1994). The Historic Sites Act asserted for the first time a broad federal concern for historic properties. It created an Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings and Monuments and authorized the establishment of a technical advisory committee. Preservation efforts, however, were still largely centered on sites that predated the Civil War. It further specified the Department of the Interior's central role in federal preservation efforts and authorized the perpetuation of projects similar to HABS. In addition, the act made it easier for the government to acquire nonfederal properties of historic importance and established an historic sites 32 survey to document "nationally significant properties" to be designated National Historic Landmarks. Both HABS and the Historic Sites Survey would remain active until the outbreak of World War Two. They were not revived until 1957. In 1946, preservation efforts, temporarily stalled by World War Two, resumed with the creation of the National Council for Historic Sites and Buildings. The Council was created from an informal confederation of interested groups. Along with private support, the council was backed by the National Park Service. The first meeting was held at the National Gallery of Art. Out of this meeting was established the National Trust for Historic Preservation, in 1949. The National Trust began receiving federal funds in 1966 when it was specifically included in the National Historic Preservation Act. It was the only private preservation organization in the United States to be so named (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). Among other things, the National Trust's charter stated its purpose was to "provide for the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, and to facilitate public participation in the preservation of sites, buildings, and objects of national significance or interest" (Murtagh, 1988, 175). Thus, the Trust was chartered for the specific purpose of receiving properties and property stewardship. The principal office of the National Trust was to be in Washington, D.C. and the Board of Trustees was to include both the Attorney General of the United States and 33 the Secretary of the Interior. In 1951, the Trust began acquiring and managing properties. Preservation began to move to the forefront with the depletion of existing building stock as a result of the passage of the Housing Act of 1954. The act emphasized the prevention of slums and blight via the removal of deteriorated buildings and the rehabilitation of sound buildings. Successive acts in 1956 and 1957 increased funding for these urban projects. The housing legislation passed specifically prevented federal dollars being spent to retain and rehabilitate existing building stock. Not until after 1966 could money be used for acquisition and/or demolition (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). In addition, in 1956, Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act for the creation of a national interstate highway system. By the end of 1957, reports in Historic Preservation magazine cited "invasions of scenic and historic areas" by federally funded highway projects (Glass, 1987, 20). In the fall of 1959, Richard Perrin called for controls on Urban Renewal projects, writing they were likely to follow the pattern set by highway construction "riding roughshod over many historically and culturally important structures and sites" (Glass, 1987, 23). As a result of this uproar, in 1959, Congress proposed a method to preserve resources threatened by federally funded projects and programs. A proposal was also made to enlarge the Historic Sites Act, broaden the national 34 preservation policy and provide federal funds to local programs engaged in preserving areas of historic interest. Perhaps the most influential project funded by a Federal Urban Renewal Demonstration Grant was the College Hill Demonstration Project in Providence, Rhode Island. William Murtagh points out "This was a one shot program and a documented first interest by urban renewal that retention and rehabilitation might be an alternative to demolition" (Personal Communication, March, 1996). The project was a landmark in the evolution of American preservation procedures (Jacobs, 1970, 112). NPS actions during this time included support of state and local inventories of historic properties, publication of survey lists, public hearings on the value of threatened historic structures and requiring federal agencies to take into account the effect of these projects on listed properties. Unfortunately, Congressional proposals to strengthen the Historic Sites Act were not successful. By the end of the 1950s, the preservation movement in America was a large, complex enterprise involving not only the private sector, but also aspects of federal, state and local governments. As such, it lacked a central organization beyond that provided by the National Trust. This would remain the case until 1966 when United States Conference of Mayors' Special Committee on Historic Preservation emphasized the idea that historic buildings were and are a part of the total modern environment and stressed the need to preserve them in order to maintain a quality 35 environment. This concept grew out of discussions at the White House Conference on Natural Beauty held in Washington, D. C. in May, 1965, as was the Mayor's Special Committee itself (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). CHAPTER 3 A CHANGE IN THE WAY OF DOING BUSINESS THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 In its best sense, preservation does not mean merely setting aside thousands of buildings as museum pieces. It means retaining the culturally valuable structures as useful objects . Lady Bird Johnson, 1983 In 1966, the Special Committee on Historic Preservation of the United States Conference of Mayors identified three changes they felt were necessary if historic preservation were to be successful: a recognition of "the importance of architecture, design and aesthetics as well as historical and cultural values," a need to look beyond individual buildings and landmarks to historically and architecturally valued districts and the development of tax policies to stimulate preservation efforts (Green, 1991, 88). On October 15, 1966, Congress found and declared 1) That the spirit and direction of the nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic past; 2) That the historical and cultural foundations of the nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people; 36 37 3) That in the face of ever-increasing extensions of urban centers, highways, and residential, commercial and industrial developments, the present governmental and non-governmental historic preservation programs and actions are inadequate to insure future generations a genuine opportunity to appreciate and enjoy the rich heritage of our nation; and, 4) That although the major burdens of historic preservation have been borne and major efforts initiated by private agencies and individuals and both should continue to play a vital role, it is nevertheless necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to accelerate its historic preservation programs and activities, to give maximum encouragement to agencies and individuals undertaking preservation by private means, and to assist State and local governments and the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States to expand and concentrate their historic preservation programs and activities. (King et al, 1977, 205) The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) gave the National Park Service the authority to undertake innovations of "immense potential" in its preservation programs. It created the National Register of Historic Places to "record the evidences of our national patrimony that merit preservation" and to become the "national list of classified sites and buildings" and provided an authoritative guide as to what should be "guarded against destruction or impairment" (Glass, 1987, 282). The act is best known for the National Register of Historic Places, its creation of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the resultant hiring of historic preservation officers in each state and territory. The NHPA did not specifically provide for historic preservation officers. The creation of these positions was an administrative decision by the Secretary of the Interior after the NHPA was passed. Congress gave the Secretary of the Interior the 38 responsibility and he chose to decentralize the program (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). Often overlooked is the Secretary's requirement that each state develop a historic preservation plan to guide in the preservation and use of a state's cultural resources. As part of this plan, states are required to conduct systematic surveys. These surveys are to result not only in nominations to the National Register but in other inventories of cultural properties and in predictions about where such properties may exist. The National Register of Historic Places can trace its roots back to 1937 and the creation of the National Survey of Historic Sites and Places as part if the Historic Sites Act of 1935. Intended to help determine which historic and archaeological sites possessed "exceptional national values" (Duerksen, 1983, 231), the survey was suspended during World War Two. It did not resume operation until 1957. In 1960, the designation of National Historic Landmarks from those properties surveyed was begun and named the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The National Register of Historic Places is a further expansion of these earlier programs. Nominations are no longer limited to properties listed in the National Survey of Historic Sites and Places and those determined to possess national significance. Nominations of properties to the National Register may be made by any interested party and include resources of local and state significance as well as those of national importance. 39 Richard Longstreth believes that, although not directly stated, an underlying rationale for the National Historic Preservation Act was that contemporary achievements in architecture, planning and other fields that shaped the built environment were inferior to those of the past (1991, 213).1 William Murtagh disagrees (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Longstreth's belief is rooted in Congress' directive that the National Register "record the evidences of our national patrimony" (Glass, 1987, 282). This concentration on objects of antiquity is consistent with both the 1906 Antiquities Act and the Historic Sites Act of 1935. It is also consistent with management of the National Park Service's various preservation efforts being carried out by social historians rather than architectural historians, or preservationists. In fact, in 1966, there were very few architectural historians and preservation had yet to become recognized as an educational opportunity. While in the United States preservation and preservation education have always gone hand in hand, the first college level preservation course was not offered until 1959. That year, Frederick Nichols at the University of Virginia began offering a two semester course that included the architectural language of mouldings and details, materials and forms, philosophy and techniques of architectural surveying and the creation of historic districts and easements (Tomlan, 1994, 188). Shortly after Virginia's program was established, Cornell University began offering preservation related courses. The nation's third 40 program was begun at Columbia University. The fourth school to offer classes in preservation was the University of Florida. Florida's program was begun by Professor F. Blair Reeves in 1960. In 1958, Professor Reeves participated in a HABS summer program at Harper's Ferry, West Virginia. The following year, students from the university also became involved. Reeves then began allowing these students to earn credit for the knowledge gained via their HABS summer experience by enrolling in a special studies course and documenting historic structures near the university's campus in Gainesville. This quickly lead to the establishment of a preservation theory course. During the 1960s, architecture students at Florida took preservation options based on the theory that specialization within a profession was the best way to serve society (F. Blair Reeves, Personal Communication, March 20, 1996). In 1971, the university's College of Architecture began offering a four and two option with preservation as one of the options in the two-year professional Master of Architecture degree. This lead to the development of a sequence of programs including museology, regional history with an emphasis on preservation in Florida and, beginning in 1976, preservation law. Reeves further expanded the university's preservation options in 1972 with the establishment of a nine credit summer program on Nantucket Island. Originally known as the Nantucket Institute, today the program exists as the Preservation Institute: Nantucket. 41 The first program leading to a degree in historic preservation was offered at Columbia University by James Fitch in 1973. Fitch was an architectural critic and editor who had organized the school's certificate awarding program in the mid-nineteen sixties (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). By 1976 at least seventy institutions throughout the country were offering courses in historic preservation. During this time preservation became a separate discipline differentiated by standards that would accommodate its interdisciplinary nature yet promote a sense of identity (Tomlan, 1994, 187). Not until the mid 1980s was preservation recognized as a distinct profession. William Murtagh "strongly disagree[s] with this assertion." He believes it negates, for example, many training programs, mostly through the National Trust, Colonial Williamsburg and other institutions going back to the 1950s (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). The 1966 NHPA was a benchmark because it laid the groundwork for legally protecting places that stood in the path of change and placed architectural value on the same level as historical and archaeological values. The law also created major changes in the way preservation was carried out in the United States. Prior to the passage of the NHPA, the National Trust and the American Institute of Architects were two of the very few private sector voices for the preservation movement at the national level. The Department of the Interior served primarily as custodian of hundreds of 42 historical sites overseen by the National Park Service. The 1966 law made the NPS a leading player in public historic preservation activities at the federal level, and, because of the decision of the Secretary of the Interior to decentralize his new responsibilities, at the state level (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). In addition, the act created an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with the authority to mediate among Federal agencies and advise Congress on policy. In short, the Advisory Council would provide leadership to the public sector. The National Trust continues to provide leadership and act as spokesman for private efforts in preservation. A task force was established by the National Park Service to develop and establish criteria necessary to implement the new law. The chair of this implementation task force was Robert Utley. Its most prominent member, in reality, was a gentleman who did not physically occupy a seat on the committee. Ronald F. Lee, Chief Historian of the National Park Service, according to William Murtagh, was the type of person who did not really care where credit for implementing the NHPA was given as long as the law was implemented in an efficient and productive manner (Personal Communication, February 6, 1996). Lee acted as confidant and advisor to several members of the committee. He believed the role of the National Trust should be one of a fast acting organization capable of saving endangered properties in a manner quicker than the bureaucratic regimen of the 43 government would allow. In short, the National Trust should preserve its role as a property stewardship organization. Furthermore, he believed that the National Park Service must acknowledge the new emphasis in preservation on historic architecture, aesthetic landmarks and urban conservation (Glass, 1990, 28). After several months of meetings the committee finally agreed on criteria to be used to determine eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The criteria were written in such a way they could be applied at local, state, regional and national levels throughout the country. In addition to the threshold criteria of "integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association," there are four general areas of consideration. These include resources (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or, (d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (Code of Federal Regulations 36, 1974, 248) 44 Along with these four broad areas, certain criteria considerations were listed. These considerations were reworked from their original format so as to have a positive rather than negative connotation. The criteria considerations state: Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved form their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: (a) a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or, (b) a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or, (c) a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his productive life; or, (d) a cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, form age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or, (e) a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or, (f) a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance; or, (g) a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. (Code of Federal Regulations 36, 1974, 248) The National Historic Preservation Act thus became the basis for a "new" preservation. Whereas the "old" preservation had been concerned 45 with a few "shrines of transcendent significance to the nation," the "new" preservation embraced thousands of local landmarks or groups of buildings important to states or communities (Glass, 1990, 28). Earlier efforts had emphasized associative and inspirational values while the new version balanced out the importance of architectural design and aesthetics as well. The "old" encouraged the preservation of single buildings as museums, but the "new" fostered the conservation of historic communities, areas and districts through adaptation to "compatible modem uses" (Glass, 1990, 28). In 1967, Robert Utley described the difference between "old" and "new" preservation efforts as ". the difference between a few shrines of transcendent significance to the Nation and thousands of local landmarks of historic, aesthetic or even sentimental importance to the state or community" (Glass, 1987, 279). He described the National Register as a declaration to all concerned of what in the United States was "worthy of preservation" and "should not be destroyed or impaired" (Glass, 1987, 338). Despite this, and because the task force was largely composed of historians, age remained an important consideration. Resources less than fifty years of age were exempt from eligibility for listing on the National Register unless they were of "exceptional importance". It was believed that allowing a fiftyyear period would allow for an orderly examination of the past (Luce, 1995, II15). In fact, the establishment of fifty years as the time necessary for a resource to be considered historic was a bold step in the context of its time. It implied 46 that things built in the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were equal in significance to those built prior to the Civil War. The fifty-year guideline forced people to learn about a past that for the most part had been overlooked (Longstreth, 1991, 14). The establishment of a fifty-year guideline did not go unnoticed by those in the field. At a conference held to explain the new NPS program in Richmond, Virginia, a Washington D. C. delegate questioned panel members on how a liaison officer could nominate a property less than fifty years of age. Panel members replied that fifty years was a guideline, not a prohibition. Unfortunately, today many people consider it to be just the opposite. William Murtagh, the first Keeper of the National Register, remembers that when he and one other architect/architectural historian (Dr. Ernest Connally, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Architecture) joined the National Park Service in 1967, there was concern among some in the NPS that the "architects were taking over" (W. J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, February 7, 1996). Architectural historians argued that buildings should be preserved for their architectural merits and that preservation efforts should include not just recognized masterpieces, but buildings exemplifying styles, types and trends in the architectural practices of the nation and localities. As a result of these efforts, buildings began to be preserved because of their perceived importance to a community, for their role in the architectural and aesthetic integrity of a 47 neighborhood and as representative of changing cultural values and approaches to the living environment. The National Historic Preservation Act continued to undergo changes. The 1966 law as amended in 1976 and implemented by Executive Order 11593: 1) expressed federal concern for the future of historic properties and gave each federal agency a positive responsibility to identify them, protect them and consult with the advisory council in doing so; 2) established a basis for comprehensive programs of historic preservation and interagency coordination within the Department of the Interior 3) committed the federal government to developing a National Register of the nation's historic properties 4) established an infrastructure for historic preservation including the Department of the Interior, the advisory council and state historic preservation programs with a complex set of structural interlocks and checks and balances 5) required each state to conduct a survey and implement a plan for historic preservation and establish complementary responsibilities for federal agencies. (King, 1977, 47) During the 1970s and 1980s, preservation efforts shifted from an emphasis on individual buildings to a greater recognition of the role of historic districts. William Murtagh writes: A major reason for this: when asked, I always encouraged states to submit a nomination for a district since they could get as much protection for many buildings with one nomination as they could for one building at a time. I was much more cost effective time wise and encouraged the charge to look at things of local importance. (Personal Communication, March, 1996). 48 Along the same lines, Schwarzer writes: Along with an expanded universe of buildings and districts taken on by preservationists, emerged an expanded preservation methodology: The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation and Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Since they were first published in 1966, the Guidelines have served as a set of rigid principles and as a forum for debate on preservation, restoration, historic character and new designs and additions to historic structures and districts. (1994, 6) Experience gained in the administration of the National Historic Preservation Act by the National Park Service, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and local level administrators has resulted in the development of a new perspective as to what constitutes the nation's heritage. This has included the development of an awareness of ethnic and cultural diversities, a recognition of local history, acknowledgement of vernacular architecture and cultural landscapes and an exploration of nontraditional sources of information such as post card scenes, restaurant placemats and/or corporate advertising materials. These changes are more the result of a maturing of architectural history than the creation of a new field of endeavor. While during the 1960s few people carried out a serious study of American architecture, by the 1990s, hundreds were involved. Many of these men and women have academic affiliations; many more are involved in the teaching and study of historic preservation (Longstreth, 1991, 14). 49 The scope of preservation continues to expand today, primarily in two general areas: the scale and the type of resources being preserved. The scale of resources has increased dramatically, from individual buildings to historic districts, heritage corridors and cultural landscapes. The type of resources considered is no longer limited to recognized examples of high style but now includes resources as varied as vernacular landscapes and buildings to industrial complexes and cultural landscapes of every description. CHAPTER 4 THE ENIGMA OF SIGNIFICANCE Knowing is an activity of the knower and the objects of knowing result from that activity. John Dewey Overview As in most western nations, in the United States the notion of significance guides most preservation efforts. It always has. Vitruvius wrote as early as the first century B. C.: Especially in architecture are these two things found: that which signifies and that which is signified. That which is signified is the thing proposed about which we speak; that which signifies is the demonstration unfolded in systems of precepts. (1960, 5) Resources are considered to be significant to the extent that their careful study might be expected to shed light on current research questions (Raab, 1977, 632). Unfortunately, the unique characteristics of historic properties prohibits the creation of a consistent approach to the question of significance. Tolstoy wrote of the problem: 50 51 A thing's significance (importance) lies in its being something everyone can understand. -- That is both true and false. What makes a subject hard to understand -- if it's something significant and important -- is not that before you can understand it you need to be specially trained in abstruse matters, but the contrast between understanding the subject and what most people want to see. Because of this the very things which are most obvious may become the hardest of all to understand. What has to be overcome is a difficulty having to do with the will rather than the intellect. (Wittgenstein, 1980, 17e) Despite this, federal regulations mandate the division of historic resources into those which are significant and those which are not. Those resources determined to be significant are further divided into those which are actually significant and those which have a reasonable potential to become significant. A resource determined to be actually significant is one in which types of significance are presently determinable. Because all resources are potentially significant (in that we cannot predict what questions they may answer in the future) the government requires there be a reasonable expectation of significance. Potential significance is only mentioned in criterion D, "[sites] that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information. ." (Code of Federal Regulations 36, 1974, 248). Significance became an established criterion in historic preservation during the first decades of the twentieth century as a means of identifying resources that potentially have artistic, historic or associative merit. The notion of significance as an essential characteristic of cultural resources falls squarely within the empiricist--positivist tradition. Significance, as applied to historic properties, was apparently meant to be taken as a 'primitive' term, whose meaning the formulators of the 52 laws and regulations believed would be self-evident on the basis of experience. Cultural properties are seen as possessing or lacking an inherent, immutable quality, significance, that gives rise to our understanding of their importance. (Tainter, 1983, 712) The view of significance as established in laws and regulations pertaining to historic preservation reflects the influence of empiricist-positivist intellectual tradition in America. Therefore, it is important to understand the basis for both empiricist and positivist thought as well as characteristics of each. Only then can this tradition be evaluated. Empiricist Thought The empiricist view subscribes to the metaphysical notion that all phenomena (including historic resources) have meanings or significance inherent in some sense within themselves. Empiricism is concerned with the rhetoric of perception, with the point at which characterizations of linguistic propriety and characterizations of sensory perception intersect, providing a mutually defining relationship between language and image (Law, 1993, ix). It is guided by the idea that observation provides a maximally certain and conceptually irreversible foundation of empirical knowledge, a foundation that supplies the basic premises of all reasoning and without which there would not be any probable knowledge (Morick, 1980, 16). Plato 53 wrote in book seven of The Republic, "Thinking is a kind of seeing and clear seeing is true knowledge" (Law, 1993, 18). The empiricist concept of sense experience is defended by saying that it is theoretically useful to isolate or abstract what we assimilate by our senses from what we perceive, to abstract what is given from our interpretation. Plato wrote of sense experience "But as for beauty we can still recapture it, gleaming most clearly as it does, through the clearest of our senses. For sight is the keenest of our physical perceptions" (1952, 34). Experience rather than reason is the source of our knowledge. The treatment of appearances or looks of things as objects is central to the classical empiricist position. Looks are hypostatised and become the entities which we are said to sense or be aware of (Crowley, 1968, 137). Each item has a single meaning or, at most, very few meanings (Hill, 1972, 233). This view and its corresponding epistemology often lead the examiner to view certain types as the only truly representative features existing. Types are accepted as fixed and fundamental units; they become basic data not to be questioned. Empiricist types are stylistic patterns, the result of culture and accepted as the norm. Plato wrote: When a man recently initiated [into the world of beauty] .. sees a god-like countenance or physical form the beauty of which is a faithful imitation of true beauty, a shudder runs through him and something of the old awe steals over him. (1952, 34) 54 It is implied that the more "correct" a standard type is, the more knowledge we will be able to glean from it. It is further implied that classification is itself a primary method for gaining knowledge (Hill, 1972, 241). Variety is viewed as deviation by a singular entity or, in the extreme, a small group. In addition to dealing with types, the empiricist also relies on modes. A mode is defined as "any standard concept or custom which governs the behaviour of artisans of a community which they hand down from generation to generation, and which may spread from community to community" (Hill, 1972, 243). A. J. Ayer wrote in The Foundations of Empiricist Knowledge that empiricism establishes: "An unambiguous convention for the use of words that stands for modes of perception, freeing us from the verbal problems that develop out of the ambiguous use of such words in ordinary speech" (1968, 141). English empiricists believed that the basis for a "true method of discovery" rested on systematic thinking about what is experienced by the senses as a result of close attention being paid to observational details (Fain, 1970, 23). The basic tenets of English empiricism were developed by David Hume. Hume maintained that the mind, initially a blank slate, receives impressions from the sense organs as a "passive mirror." Thus, properties of the sense organs determine the nature of impressions (Chomsky, 1980, 288). He believed that impressions and ideas are all that really exist. They are as they appear and become known to us by consciousness. Hume further 55 believed that every idea is a copy of a previous impression or set of impressions. He felt that observation and experience teach us that all thoughts are derived from past experience and the nature of man's ideas is understood by contrast with the rest of his/her perceptions or mental contents -- namely, by contrast with impressions (Morick, 1980, 2). Hume's impressions are what we call sensations and feelings. It is from these impressions that all ideas are ultimately derived. Whereas Hume's beliefs centered on individual observations, contemporary empiricism centers on the objects of perception as publicly observable things. The problem with empiricist thought lies in its premise that it is possible to identify the vast majority of, if not all, characteristics associated with a given resource. It overlooks the fact that the significance of a resource is subject to change and can increase or decrease as both knowledge and research orientation changes. Morick writes of three objections to empiricism commonly raised by critics: 1) Observation claims derive credibility from background assumptions -- Critics say this is false, what scientific theory does is explain established facts revealed by sense experience. 2) Not only do observation claims derive their credibility from a network of background assumptions, but also derive meaning from this network -- If this is true then observation claims do not retain constant meaning through changes in the theory. 3) Observation claims are not just theory laden but also theory infected -- principles of empiricism are predicated on the belief that beliefs had and assumptions made about objects observed -- That is, empiricism rests on the assumption that there is an absolutely stable and invariant correspondence between perceptions and the stimuli which produce them. (1980, 17) 56 Positivist Thought The positivist view is that phenomena do not have inherent or primary characteristics but are assigned meaning by the human mind. As such, meanings assigned may vary from person to person. In general, positivism is the collection of prohibitions concerning human knowledge intended to confine the name of "knowledge" to those operations which are observable in the evolution of the modern sciences of nature (Kolakowski, 1968, 9). The antecedents of positivist thought can be traced to antiquity. Ancient thinkers believed that experience enables us to ascertain whether a given object has this or that appearance, but that it is illegitimate to go on to infer that the object is in reality such as it appears to be (Kolakowski, 1968, 11). Medieval thought gave expression to the fundamental ideas of positivism which aim at establishing rules of meaningful knowledge and confine it to analytical statements or matter of fact observations (Kolakowski, 1968, 17). As with empiricism, David Hume plays an important role in establishing English beliefs toward the subject and is widely known as the "Father of Positivist Philosophy" (Kolakowski, 1968, 38). Hume believed that perception was divided into two distinct classes, impressions and ideas. Impressions are immediately experienced contents while ideas are less lively perceptions, 57 rooted in memory or imagination. The two are interrelated in that every simple idea is a correspondent to or faded copy of a simple impression. Positivism presupposes that the logical syntax of language is not subject to historical changes because all languages have the same logical syntax. Its basic concept is that any expression in any language can be classified into one of three categories; theoretical terms, observation terms, and logical constants. Theoretical terms are considered to be self-explanatory. Observation terms are those whose meanings can be grasped through simple, direct perception. Color words (i.e. red, blue, etc.) are the paradigms of observation terms. Logical constants are words like "and" and "some" (Fain, 1970, 251). Both empiricists and positivists prefer to describe the world using language based solely on observational terms and logical constants. Positivism presupposes that the connection between cause and effect is known only by experience and never a priori. Inferences as to cause and effect relations are based solely on an expectation of certain specific events. This expectation is rooted in habit. Direct observation teaches us that certain events are associated, but that this association does not imply a mandatory connection. In its simplest form, positivism states that, except for knowledge of logical and mathematical systems, science provides the model for the only kind of knowledge we can attain. All that we know of reality is what we can observe or can legitimately deduce from what we observe (Charlton, 1959, 5). 58 Kolakowski writes in The Alienation of Reason that positivism stands for a certain philosophical attitude concerning human knowledge. It does not prejudge questions about how knowledge is arrived at or the historical foundations of knowledge. It is, however, a collection of rules and evaluative criteria referring to human cognition. These rules are: phenomenalism, nominalism, a rule that denies cognition value to value judgments and normative statements, and, fourth, the unity of the scientific method. Phenomenalism states that the distinction between essence and phenomenon should be eliminated from science on the grounds that it is misleading. We are entitled only to record that what is actually manifested in experience; disagreements over questions that go beyond the domain of experience are purely verbal in character. Phenomenalism establishes that the world we know is a collection of individual observable facts. Science aims at ordering these facts and all abstract concepts are contained in these ordering systems. Ordering systems give experience a coherent, concise form, easy to remember, purified of accidental deviations and deformations present in individual facts. The rule of nominalism establishes that we may not assume that any insight formulated in general terms can have any real referents other than individual concrete objects. According to nominalism, every abstract science is a method of ordering, a quantitative recording of experiences. It has no 59 independent cognitive function in the sense that via its abstractions, it opens access to empirically inaccessible domains of reality. The rule that denies cognitive value to value judgments and normative statements is predicated on the belief that experience contains no such qualities of men, events, or things such as "noble," "ignoble," "good,' "evil," "beautiful," "ugly," etc. The rule that denies establishes that no experience can oblige us, through any logical operations whatever, to accept statements containing commandments or prohibitions, telling us to do something or not to do it. Under positivism, the unity of the scientific method states that methods for acquiring valid knowledge, and the main stages in elaborating experience through theoretical reflection, are essentially the same in all spheres of experience. There is no reason to believe that qualitative differences between particular sciences amount to anything more than the characteristics of a particular historical stage in the development of science. Furthermore, we can expect that future progress will eliminate the differences, or perhaps, reduce all the domains of knowledge to a single science. The problem is that the positivist begins his/her work with tentative inferences or hypotheses about the materials to be or having been observed and then proceeds to select those attributes he/she feels will prove his/her initial hypothesis true (Hill, 1972, 253). It presupposes that, if one were 60 concerned with words, one could escape being involved with the world; that, in particular, it is possible to analyze in a significant way the language of the historian without becoming involved in history (Fain, 1970, 18). Even if positivists were correct in claiming that a clear partitioning between the observational and theoretical expressions of a language could be effected, there still remains the problem of actually reducing the latter to the former (Fain, 1970, 252). Empiricist--Positivist Thought When empiricist and positivist views are combined, it appears that empiricist philosophy prevails in that significance is believed to be present in a resource, rather than in the mind of the observer. This is because Empiricist and positivists share what may be termed as 'atomistic' approach to both semantics and epistemology. They assert the existence of 'primitive' terms or statements whose meaning or truth is non-problematic because of their immediate connection with sense experience. These semantic and epistemological 'atoms' provide the source of all meaning and knowledge. In this view, all meaning and knowledge consist either of these semantic and epistemological primitives, or of statements that can be derived or compounded from them. Moreover, the meaning and knowledge embodied in these primitive terms and/or statements derive only from their direct connection with sense experience. (Tainter, 1983, 711) While empiricist--positivist philosophy has experienced change, the basic belief that knowledge emanates from sense experience remains intact. When viewed in this manner, experiences are objective rather than 61 subjective. Because experience is an objective phenomenon, its meaning should be the same to everyone who has had proper training, regardless of his or her unique perspective or biases. In addition, meaning should not change over time (Tainter, 1983, 713). However, it can be argued that the outstanding quality of significance is its relativity. This quality is also its greatest weakness. The evaluation of significance is dependent on its interpretation relative to a given frame of reference. It should be evident that significance of cultural remains may be evaluated using many different frames of reference. Because of varied interests of researchers, the developing nature of the discipline and projectspecific problems related to responsible management planning, significance cannot be viewed as a static property inherent within historic resources. Evaluations of significance have applied two different strategies: either a site is viewed as an isolated resource with inherent characteristics by which its value may be determined, or it is viewed in relation to other sites in a given area (Glassow, 1977, 418). The logical conclusion derived from the latter strategy is that significance is not a static, universally appreciable set of values. The empiricist--positivist view of significance cannot accommodate theoretical change and allows no basis for generalization. Therefore, it provides neither an accurate history of, nor a sound basis for, scientific method (Tainter, 1983, 714). In reality, significance is a dynamic concept varying through time, space and the cultural biases of investigators. As a 62 result, it may be extremely difficult to demonstrate that a site lacks the potential to become significant. Assessing Significance Assessing significance is one of the most difficult tasks for the preservationist. There is no universally applicable set of significance criteria that can be used in the same way so that determinations of such factors as site, type, cultural affinity or period are made. This creates problems stemming from a difficulty in determining the appropriate criteria to be used in measuring significance. Tainter writes: If meaning is assigned rather than fixed to inherent properties, then it is subject to variation between individuals and to change through time. We cannot speak of significance as an inherent attribute of cultural properties wanting only to be discerned (even though this is precisely what the federal legislation and regulations require us to do). Significance, rather, is a quality that we assign to a cultural resource based on the theoretical framework within which we happen to be thinking. (1983, 714) A common flaw in assessing significance is a failure to recognize all relevant types of significance present in a resource. Ethnic or cultural significance can be especially difficult as its determination requires consultation with the groups who occupy a site, descendants of such groups and/or groups who presently own or live near sites under consideration. The existence of cultural variation is further proof that meaning is assigned by the human 63 mind. In an attempt to avoid these pitfalls, selection of the biggest, the earliest or the best example of whatever type of resource is being evaluated often occurs. The reality of this is that limiting selection of resources to a few exclusive examples results in the creation of bias. Significance and the Federal Government Significance is treated in our federal laws and regulations as an essential attribute of cultural properties, observable, recordable and subject to loss or destruction. The Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Historic Sites Act of 1935 are both rooted in the concept of national significance. With the passage of the 1935 act, significance became embedded in preservation law. Standards devised in 1935, 1949 and 1956 each require that "uniqueness," "importance," or "significance" exist in historic properties selected for preservation. The selection criteria developed by the National Council for Historic Sites and Buildings (the predecessor of the National Trust) in 1949 required that "in the case of a structure, be in itself of sufficient antiquity and artistic or architectural significance to deserve a position of high rank" (Tainter, 1983, 708). In 1956, the National Trust established the basis upon which the federal government describes significance today requiring that a "structure or area should have outstanding historical and cultural significance in the nation or in the state, region, or community in which it exists ." (Tainter, 1983, 708). 64 The Code of Federal Regulations 36, 60.4 and 36, 800.10 state "the quality of significance is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects." Section 36, 60.15 states a property may be removed from the National Register if its significant qualities are "lost or destroyed" (Federal Historic Preservation Laws, 1993, 8). The introductory paragraph of the National Register's Criteria for Evaluation, The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association . (Code of Federal Regulations 36, 1974, 248), is contradictory in that it classifies significance (an objective concept) as a quality a subjective notion (Glass 1987, 361). Criteria A, B and C each have significant properties defined in part as "possessing significance." Categories of significance presented within the criteria are not mutually exclusive. Each is given a degree of flexibility in evaluation. In addition, each criteria must be evaluated within the structure of a particular frame of reference (Lynott, 1980, 117). In reality, the significance criteria used by the National Park Service establish a measure of utility. They determine if a property has some sort of useful function in terms of our understanding or appreciation of the past or in terms of maintaining the quality of our existing environment or for our 65 future environment. To meet the criteria, a property must arguably have at least a potential role to play in maintaining the integrity of a community or neighborhood or in maintaining a sense of place and cultural value or in the enhancement of human knowledge. A property lacks significance when it has no utility at all or when its role is already played by some otherentity. Conflicts over significance are complicated further if the resource in question is strong in one area but questionable in another. It can be argued that the criteria set forth by the National Park Service for inclusion of a resource on the National Register of Historic Places are not meaningful, because any fixed set of criteria that are broad enough to apply to many cases are also too non-specific to provide a detailed rationale for assessment of significance in particular cases. William Murtagh points out that "this is why the states were asked to develop professional staffs -- to make assessments of significance based on a local estimate first, before the [federal government] agrees or not" (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Raab questions whether the criteria establish significance at all (1977, 631). There is a danger that at some point significance will be equated with placement on the Register and placement on the Register will be equated with significance. To avoid this, it may be better to simply state that sites do or do not meet National Register criteria. Another suggestion is to put the burden of proof on the federal government that a resource is not now -- and is not potentially 66 -- significant if the resource is not to receive protective management consideration (Sharrock, 1979, 327). A standard is valid if it is based on a solid understanding of the problem at hand and designed so that all parties involved know exactly what is expected of them. The significance concept fails the test. Tainter writes: The concept of significance is illogical, unworkable and does not entirely suit the purpose for which it was intended. It is illogical in that, contrary to what is assumed by federal law and regulation, cultural resources do not inherently possess or lack significance. It is unworkable in that significance evaluations can be absolutely rigorous only when all knowledgeable persons have been consulted about each property in question. It does not entirely suit the purpose for which it was intended in that it makes no provision for future achievement of significance. (1983, 715) The concepts of significant and exceptional are continuously influenced by various factors including advancing scholarship, real and perceived threats to historical properties and general public perception (Savage, 1993, 25). This, along with advancements in the fields of architectural history and preservation, lend support to the argument that the time has come for a change in determining resources eligible for inclusion on the National Register. The preservation of our historic heritage is possible if we know and declare what we are attempting to preserve and why. This cannot be done honestly unless we first analyze the significance of the resource as part of that heritage and are satisfied that there will be a loss to that heritage that will be irreplaceable if we do not preserve that significance. 67 In determining significance, we must let the results of our research define the resources that are important rather than starting with a preconceived notion of what is, or is not, significant. Longstreth sums up the problem writing: All things possess some degree of historic significance, however meager it might be. Properly done, preservation provides the framework by which one may select from the past, prioritizing significance in a reasonably consistent and meaningful way. The integrity of method is vital, for preservation's greatest contribution to society is enabling people to gain insights on the past that are real, and to do so in ways that written, pictorial and other forms of communication cannot duplicate. (1994, 45) William Murtagh believes that this is the basic role and function of a professional state staff, even if it relies on local researchers (Personal Communication, March, 1996). CHAPTER 5 THE QUESTION OF THE RECENT PAST Cartoon in the Saturday Review: [pictured] Two helmeted workmen who, in the course of demolishing an office building, have just broken open the cornerstone bearing the date '1952'. One workman is reading a scroll taken from the cornerstone: 'To you children of history, who in some far distant day down the dim dark corridors of time, may breech this stone'. John S. Pyke, Jr. In 1932, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) assumed a pioneering role in recognizing outstanding examples of contemporary architecture. To be successful, the exhibition required an accurate and fair assessment of the historic significance of recently constructed buildings. This was achieved by Philip Johnson, Henry Russell Hitchcock and the museum staff. As a result, the exhibit "Modern Architecture" still carries its own sense of historical magnitude. The exhibit revolutionized architectural practice throughout the United States and around the world (Kimball, 1994, 16). It effectively, albeit temporarily, disproved Ada Louise Huxtable's belief that "Genius is seldom acknowledged in its own generation" (1970, 204). Despite the acclaim given to the 1932 MoMA exhibit and the fact that the 1966 Historic Preservation Act states in part "the historical and cultural foundation of the Nation should be 68 69 preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people" (Federal Historic Preservation Laws, 1993, 6), in 1966 there was little interest in the preservation of twentieth century buildings. On December 2, 1966, Secretary of the Interior Stuart Udall spoke in support of the recently passed National Historic Preservation Act: The very survival of vast numbers of our irreplaceable historic buildings and places is at stake. What menaces this, of course, is the dynamic contemporary society of which we are all a part, a society in which men and machines and pavements and structures proliferate at the expense of an older, quieter, less crowded world, a society where new things tend to spread out with incredible speed and obliterate old things. (Glass, 1987, 273) The National Historic Preservation Act made no mention of age as a criterion of preservation. In 1967, the task force overseeing its implementation defined the National Register of Historic Places writing, "The National Register of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology and culture. It lists the most significant evidences of our national heritage" (Glass, 1987, 339). Again, no mention was made of age. The implied understanding was that a resource's value was not in its age alone, but in what is represented architecturally, historically and socially. Everything that survives from the past is not only historic because it is of the past, but it is also of our heritage because it is handed on to us by 70 our predecessors of past ages. That the very quality of age affects our evaluation of the heritage is commonplace but not necessarily logical. (Faulkner, 1978, 452) Historic value is based on a consensus among people as to "lasting worth" (Shull, 1995, II-11). The Federal government does not dictate when a place becomes historic. Rather, it recognizes historicity through a listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It is possible that factors listed as necessary for a building to qualify for listing on the Register under criteria A through D can be present at the time of its completion. In fact, each year, some building designs receive international acclaim upon their completion, if not sooner. Longstreth argues: the continued use of separate -- albeit ostensibly equal categories of 'architectural' and 'historical' significance [makes it appear] as if architecture has no past and history no physical dimension. Such a division may have been justified in the mid-1960s, given the then prevailing views of the past; however, it now seems both trivializing and archaic in light of the changes that have occurred in historical related disciplines over the last three decades. Architectural history, cultural anthropology, cultural geography, folklore, historic archaeology, social history and urban history, among other fields have contributed to a more holistic approach. (1994, 43) It has been argued that the fifty-year requirement is justified on the basis that a distance of time is necessary for the objective evaluation of buildings and places and that preservation efforts need to be based on more than current taste (Mortin, 1987, 173). A fifty-year time span allows not only academic evaluation of an historic site but also allows for healing, for 71 understanding and for emotions to be sorted out (Luce, 1995, II-19). Certainly, in highly emotional cases, some time is needed for the factors contributing to a resource to be identified and to allow the subject to be considered with a sense of detachment. In these cases, the question is not whether time is necessary to accomplish these tasks but how much time is needed and whether in today's world fifty years is too long. Richard Longstreth writes: Historical significance is determined from a corpus of facts and from methods of interpretation that are generally accepted among prominent scholars. It can be substantiated and explained clearly and persuasively on both public and professional arenas. Historic significance provides a solid foundation for identifying resources and for determining which of their attributes must be retained to ensure their collective integrity. (1994, 41) By 1981, the destruction of landmarks of the modem movement was already recognized. Bradford Perkins, in an article entitled "Preserving the Landmarks of the Modern Movement" wrote of "the threat to major examples of modern architecture too young or too unpublicized to be protected by a public outcry for landmark designation" saying "modern architectural projects are threatened by all of the same forces that have modified or destroyed many of their predecessors" and pointing out that it is often "assumed that more modem works are either less important or better able to accommodate change" (1981, 109). An example of this attitude is evident in the treatment of many office high-rises of the 1960s and 1970s. These buildings were designed as isolated objects, separated from the street by 72 plazas and sunken courtyards. Now that attitudes regarding urbanism have shifted to emphasize pedestrian connections, architects are adapting the highrises to a more human scale at the sidewalk level (Harriman, 1992, 106). Apparently the federal government was aware of the potential for loss. Duerksen wrote in 1983 that "in at least three cases the federal government has denied certification to local governments when selection was predetermined by a qualifying age requirement greater than fifty-years, on grounds that the effects of alteration or demolition can best be evaluated on a case by case basis independent of age" (1983, 85). Since the mid-1980s, nominations of twentieth century properties to the National Register have outnumbered those of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries combined. Certainly part of the reason this has occurred is the limited number of properties from these earlier periods that qualify for listing. Nevertheless, the recognition that, in America, the post World War Two time period was a time of immense creativity and building opportunities has become more widely accepted. No preceding period produced such diversity of style or range of building types (Lee, 1994, 28). Lee is not alone in believing this; Dietsch writes: Many of our most treasured landmarks are younger, representing the country's most confident era: the corporate office towers, cultural centers and campus buildings that were built in the 1950s and 1960s. Without landmark protection, some of the best examples of these decades are increasingly being torn down or altered beyond recognition without so much as a whimper from preservationists. (1992, 15) 73 Certainly, as Richard Longstreth points out Not everything can be saved from the recent past any more than from any other period. But there should be no tolerance for positing the problems inherent to so much of preservation, irrespective of the things involved and the periods they represent, as sufficient reason to ignore work that is only a few decades old. (1991, 21) Despite beliefs such as these, architecture from the recent past remains low on the list of preservation priorities. Lack of education and/or bias has led to the improper assumption that the modern movement rejected all previous stylistic designs and that this rejection of the past is the source of many of today's problems. Another incorrect assumption is that glass curtained buildings are not worth preserving. However, as Ada Louise Huxtable points out, "the 'glass box' is the most maligned building idea of our time. It is also one of the best. Whatever its deficiencies, and there are many, it is the genuine vernacular of the mid 20th century" (1970, 205). Most modern architecture originally was intended to be a one-of-a-kind architectural expression. Unadorned surfaces were preferred, not as a rejection of the past, but in order to utilize materials, composition and detailing as a means of design expression. A further example is what has happened to America's main streets. While it was not unusual for traditional mainstreets to survive one hundred to one hundred fifty years, those dating from the 1940s and 1950s have, for the most part, been extensively altered or destroyed. 74 It is encouraging to note that post World War Two architecture is increasingly being recognized as a valuable resource and saving modern buildings has been called "the preservation issue of the decade" (News, 1992, 26). One can only hope that this is proof that Wittgenstein was correct when he wrote "The works of great masters are suns which rise and set around us. The time will come for every great work that is now in the descendent to rise again" (1980, 15e). The creation of a sense of place requires both a past and a present. Preservation allows people to live and work in a world that continually provides reminders of past accomplishments in addition to what is being accomplished today. If done correctly, we should never be able to say, as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland, California, "There is no there, there" (Department of Housing, 1983, 62). The existence of a fifty-year guideline negates the sense of place that newer communities seek to achieve. Three cultural tendencies are shared to some degree by preservationists. These are: a proclivity for allowing personal taste in architecture to outweigh more legitimate criteria, a tendency to indulge in aesthetic affinities that can sometimes lead to a trivialization or exaggeration of the past, and a resistance to view the everyday content of our lives in historic terms (Striner, 1995, 11-19). The resultant disregard for a direct link to the remote past often results in the destruction of historic resources. 75 If one accepts custodianship as the guiding philosophy behind preservation, then architecture from the recent past must be considered for protection. Unfortunately, for many people it is easier to deal with the remote past. They feel the remote past does not pose a threat to the present whereas the recent past does. From a preservation perspective, buildings from the remote past will always be considered important. They will always be older, always be more limited in number and always establish the groundwork for today's architectural preferences. They also serve as tools which, when studied, can be used to establish settlement, social, architectural and/or cultural patterns. However, the fact that seventeenth century buildings are more scarce in the United States than early twentieth century office buildings does not make them intrinsically more significant from a historical perspective (Longstreth, 1991, 17). The problem is especially bad in the eastern United States where "feelings still run strong against most -- or even all -- of the 20th century; in some extreme cases, the significance of anything realized after the mid-19th century is summarily dismissed" (Longstreth, 1994, 43). As stated earlier, there is an inverse relationship between the rate of change and the time it takes for something to be considered historic. The greater the gap, the less the sense of continuity and, as a result, a sense of place. 76 Eighty percent of everything built in America has been constructed since the end of World War Two (Goldberg, 1995, 1-12). Much of this construction has taken place in suburbia, where over forty percent of all Americans now live (ackson, 1991, 7). In fact, A much larger share of the past is recent. It was built -- or at least was still new -- within living memory, the product of one's parents' or grandparents' generations. Here the intrinsic worth lies in fostering a sense of continuity, in striking a balance with change, in gaining perspective on the present, in knowing that some of the things one creates can have value over time. (Longstreth, 1994, 45) By expanding our knowledge of the recent past, the temporal boundaries between past and present come closer, thereby integrating preservation more fully with everyday life (Jackson, 1991, 7). Unfortunately this is not often the case. As a result, milestones of the Modem Movement are often neglected, radically altered, or simply razed. Preserving resources from the recent past recognizes that they, along with all other aspects of the recent past, have become part of our history. Preservationists should not be any more reluctant to evaluate a resource created within the last fifty years than one created more that fifty years ago. Within twenty years an entire stylistic grouping of resources can be created and destroyed. Time obliterates -- often literally -- as easily as it clarifies (Shiffer, 1995, 3). Resources created a generation ago can be evaluated from a fresh perspective. Lynch writes that "a humane environment commemorates recent events quickly" (1972, 61). Therefore, we should 77 actively work to preserve the recent past. It is, after all, where our ties are strongest. In addition, it is what immediately and most directly links us to the remote past. The survival and preservation of structures from the recent past creates both physical and social continuity. We cannot afford to allow only the existence of the remote past. No matter how accurately a resource is preserved, if only selective categories are saved, or if only selective periods are represented, integrity and authenticity are lost. The conception of significance for the recent past is shaped by the fact that for several generations, historiographic emphasis has generally been placed on ideology, artistic expression and a very limited range of technical innovations (Longstreth, 1991, 13). Just as a biographer works not to describe the appearance of a person as much as to understand a whole personality and to place the subject within a society, the preservationist must recognize a place not only in terms of individuality but also of contextuality, as a product both of nature and of nurture (Baker, 1992, 2). William Murtagh once quoted a New York Times article which stated: "At best, preservation engages the past in a conversation with the present over a mutual concern for the future" (Green, 1991, 90). Within the last fifty years, it seems the conversation has centered on a series of still unanswered questions including: How important is historical perspective; Why is proving exceptional significance needed; 78 What constitutes exceptional; and, What issues are specific to buildings from the recent past? (Benjamin, 1988, 7) Above and beyond these questions, there are fundamental problems when one deals with all architecture from the recent past. Luce believes these center on the following issues: "1) many -- if not most -- structures or styles are not viewed as historic; 2) accelerated rates of change; 3) the evaluation of common/standard building types; and, 4) persistence of earlier attitudes toward sites/structures related to political correctness" (1995, -17). Other problems related to the evaluation of structures from the recent past stem from lack of agreement on style characteristics. This is especially difficult when one remembers that one of the tenets of the movement was individual expression/interpretation of the here and now (Donahue, 1988, 24). Modem architecture did not just eliminate ornament; it did not just eschew references to the past; it did not just emulate a machine aesthetic; it entailed challenges to previously accepted basic assumptions regarding the properties of design (Longstreth, 1995, 1-17). In addition, guidelines regarding basic building typologies have not yet been developed for sites such as shopping malls, military bases and airports. We must also create ways to fairly assess innovative materials, designs and building techniques that, over time, have shown to be less than successful. 79 Despite these problems, age alone should not be reason enough to exclude buildings from the National Register. Nor should it be reason enough to require "exceptional" significance. Striner quotes Longstreth as concluding that "the issue is not when something becomes 'historic,' but instead when an adequate historical perspective can be gained on a particular kind of thing" (1995, 6). In Longstreth's words: Political historians need not defend studying events of the Eisenhower or Kennedy administrations. Military historians focus on the Korean or Vietnamese wars just as they do earlier conflicts. An interpretive approach imbued with a sense of historicity is assumed. No one believes that a historian of the Third Reich is in business just to criticize that regime any more than to defend or express nostalgia for it. Exploring such realms is to a certain extent predicated on the demand for understanding phenomena beyond what contemporary chronicles can provide, which in turn brings persons to the fore who are capable of meeting the challenge. (1991, 14) William Murtagh writes: Professionals in the field, with few exceptions like Longstreth, have never taken the time to educate the public on the recent past or to establish in the public mind much of a sense of concern for the recent past, the preservation of which runs hard into the agendas of developers and the real estate crowd's [financial gains]. They're the ones which need to be educated about the recent past [in a manner which does not let] them feel that everything they create deserves to be preserved. (Personal Communication, March, 1996) CHAPTER 6 THE NEED FOR INCLUSION OF THE RECENT PAST True historic preservation is objective in its attitude. That is, it regards all periods and styles as inherently equal for learning about our past.. Historic preservation admits that it is as important to preserve 20th century Eclectic and 19th century neo-Gothic as 18th century Georgian, or Federal, or Classic Revival. David Poinsett In America, we preserve historic resources for several reasons. We preserve because historic resources are all that we have to physically link us with our past. Historic resources are part of us. They tell us not only who we are but how we differ from those around us and they help us preserve that uniqueness. Some believe that historic resources should be valued as art and, as a result, hold on to them in an effort to keep America beautiful. We preserve because historic resources fill social needs. In short, we preserve to fill educational, recreational and inspirational needs and as a means of giving historically and architecturally valuable sites and buildings viable economic uses (Poinsett, 1983, 60). The problem, as Daniel Bluestone points out is that: In valuing certain buildings, preservation devalues others. Carried to the extreme, this process of devaluation leads to destruction and fosters a historical landscape that increasingly conforms to and confirms the privileged narrative. (1994, 210) 80 81 Along the same lines, Ada Louise Huxtable writes A building that may no longer work well or pay its way may still be a superb creative and cultural achievement. It may be the irreproduceable record of the art and ideals of a master or an age. Its concept, craft, materials, and details may be irreplaceable at any price . and there lies the conflict and the dilemma of preservation. (1970, 233) William Murtagh believes that "In a society where age is justified by money, creativity and aesthetic excellence become trivial in the developer's/realtor's mind unless the development is based on historicity" (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Criterion C of the "new" preservation that came into being in 1966 made it clear that historic resources were to be preserved for architectural and aesthetic as well as historic and patriotic values. The National Register of Historic Places remains today, as it has been since 1966, the pivot upon which historic preservation in the United States turns. Properties that qualify for the Register are the subject matter of historic preservation and they are eligible for preservation, enhancement and salvage. If they do not qualify, they are not worth worrying about. The bluntness of this pivot [remains] one of the major sources for trouble for historic preservation. (King, 1977, 95) The idea of extending current preservation philosophical rationale to include the recent past dates to the beginning of the new preservation's implementation and stems from our commitment to save our heritage (Striner, 1993, 1). Respect should be given to all buildings which serve as good 82 examples of an important architectural style, or the work of a distinguished architect or master builder or, simply, which have continued to generate acclaim over time. Included in this should be a means for considering works of living architects. The Keeper of the National Register discourages nominations of properties associated with living architects. The policy was established by William Murtagh during the time he served as the first Keeper of the National Register in 1968. It was designed to avoid the appearance of "endorsing" one architect over another (W. J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, February 5, 1996). However, if Longstreth's belief that If the representation of ideas and practices -- artistic, symbolic, functional, technical, social and/or cultural are clearly different from those in common use today, those differences can allow us to analyze the work as part of a historic phenomena (1991, 15) is applied, not only could this body of work be included in preservation efforts, but the appearance of endorsement could be avoided as well. The problem of how to deal with the recent past exists world wide but is not often addressed by governments. Sweden's SAMDOK is the exception. SAMDOK is the acronym for "samtidsdokumentation" or same time documentation. In 1989, the International Working Party for the Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement (DoCoMoMo) was founded in order to facilitate the exchange of documentation and conservation information, protect threatened 83 Modern Movement buildings, stimulate interest in the Modern Movement and create a register of significant buildings from the Modern Movement. The dominant view of the group was that the cultural importance of Modernist buildings, however utilitarian, meant they must be conserved in the same sense as buildings from other periods (Fraser, 1990, 76). A United States chapter of DoCoMoMo was founded in 1995. The International Council of Monuments and Sites' (ICOMOS) World Heritage List requires that a resource be at least twenty-five years of age to be considered for listing, one-half the time preferred by our National Park Service. In July of 1995, ICOMOS, along with the United Nations Economic Security Council's (UNESCO) World Heritage Center and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Properties (ICCROM), sponsored a seminar on twentieth century heritage. Discussions dealt with how to identify twentieth century properties that could potentially be included on the World Heritage List, including the identification and protection of twentieth century sites and whether different criteria were needed to accurately assess these structures. They determined, in part, that better historic analysis, via objective thematic and monographic studies is needed to avoid reliance on traditional historical interpretation. In addition, item five of the general recommendations reads in part, "Due attention should be paid to the full spectrum of the heritage of the entire century. ." (see Appendix C). 84 In the United States, the American Institute of Architects annually gives an award to a building at least twenty-five years of age believing it has withstood, as the name of the award clearly states, the "test of time." It should be noted that promotional materials state the objective of the award is To recognize distinguished single works of architecture and planned developments affecting more than one building, after a period of time has elapsed in which the function, aesthetic statement and execution can be reassessed Preservation in the United States has always been dependent on community support and recognition. Communities must understand that it is best to preserve historic resources in context, although it is not always possible. Every attempt should be made to allow historic resources to remain part of the local community or neighborhood, as they have always been. Preserving and protecting only the best or earliest will carry forth neither the historic nor architectural character of a locale. Preservation is in a sense a community act. It is as important as a process as in its results, contributing to the mutual education of people who see beauty and value in terms of the architecture or of a building's place in the history of engineering, technology, or town planning, and to those who simply know that buildings and places are meaningful in terms of their own lives. (Hareven, 1981, 122) Extending that thought, W. L. Rathje writes, "A community is preserved in its full context only when both the self recorded picture and the material realities picture are placed side by side" (1995, 1I-65). Preservation efforts need 85 to encompass the entire spectrum of the community, state, region or nation in question. Every effort must be made to avoid overt, subjective, critical associations. In the same way that preservation activities include both vernacular and formal resources, they should include both the recent and remote. The current listing process in the United States impacts resources hardest within the first thirty years (Lee, 1994, 28). The ever accelerating pace of technological change and the consequent larger scale of alterations to, or destruction of, historically significant resources has become a widespread concern of preservationists. No longer can it be said that neglect is often the best preserver. Longstreth has voiced concern writing: "if we continue to disregard so much that is all around us, we may waste far more than we preserve and bestow upon future generations the difficult task of deciphering the carcass" (1991, 21). A case in point is Chicago where, as Daniel Bluestone writes: "a limited historical view of the city's architecture supported only a modest preservation program in what turned out to be the most destructive period in Chicago since the 1871 fire" (1994, 210). He supports this statement by writing: The narrow focus on the monuments of the so-called Chicago School provided a basis for the cohesion of modernists and preservationists in support of landmark preservation during the 1950s and 1960s. For modernists, preserving the landmarks of the so-called Chicago School fostered a narrative of Chicago history that reinforced contemporary interest in modern urban renewal. Moreover, narrowly conceived preservation simply did not pose a threat to the plans for a massive 86 public and private rebuilding of the city. As renewal and preservation proceeded, the historic city came to look increasingly like the Chicago School narrative; the diversity of the city's nineteenth-century architectural production was either destroyed or overlooked by those who relied on architectural designations to gather their sense of history. For those preservationists who were more concerned with defining and defending a sense of place than with building the city anew, the narrow vision of landmarks also held certain advantages. The ascendancy of aesthetic preservation over a variety of associational narratives encouraged preservationists in their belief that they could locate the essence of the city and its history in a few representative structures of the Chicago School. The absolute priority given to aesthetic over associational landmarks in the 1950s and beyond further restricted the use that citizens could make of history; their efforts to forge a vital sense of neighborhood and community identity based in part on history could only be frustrated by the aesthetic model. (1994, 221) Bluestone's account shows that preservation is only as good or as useful as the histories it values. What the passage does not mention, according to William Murtagh, are the unseen political realities of preserving the recent past which are blatantly present in the Chicago Loop area. Political reality becomes all the more important if most of what is considered was built after World War Two (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Writing history and preserving buildings clearly reinforces particular histories while ignoring others. When historians make errors in fact or interpretation, a record of ideas may be corrected at a later time. Historic preservation, in dealing with history as it was manifested in tangible materials, does not permit that luxury. Preservationists work in a world in which the traces of histories that they choose to ignore often disappear. 87 The job of identifying resources from the recent past which are worth preserving is a matter of ongoing study and interpretation. Preservation efforts must begin with an understanding of the significance of historical and cultural resources. While traditional approaches to the preservation of historic buildings and landscapes are largely applicable to twentieth century resources, some evolution in methodology is required. In fact, methods used to study the recent past will, on occasion, be quite different than those used to study and evaluate the remote past. The preservation of buildings from the recent past requires a new approach with awareness of and responsiveness toward sensibility. When working with the recent past, preservationists, in many cases, need only use the same historiographic methods used to study earlier periods. However, they must be willing to work with unconventional sources of data and to apply innovative techniques, if needed. More than other periods of architecture, the preservation of buildings from the recent past may require the interpretation and/or reinterpretation of the designer's original vision. Today's preservationists have both the duty and the burden of being willing and able to challenge contemporary historical interpretation. By employing principles basic to solid scholarship, the preservability of much of the recent past can be put into perspective now. To do so, preservationists must think less like critics and more like historians. R. G. Collingwood writes: "The Historian's objective is to see events from 'the inside,' to penetrate the thoughts that lie behind the deed. When this 88 can't/isn't done, actions become opaque and documents describing [historical evidence are] destroyed" (Fain, 1970, 145). In other words, the basic question to be asked is not what visual pleasure and/or intellectual significance given buildings have for us, but what they had for the generation that built them and for the generations between that time and the present. Preservationists should keep in mind that while the reality of the past is objective, the interpretation of the past is subjective; facts and circumstances concerning the past are subject to interpretation by the historian's perceptions. To avoid bias impacting a determination of significance, "Analysis should be based upon as objective a viewpoint as possible, premised on factual evidence and on understanding that evidence within the content of its own time" (Longstreth, 1991, 12). Emphasis should be placed on context based research with resources evaluated in terms of how, what and why they contribute to culture. This should include the symbolic value of the resource and the way of life and sense of continuity which it represents (Hareven, 1981, 118). Resources should be treated as social and cultural documents. Buildings derive absolute historical importance not alone from their creation in a particular period, or from their established aesthetic and stylistic value, but also from the social context in which they were used, the functions they fulfilled, and the historical experiences associated with them. (Hareven, 1981, 119) 89 In that historical importance is relative and may change over time, the use of the term "absolute" is questionable. It should be remembered that evaluators are also acting in the context of their time and need to be aware of such to avoid generational bias. Last, demanding that buildings relate to context should be avoided. This frequently leads to an emphasis on qualities of size, materials, color and architectural style; physical qualities measured by original appearance. Architectural history tends to provide an aesthetically pleasing view of the world, one that is limited politically. Perpetuating the concept of "pure" styles by preserving only selected high style examples implies that they are the most important. At its extreme, "Preservationists run the risk of losing credibility in the disciplines that are their professional backbone when they succumb to such shallow typecasting" (Longstreth, 1995, 1-19). Ada Louise Huxtable puts it another way, writing that preservation is in danger of becoming synonymous with the theme park (Longstreth, 1995, 1-19). Places worthy of preservation should represent meaning, orientation, use, or beauty in the lives of a given group or culture. Many preservationists have eschewed various forms of vernacular resources. In doing so, they propagate high culture and aesthetics as those values most associated with permanence (Schwarzer, 1994, 9). The challenge of preservation is to preserve the meaning of the way of life which buildings represent to those who have 90 worked and lived in them, as well as the more abstract and formal qualities based on a knowledge of architecture and technological history (Hareven, 1981 121). William Murtagh states "We preserve the past in order to avoid a loss of identity, maintain a sense of continuity and improve livibility" (1995). Although sentiments are slowly changing, the idea of preserving architecture from the recent past "is still a hard pill for many preservationists to swallow. It remains an area of historic preservation that gets routinely overlooked. There is often little sympathy for the period and in some cases outright hostility" (Gordon, 1992, 22). Despite the fact that eighty percent of the built environment has been constructed since World War Two, as of February 14, 1996, of 65, 317 listings on the National Register of Historic Places, only 2,069 were admitted under exception G (less than fifty-years of age), a mere 3.2 percent (John Bums, Personal Communication, February 14, 1996). Equally discouraging are the figures regarding AIA Test of Time award winners from 1969 to 1994. A check of sites documented by HABS shows that only two of the twenty-five award winners have been documented. A check of listings on the National Register shows only ten of the award winners. While some criteria for selection differ, they are, overall, like enough that all of the award winners should be listed on the National Register. What would be even better would be to have the preservation community recognize these sites prior to their winning a "test of time" award. In doing so, preservationists 91 would make a clear statement that they both understand and appreciate the built environment from all of our past. Full Text no Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling 1. notable example of a particular material 2. unique/rare example of a particular material 3. early example of a particular material 4. notable example of a particular method of construction 5. unique/rare example of a particular method of construction 6. early example of a particular method of construction "Early" is defined as dating from before or within five years of appearing in other buildings of the same type. Figure A. Typical Cover Sheet 82 examples of an important architectural style, or the work of a distinguished architect or master builder or, simply, which have continued to generate acclaim over time. Included in this should be a means for considering works of living architects. The Keeper of the National Register discourages nominations of properties associated with living architects. The policy was established by William Murtagh during the time he served as the first Keeper of the National Register in 1968. It was designed to avoid the appearance of "endorsing" one architect over another (W. J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, February 5, 1996). However, if Longstreth's belief that If the representation of ideas and practices -- artistic, symbolic, functional, technical, social and/or cultural are clearly different from those in common use today, those differences can allow us to analyze the work as part of a historic phenomena (1991, 15) is applied, not only could this body of work be included in preservation efforts, but the appearance of endorsement could be avoided as well. The problem of how to deal with the recent past exists world wide but is not often addressed by governments. Sweden's SAMDOK is the exception. SAMDOK is the acronym for "samtidsdokumentation" or same time documentation. In 1989, the International Working Party for the Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the Modem Movement (DoCoMoMo) was founded in order to facilitate the exchange of documentation and conservation information, protect threatened 71 understanding and for emotions to be sorted out (Luce, 1995, 11-19). Certainly, in highly emotional cases, some time is needed for the factors contributing to a resource to be identified and to allow the subject to be considered with a sense of detachment. In these cases, the question is not whether time is necessary to accomplish these tasks but how much time is needed and whether in today's world fifty years is too long. Richard Longstreth writes: Historical significance is determined from a corpus of facts and from methods of interpretation that are generally accepted among prominent scholars. It can be substantiated and explained clearly and persuasively on both public and professional arenas. Historic significance provides a solid foundation for identifying resources and for determining which of their attributes must be retained to ensure their collective integrity. (1994, 41) By 1981, the destruction of landmarks of the modem movement was already recognized. Bradford Perkins, in an article entitled "Preserving the Landmarks of the Modern Movement" wrote of "the threat to major examples of modern architecture too young or too unpublicized to be protected by a public outcry for landmark designation" saying "modern architectural projects are threatened by all of the same forces that have modified or destroyed many of their predecessors" and pointing out that it is often "assumed that more modern works are either less important or better able to accommodate change" (1981, 109). An example of this attitude is evident in the treatment of many office high-rises of the 1960s and 1970s. These buildings were designed as isolated objects, separated from the street by 119 resource being evaluated are clearly different from those in common use it is possible to list resources of living designers while avoiding William Murtagh's concern of endorsing one architect over another. More research into the feasibility of this approach needs to be conducted. In short, there are a variety of avenues to explore and concepts to develop. It may be that there will never be consensus as to how these issues can best be addressed. There will certainly always be debate as to how to best objectify a subjective topic. APPENDIX A THE SARASOTA SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE Regionalism and regional characteristics once dominated American architectural patterns. National as well as the global aspects of twentieth century life have worked to eliminate this once identifiable characteristic. In an article for the Tournal of the American Institute of Architects in 1955, Paul Rudolph looked at the changing aspects of regional architecture. He found architectural regionalism limited by industrialization and national distribution systems, ease of travel and communication, cost of traditional materials, influence of the architectural press, our desire to conform and belong, the 'do it yourself movement, the abstract qualities inherent in the new space concept, and the fact that true expressiveness of new materials has not yet been fully developed. (180) As a result of the above forces, true regionalism in modern architecture is most often expressed in form rather than in the materials used. The term "Sarasota School" was first applied in 1967 when it appeared in an article written by Philip Hiss for Architectural Forum magazine. It was again used in 1982 in materials prepared by Gene Leedy and Dwight Holmes for an American Institute of Architects meeting to be held in Tampa. The 120 58 Kolakowski writes in The Alienation of Reason that positivism stands for a certain philosophical attitude concerning human knowledge. It does not prejudge questions about how knowledge is arrived at or the historical foundations of knowledge. It is, however, a collection of rules and evaluative criteria referring to human cognition. These rules are: phenomenalism, nominalism, a rule that denies cognition value to value judgments and normative statements, and, fourth, the unity of the scientific method. Phenomenalism states that the distinction between essence and phenomenon should be eliminated from science on the grounds that it is misleading. We are entitled only to record that what is actually manifested in experience; disagreements over questions that go beyond the domain of experience are purely verbal in character. Phenomenalism establishes that the world we know is a collection of individual observable facts. Science aims at ordering these facts and all abstract concepts are contained in these ordering systems. Ordering systems give experience a coherent, concise form, easy to remember, purified of accidental deviations and deformations present in individual facts. The rule of nominalism establishes that we may not assume that any insight formulated in general terms can have any real referents other than individual concrete objects. According to nominalism, every abstract science is a method of ordering, a quantitative recording of experiences. It has no 98 Honolulu, Hawaii, has developed a set of "Historic Preservation Value" criteria for use in the Waikiki area. These criteria apply only to buildings less than fifty years of age and provide preservationists with a method for making decisions regarding protection. The criteria include six areas: integrity, uniqueness, rarity, work of an outstanding designer, condition and existing level of public recognition. Due to the fact that so few historic buildings in the Waikiki area remain on their original site, integrity is defined according to National Register criteria, except for the elements of setting and location. These two integrity criteria have been omitted. Boston, Massachusetts, considers all buildings predating 1960 in its landmarks program. All buildings predating that time are assessed according to the same criteria. The Modern Design Preservation League in Denver and the Los Angeles Conservancy, Fifties Task Force, both support the evaluation of all buildings according to National Register criteria, excepting age. Several other cities including San Francisco and Oakland, California include all buildings, regardless of age in their surveys, but do not consider them eligible for active preservation until they reach the magic fifty years. Point-based Systems for Evaluation The first federally funded project for the evaluation of historically significant sites and buildings within a projected renewal area was the 1959 45 with a few "shrines of transcendent significance to the nation," the "new" preservation embraced thousands of local landmarks or groups of buildings important to states or communities (Glass, 1990, 28). Earlier efforts had emphasized associative and inspirational values while the new version balanced out the importance of architectural design and aesthetics as well. The "old" encouraged the preservation of single buildings as museums, but the "new" fostered the conservation of historic communities, areas and districts through adaptation to "compatible modern uses" (Glass, 1990, 28). In 1967, Robert Utley described the difference between "old" and "new" preservation efforts as ". . the difference between a few shrines of transcendent significance to the Nation and thousands of local landmarks of historic, aesthetic or even sentimental importance to the state or community" (Glass, 1987, 279). He described the National Register as a declaration to all concerned of what in the United States was "worthy of preservation" and "should not be destroyed or impaired" (Glass, 1987, 338). Despite this, and because the task force was largely composed of historians, age remained an important consideration. Resources less than fifty years of age were exempt from eligibility for listing on the National Register unless they were of "exceptional importance". It was believed that allowing a fifty- year period would allow for an orderly examination of the past (Luce, 1995, II- 15). In fact, the establishment of fifty years as the time necessary for a resource to be considered historic was a bold step in the context of its time. It implied 59 independent cognitive function in the sense that via its abstractions, it opens access to empirically inaccessible domains of reality. The rule that denies cognitive value to value judgments and normative statements is predicated on the belief that experience contains no such qualities of men, events, or things such as "noble," "ignoble," "good/ "evil," "beautiful," "ugly," etc. The rule that denies establishes that no experience can oblige us, through any logical operations whatever, to accept statements containing commandments or prohibitions, telling us to do something or not to do it. Under positivism, the unity of the scientific method states that methods for acquiring valid knowledge, and the main stages in elaborating experience through theoretical reflection, are essentially the same in all spheres of experience. There is no reason to believe that qualitative differences between particular sciences amount to anything more than the characteristics of a particular historical stage in the development of science. Furthermore, we can expect that future progress will eliminate the differences, or perhaps, reduce all the domains of knowledge to a single science. The problem is that the positivist begins his/her work with tentative inferences or hypotheses about the materials to be or having been observed and then proceeds to select those attributes he/she feels will prove his/her initial hypothesis true (Hill, 1972, 253). It presupposes that, if one were 23 structure and decoration were one and felt that a building was an ensemble consisting of both its parts and its furnishings (Dupent, 1983, 12). He wrote: knowing that restoration inevitably unsettles old buildings, one must compensate for this curtailment of strength by giving power to the new parts, by perfecting the structure, by clamping walls and by introducing greater resistances, for prolonging the life of the building is the true tack of restoration. (Dupent, 1983, 13) The United States The historic preservation movement in the United States evolved in two distinct phases. The first was concerned with the associative value of buildings; the second with a building's architectural importance. Early American preservation efforts were undertaken by private individuals, sometimes working for or under the auspices of patriotic organizations. Early efforts centered on sites associated with nationally recognized individuals or events. The first successful acquisition of a property for preservation purposes took place in New York in 1850 when the state purchased the Hasbrouck House in Newburgh which had served as George Washington's headquarters at the end of the American Revolution for2,000.00.
The first national effort in preservation was headed by Ann Pamela
Cunningham of South Carolina and centered on the acquisition of Mt.
Vernon. Mount Vernon had been an important and well-known site since
the Revolutionary War. In 1848 and 1850, petitions were presented to

61
subjective. Because experience is an objective phenomenon, its meaning
should be the same to everyone who has had proper training, regardless of
his or her unique perspective or biases. In addition, meaning should not
change over time (Tainter, 1983, 713).
However, it can be argued that the outstanding quality of significance is
its relativity. This quality is also its greatest weakness. The evaluation of
significance is dependent on its interpretation relative to a given frame of
reference. It should be evident that significance of cultural remains may be
evaluated using many different frames of reference. Because of varied
interests of researchers, the developing nature of the discipline and project-
specific problems related to responsible management planning, significance
cannot be viewed as a static property inherent within historic resources.
Evaluations of significance have applied two different strategies: either a site
is viewed as an isolated resource with inherent characteristics by which its
value may be determined, or it is viewed in relation to other sites in a given
area (Glassow, 1977, 418). The logical conclusion derived from the latter
strategy is that significance is not a static, universally appreciable set of values.
The empiricist-positivist view of significance cannot accommodate
theoretical change and allows no basis for generalization. Therefore, it
provides neither an accurate history of, nor a sound basis for, scientific
method (Tainter, 1983, 714). In reality, significance is a dynamic concept
varying through time, space and the cultural biases of investigators. As a

148
EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A PERIOD IN TIME
1. first half of the nineteenth century or before yes no
date of constructuion
2. second half of the nineteenth century yes no
date of construction
3. first half of the twentieth century yes no
date of construction
4. second half of the twentieth century yes no
date of construction

97
significance unless proven otherwise, the obligation to preserve/protect as
many resources as feasible, insurance that the sample of preserved resources
be as representative as possible, measures in place to control bias, and an
expanded base (1977, 278). To do the job correctly, increased funding and
better education of the public regarding preservation philosophy and issues is
necessary.
Current Preservation Plans Incorporating Recent Buildings
In June of 1990, Vancouver, Canada, became one of the first
municipalities in North America to expand the scope of its heritage
inventory to include buildings that were twenty years old. Twenty years was
considered to be a critical period of time to allow for an objective assessment
of the historical merit of a building. The Heritage Commission felt that
"Maintaining a collection of Modern buildings ensures continuity in our
architectural heritage" (Heritage Brochure, not dated). Vancouver's Recent
Landmarks Program identifies and documents notable examples of modern
architecture on the basis of their aesthetic and design value, innovative
technological advances of the time and contributions by prominent architects.
It is recognized that landmarks can be architecturally distinguished and/or
socially important.

GLOSSARY
building
created principally to shelter any form of human activity; may
also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related
unit
district
an area possessing a significant concentration, linkage, or
continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united
historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development
history-
an account of what has or might have happened; what has
happened in the life or development of a people, country,
institution, etc.
memory
result of the process of selection and of organizing what is
selected so that it is within reach in expected situations
object
those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are
relatively small in scale and simply constructed; although
possibly movable, it is associated with a specific setting or
environment
past
gone by; ended; over; of a former time
preservation
the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the
existing form, integrity and materials of an historic property
recent past
a period characterized by attitudes and practices that differ in
some substantial way from those now current, but that remain
within the living memory of many people
reconstruction
the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the
form, features and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape,
building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its
appearance at a specific period of time and in its historical
location
166

74
It is encouraging to note that post World War Two architecture is
increasingly being recognized as a valuable resource and saving modern
buildings has been called "the preservation issue of the decade" (News, 1992,
26). One can only hope that this is proof that Wittgenstein was correct when
he wrote "The works of great masters are suns which rise and set around us.
The time will come for every great work that is now in the descendent to rise
again" (1980,15e).
The creation of a sense of place requires both a past and a present.
Preservation allows people to live and work in a world that continually
provides reminders of past accomplishments in addition to what is being
accomplished today. If done correctly, we should never be able to say, as
Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland, California, "There is no there, there"
(Department of Housing, 1983, 62). The existence of a fifty-year guideline
negates the sense of place that newer communities seek to achieve.
Three cultural tendencies are shared to some degree by
preservationists. These are: a proclivity for allowing personal taste in
architecture to outweigh more legitimate criteria, a tendency to indulge in
aesthetic affinities that can sometimes lead to a trivialization or exaggeration
of the past, and a resistance to view the everyday content of our lives in
historic terms (Striner, 1995, 11-19). The resultant disregard for a direct link to
the remote past often results in the destruction of historic resources.

121
term referred to one of several groups of architects in America during the late
1940s and 1950s that adhered to the basic tenets of International stylists. What
differentiated these groups was their willingness and ability to adapt these
basic tenets to the lifestyle and climate of a specific region.
The 1950s was a time when Florida served as a "mecca for
contemporary architecture" (Test of Time, 1987, 35). "Among all the cities in
Florida, perhaps Sarasota alone comes to mind as the one city possessing a
significant heritage of contemporary architectural works" (Sarasota
Retrospective, 1976, 19). These works "spring from a brief moment of time .
. when pent-up creative energies were released in an outpouring of buildings,
several of which today rank as classics" (Sarasota Retrospective, 1976, 19). The
1950s saw rapid growth in the city of Sarasota as well as in Sarasota County.
Census figures show that in 1950s the population of Sarasota (city) was 13,604;
by 1960 it had grown to 34,083 (Morris, 1985,183).
Architects viewed Sarasota as
a proving ground, a model on which they tested ideas, materials, and
planning concepts, in the process forging careers which, for some,
propelled them to prominence as lasting as Sarasota's was fleeting.
(Horton, 1982, 21)
Victor Lundy, one of the school's most renowned members, said Sarasota was
an "easy place to be creative...Things were done spontaneously; there was a
sense of fun in those days" (Horton, 1982, 20).

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED EVALUATION SYSTEM
106
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 117
THE SARASOTA SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE 120
EVALUATION FORMS 129
ICOMOS SEMINAR ON 20TH-CENTURY HERITAGE, JUNE 18-19, 1995
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 164
GLOSSARY 166
LIST OF REFERENCES 168
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 181
vi

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 E6VCL90FS_IYFIIE INGEST_TIME 2014-12-01T20:05:13Z PACKAGE AA00026442_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all those who have
helped me complete this project and were kind enough to provide me with
information, Dr. Richard Longstreth, Mr. Harold Kalman, Mr. Richard
Crisson, Mr. Stephen Lewotsky, Ms. Thayer Donham, Ms. Judith Collins, Mr.
Marco D'Agostini, Dr. William Murtagh, Mr. Jef Joslin, Mr. Michael
Cannizzo, Dr. Diana Bitz and Ms. Carol Shull. Thanks also to the members of
my committee Professors William Tilson, Roy Hunt and R. Wayne
Drummond. Special thanks go to Herschel E. Shepard, my committee co
chair and mentor whose guidance, wisdom and support have been
instrumental. I would also like to recognize those persons who, while not on
my committee, volunteered to read and comment on the dissertation,
Professor Emeritus F. Blair Reeves, Dr. William Murtagh, Dr. Diana Bitz,
Professor Susan Tate, Mr. Gregory A. Hall and Ms. Vicki Jo Sandstead.
None of this would have been possible without the support of my
husband, Bill, and my family, especially that of my mother, JoAnn L. Smith.
Last, but not least, I want to thank Greg Hall and Jeanne Williams whose
friendship and support have kept me sane and grounded throughout
everything.
IV

17
his projects. In various efforts he removed screens, funerary monuments,
porches and chapels. In others, he shortened naves. The quality of his work
further suffered when he continued to accept jobs even after securing far
more than he could adequately handle or properly oversee. Wyatt was widely
vilified for his efforts. The Reverend John Milner's comments were typical:
"[Wyatt] has dishonoured, disfigured, destroyed, and is in the constant
practice of dishonouring, disfiguring and destroying . the most beautiful
and instructive monuments" (Pevsner, 1976, 39). Wyatt continued to secure
commissions via influential friends until his untimely accidental death.
The Church Building Act of 1818 led to the restoration of more than
seven thousand churches in England between 1840 and 1873. The work that
took place during this period formed the basis for widespread philosophical
discussions on restoration practices and appropriate methods. One of the
persons involved in these discussions was Augustus Welby Northmore
Pugin (1812 1852). An expert in Gothic architecture, Pugin believed that
truth and honesty were basic to any architecture considered beautiful. Under
his influence, Gothic became the dominant theme, influencing both ongoing
restoration efforts and what became known as Gothic Revival architecture
(Skarmeas, 1983, 38).
Sir George Gilbert Scott (1811 1878) was involved in approximately
seven hundred fifty restoration projects. Scott developed a set of procedures
related to building restoration to guide his efforts. These consisted of

101
for historic significance, architectural significance, importance to
neighborhood, desecration of original design and physical condition. Total
points in each category ranged from eight (desecration of original design) to
thirty (historical significance). Cumulative scores were grouped as
exceptional, excellent, good, fair and poor. One person was responsible for
completing all forms for the entire area in order to help insure a consistent
point of view.
The importance of the College Hill Study cannot be overlooked. It was
the first of its type conducted in the United States. In that regard, it is difficult
to fairly assess it with today's benefit of more than thirty-five years of
hindsight. The only action that is questionable, is the decision to use a single
evaluator. While the rationale is sound, the fact that 1,350 buildings were
involved should have caused some reassessment. Fatigue was a concern. To
control this, the evaluator only worked in two hour stretches. However, it is
easy to see how the first fifty to one-hundred buildings might have been
assessed differently than the last fifty to one-hundred.
The San Francisco Downtown Study of 1985 consisted of four
categories: architectural significance, historical significance, environmental
category could be evaluated separately. Ratings within each were excellent,
very good, good, and fair/poor with each corresponding to a predetermined
point value. The four broad categories were subdivided into more specific

90
worked and lived in them, as well as the more abstract and formal qualities
based on a knowledge of architecture and technological history (Hareven, 1981
121).
William Murtagh states "We preserve the past in order to avoid a loss
of identity, maintain a sense of continuity and improve livibility" (1995).
Although sentiments are slowly changing, the idea of preserving architecture
from the recent past "is still a hard pill for many preservationists to swallow.
It remains an area of historic preservation that gets routinely overlooked.
There is often little sympathy for the period and in some cases outright
hostility" (Gordon, 1992, 22). Despite the fact that eighty percent of the built
environment has been constructed since World War Two, as of February 14,
1996, of 65, 317 listings on the National Register of Historic Places, only 2,069
were admitted under exception G (less than fifty-years of age), a mere 3.2
percent (John Burns, Personal Communication, February 14, 1996). Equally
discouraging are the figures regarding AIA Test of Time award winners from
1969 to 1994. A check of sites documented by HABS shows that only two of
the twenty-five award winners have been documented. A check of listings on
the National Register shows only ten of the award winners. While some
criteria for selection differ, they are, overall, like enough that all of the award
winners should be listed on the National Register. What would be even
better would be to have the preservation community recognize these sites
prior to their winning a "test of time" award. In doing so, preservationists

64
The Code of Federal Regulations 36, 60.4 and 36, 800.10 state "the quality of
significance ... is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects." Section 36, 60.15 states a property may be removed from the
National Register if its significant qualities are "lost or destroyed" (Federal
Historic Preservation Laws, 1993, 8).
The introductory paragraph of the National Register's Criteria for
Evaluation,
The quality of significance in American history, architecture,
archaeology, engineering and culture is present in districts, sites,
buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association . .
(Code of Federal Regulations 36,1974, 248),
is contradictory in that it classifies significance (an objective concept) as a
quality a subjective notion (Glass 1987, 361). Criteria A, B and C each have
significant properties defined in part as "possessing significance." Categories
of significance presented within the criteria are not mutually exclusive. Each
is given a degree of flexibility in evaluation. In addition, each criteria must be
evaluated within the structure of a particular frame of reference (Lynott, 1980,
117).
In reality, the significance criteria used by the National Park Service
establish a measure of utility. They determine if a property has some sort of
useful function in terms of our understanding or appreciation of the past or
in terms of maintaining the quality of our existing environment or for our

48
Along the same lines, Schwarzer writes:
Along with an expanded universe of buildings and districts taken on by
preservationists, emerged an expanded preservation methodology: The
Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation and
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Since they were first published in
1966, the Guidelines have served as a set of rigid principles and as a
forum for debate on preservation, restoration, historic character and
new designs and additions to historic structures and districts. (1994, 6)
Experience gained in the administration of the National Historic
Preservation Act by the National Park Service, State Historic Preservation
Officers (SHPOs) and local level administrators has resulted in the
development of a new perspective as to what constitutes the nation's
heritage. This has included the development of an awareness of ethnic and
cultural diversities, a recognition of local history, acknowledgement of
vernacular architecture and cultural landscapes and an exploration of non-
traditional sources of information such as post card scenes, restaurant
placemats and/or corporate advertising materials. These changes are more
the result of a maturing of architectural history than the creation of a new
field of endeavor. While during the 1960s few people carried out a serious
study of American architecture, by the 1990s, hundreds were involved. Many
of these men and women have academic affiliations; many more are
involved in the teaching and study of historic preservation (Longstreth, 1991,
14).

2
an independent American nationality and an equally powerful struggle
to overcome feelings of separation from British tradition. . [It]
concentrated on architecture associated with the revolutionary era and
neo-English institutions of democracy. (1994, 3)
These early efforts were often controlled by wealthy private
citizens and societies and, generally, appealed to the political patriotism of
upper classes.
Preservation allows for an individual understanding of what has gone
on before. An accurate understanding can only be reached by assembling a
rational and unbiased sample of data about the past and by making that data
available to the public. This approach to preservation is the usual approach
in the United States. It is, for the most part, a phenomenon of the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries. Despite this systematic method, many aspects of
preservation encourage value judgements and allow personal preferences to
impact not only what we preserve, but how we preserve it. Value
judgements impact the entire spectrum of preservation activities. Bias often
takes the form of overemphasizing certain recognized styles or forms and
preserving the past in terms of the positive. In an attempt to avoid bias, some
state historic preservation officers adhere to an unofficial policy of selecting
only one or two of the "best" examples. This thinking excludes most of the
built environment and favors resources that are rare, unconventional, or
exotic over those deemed commonplace (Longstreth, 1994, 41). Any selective

CHAPTER 6
THE NEED FOR INCLUSION OF THE RECENT PAST
True historic preservation is objective in its attitude. That is, it regards
all periods and styles as inherently equal for learning about our past. .
. Historic preservation admits that it is as important to preserve 20th
century Eclectic and 19th century neo-Gothic as 18th century Georgian,
or Federal, or Classic Revival.
David Poinsett
In America, we preserve historic resources for several reasons. We
preserve because historic resources are all that we have to physically link us
with our past. Historic resources are part of us. They tell us not only who we
are but how we differ from those around us and they help us preserve that
uniqueness. Some believe that historic resources should be valued as art and,
as a result, hold on to them in an effort to keep America beautiful. We
preserve because historic resources fill social needs. In short, we preserve to
fill educational, recreational and inspirational needs and as a means of giving
historically and architecturally valuable sites and buildings viable economic
uses (Poinsett, 1983, 60). The problem, as Daniel Bluestone points out is that:
In valuing certain buildings, preservation devalues others. Carried to
the extreme, this process of devaluation leads to destruction and fosters
a historical landscape that increasingly conforms to and confirms the
privileged narrative. (1994, 210)
80

Ill
CONSTRUCTION
construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling
1.notable example material yes no
Justification
2.unique/rare example material unique rare
Justification
3.early example material yes no
date
average date of other buldings of same type
Justification
4.notable example method of construction yes no
J ustif ication
5.unique/rare example method of construction unique rare
Justification
6.early example method of construction yes no
date
average date of other buldings of same type
Justification
Figure B. Typical Qualitative Rating Form

CHAPTER 9
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
As with any research project, while one sets out to find answers, often
more questions are raised than solutions found. That has been the case with
this dissertation. The evaluation system proposed here is only part of the
first step. To complete the step, William Murtagh's comment "good as an
academic exercise, but does not address the political or personal realities" of
implementation must be addressed. To do so will require more work on and
field testing of the evaluation forms. For instance, at times the quantitative
values seem unwieldy, but uniformly lowering them created other more
serious problems. One reader expressed a desire to see the forms simplified;
they have been somewhat, but there may be ways to accomplish more.
Archaeologists should be consulted and criterion D subdivided with forms
developed in a manner consistent with those designed for Criteria A, B and C.
There is room for a deeper philosophical investigation of positivism
and empiricism as they relate to significance and the National Register
criteria. Several articles have been written concerning problems found in the
field of archaeology, but only one was located on significance and historic
preservation. Additionally, a comprehensive study on the views of Hegel,
117

47
neighborhood and as representative of changing cultural values and
approaches to the living environment.
The National Historic Preservation Act continued to undergo changes.
The 1966 law as amended in 1976 and implemented by Executive Order 11593:
1) expressed federal concern for the future of historic properties
and gave each federal agency a positive responsibility to identify them,
protect them and consult with the advisory council in doing so;
2) established a basis for comprehensive programs of historic
preservation and interagency coordination within the Department of
the Interior
3) committed the federal government to developing a National
Register of the nation's historic properties
4) established an infrastructure for historic preservation
including the Department of the Interior, the advisory council and
state historic preservation programs with a complex set of structural
interlocks and checks and balances
5) required each state to conduct a survey and implement a plan
for historic preservation and establish complementary responsibilities
for federal agencies. (King, 1977, 47)
During the 1970s and 1980s, preservation efforts shifted from an emphasis on
individual buildings to a greater recognition of the role of historic districts.
William Murtagh writes:
A major reason for this: when asked, I always encouraged states to
submit a nomination for a district since they could get as much
protection for many buildings with one nomination as they could for
one building at a time. I was much more cost effective time wise and
encouraged the charge to look at things of local importance. (Personal
Communication, March, 1996).

6
Keeper of the National Register, and Beth Savage have written that the
average time lapse prior to a "modern" building being listed is slightly more
than thirty years (1995, II-3). There does not appear to be a pattern as to one
particular type of structure or site being accepted to the National Register
faster than another. Saarinen's Dulles Airport Terminal was "instantly
regarded as a preeminently important building by the architectural
community" (Shull, 1995, 11-10) but not accepted for listing on the National
Register for eighteen years, and then only because it was threatened. The
Texas School Book Depository building from where Lee Harvey Oswald
allegedly shot President John F. Kennedy was not listed until October of 1993,
almost thirty years after the assassination, but Launch Complex 39 at the
Kennedy Space Center was listed in 1973, not quite four years after the Apollo
11 launch carrying Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin and Michael Collins on the
first manned mission to the moon. One of the latest construction dates listed
for a building on the National Register is the 1963-64 construction date of the
Whitney Museum. Like Dulles, the Whitney was listed on the Register only
after being threatened.
History is not fixed, nor is it finite. Similarly, Perkins writes of
architecture:
Architecture, as in the case with all art is a continuum. It does not
develop in a straight line toward an ideal. Instead each successive
group of ideas is based in part on those ideas which have preceded it.
No period -- old or new should be excluded from this continuum.
(1981,110)

179
Striner, Richard. (1993.) Information: Number 69. Washington D. C:
National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Striner, Richard. (1995). Scholarship, strategy, and activism in preserving the
recent past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving
recent past. Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education
Foundation.
Summerson, Sir John. (1983). Ruskin, Morris, and the "Anti Scrape"
philosophy. In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank
B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? what? how?
New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Tainter, Joseph A, and G. John Lucas. (1983). Epistemology of the significance
concept. American Antiquity. 48, 707-719.
Test of time award. (1987). Florida Architect. 34, 35.
Tomlan, Michael. (1994, May). Historic preservation education: Alongside
architecture in academia, journal for Architectural Education. 47, 187-
196.
Trebbi, Ronald G. (1989). Gulfcoast regionalist architecture: The Sarasota
school revisited. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Troup, F. W. and Harry Redfern. (1908, June 6). The late J. J. Stevenson, FSA.
Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects. 15, 482-483.
Uguccioni, Ellen J. (1995). The bias of culture: when does a community come
of age? In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the
recent past. Washington D. C.: Historic Preservation Education
Foundation.
United States Conference of Mayors (1966). With heritage so rich. New York:
Random House.
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Massachusetts Department of community Affairs. (1983). A future
from the past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving
the recent past. Washington D. C.: Historic Preservation Education
Foundation.

49
The scope of preservation continues to expand today, primarily in two
general areas: the scale and the type of resources being preserved. The scale of
resources has increased dramatically, from individual buildings to historic
districts, heritage corridors and cultural landscapes. The type of resources
considered is no longer limited to recognized examples of high style but now
includes resources as varied as vernacular landscapes and buildings to
industrial complexes and cultural landscapes of every description.

41
The first program leading to a degree in historic preservation was
offered at Columbia University by James Fitch in 1973. Fitch was an
architectural critic and editor who had organized the school's certificate
awarding program in the mid-nineteen sixties (William J. Murtagh, Personal
Communication, March, 1996). By 1976 at least seventy institutions
throughout the country were offering courses in historic preservation.
During this time preservation became a separate discipline differentiated by
standards that would accommodate its interdisciplinary nature yet promote a
sense of identity (Tomlan, 1994, 187). Not until the mid 1980s was
preservation recognized as a distinct profession. William Murtagh "strongly
disagree[s] with this assertion." He believes it negates, for example, many
training programs, mostly through the National Trust, Colonial
Williamsburg and other institutions going back to the 1950s (William J.
Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996).
The 1966 NHPA was a benchmark because it laid the groundwork for
legally protecting places that stood in the path of change and placed
architectural value on the same level as historical and archaeological values.
The law also created major changes in the way preservation was carried out
in the United States. Prior to the passage of the NHPA, the National Trust
and the American Institute of Architects were two of the very few private
sector voices for the preservation movement at the national level. The
Department of the Interior served primarily as custodian of hundreds of

83
Modern Movement buildings, stimulate interest in the Modern Movement
and create a register of significant buildings from the Modern Movement.
The dominant view of the group was that the cultural importance of
Modernist buildings, however utilitarian, meant they must be conserved in
the same sense as buildings from other periods (Fraser, 1990, 76). A United
States chapter of DoCoMoMo was founded in 1995.
The International Council of Monuments and Sites' (ICOMOS) World
Heritage List requires that a resource be at least twenty-five years of age to be
considered for listing, one-half the time preferred by our National Park
Service. In July of 1995, ICOMOS, along with the United Nations Economic
Security Council's (UNESCO) World Heritage Center and the International
Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural
Properties (ICCROM), sponsored a seminar on twentieth century heritage.
Discussions dealt with how to identify twentieth century properties that could
potentially be included on the World Heritage List, including the
identification and protection of twentieth century sites and whether different
criteria were needed to accurately assess these structures. They determined, in
part, that better historic analysis, via objective thematic and monographic
studies is needed to avoid reliance on traditional historical interpretation. In
attention should be paid to the full spectrum of the heritage of the entire
century . ." (see Appendix C).

158
8. early example mechanical system yes no
date
average date of other systems of same type
justification

42
historical sites overseen by the National Park Service. The 1966 law made the
NPS a leading player in public historic preservation activities at the federal
level, and, because of the decision of the Secretary of the Interior to
decentralize his new responsibilities, at the state level (William J. Murtagh,
Personal Communication, March, 1996). In addition, the act created an
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with the authority to mediate
among Federal agencies and advise Congress on policy. In short, the
National Trust continues to provide leadership and act as spokesman for
private efforts in preservation.
A task force was established by the National Park Service to develop
and establish criteria necessary to implement the new law. The chair of this
implementation task force was Robert Utley. Its most prominent member, in
reality, was a gentleman who did not physically occupy a seat on the
committee. Ronald F. Lee, Chief Historian of the National Park Service,
according to William Murtagh, was the type of person who did not really care
where credit for implementing the NHPA was given as long as the law was
implemented in an efficient and productive manner (Personal
Communication, February 6, 1996). Lee acted as confidant and advisor to
several members of the committee. He believed the role of the National
Trust should be one of a fast acting organization capable of saving endangered
properties in a manner quicker than the bureaucratic regimen of the

57
rooted in memory or imagination. The two are interrelated in that every
simple idea is a correspondent to or faded copy of a simple impression.
Positivism presupposes that the logical syntax of language is not
subject to historical changes because all languages have the same logical
syntax. Its basic concept is that any expression in any language can be
classified into one of three categories; theoretical terms, observation terms,
and logical constants. Theoretical terms are considered to be self-explanatory.
Observation terms are those whose meanings can be grasped through simple,
direct perception. Color words (i.e. red, blue, etc.) are the paradigms of
observation terms. Logical constants are words like "and" and "some" (Fain,
1970, 251). Both empiricists and positivists prefer to describe the world using
language based solely on observational terms and logical constants.
Positivism presupposes that the connection between cause and effect is
known only by experience and never a priori. Inferences as to cause and effect
relations are based solely on an expectation of certain specific events. This
expectation is rooted in habit. Direct observation teaches us that certain
events are associated, but that this association does not imply a mandatory
connection. In its simplest form, positivism states that, except for knowledge
of logical and mathematical systems, science provides the model for the only
kind of knowledge we can attain. All that we know of reality is what we can
observe or can legitimately deduce from what we observe (Charlton, 1959, 5).

145
EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPE ACCORDING TO QUALITY
OF DESIGN
design attributes including massing, proportion, scale, layout (composition),
materials, detailing (craftsmanship), color, texture, fenestration, ornamentation
(details/ornament), or artwork (artistic merit)
1.artistic merit 10 8 4 2 0
Justification
2.composition 10 8 4 2 0
Justification
3.craftsmanship 10 8 4 2 0
Justification
4.details/ornament 10 8 4 2 0
Justification
5.uniqueness/rarity 10 5
Justification
6.design recognized/published locally 2 10
Justification
7. design recognized/published regionally
Justification
5
2
0

75
If one accepts custodianship as the guiding philosophy behind
preservation, then architecture from the recent past must be considered for
protection. Unfortunately, for many people it is easier to deal with the
remote past. They feel the remote past does not pose a threat to the present
whereas the recent past does. From a preservation perspective, buildings
from the remote past will always be considered important. They will always
be older, always be more limited in number and always establish the
groundwork for today's architectural preferences. They also serve as tools
which, when studied, can be used to establish settlement, social, architectural
and/or cultural patterns. However, the fact that seventeenth century
buildings are more scarce in the United States than early twentieth century
office buildings does not make them intrinsically more significant from a
historical perspective (Longstreth, 1991, 17). The problem is especially bad in
the eastern United States where "feelings still run strong against most -- or
even all -- of the 20th century; in some extreme cases, the significance of
anything realized after the mid-19th century is summarily dismissed"
(Longstreth, 1994, 43).
As stated earlier, there is an inverse relationship between the rate of
change and the time it takes for something to be considered historic. The
greater the gap, the less the sense of continuity and, as a result, a sense of
place.

56
Positivist Thought
The positivist view is that phenomena do not have inherent or
primary characteristics but are assigned meaning by the human mind. As
such, meanings assigned may vary from person to person. In general,
positivism is the collection of prohibitions concerning human knowledge
intended to confine the name of "knowledge" to those operations which are
observable in the evolution of the modern sciences of nature (Kolakowski,
1968, 9). The antecedents of positivist thought can be traced to antiquity.
Ancient thinkers believed that experience enables us to ascertain whether a
given object has this or that appearance, but that it is illegitimate to go on to
infer that the object is in reality such as it appears to be (Kolakowski, 1968, 11).
Medieval thought gave expression to the fundamental ideas of positivism
which aim at establishing rules of meaningful knowledge and confine it to
analytical statements or matter of fact observations (Kolakowski, 1968, 17).
As with empiricism, David Hume plays an important role in establishing
English beliefs toward the subject and is widely known as the "Father of
Positivist Philosophy" (Kolakowski, 1968, 38). Hume believed that perception
was divided into two distinct classes, impressions and ideas. Impressions are
immediately experienced contents while ideas are less lively perceptions,

162
Represents an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction (District)
1. building is visually prominent yes no
Justification
2. building part of a notable group yes no
Justification
3. building part of a contiguous group yes no
Justification
4. maintains individual character yes no
Justification
5. site/landscape directly related to building's
style, design or history yes no
Justification
6. site/landscape part of historical relationship yes no
Justification
7. present use is compatible yes no
Justification

30
archive of historie architecture, similar to those in Europe, while putting
unemployed architects and draftsmen to work. When initiated by Franklin
Delano Roosevelt in 1934, the project was designed to employ one thousand
architects for a total of six months. Responsibility for the project was divided
among the National Park Service, the American Institute of Architects (AIA)
and the Library of Congress. The NPS oversaw the administered surveys and
conducted fieldwork based on advise from the AIA, who also provided
personnel. The Library of Congress received the records and arranged the
collection of materials for public use. The project proved to be useful, and in
1935, local chapters of the AIA, along with the National Park Service and the
Library of Congress, created a new funding source. With the creation of
Historic American Building Survey, the federal government began to show
an interest in historic buildings, regardless of ownership.
The goal of HABS was to record data regarding American architecture.
HABS did not acquire or take an active role in the physical preservation of
historic resources. The project became an important training ground for
preservationists within the federal system and provided a means for the
introduction of preservation into various projects overseen by the National
Park Service. HABS remained in operation until the outbreak of World War
Two, at which time the program had documented a total of 6,389 resources. It
was revived in 1957 as a summer program for students and remains such
today.

139
Criterion C
(districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that
represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction
EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE ACCORDING TO STYLE
style means of expressing visual elements such as form, materials and ornamentation
that are characteristic of a particular age, architectural movement/philosophy or
developmental period
1. notable example of a particular architectural type according to style
2. unique/rare example of a particular architectural type according to style
3. early example of a particular architectural type according to style
Early" is defined as dating earlier than or within five years of appearing in other buildings of
the same type.
evaluation of type according to style requires the following:
an understanding of the style's origin
an understanding of the style's characteristics
an understanding of the style's developmental history in the area/region
an understanding of the relative merit of a building's stylistic elements in comparison
to buildings of similar style in the area, region, or nation

141
EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE
ACCORDING TO STYLE
style means of expressing visual elements such as form, materials and
ornamentation that are characteristic of a particular age or developmental
period
1.notable example 5 0
justification
2.unique/rare 10 5
Justification
3.early example 5 0
date
average date of other buldings of same type
Justification

160
8. early example mechanical system 5 0
date
average date of other systems of same type
Justification

70
our predecessors of past ages. That the very quality of age affects our
evaluation of the heritage is commonplace but not necessarily logical.
(Faulkner, 1978, 452)
Historic value is based on a consensus among people as to "lasting
worth" (Shull, 1995, 11-11). The Federal government does not dictate when a
place becomes historic. Rather, it recognizes historicity through a listing on
the National Register of Historic Places. It is possible that factors listed as
necessary for a building to qualify for listing on the Register under criteria A
through D can be present at the time of its completion. In fact, each year,
some building designs receive international acclaim upon their completion,
if not sooner. Longstreth argues:
. . the continued use of separate -- albeit ostensibly equal -- categories
of 'architectural' and 'historical' significance [makes it appear] as if
architecture has no past and history no physical dimension. Such a
division may have been justified in the mid-1960s, given the then
prevailing views of the past; however, it now seems both trivializing
and archaic in light of the changes that have occurred in historical
related disciplines over the last three decades. Architectural history,
cultural anthropology, cultural geography, folklore, historic
archaeology, social history and urban history, among other fields have
contributed to a more holistic approach. (1994, 43)
It has been argued that the fifty-year requirement is justified on the
basis that a distance of time is necessary for the objective evaluation of
buildings and places and that preservation efforts need to be based on more
than current taste (Mortin, 1987, 173). A fifty-year time span allows not only
academic evaluation of an historic site but also allows for healing, for

159
INTERIOR (if required)
1.important/identifiable 10 0
Justification
2.relationship 5 0
Justification
3.architectural features 10 0
Justification
framed roof 5 0
Justification
5.unique/rare example structural system 10 5
Justification
6.early example structural system 5 0
date
average date of other systems of same type
Justification
7.unique/rare example mechanical system 10 5
Justification

20
techniques of the past. Morris was already a leader in the Arts and Crafts
Movement when he became interested in preservation. It was William
Morris who was responsible for founding the Society for the Protection of
Ancient Buildings (SPAB) in 1877. Most members of the society were anti-
restorationists. He wrote:
It has been most truly said . that these old buildings do not belong
to us only; that they have belonged to our forefathers and they will
belong to our descendants unless we play them false. They are not in
any sense our property, to do as we like with. We are only trustees for
those who come after us. (Boulting, 1976, 16)
During his time, Philip Speakman Webb (1831 1915) was considered
to be one of England's greatest architects during the late Victorian English
domestic revival period. He knew William Morris and, for a period, worked
with Morris designing furniture. Webb is known for his assimilation of
medieval and classical vernacular elements into his building designs. He
preferred that his architecture express "an absence of style" (Gebhard, 1982,
383). Webb is significant in preservation as a co-founder of the Society for the
Protection of Ancient Buildings. Today, his fame is largely the result of his
friendship with Morris.
William Richard Lethaby (1857 1931) built very little but was highly
influential as a teacher and writer. He founded the Modern Architecture
Constructive Group which defined architecture as "a developing structural
art satisfying the requirements of the time by experiment" (Rubens, 1982, 693).

91
would make a clear statement that they both understand and appreciate the
built environment from all of our past.

APPENDIX C
ICOMOS Seminar on 20th-Century Heritage, June 18-19, 1995
General Recommendations
1. It is noted that the 20th -century heritage should not be defined only
with reference to its architectural forms, but taking into account the broad
ecological, social, anthropological, economic and cultural framework which
forms the whole. There is a need to stress the importance of memory over
consideration of materials.
2. The established principles of conservation are a valid basis for the
safeguarding and care of the recent heritage.
3. While some of the heritage of the 20th-century has particular
characteristics that differentiate it from earlier constructions, it results
substantially from the community of heritage. Its identification and
inventory need to be updated on a regular basis. Attention is required to all
types and even modest examples of such heritage, and in particular to urban
and rural ensembles, housing schemes, and industrial heritage.
4. Systematic documentation of the 20th-century heritage in all its
dimensions and in relation to its context is necessary. Such documentation
should take into account the potential offered by new recording methods.
5. Due attention should be paid to the full spectrum of the heritage of
the entire century, including buildings and ensembles built in new
technologies as well as those using traditional building materials and
structural forms.
6. It was recognized that the life cycles of man-made environments are
mainly based on economic and functional considerations, and require critical
choices to guide the process of selection of cultural properties that merit
protection.
7. Considering the international character of much of the 20th-century
heritage, networking and joint efforts are of particular importance. Such
164

102
criterion: architecture into style, construction, age, architect, design and
interior; history into person, event and patterns; environment into
continuity, setting and landmark; and integrity into alterations. Each
subdivision was accompanied by a brief descriptive statement; for instance,
style was described as significance as an example of a particular architectural
style, type, or convention and design: architectural quality of composition,
detailing, and ornament measured, in part in originality, quality as urban
architecture, craftsmanship and uniqueness. Total points for each of the four
categories varied with design worth twenty-five and construction worth
twelve. Ratings and numbers were kept separately. Once a composite score
was calculated, buildings were placed into one of four categories. Placement
in either of the top two categories meant eligibility to the National Register,
placement in the third meant the building had contextual value and
placement in the fourth meant the building was of minor or no importance.
Results were reviewed by three outside reviewers.
With a relatively small area, ("downtown") to deal with, it is
surprising that the criteria are as vague as they are. With the exception of age
(before 1906 and after 1906) there appears to be no tailoring specific to the area.
Buildings with exceptional interiors but altered exteriors were not considered.
The result of the process was a classification of sites with those in A and B
definitely being preserved, those in C only preserved if part of a district within

31
The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) also helped with preservation
efforts during the depression. Among their early efforts were the creation of
the Colonial National Historical Park at Yorktown, Virginia, and the
Morristown National Historical Park in Morristown, New Jersey.
In 1935 the nation's preservation efforts were recognized legally with
the passage of the Historic Sites Act. This act established a national policy of
preservation for public use historic sites, buildings and objects of national
significance. It stressed documentation and the development of educational
programs and empowered the Secretary of the Interior via the National Park
Service "to collect historical data, survey historical buildings and sites, make
investigations, accept gifts and bequests, contract with individuals or local
governments to protect important property and restore properties of national
significance" (Preservation Technology Class Notes, Herschel Shepard,
Instructor, Fall, 1994). The Historic Sites Act asserted for the first time a broad
federal concern for historic properties. It created an Advisory Board on
National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings and Monuments and authorized the
establishment of a technical advisory committee. Preservation efforts,
however, were still largely centered on sites that predated the Civil War. It
further specified the Department of the Interior's central role in federal
preservation efforts and authorized the perpetuation of projects similar to
HABS. In addition, the act made it easier for the government to acquire
nonfederal properties of historic importance and established an historic sites

142
Criterion C
(districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent
the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinction
EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPE ACCORDING
TO QUALITY OF DESIGN
design attributes including massing, proportion, scale, layout
(composition), materials, detailing (craftsmanship), color, texture,
fenestration, ornamentation (details/ornament), or art work (artistic merit)
1. important because of the excellence of its artistic merit
2. important because of its composition
3. important because of its craftsmanship
4. important because of its details/ornament
5. important because of its uniqueness/rarity
6. design recognized/published locally
7. design recognized/published regionally
8. design recognized/published nationally
9. design recognized/published internationally
10. design award winning regionally
11. design award winning nationally
**NOTE** When evaluating the building's/structure's interior spaces is
appropriate, "Interior" ratings one, two and three should be completed.

171
Gebhard, David. (1982). Webb, Philip S. In Adolf K. Placzek, (Ed.), MacMillan
encyclopedia of architects, vol. 4. New York: The Free Press.
Glass, James Arthur. (1987, August). The national historic preservation
program. 1957 1969. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.
Glass, James A. (1990). The beginnings of a new national historic
preservation program. 1957 1969. Washington D. C.: American
Association for State and Local History.
Glassow, Michael E. (1977). Issues in evaluating the significance of
archaeological resources. American Antiquity. 42, 413-420.
Goff, Lisa. (1988, October). John Hancock controversy. Progressive
Architecture. 69, 31.
Goldberg, Bertrand. (1995). Preserving a recent past. In Deborah Slatin and
Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C.:
Historic Preservation Education Foundation.
Gordon, Alastair. (1992, July). Restoration: Back to the future. Interiors. 151,
22-24.
Gowans, Alan. (1965, October). Preservation. Tournal of the Society of
Architectural Historians. 24, 252-253.
Grady, Mark. (1977). Significance evaluation and the Orme Reservoir project.
In Michael B. Schiffer and George Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation
archaeology: A guide for cultural resource management studies. New
Greer, Nora Richter. (1991, March). Preserving preservation. Architectural
Record. 179, 88-89.
Guralnik, David B. (1970). Webster's new world dictionary of the American
language: Second college edition. New York: The World Publishing
Company.
Hall, Gregory Alan. (1986). Rebuilding Tara: Translation of the plantation
myth into architectural space. Unpublished master's thesis, University
of Florida, Gainesville.

CHAPTER 8
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED EVALUATION SYSTEM
The point-based system developed here is an amalgam of Kalman's
The Evaluation of Historic Buildings and those systems reviewed by the
author in current use today. Model forms can be found in Appendix B.
While the forms presented have been field-tested, further testing may result
in some changes. The criteria for evaluation are rooted in the criteria of the
National Register, however the breakdown of the criteria is original. In
addition, points suggested were based on Kalman's writings but ultimately
developed by the author. With both the criteria breakdown and suggested
points work started with Kalman. From this point, additions, deletions and
changes were based on the point-based plans reviewed. The plans were
reviewd chronologically from their date of development based on the belief
knowledge gained from older existing plans. Further changes were based on
the author's ideas and suggestions made in the various writings reviewd in
the literature search.
Any evaluation system must be relate to the specific community or
area in question while simultaneously meeting criteria standards established
106

96
In each case, all analysis needs to be completed prior to any evaluation
and evaluation must form the basis of selection. This is the key process: a
reasoned evaluation tells future generations that we have fairly considered to
each item and valued it sufficiently highly in the context of our historical
inheritance to be worthy of preservation (Faulkner, 1978, 473).
Evaluation systems are successful if properly and carefully designed
with strict protection and usable incentives. They must provide property
owners both flexibility and encouragement if they are to promote the
preservation and rehabilitation of buildings. Faulkner points out that
Our inheritance is so vast and so varied that we must select as the
legacy we pass on to our successors only those parts that have a
definable significance in historic terms. Not only must we select but, as
an essential part of that legacy, we must justify to our heirs our
selection in some permanent form other than the objects we preserve.
(1978,475)
One way of accomplishing this is by expanding our graphic record. In
addition, a graphic record may be used to record those buildings or remains of
comparatively minor value to our heritage and, secondly, as the sole means
we have at our disposal to preserve the detailed form of individual elements,
such as mouldings, etc. whose decay we cannot prevent. In short, it should be
recognized that preservation does not necessarily mean physical preservation.
Dixon has proposed five guidelines for resource preservation in the
future. These are: the realization that all resources have potential

155
REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER
master notable/recognized architect, designer, engineer and or builder
1.identifiable contribution to the community 5 0
Justification
2.identifiable contribution to the state 10 0
Justification
3.identifiable contribution to the nation 20 0
Justification

151
CONSTRUCTION
construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling
1.notable example material yes no
Justification
2.unique/rare example material unique rare
Justification
3.early example material yes no
date
average date of other buldings of same type
Justification
4.notable example method of construction yes no
Justification
5.unique/rare example method of construction unique rare
Justification
6.early example method of construction yes no
date
average date of other buldings of same type
Justification

43
government would allow. In short, the National Trust should preserve its
role as a property stewardship organization. Furthermore, he believed that
the National Park Service must acknowledge the new emphasis in
preservation on historic architecture, aesthetic landmarks and urban
conservation (Glass, 1990, 28).
After several months of meetings the committee finally agreed on
criteria to be used to determine eligibility for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places. The criteria were written in such a way they could be
applied at local, state, regional and national levels throughout the country.
In addition to the threshold criteria of "integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling and association," there are four general
areas of consideration. These include resources
(a) that are associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our
past; or
(c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that
possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or,
(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information
important in prehistory or history. (Code of Federal Regulations 36,
1974,248)

163
Represents an identifable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction (District)
1. building is visually prominent 5 0
Justification
2. building part of a notable group 5 0
Justification
3. building part of a contiguous group 2 0
Justification
4. maintains individual character 10 0
Justification
5. site/landscape directly related to building's
style, design or history 10 0
Justification
6. site/landscape part of historical relationship 5 0
J ustification
7. present use is compatible 5 0
Justification

65
future environment. To meet the criteria, a property must arguably have at
least a potential role to play in maintaining the integrity of a community or
neighborhood or in maintaining a sense of place and cultural value or in the
enhancement of human knowledge. A property lacks significance when it
has no utility at all or when its role is already played by some other entity.
Conflicts over significance are complicated further if the resource in question
is strong in one area but questionable in another.
It can be argued that the criteria set forth by the National Park Service
for inclusion of a resource on the National Register of Historic Places are not
meaningful, because any fixed set of criteria that are broad enough to apply to
many cases are also too non-specific to provide a detailed rationale for
assessment of significance in particular cases. William Murtagh points out
that "this is why the states were asked to develop professional staffs -- to make
assessments of significance based on a local estimate first, before the [federal
government] agrees or not" (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Raab
questions whether the criteria establish significance at all (1977, 631). There is
a danger that at some point significance will be equated with placement on
the Register and placement on the Register will be equated with significance.
To avoid this, it may be better to simply state that sites do or do not meet
National Register criteria. Another suggestion is to put the burden of proof
on the federal government that a resource is not now and is not potentially

66
significant if the resource is not to receive protective management
consideration (Sharrock, 1979, 327).
A standard is valid if it is based on a solid understanding of the
problem at hand and designed so that all parties involved know exactly what
is expected of them. The significance concept fails the test. Tainter writes:
The concept of significance is illogical, unworkable and does not
entirely suit the purpose for which it was intended. It is illogical in
that, contrary to what is assumed by federal law and regulation,
cultural resources do not inherently possess or lack significance. It is
unworkable in that significance evaluations can be absolutely rigorous
only when all knowledgeable persons have been consulted about each
property in question. It does not entirely suit the purpose for which it
was intended in that it makes no provision for future achievement of
significance. (1983, 715)
The concepts of significant and exceptional are continuously
influenced by various factors including advancing scholarship, real and
perceived threats to historical properties and general public perception
(Savage, 1993, 25). This, along with advancements in the fields of
architectural history and preservation, lend support to the argument that the
time has come for a change in determining resources eligible for inclusion on
the National Register. The preservation of our historic heritage is possible if
we know and declare what we are attempting to preserve and why. This
cannot be done honestly unless we first analyze the significance of the
resource as part of that heritage and are satisfied that there will be a loss to
that heritage that will be irreplaceable if we do not preserve that significance.

8
that of our forebears. The greater the gap, the less a sense of continuity
there may be and the more the old stuff can seem foreign. (1991, 15)
Change and what is considered to be the past have an inverse
relationship. Consequently, the faster the rate of change, the shorter the time
it takes for something to be considered to be historic. Today, the rate of
change is occurring faster than ever before. Because of that, the National
Park Service needs to expand its definition of "historic" to include the recent
past. In short, it should simply apply the definition of "past" commonly
found in dictionaries. In doing so, the passage of a period of time would no
longer serve as a guideline. In conjunction, the Park Service, along with
other preservationists, needs to expand nationally recognized preservation
activities, including eliminating time as a guideline for listing resources on
the National Register of Historic Places.
Arrangement of Dissertation
The dissertation deals with philosophical arguments for the
preservation of the recent past. In doing so, the issue of the subjective term
"significance" and its relativity must be addressed. However, the focus here is
not to do an in depth study of significance. Instead, significance is viewed in
light of the role it plays in determining the eligibility of resources for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places. The emphasis is on the loss, both

CHAPTER 7
EVALUATING HISTORIC STRUCTURES
Overview
We are in no position to choose what we receive from the past ages as
our heritage. Our choice lies in how we value it and how we treat it.
P. A. Faulkner
Preservationists need to examine and analyze more carefully the
perspective and content of the historical narratives they preserve and
promote. Not only should a critical and analytical approach be applied to
issues of documentation, a systematic rationale for selection should be in
place as well. Work needs to take place to ensure that the system retains solid
perspective and, whenever possible, objectivity. It should be remembered,
however, that any evaluation is to some degree bound to be comparative and,
therefore, subjective. When nominating resources to the National Register
of Historic Places, preservationists along with local, state and national officials
and local community members should believe that the resource in question
will possess an enduring value for its historical association, appearance and
potential for information. The record depends on an arbitrary selection of the
93

40
program was begun at Columbia University. The fourth school to offer
classes in preservation was the University of Florida.
Florida's program was begun by Professor F. Blair Reeves in 1960. In
1958, Professor Reeves participated in a HABS summer program at Harper's
Ferry, West Virginia. The following year, students from the university also
became involved. Reeves then began allowing these students to earn credit
for the knowledge gained via their HABS summer experience by enrolling in
a special studies course and documenting historic structures near the
university's campus in Gainesville. This quickly lead to the establishment of
a preservation theory course. During the 1960s, architecture students at
Florida took preservation options based on the theory that specialization
within a profession was the best way to serve society (F. Blair Reeves,
Personal Communication, March 20, 1996). In 1971, the university's College
of Architecture began offering a four and two option with preservation as one
of the options in the two-year professional Master of Architecture degree.
This lead to the development of a sequence of programs including
museology, regional history with an emphasis on preservation in Florida
and, beginning in 1976, preservation law. Reeves further expanded the
university's preservation options in 1972 with the establishment of a nine
credit summer program on Nantucket Island. Originally known as the
Nantucket Institute, today the program exists as the Preservation Institute:
Nantucket.

24
Congress calling for the purchase of Mount Vernon by the federal
government and, in 1846, John A. Washington, on behalf of his mother Jane,
made an unsuccessful offer to sell Mount Vernon to the federal government
for $100,000. By 1851, the property had passed to John Washington and the asking price increased to$200,000. It was still privately owned in December of
1853 when Ann Pamela Cunningham appealed to the ladies of the South to
purchase and preserve Mount Vernon.
Miss Cunningham aided her fund raising appeals with articles such as
one which appeared in the Charleston, South Carolina, Charleston Mercury
signed by "A Southern Matron." It was directed to the "Ladies of the South"
Can you still be with closed souls and purses, while the world cries
'Shame on America,' and suffer Mount Vernon, with all its sacred
associations, to become, as is spoken of the probable, the seat of
manufacturers and manufactories? . Never! Forbid it, shades of the
On March 17, 1856, the Virginia legislature chartered the Mount
Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union, and offered to accept the title of the
Mount Vernon property but not to help raise the purchase money. In 1858,
the Ladies' Association successfully purchased Mount Vernon. The group
maintains ownership today.
The success of the Mount Vernon Ladies' Society was well publicized.
As a result, the Society was contacted by individuals hoping to replicate their

54
It is implied that the more "correct" a standard type is, the more knowledge
we will be able to glean from it. It is further implied that classification is itself
a primary method for gaining knowledge (Hill, 1972, 241). Variety is viewed
as deviation by a singular entity or, in the extreme, a small group.
In addition to dealing with types, the empiricist also relies on modes.
A mode is defined as "any standard concept or custom which governs the
behaviour of artisans of a community which they hand down from
generation to generation, and which may spread from community to
community" (Hill, 1972, 243). A. J. Ayer wrote in The Foundations of
Empiricist Knowledge that empiricism establishes: "An unambiguous
convention for the use of words that stands for modes of perception, freeing
us from the verbal problems that develop out of the ambiguous use of such
words in ordinary speech" (1968, 141).
English empiricists believed that the basis for a "true method of
discovery" rested on systematic thinking about what is experienced by the
senses as a result of close attention being paid to observational details (Fain,
1970, 23). The basic tenets of English empiricism were developed by David
Hume. Hume maintained that the mind, initially a blank slate, receives
impressions from the sense organs as a "passive mirror." Thus, properties of
the sense organs determine the nature of impressions (Chomsky, 1980, 288).
He believed that impressions and ideas are all that really exist. They are as
they appear and become known to us by consciousness. Hume further

4
The Conclusion of the Findings of the U. S. Conference of Mayors,
Special Committee on Historic Preservation" ends with this statement:
If we wish to have a future with greater meaning, we must concern
ourselves not only with historical highlights, but we must also be
concerned with the total heritage of the nation and all that is worth
preserving from our past as a living part of the present. (194)
The group clearly recognized the need for preserving our "total heritage." No
mention is made of a requirement that buildings be at least fifty years of age
and no room is allowed for bias. Preservationists have, to date, played a role
in encouraging academic disciplines to conduct a more holistic scrutiny of the
past and to move away from a purely textbook-oriented philosophy. This
enhanced understanding of the past is our most valuable and our most
vulnerable inheritance (Hiss, 1990, xxi). We need to continue to insist on an
integrative, interdisciplinary, holistic view of the past; one that gives equal
emphasis to all periods, phases, events and phenomena.
To achieve these objectives, preservationists need new tools and
techniques as well as an awareness of the complex forces that impact
communities, states, regions and the nation as a whole. In addition, today's
preservationists must remember that ultimately their efforts will not just
reflect the past, but will serve as a reflection of themselves and the present as
well. Preservation must be accepted as a natural course of action, designed to
protect valued qualities of landscapes that most people take for granted but

176
News: Endangered modern landmarks. (1992, November) Architecture. 81,
26-29.
Ochsner, Jeffrey Karl and Gail Lee Dubrow. (1994, May). Architecture and
historic preservation: Invigorating the dialogue. Tournal of
Architectural Education. 47,186.
Owings, Nathaniel A. (1970). Comment. In National Trust for Historic
Preservation (Ed.), Historic preservation today: Essays presented to the
seminar on preservation. Williamsburg. Virginia. September 8-11.
1963. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Pagliari, Pier Nicola. (1982). Raphael. Trans, by Shara Wasserman. In Adolf
K. Placzek (Ed.), MacMillan encyclopedia of architects, vol. 3. New
York: The Free Press.
Parker, Alan and Associates. (1986). Technical report: Heritage buildings and
landscape resources. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.
Perkins, Bradford. (1981, July). Preserving the landmarks of the modern
movement. Architectural Record. 169, 108-113.
Pevsner, Nikolaus. (1976). Scrape and anti-scrape. In Jane Fawcett (Ed.), The
future of the past. New York: Whitney Library of Design.
Plato. (1952). Phaedrus (W. C. Helmbold and W. G. Rabinowitz, Trans.)
Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill Company, Inc.
Poinsett, David. (1983). What is historic preservation? In Norman
Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings
in historic preservation: Why? what? how? New Brunswick: Center
for Urban Policy Research.
Preamble. (1983). In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B.
Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? what? how?
New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Preserving modernism. (1992, November). Architecture. 81, 61.
Price, Kingsley. (1988, Autumn). John Dewey's theory of art, experience and
nature: The horizons of feeling. British Tourna of Aesthetics. 28, 385-
387.

38
responsibility and he chose to decentralize the program (William J. Murtagh,
Personal Communication, March, 1996). Often overlooked is the Secretary's
requirement that each state develop a historic preservation plan to guide in
the preservation and use of a state's cultural resources. As part of this plan,
states are required to conduct systematic surveys. These surveys are to result
not only in nominations to the National Register but in other inventories of
cultural properties and in predictions about where such properties may exist.
The National Register of Historic Places can trace its roots back to 1937
and the creation of the National Survey of Historic Sites and Places as part if
the Historic Sites Act of 1935. Intended to help determine which historic and
archaeological sites possessed "exceptional national values" (Duerksen, 1983,
231), the survey was suspended during World War Two. It did not resume
operation until 1957. In 1960, the designation of National Historic
Landmarks from those properties surveyed was begun and named the
National Register of Historic Landmarks. The National Register of Historic
Places is a further expansion of these earlier programs. Nominations are no
longer limited to properties listed in the National Survey of Historic Sites
and Places and those determined to possess national significance.
Nominations of properties to the National Register may be made by any
interested party and include resources of local and state significance as well as
those of national importance.

CHAPTER 3
A CHANGE IN THE WAY OF DOING BUSINESS
THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966
In its best sense, preservation does not mean merely setting aside
thousands of buildings as museum pieces. It means retaining the
culturally valuable structures as useful objects ....
In 1966, the Special Committee on Historic Preservation of the United
States Conference of Mayors identified three changes they felt were necessary
if historic preservation were to be successful: a recognition of "the importance
of architecture, design and aesthetics as well as historical and cultural values,"
a need to look beyond individual buildings and landmarks to historically and
architecturally valued districts and the development of tax policies to
stimulate preservation efforts (Green, 1991, 88). On October 15,1966, Congress
found and declared
1) That the spirit and direction of the nation are founded upon
and reflected in its historic past;
2) That the historical and cultural foundations of the nation
should be preserved as a living part of our community life and
development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American
people;
36

114
CONSTRUCTION
construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling
1.notable example material 5 0
Justification
2.unique/rare example material 10 5
Justification
3.early example material 5 0
date
average date of other buldings of same type
Justification
4.notable example method of construction 5 0
Justification
5.unique/rare example method of construction 10 5
Justification
6.early example method of construction 5 0
date
average date of other buldings of same type
Justification
Figure C. Typical Quantitative Rating Form

51
A thing's significance (importance) lies in its being something
everyone can understand. -- That is both true and false. What makes a
subject hard to understand if it's something significant and
important is not that before you can understand it you need to be
specially trained in abstruse matters, but the contrast between
understanding the subject and what most people want to see. Because
of this the very things which are most obvious may become the hardest
of all to understand. What has to be overcome is a difficulty having to
do with the will rather than the intellect. (Wittgenstein, 1980, 17e)
Despite this, federal regulations mandate the division of historic
resources into those which are significant and those which are not. Those
resources determined to be significant are further divided into those which
are actually significant and those which have a reasonable potential to
become significant. A resource determined to be actually significant is one in
which types of significance are presently determinable. Because all resources
are potentially significant (in that we cannot predict what questions they may
answer in the future) the government requires there be a reasonable
expectation of significance. Potential significance is only mentioned in
criterion D, "[sites] that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information. .
. (Code of Federal Regulations 36,1974, 248).
Significance became an established criterion in historic preservation
during the first decades of the twentieth century as a means of identifying
resources that potentially have artistic, historic or associative merit.
The notion of significance as an essential characteristic of cultural
resources falls squarely within the empiricistpositivist tradition.
Significance, as applied to historic properties, was apparently meant to
be taken as a 'primitive' term, whose meaning the formulators of the

116
have come full circle as a strong sense of place leads directly back to an
increase in community involvement, interest and support. Ideally, the end
result is the preservation of both what ties the community/area to the state
and/or nation (i.e. courthouse squares, post offices, etc.) and what makes each
community/area unique (i.e. vernacular styles, cultural influences, etc.). To
many, this is the most important role of the preservation movement in the
United States today.

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of Paula Banes Twitchell,
who understood all too well the perils of failing to preserve the recent past, to
the memory of Edwin William Smith, my father, and to the memory of
Eleanor Asker York and Florence Cox Smith, my grandmothers.

the method proposed takes into account and documents the context of the
evaluator as well as the resource.
IX

138
EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE
ACCORDING TO USE
type associated with activities such as residential, industrial,
commercial or transport activity
1.notable example 5 0
J ustification
2.unique/rare 10 5
Justification
3.early example 5 0
date
average date of other buldings of same type
Justification

35
environment. This concept grew out of discussions at the White House
Conference on Natural Beauty held in Washington, D. C. in May, 1965, as was
the Mayor's Special Committee itself (William J. Murtagh, Personal
Communication, March, 1996).

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
SYSTEMIZING THE SEARCH FOR SIGNIFICANCE:
A POINT-BASED SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING ELIGIBILITY
ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
By
Patty Jo Smith Rice
May, 1996
Chairperson: R. Wayne Drummond
Co-chairperson: Herschel E. Shepard
Major Department: Architecture
Now there is an urgent need for experiment in criticism of a new kind
which will consist largely in a logical and dialectical study of the terms
used. ... In literary criticism we are constantly using terms which we
cannot define, and defining other things by them. We are constantly
using terms which have an intention and an extension which do not
quite fit; but if they cannot, then some other way must be found of
dealing with them so that we may know at every moment what we
mean.
T. S. Eliot
The National Park Service's insistence that historic resources be at least
fifty years of age to be considered for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places has resulted in the widespread alteration and destruction of
vi 1

34
preservation policy and provide federal funds to local programs engaged in
preserving areas of historic interest. Perhaps the most influential project
funded by a Federal Urban Renewal Demonstration Grant was the College
Hill Demonstration Project in Providence, Rhode Island. William Murtagh
points out "This was a one shot program and a documented first interest by
urban renewal that retention and rehabilitation might be an alternative to
demolition" (Personal Communication, March, 1996). The project was a
landmark in the evolution of American preservation procedures (Jacobs,
1970,112).
NPS actions during this time included support of state and local
inventories of historic properties, publication of survey lists, public hearings
on the value of threatened historic structures and requiring federal agencies
to take into account the effect of these projects on listed properties.
Unfortunately, Congressional proposals to strengthen the Historic Sites Act
were not successful. By the end of the 1950s, the preservation movement in
America was a large, complex enterprise involving not only the private
sector, but also aspects of federal, state and local governments. As such, it
lacked a central organization beyond that provided by the National Trust.
This would remain the case until 1966 when United States Conference of
Mayors' Special Committee on Historic Preservation emphasized the idea
that historic buildings were and are a part of the total modern environment
and stressed the need to preserve them in order to maintain a quality

37
3) That in the face of ever-increasing extensions of urban
centers, highways, and residential, commercial and industrial
developments, the present governmental and non-governmental
historic preservation programs and actions are inadequate to insure
future generations a genuine opportunity to appreciate and enjoy the
rich heritage of our nation; and,
4) That although the major burdens of historic preservation
have been borne and major efforts initiated by private agencies and
individuals and both should continue to play a vital role, it is
nevertheless necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to
accelerate its historic preservation programs and activities, to give
maximum encouragement to agencies and individuals undertaking
preservation by private means, and to assist State and local
governments and the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the
United States to expand and concentrate their historic preservation
programs and activities. (King et al, 1977, 205)
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) gave the National Park
Service the authority to undertake innovations of "immense potential" in its
preservation programs. It created the National Register of Historic Places to
"record the evidences of our national patrimony that merit preservation"
and to become the "national list of classified sites and buildings" and
provided an authoritative guide as to what should be "guarded against
destruction or impairment" (Glass, 1987, 282).
The act is best known for the National Register of Historic Places, its
creation of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the resultant
hiring of historic preservation officers in each state and territory. The NHPA
did not specifically provide for historic preservation officers. The creation of
these positions was an administrative decision by the Secretary of the Interior
after the NHPA was passed. Congress gave the Secretary of the Interior the

52
laws and regulations believed would be self-evident on the basis of
experience. . Cultural properties are seen as possessing or lacking
an inherent, immutable quality, significance, that gives rise to our
understanding of their importance. (Tainter, 1983, 712)
The view of significance as established in laws and regulations
pertaining to historic preservation reflects the influence of empiricist-
positivist intellectual tradition in America. Therefore, it is important to
understand the basis for both empiricist and positivist thought as well as
characteristics of each. Only then can this tradition be evaluated.
Empiricist Thought
The empiricist view subscribes to the metaphysical notion that
all phenomena (including historic resources) have meanings or significance
inherent in some sense within themselves. Empiricism is concerned with
the rhetoric of perception, with the point at which characterizations of
linguistic propriety and characterizations of sensory perception intersect,
providing a mutually defining relationship between language and image
(Law, 1993, ix). It is guided by the idea that observation provides a maximally
certain and conceptually irreversible foundation of empirical knowledge, a
foundation that supplies the basic premises of all reasoning and without
which there would not be any probable knowledge (Morick, 1980,16). Plato

SYSTEMIZING THE SEARCH FOR SIGNIFICANCE:
A POINT-BASED SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING ELIGIBILITY
ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
By
PATTY JO SMITH RICE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1996

132
(districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with events that have made an
identifiable contribution to the broad patterns of our history
SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS
1.identifiable contribution to the community 5
Justification
2.identifiable contribution to the state 15
J ustification
3.identifiable contribution to the nation 30
Justification
4.identifiable contribution to the world 40
Justification
SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS
5.directly associated with the resource 10
Justification
6.indirectly associated with the resource 5
J ustification

149
EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A PERIOD IN TIME
1. first half of the nineteenth century or before 50 0
date of constructuion
2. second half of the nineteenth century 20 0
date of construction
3. first half of the twentieth century 5 0
date of construction
4. second half of the twentieth century 0 0
date of construction

161
Criterion C
(districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent
the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinction
REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT AND DISTINGUISHABLE ENTITY WHOSE
COMPONENTS MAY LACK INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION (DISTRICT)
1. building is visually prominent in a group of buildings of similar style, type or age in
an area of compatible use
2. building is part of a notable group of buildings of similar style, type or age in an area
of compatible use
3. building is part of a contiguous group of similar style, type or age in an area of
compatible use
4. building maintains individual character despite being part of a group of buildings
with similar style, type or age in an area of compatible use
5. site/landscape comprised features which are directly related to building's style,
design or history
6. site/landscape part of historical relationship between site and street, railway,
waterfront, view or other geographic features which were part of the
building's original function or traditional urban environment
7. present use is compatible with current land use/zoning of the street, neighborhood, or
area

105
into anywhere from one to four subdivisions: history has three subdivisions:
persons, events and patterns; architecture has four: style, designer/contractor,
materials/construction/artistic quality and rarity. Environment, landscape
and environment have one subdivision each environment: environment;
landscape: landscape; and integrity: integrity. Each subdivision consists of
between two and four descriptive statements, each of which is rated
separately. Total points within each category range from one (landscape) to
sixteen (architecture). The final point thresholds have not yet been
established as the city is in the process of revising their Historic Protection Act
(Thayer Donham, Personal Communication, January 29, 1996).
Portland's evaluative process is regionally specific yet broad enough to
accommodate the unusual, non-indigenous site. The major question of the
process employed did not come from the literature, but via a conversation
with the Associate Planner. All evaluation is done in a closed room with the
evaluators viewing pre selected slides of the resources to be evaluated. It is
questionable whether this will allow neighborhood qualities to be as clear as if
one were actually at the site.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Patty Jo Smith Rice was born in Indianapolis, Indiana, but has been a
resident of Venice, Florida, since the age of nine. She received her
undergraduate degree in history from Texas Woman's University and her
master's degree in American studies from the University of South Florida.
The subject of her master's thesis was the architectual philosophy and design
of Ralph Spencer Twitchell, founder of the Sarasota School of Architecture.
181

3
creation of an official past is nothing more than another form of bias,
potentially as damaging as preserving no past at all.
In the same way, a preservation of the past represented only by sites
and buildings of a certain age is a subtle yet persuasive form of
discrimination. As Ada Louise Huxtable puts it: "You don't erase history to
get history" (1970, 223). At its most extreme, when no traces of past events
within a given time frame exist, the record of that time consists only of a
blank screen. Longstreth writes:
Age poses a further set of problems. In this realm, taste is shaped less
by aesthetic biases, perhaps, than by antiquarian ones. The older a
remnant of the past, the more preservationists tend to venerate it,
even though no historiographical method uses age alone as a measure
of significance. (43)
Because of the pervasiveness of age bias, it is often easier to gain support in
saving secondary examples of earlier eras than for major milestones from
more recent decades. Many people feel that a building less than twenty years
old is too young to be considered a landmark, regardless of its reputation
(Goff, 1988, 31). The public, however, sometimes unofficially declares a
building a landmark upon its completion. The one occasion most often
pointed to is Eero Saarinen's Dulles Airport Terminal Building in Chantilly,
Virginia. Other examples include Saarinen's TWA Terminal building in
New York, I. M. Pei's East Wing of the National Gallery of Art in Washington
D. C. and Louis Kahn's Salk Institute Building in La Jolla, California.

85
to encompass the entire spectrum of the community, state, region or nation
in question. Every effort must be made to avoid overt, subjective, critical
associations. In the same way that preservation activities include both
vernacular and formal resources, they should include both the recent and
remote.
The current listing process in the United States impacts resources
hardest within the first thirty years (Lee, 1994, 28). The ever accelerating pace
of technological change and the consequent larger scale of alterations to, or
destruction of, historically significant resources has become a widespread
concern of preservationists. No longer can it be said that neglect is often the
best preserver. Longstreth has voiced concern writing: "if we continue to
disregard so much that is all around us, we may waste far more than we
preserve and bestow upon future generations the difficult task of deciphering
the carcass" (1991, 21).
A case in point is Chicago where, as Daniel Bluestone writes: "a limited
historical view of the city's architecture supported only a modest preservation
program in what turned out to be the most destructive period in Chicago
since the 1871 fire" (1994, 210). He supports this statement by writing:
The narrow focus on the monuments of the so-called Chicago School
provided a basis for the cohesion of modernists and preservationists in
support of landmark preservation during the 1950s and 1960s. For
modernists, preserving the landmarks of the so-called Chicago School
fostered a narrative of Chicago history that reinforced contemporary
interest in modern urban renewal. Moreover, narrowly conceived
preservation simply did not pose a threat to the plans for a massive

79
Despite these problems, age alone should not be reason enough to
exclude buildings from the National Register. Nor should it be reason
enough to require exceptional" significance. Striner quotes Longstreth as
concluding that the issue is not when something becomes 'historic/ but
instead when an adequate historical perspective can be gained on a particular
kind of thing" (1995, 6). In Longstreth's words:
Political historians need not defend studying events of the Eisenhower
or Kennedy administrations. Military historians focus on the Korean
or Vietnamese wars just as they do earlier conflicts. An interpretive
approach imbued with a sense of historicity is assumed. No one
believes that a historian of the Third Reich is in business just to
criticize that regime any more than to defend or express nostalgia for it.
Exploring such realms is to a certain extent predicated on the demand
for understanding phenomena beyond what contemporary chronicles
can provide, which in turn brings persons to the fore who are capable
of meeting the challenge. (1991, 14)
William Murtagh writes:
Professionals in the field, with few exceptions like Longstreth, have
never taken the time to educate the public on the recent past or to
establish in the public mind much of a sense of concern for the recent
past, the preservation of which runs hard into the agendas of
developers and the real estate crowd's [financial gains]. They're the
ones which need to be educated about the recent past [in a manner
which does not let] them feel that everything they create deserves to be
preserved. (Personal Communication, March, 1996)

86
public and private rebuilding of the city. As renewal and preservation
proceeded, the historic city came to look increasingly like the Chicago
School narrative; the diversity of the city's nineteenth-century
architectural production was either destroyed or overlooked by those
who relied on architectural designations to gather their sense of
history. For those preservationists who were more concerned with
defining and defending a sense of place than with building the city
anew, the narrow vision of landmarks also held certain advantages.
The ascendancy of aesthetic preservation over a variety of associational
narratives encouraged preservationists in their belief that they could
locate the essence of the city and its history in a few representative
structures of the Chicago School. The absolute priority given to
aesthetic over associational landmarks in the 1950s and beyond further
restricted the use that citizens could make of history; their efforts to
forge a vital sense of neighborhood and community identity based in
part on history could only be frustrated by the aesthetic model. (1994,
221)
Bluestone's account shows that preservation is only as good or as useful as the
histories it values. What the passage does not mention, according to William
Murtagh, are the unseen political realities of preserving the recent past which
are blatantly present in the Chicago Loop area. Political reality becomes all the
more important if most of what is considered was built after World War Two
(Personal Communication, March, 1996). Writing history and preserving
buildings clearly reinforces particular histories while ignoring others. When
historians make errors in fact or interpretation, a record of ideas may be
corrected at a later time. Historic preservation, in dealing with history as it
was manifested in tangible materials, does not permit that luxury.
Preservationists work in a world in which the traces of histories that they
choose to ignore often disappear.

157
INTERIOR (if required)
1.important/identifiable yes no
Justification
2.relationship yes no
Justification
3.architectural features yes no
Justification
framed roof yes no
J ustif ication
5.unique/rare example structural system unique rare
Justification
6.early example structural system yes no
date
average date of other systems of same type
Justification
7.unique/rare example mechanical system unique rare
Justification

81
Along the same lines, Ada Louise Huxtable writes
A building that may no longer work well or pay its way may still be a
superb creative and cultural achievement. It may be the
irreproduceable record of the art and ideals of a master or an age. Its
concept, craft, materials, and details may be irreplaceable at any price .
. and there lies the conflict and the dilemma of preservation. (1970,
233)
William Murtagh believes that "In a society where age is justified by money,
creativity and aesthetic excellence become trivial in the developer's/realtor's
mind unless the development is based on historicity" (Personal
Communication, March, 1996).
Criterion C of the "new" preservation that came into being in 1966
made it clear that historic resources were to be preserved for architectural and
aesthetic as well as historic and patriotic values. The National Register of
Historic Places remains today, as it has been since 1966,
. . the pivot upon which historic preservation in the United States
turns. Properties that qualify for the Register are the subject matter of
historic preservation and they are eligible for preservation,
enhancement and salvage. If they do not qualify, they are not worth
worrying about. The bluntness of this pivot [remains] one of the major
sources for trouble for historic preservation. (King, 1977, 95)
The idea of extending current preservation philosophical rationale to include
the recent past dates to the beginning of the new preservation's
implementation and stems from our commitment to save our heritage
(Striner, 1993, 1). Respect should be given to all buildings which serve as good

32
survey to document "nationally significant properties" to be designated
National Historic Landmarks. Both HABS and the Historic Sites Survey
would remain active until the outbreak of World War Two. They were not
revived until 1957.
In 1946, preservation efforts, temporarily stalled by World War Two,
resumed with the creation of the National Council for Historic Sites and
Buildings. The Council was created from an informal confederation of
interested groups. Along with private support, the council was backed by the
National Park Service. The first meeting was held at the National Gallery of
Art. Out of this meeting was established the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, in 1949. The National Trust began receiving federal funds in
1966 when it was specifically included in the National Historic Preservation
Act. It was the only private preservation organization in the United States to
be so named (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996).
Among other things, the National Trust's charter stated its purpose was to
"provide for the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects,
and antiquities of national significance, and to facilitate public participation in
the preservation of sites, buildings, and objects of national significance or
interest" (Murtagh, 1988, 175). Thus, the Trust was chartered for the specific
purpose of receiving properties and property stewardship. The principal
office of the National Trust was to be in Washington, D.C. and the Board of
Trustees was to include both the Attorney General of the United States and

175
Lynott, Mark J. (1980). Cultural resource management: The dynamics of
significance: An example from central Texas. American Antiquity. 45,
117-120.
Lynch, Kevin. (1972). What time is this place? Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lynch, Michael F. (1991). What are we going to do with the recent past in the
not too distant future? APT Bulletin. XXIII, 6.
Lyon Elizabeth A. and Frederick C. Williamson. (1995). The preservation
movement rediscovers America. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A.
Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C.: Historic
Preservation Education Foundation.
Majorian. (1911). Encyclopedia Britannica: A dictionary of arts, sciences.
literature and general information. 11th edition, vol. 17. Cambridge:
University Press.
McDonough, Michael. (1985). Four architects in Sarasota, Florida 1920-1970.
Archives, Sarasota County Historical Association, Sarasota.
Morick, Harold. (1980). Introduction: The critique of contemporary
Empiricism. In Harold Molick, (Ed.), Challenges to empiricism.
Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Morris, Allen. (1985). The Florida Handbook: 1985-1986. Tallahassee:
Peninsular Publishing Co,
Morton, W. Brown. (1987). What do we preserve and why? In Robert E.
Stipe and Antoinette Lee (Eds.), The American mosaic: Preserving a
nation's heritage. Washington D. C.: The Preservation Press.
Murtagh, William J. (1988). Keeping time: The history and theory of
preservation in America. Pittstown: Main Street Press.
National Park Service, Interior. (1994, July 1). 36 Code of federal regulations.
Washington D. C.: Government Printing Office.
National Trust for Historic Preservation. (1983). With heritage so rich.
Washington D. C.: The Preservation Press.
Nelson, Lee. (1985, May 13). A methodology for identifying historic character.
AIA working paper. Unpublished raw data.

147
Criterion C
(districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent
the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinction
EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A PERIOD IN TIME
**NOTE** Time frames must be adjusted for each community. These should
be identified by identifiable periods in an area's past (i.e. First Spanish
Occupation, British Colonial, Revolutionary War Era, etc.) with associated
dates
1. demonstrative of sites developed/structures built in the area/region
during the first half of the nineteenth century or before
2. demonstrative of sites developed/structures built in the area/region
during the second half of the nineteenth century
3. demonstrative of sites developed/structures built in the area/region
during the first half of the twentieth century
4. demonstrative of sites developed /structures built in the area/region
during the second half of the twentieth century
**NOTE** these four categories are specific to the Sarasota, Florida area

134
(districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with the lives of persons, groups or
movements who have made an identifiable contrubution to our past
Person/Group/Movement (Name)
Person/Group/Movement (Type)
Period of Prominence
SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS
1.identifiable contribution to the community community
Justification
2.identifiable contribution to the state state
Justification
3.identifiable contribution to the nation nation
Justification
4.identifiable contribution to the world world
J ustification
SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS
5.directly associated with the resource direct
Justification
6.indirectly associated with the resource
Justification
indirect

76
Eighty percent of everything built in America has been constructed
since the end of World War Two (Goldberg, 1995, 1-12). Much of this
construction has taken place in suburbia, where over forty percent of all
Americans now live (Jackson, 1991, 7). In fact,
A much larger share of the past is recent. It was built or at least was
still new within living memory, the product of one's parents' or
grandparents' generations. Here the intrinsic worth lies in fostering a
sense of continuity, in striking a balance with change, in gaining
perspective on the present, in knowing that some of the things one
creates can have value over time. (Longstreth, 1994, 45)
By expanding our knowledge of the recent past, the temporal
boundaries between past and present come closer, thereby integrating
preservation more fully with everyday life (Jackson, 1991, 7). Unfortunately
this is not often the case. As a result, milestones of the Modern Movement
are often neglected, radically altered, or simply razed. Preserving resources
from the recent past recognizes that they, along with all other aspects of the
recent past, have become part of our history. Preservationists should not be
any more reluctant to evaluate a resource created within the last fifty years
than one created more that fifty years ago.
Within twenty years an entire stylistic grouping of resources can be
created and destroyed. Time obliterates -- often literally as easily as it
clarifies (Shiffer, 1995, 3). Resources created a generation ago can be evaluated
from a fresh perspective. Lynch writes that "a humane environment
commemorates recent events quickly" (1972, 61). Therefore, we should

73
Certainly, as Richard Longstreth points out
Not everything can be saved from the recent past any more than from
any other period. But there should be no tolerance for positing the
problems inherent to so much of preservation, irrespective of the
things involved and the periods they represent, as sufficient reason to
ignore work that is only a few decades old. (1991, 21)
Despite beliefs such as these, architecture from the recent past remains
low on the list of preservation priorities. Lack of education and/or bias has
led to the improper assumption that the modern movement rejected all
previous stylistic designs and that this rejection of the past is the source of
many of today's problems. Another incorrect assumption is that glass
curtained buildings are not worth preserving. However, as Ada Louise
Huxtable points out, "the 'glass box' is the most maligned building idea of our
time. It is also one of the best. Whatever its deficiencies, and there are many,
it is the genuine vernacular of the mid 20th century" (1970, 205). Most
modern architecture originally was intended to be a one-of-a-kind
architectural expression. Unadorned surfaces were preferred, not as a
rejection of the past, but in order to utilize materials, composition and
detailing as a means of design expression. A further example is what has
happened to America's main streets. While it was not unusual for traditional
mainstreets to survive one hundred to one hundred fifty years, those dating
from the 1940s and 1950s have, for the most part, been extensively altered or
destroyed.

130
Criterion A
(districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with events that
have made an identifiable contribution to the broad patterns of our history
Evaluators are to complete only one of the following four items. Selection
should be based on that item having the most widespread influence.
1. associated with an event that has made an identifiable contribution
to the community; or
2. associated with an event that has made an identifiable contribution
to the state; or
3. associated with an event that has made an identifiable contribution
to the nation; or
4. associated with an event that has made an identifiable contribution
to the world.
Evaluators are to complete only one of the following two items. Selection
should be based on that item most directly associated.
4. event directly associated with the resource; or
5. event indirectly associated with the resource.

by
Patty Jo Smith Rice

140
EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE
ACCORDING TO STYLE
style means of expressing visual elements such as form, materials and
ornamentation that are characteristic of a particular age or developmental
period
1.notable example yes no
Justification
2.unique/rare unique rare
Justification
3.early example yes no
date
average date of other buldings of same type
Justification

118
Wittgenstein, Derrida and other potentially relevant contemporary
philosophies as they relate to significance and, ultimately, National Register
criteria should be conducted. Only then can a better understanding be gained
regarding the associated epistemological concerns.
While the issue of integrity was mentioned briefly in the dissertation,
more in-depth study should be conducted into this threshold criterion.
Concern regarding integrity as it relates to moved structures, objects and
buildings is often mentioned and some communities have developed
programs that allow the protection of moved resources. There is, however,
no consistent approach or viewpoint. The rapid increase of the rate of change
will continue to make the issue of preserving moved resources a concern.
This is especially the case when the only way to save resources is to create an
artificial grouping in an historical park. The development and inclusion of
rating forms for the aspects of integrity similar to those presented here is an
option. Along the same lines, a suggestion was made to investigate the
possible re-definition of other current terminology as well.
Another unsolved issue deals with the preservation of resources
where the designer is still alive. The policy of the Keeper of the National
Register has always been to avoid listing these resources. However, with life
expectancies of people continually increasing and life expectancies of
resources continually decreasing, this may need to be readdressed. Richard
Longstreth suggests that if the representation of ideas and practices in the

by the National Park Service for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places. As the only factor unique to an area is that dealing with period of time
(age), this can be done by merely altering time frames and identifiable
chronological periods for the area at hand. With this in mind, the evaluation
system proposed here is with Sarasota, Florida, in mind. Sarasota is a
relatively new community. It has experienced two distinctive architectural
booms; the first lasting from c. 1925 1927 and identified by the preference for
Mediterranean Revival style homes, and c. 1948 c. 1962 identified by a design
type known as the "Sarasota School of Architecture" (see Appendix A for
All other criteria proposals are non-site specific. Knowledge of the
Sarasota School resulted in the development of two criteria dealing with
published and award winning designs, although these are applicable
anywhere in the country. Care must be taken when dealing with published
designs and an attempt made to determine who solicited publication.
107

84
In the United States, the American Institute of Architects annually
gives an award to a building at least twenty-five years of age believing it has
withstood, as the name of the award clearly states, the "test of time." It should
be noted that promotional materials state the objective of the award is
To recognize distinguished single works of architecture and planned
developments affecting more than one building, after a period of time
has elapsed in which the function, aesthetic statement and execution
can be reassessed
Preservation in the United States has always been dependent on
community support and recognition. Communities must understand that it
is best to preserve historic resources in context, although it is not always
possible. Every attempt should be made to allow historic resources to remain
part of the local community or neighborhood, as they have always been.
Preserving and protecting only the best or earliest will carry forth
neither the historic nor architectural character of a locale.
Preservation is in a sense a community act. It is as important as a
process as in its results, contributing to the mutual education of people
who see beauty and value in terms of the architecture or of a building's
place in the history of engineering, technology, or town planning, and
to those who simply know that buildings and places are meaningful in
terms of their own lives. (Hareven, 1981, 122)
Extending that thought, W. L. Rathje writes, "A community is preserved in
its full context only when both the self recorded picture and the material
realities picture are placed side by side" (1995,11-65). Preservation efforts need

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ABSTRACT vii
THE PROBLEM OF THE RECENT PAST 1
Overview 1
Arrangement of Dissertation 8
Methodology 10
PRESERVATION THROUGH THE AGES 14
Introduction 14
England 16
France 21
The United States 23
A CHANGE IN THE WAY OF DOING BUSINESS
THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 35
THE ENIGMA OF SIGNIFICANCE 50
Overview 50
Empiricist Thought 52
Positivist Thought 56
Empiricist-Positivist Thought 60
Assessing Significance 62
Significance and the Federal Government 63
THE QUESTION OF THE RECENT PAST 68
THE NEED FOR INCLUSION OF THE RECENT PAST 80
EVALUATING HISTORIC STRUCTURES 93
Overview 93
Current Preservation Plans Incorporating Recent Buildings 97
Point-based Systems for Evaluation 98
v

115
qualitative and quantitative forms and any related materials should be kept
on file for future reference /review.
This process may seem more complicated than systems in place at the
present time. This is so for two reasons. The first is a deliberate attempt to
involve both a varied group and as many professionals as possible.
Whenever possible, all members of the evaluation team shall be from the
local community. When this is not possible, every effort should be made to
include trained personnel knowledgeable in local/regional architectural
practices. The final determination as the result of a consensus decision is
designed to help eliminate the impact of personal bias.
Things happen at the local level. Therefore, involvement of
community members is imperative as for any preservation plan/program to
be effective, it must have community support. This support should not be
limited to activists, but should include politicians, educators, the media and
interested citizens of all ages. Additionally, the presence of both interested
and trained people at the local level is also cost effective. An involved ratings
process at the local level by qualified personnel is far easier to manage than at
the state or national level. Community involvement can easily result in
community interest and support leading to even more involvement.
The key to all of this is education, not only in the sense of trained
personnel, but also in the sense of developing within each community or
identifiable area a strong sense of place. Once this is accomplished, we will

165
action should be taken both in relation to identification and inventory, as
well as to education and training in collaboration with existing initiatives.
8. Research programs on specific problems concerning techniques and
materials in restoration work with due respect to their aesthetic qualities
should be encouraged. The publication of results from achieved experiences
and preparation of corresponding specialized bibliographies are priority
actions. Attention should be given to the economic consequences of
restorations and regular maintenance with respect to employment policy and
sustainable development.
9. In order to promote communication and raise public awareness, the
media should be used to stress the importance of the 20th-century heritage
especially to the young people. The international community should also
draw attention to the qualities and values of specific cultural properties.
10. The Council of Europe Recommendation R (91) 13, gives the
general guidelines for this field.
11. A follow-up of the seminar is necessary. It should include the
distribution of the working documents and keeping regular contacts between
participants. If a future meeting is organized on this subject, it should be
open to other disciplines and decision makers, and should take place in
another part of the world.
Recommendations Concerning the World Heritage Convention
1. There should be an on-going process of consultations among
ICOMOS, DOCOMOMO, and the World Heritage Centre in order to define the
20th-century heritage and develop a methodology for its identification.
2. It would be advisable only in exceptional cases to propose for
inclusion in the World Heritage List properties that are less than 25 years old
in order to allow sufficient time for historical perspective and scientific
analysis.

22
France
In France during the late nineteenth century, the voice of preservation
belonged to Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc (1814 1879). Viollet-le-Duc
believed the basis of restoration was a complete understanding of historical
form. This included knowledge of style variations within a region and
among architects. He believed the process of restoration required an
identification of the style of each building member, followed by the dating of
each member and a determination of the building's evolution. Once this was
complete, a study of the nature of materials and building techniques would be
used to determine the building's durability. This would result in the
architect's understanding of the nature of the structure, documentation of the
building's present state and, finally, selection of building materials and
techniques that would best enhance the overall architectonic composition.
Viollet-le-Duc devoted his life to effective restorations and the creation of a
doctrine for historical restoration. He believed preservation of the design of a
building was of greater importance than preservation of its fabric. He
recognized that by preserving the idea enshrined in the design, he was
preserving the true heritage of the building. Viollet-le-Duc considered
architecture to be an expression of the history of a society. He believed that

144
8. design recognized/published nationally
Justification
twice or more once none
9. design recognized/published internationally
Justification
twice or more once none
10. design award winning regionally
Justification
twice or more once none
11. design award winning nationally
Justification
twice or more once none

143
EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPE ACCORDING TO QUALITY
OF DESIGN
design attributes including massing, proportion, scale, layout (composition),
materials, detailing (craftsmanship), color, texture, fenestration, ornamentation
(details/ornament), or artwork (artistic merit)
1.artistic merit E VG G F P
Justification
2.composition E VG G F P
Justification
3.craftsmanship E VG G F P
Justification
4.details/ornament E VG G F P
J ustif ication
5.uniqueness/rarity unique rare
Justification
6.design recognized/published locally twice or more once none
Justification
7.design recognized/published regionally twice or more once none
Justification

137
EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE
ACCORDING USE
type associated with activities such as residential, industrial,
commercial or transport activity
1.notable example yes no
justification
2.unique/rare unique rare
Justification
3.early example yes no
date
average date of other buldings of same type
Justification

13
Five noted professionals were gracious enough to read the dissertation
and offer their comments. These were Dr. William Murtagh, first Keeper of
the National Register, educator and author of Keeping Time; Professor Susan
Tate, Professor of Interior Design at the University of Florida and past
Director of the Preservation Institute: Nantucket, Vicki Jo Sandstead, former
Director of the Northeast Region of the National Trust and currently a
consultant specializing in the importance of local involvement in
preservation efforts, Gregory A. Flail, architect, preservationist and former
Associate Director of the Preservation Institute: Nantucket; and Professor
Emeritus F. Blair Reeves. Professor Reeves developed the preservation
program at the University of Florida, supervised documentation teams for
the Historic American Buildings Survey, was active on the American
Institute of Architect's Committee for Historic Buildings and was a co
founder of the Preservation Institute: Nantucket.

95
procedures are well defined, so should be policies regarding deaccession.
Ideally, a periodic review would be mandatory for all listings on the register
every ten years and for national landmarks every seven years. In addition,
evaluation criteria should be reviewed at least once every ten years. This
would be more in line with William Murtagh's view that "revision is more
than inevitable, Tt seems clear that the vocabulary of preservation will
continue to evolve so long as the activity it describes remains a vital one'"
(Weeks, 1996, 32). To lower costs and make a review of listings manageable,
this process should be done at the local level.
Knowing the impact of a rapid pace of change and continually
evolving technologies, it is important that existing policies allow buildings to
evolve and keep pace. Policies regarding structures moved in order to be
preserved/ saved should be more understanding and center on the moved
resource as an artifact in its own right. The primary focus should be on the
importance of the resource, not the site to where the resource has been
moved. William Murtagh points out that this was "always" the case when he
was keeper (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Kliment describes the
soul of a building as those "features which make them worthy of special
attention" (1992, 87). With that in mind, when dealing with altered or
relocated buildings, a guiding criterion should be that "In most historic
buildings, when their environment has been adjusted, their soul shows
through" (Owings, 1970, 237).

21
Lethaby was a leading figure in the Arts and Crafts movement and principle
of the Central School of Arts and Crafts in London. While serving as
surveyor of Westminster Abbey, he applied the Society for the Protection of
Ancient Building's program of preservation, pioneering the cleaning and
conservation of the fabric instead of restoring the structure.
One of the least recognized voices during this time was John J.
Stevenson (1832 1908). Stevenson was trained in the office of Sir Gilbert
Scott, where he met and became friends with William Morris. He served on
the original committee of the SPAB and was a leading member of the
organization. As an architect, Stevenson was respected by both restorers and
anti-restorers. In his article "The View of the Anti-Restorers" in 1878, he
made three points: 1) the best protection for a building is its continued use; 2)
regular maintenance is necessary in every building, either preventative or for
repair; and 3) unnecessary alterations should be avoided. He "detested all
attempts to tamper with [a building's] history under the guide of 'restoration'"
(Troup, 1908, 482). Stevenson was one of the leading architects working in
the vernacular revival style that became known as "Queen Anne." He was
the first architect to design interior decoration for the principle rooms in large
steamships. At the time of his death, Stevenson was working with William
Lethaby on papers regarding a proposed restoration of the mausoleum at
Halicarnassos.

104
- Is the building a very good/excellent example of an architectural
style or design?
- Is the building likely to have particular historic significance?
- Does the building have significance in terms of environmental
context?
- Was the building designed or built by a notable designer or builder?
- Was an uncommon building method/material used in construction?
- Is the building associated with an important person, group, event or
activity of historic importance?
- Is the building notably early in the developmental history of the
area?
- Do landscape, surroundings or immediate neighbors contribute to
the building's significance?
- Is the building an important part of the streetscape or does it have a
commanding presence? (Parker, 1986, 3)
Total points within the categories of architecture, cultural history and context
range from twenty-five (context) to forty (architecture). Integrity points range
from negative fifteen (fair/poor) to zero (excellent). Once cumulative scores
are established, buildings are grouped by type with houses and apartments in
one category and institutions, churches, schools, commercial, and industrial
buildings in another. Final evaluation was the result of the placement of the
cumulative scores within predetermined point ranges.
The Vancouver evaluation process appears to be well thought out and
current to today's needs. The only questionable aspect is the over-specificity of
locale and locality. Everything is centered on the city as if it is not
culturally/socially/economically/historically bound to any other place.
Portland, Oregon's system has five broad categories: history,
environment, landscape, architecture and integrity. These are further divided

63
mind. In an attempt to avoid these pitfalls, selection of the biggest, the
earliest or the best example of whatever type of resource is being evaluated
often occurs. The reality of this is that limiting selection of resources to a few
exclusive examples results in the creation of bias.
Significance and the Federal Government
Significance is treated in our federal laws and regulations as an
essential attribute of cultural properties, observable, recordable and subject to
loss or destruction. The Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Historic Sites Act of
1935 are both rooted in the concept of national significance. With the passage
of the 1935 act, significance became embedded in preservation law. Standards
devised in 1935, 1949 and 1956 each require that "uniqueness," "importance,"
or "significance" exist in historic properties selected for preservation. The
selection criteria developed by the National Council for Historic Sites and
Buildings (the predecessor of the National Trust) in 1949 required that "in the
case of a structure, be in itself of sufficient antiquity and artistic or
architectural significance to deserve a position of high rank" (Tainter, 1983,
708). In 1956, the National Trust established the basis upon which the federal
government describes significance today requiring that a "structure or area
should have outstanding historical and cultural significance in the nation or
in the state, region, or community in which it exists ..." (Tainter, 1983, 708).

94
aspects to be recorded. That selection can only be made with knowledge
possessed at the time of recording (Faulkner, 1978, 467). Age should not be an
issue, nor should it be a criterion or a guideline.
In evaluating works of our more recent past, however, we are thrown
back on our judgement. There is no automatic seal of approval and
our judgement is bound to be at the mercy of current modes and
fashions, eventually to be confirmed or condemned by our successors. .
. Up to the nineteenth century, this problem did not exist. The
masterpiece, such as Street's Law Courts was recognized as soon as it
was built, its quality not to be questioned if endorsed by the Society of
Dilettanti or the Royal Academy. In fact, it might be said that it is a
twentieth century phenomenon to be unsure of one's own judgement.
(1978,454)
Faulkner goes on to point out, lack of age can actually be beneficial and
may lead to more accurate assessments:
With brush, trowel and delicate instruments we examine the debris of
two-thousand years ago. The examination of yesterday's debris by the
dustbin scavenger appears a much more casual affair. On
consideration, though, it may prove to be more selective and be based
on a very precise evaluation of the material recovered with an
assessment of its significance uncoloured by the effort put into its
recovery. (1978, 453)
It should be understood, however, that in certain highly emotional cases a
passage of time may be needed before the resource can be viewed objectively.
In those cases, a passage of time equivalent to no more than one generation
(currently ten years) is suggested.
There is no sure way of knowing whether attributes selected today will
continue to be important. Therefore, just as acquisition and listing

178
Schiffer, Michael. (1977 b). Forecasting impacts. In Michael B. Schiffer and
George Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation archaeology: A guide for
cultural resource management studies. New York: Academic Press.
Schlereth, Thomas J. (1993). Collecting today for tomorrow. CRM. 16, 8-11.
Schwarzer, Michael. (1994, September). Myths of permanence and transience
in the discourse on historic preservation in the United States, journal
of Architectural Education. 48, 2-11.
Sharrock, Floyd W. and Donald K. Grayson. (1979). Cultural resource
management: 'Significance' in contract archaeology. American
Antiquity. 44, 327-328.
Sherfy, Marcella and W. Ray Luce. (1990). National Register bulletin 22:
Guidelines for evaluating and nominating properties that have
achieved significance within the last fifty years. Washington D. C.:
United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Interagency Resources Division.
Shiffer, Rebecca A. (1993). Cultural resources from the recent past. CRM. 16,
1.
Shiffer, Rebecca A. (1995). The recent past. CRM. 18, 3-4.
Shull, Carol D. and Beth L. Savage. (1995). Trends in recognizing places for
significance in the recent past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer
(Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C.: Historic
Preservation Education Foundation.
Skarmeas, George Christos. (1983). An analysis of architectural preservation
theories: From 1790 to 1975. Ann Arbor: University Microfilm
International.
Stipe, Robert. (1983). Why preserve historic places? In Norman Williams,
Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic
preservation: Why? what? how? New Brunswick: Center for Urban
Policy Research.
Stipe, Robert E. (1987). The next twenty years. In Robert E. Stipe and
Antoinette Lee (Eds.). The American mosaic: Preserving a nation's
heritage. Washington D. C: The Preservation Press.

88
can't/isn't done, actions become opaque and documents describing [historical
evidence are] destroyed" (Fain, 1970, 145). In other words, the basic question
to be asked is not what visual pleasure and/or intellectual significance given
buildings have for us, but what they had for the generation that built them
and for the generations between that time and the present. Preservationists
should keep in mind that while the reality of the past is objective, the
interpretation of the past is subjective; facts and circumstances concerning the
past are subject to interpretation by the historian's perceptions. To avoid bias
impacting a determination of significance, "Analysis should be based upon as
objective a viewpoint as possible, premised on factual evidence and on
understanding that evidence within the content of its own time" (Longstreth,
1991,12).
Emphasis should be placed on context based research with resources
evaluated in terms of how, what and why they contribute to culture. This
should include the symbolic value of the resource and the way of life and
sense of continuity which it represents (Hareven, 1981, 118). Resources
should be treated as social and cultural documents.
Buildings derive absolute historical importance not alone from their
creation in a particular period, or from their established aesthetic and
stylistic value, but also from the social context in which they were used,
the functions they fulfilled, and the historical experiences associated
with them. (Hareven, 1981, 119)

CHAPTER 4
THE ENIGMA OF SIGNIFICANCE
Knowing is an activity of the knower and the objects of knowing result
from that activity.
John Dewey
Overview
As in most western nations, in the United States the notion of
significance guides most preservation efforts. It always has. Vitruvius wrote
as early as the first century B. C:
Especially in architecture are these two things found: that which
signifies and that which is signified. That which is signified is the
thing proposed about which we speak; that which signifies is the
demonstration unfolded in systems of precepts. (1960, 5)
Resources are considered to be significant to the extent that their careful
study might be expected to shed light on current research questions (Raab,
1977, 632). Unfortunately, the unique characteristics of historic properties
prohibits the creation of a consistent approach to the question of significance.
Tolstoy wrote of the problem:
50

174
Lee, Yvonne S. (1994, December). The dilemma of 'listing' modern buildings.
The Journal of the Association of Conservation Officers. 44.
Lemon, Robert G. and Marco D'Agostini. (1993). Recent landmarks in
Vancouver: The post-1940s. CRM. 16, 31-32.
Lethaby, William Richard. (1977). In J. M. Richards (Ed.), Who's who in
architecture. 1400 present. New York: Holt Rinehart, Winston.
Leubkeman, Christopher Hart. (1992, May). Form swallows function.
Progressive Architecture. 73, 96-109.
Longstreth, Richard. (1991 a). The significance of the recent past. APT
Bulletin. XXIII, 12-24.
Longstreth, Richard. (1991 b). When the present becomes the past. In
Antoinette J. Lee, (Ed.), Past meets future: Saving America's historic
environments. Washington D. C.: The Preservation Press.
Longstreth, Richard. (1992, October). The last shopping center. Forum, n.p.
Longstreth, Richard. (1993). The significance of the recent past. CRM. 16, 4-7.
Longstreth, Richard. (1994, May/June). Taste versus history. Historic
Preservation Forum. 8, 40-45.
Longstreth, Richard. (1984, December). The problem with style. Forum. VI,
n.p.
Longstreth, Richard. (1995). I can't see it; I don't understand it; And it doesn't
look old to me. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.),
Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C.: Historic Preservation
Education Foundation.
Lowenthal, David. (1981). Introduction. In Lowenthal, David (Ed.), Our past
before us: Why do we save it? London: Temple Smith.
Luce, W. Ray. (1995). Kent State, White Castles and subdivisions: Evaluating
the recent past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.),
Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C: Historic Preservation
Education Foundation.
Lundy, Victor. (1958). A place of worship. Architectural Record. 123. 176-177.

112
average of those circled. Those characteristics dealing with age and early
examples require the evaluator to denote the date and, in the case of early
examples, the average date of other buildings of the same type. For the
purposes of the evaluation, early is defined as "dating earlier than or within
five years of appearing in other buildings of the same type." This definition is
found on each cover sheet where a determination of "early" is required. Each
characteristic rated is followed by a series of three lines to be completed
explaining the evaluator's reasoning behind his/her rating choice.
Completion of the justification section should be required.
The evaluator should not be required to limit his/her comments to
those three lines, nor should he/she be limited to expressing his/her
observations verbally. In these cases, continuation forms, similar to those
used in National Register nominations, should be provided and completed.
As with the rating forms, these should be carboned. Information contained in
this section may serve to answer specific questions during the final
evaluation process and places the decision and the evaluator in context. In
addition, this information may provide valuable insights for future
preservationists/evaluators. Any graphics, slides, photographs and/or other
visual media designed to serve as part of the justification section should be
described in writing on a continuation form. Upon completion, these should
be submitted to the designated person along with all other forms.

SYSTEMIZING THE SEARCH FOR SIGNIFICANCE:
A POINT-BASED SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING ELIGIBILITY
ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
By
PATTY JO SMITH RICE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1996

by
Patty Jo Smith Rice

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of Paula Banes Twitchell,
who understood all too well the perils of failing to preserve the recent past, to
the memory of Edwin William Smith, my father, and to the memory of
Eleanor Asker York and Florence Cox Smith, my grandmothers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all those who have
helped me complete this project and were kind enough to provide me with
information, Dr. Richard Longstreth, Mr. Harold Kalman, Mr. Richard
Crisson, Mr. Stephen Lewotsky, Ms. Thayer Donham, Ms. Judith Collins, Mr.
Marco D'Agostini, Dr. William Murtagh, Mr. Jef Joslin, Mr. Michael
Cannizzo, Dr. Diana Bitz and Ms. Carol Shull. Thanks also to the members of
my committee Professors William Tilson, Roy Hunt and R. Wayne
Drummond. Special thanks go to Herschel E. Shepard, my committee co
chair and mentor whose guidance, wisdom and support have been
instrumental. I would also like to recognize those persons who, while not on
my committee, volunteered to read and comment on the dissertation,
Professor Emeritus F. Blair Reeves, Dr. William Murtagh, Dr. Diana Bitz,
Professor Susan Tate, Mr. Gregory A. Hall and Ms. Vicki Jo Sandstead.
None of this would have been possible without the support of my
husband, Bill, and my family, especially that of my mother, JoAnn L. Smith.
Last, but not least, I want to thank Greg Hall and Jeanne Williams whose
friendship and support have kept me sane and grounded throughout
everything.
IV

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ABSTRACT vii
THE PROBLEM OF THE RECENT PAST 1
Overview 1
Arrangement of Dissertation 8
Methodology 10
PRESERVATION THROUGH THE AGES 14
Introduction 14
England 16
France 21
The United States 23
A CHANGE IN THE WAY OF DOING BUSINESS
THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 35
THE ENIGMA OF SIGNIFICANCE 50
Overview 50
Empiricist Thought 52
Positivist Thought 56
Empiricist-Positivist Thought 60
Assessing Significance 62
Significance and the Federal Government 63
THE QUESTION OF THE RECENT PAST 68
THE NEED FOR INCLUSION OF THE RECENT PAST 80
EVALUATING HISTORIC STRUCTURES 93
Overview 93
Current Preservation Plans Incorporating Recent Buildings 97
Point-based Systems for Evaluation 98
v

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED EVALUATION SYSTEM
106
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 117
THE SARASOTA SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE 120
EVALUATION FORMS 129
ICOMOS SEMINAR ON 20TH-CENTURY HERITAGE, JUNE 18-19, 1995
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 164
GLOSSARY 166
LIST OF REFERENCES 168
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 181
vi

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
SYSTEMIZING THE SEARCH FOR SIGNIFICANCE:
A POINT-BASED SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING ELIGIBILITY
ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
By
Patty Jo Smith Rice
May, 1996
Chairperson: R. Wayne Drummond
Co-chairperson: Herschel E. Shepard
Major Department: Architecture
Now there is an urgent need for experiment in criticism of a new kind
which will consist largely in a logical and dialectical study of the terms
used. ... In literary criticism we are constantly using terms which we
cannot define, and defining other things by them. We are constantly
using terms which have an intention and an extension which do not
quite fit; but if they cannot, then some other way must be found of
dealing with them so that we may know at every moment what we
mean.
T. S. Eliot
The National Park Service's insistence that historic resources be at least
fifty years of age to be considered for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places has resulted in the widespread alteration and destruction of
vi 1

buildings that meet the parallel criteria of historic significance. The problem
is actually two-fold; the result of both an insistence that buildings be at least
fifty years of age and the lack of a common understanding of the term
"significance."
The dissertation looks at problems in having evaluative criteria
(objective) based on the empiricistpositivist term "significance" a term
which is both subjective and relative. It reviews the philosophical basis for
the term and proposes evaluation criteria designed to provide a more
objective assessment of sites. The proposed forms require the evaluator to
state their reasoning, thus placing him/her in the context of the time the
evaluation was made. The evaluative procedures suggested are also designed
to minimize the impact of bias and personal preference.
A review of the preservation movement includes reasoning for the
current fifty-year guideline and reminds the reader of why, at the time the
guideline was designed, it was an innovative and bold move. Arguments are
then presented as to why the existing fifty-year guideline is no longer
necessary and should be dropped from inclusion criteria. These arguments
are based on developments in the field of preservation, an increase in
educational programs resulting in an increase in professionals, and a rapid
increase in the rate of change.
The evaluative method proposed is ultimately point-based but blends
both qualitative and quantitative procedures. Unlike methods in use today,
vm

the method proposed takes into account and documents the context of the
evaluator as well as the resource.
IX

CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM OF THE RECENT PAST
Overview
The fundamental reason for preservation is to bequeath to the future a
reliable representation of the architecture of the past.
Orin Bullock, 1966
Historic preservation is predicated on the belief that the past has
something to offer the present. Preservation works to create lasting tangible
images of the past. If done successfully, it possesses the ability to change the
way people think of a specified period of time. Ada Louise Huxtable writes:
"Preservation is the job of finding ways to keep those original buildings that
provide the city's character and continuity and of incorporating them into its
living mainstream" (1970, 212).
Historic preservation emerged in the United States in the nineteenth
century during the rise of American nationalism. The movement began as
an attempt to establish a national identity via cultural affiliation to past
events, persons, sites and buildings. Schwarzer writes that:
impulses to forge a national identity were motivated by contradictory
interests: an estrangement from Great Britain with the goal of creating
1

2
an independent American nationality and an equally powerful struggle
to overcome feelings of separation from British tradition. . [It]
concentrated on architecture associated with the revolutionary era and
neo-English institutions of democracy. (1994, 3)
These early efforts were often controlled by wealthy private
citizens and societies and, generally, appealed to the political patriotism of
upper classes.
Preservation allows for an individual understanding of what has gone
on before. An accurate understanding can only be reached by assembling a
rational and unbiased sample of data about the past and by making that data
available to the public. This approach to preservation is the usual approach
in the United States. It is, for the most part, a phenomenon of the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries. Despite this systematic method, many aspects of
preservation encourage value judgements and allow personal preferences to
impact not only what we preserve, but how we preserve it. Value
judgements impact the entire spectrum of preservation activities. Bias often
takes the form of overemphasizing certain recognized styles or forms and
preserving the past in terms of the positive. In an attempt to avoid bias, some
state historic preservation officers adhere to an unofficial policy of selecting
only one or two of the "best" examples. This thinking excludes most of the
built environment and favors resources that are rare, unconventional, or
exotic over those deemed commonplace (Longstreth, 1994, 41). Any selective

3
creation of an official past is nothing more than another form of bias,
potentially as damaging as preserving no past at all.
In the same way, a preservation of the past represented only by sites
and buildings of a certain age is a subtle yet persuasive form of
discrimination. As Ada Louise Huxtable puts it: "You don't erase history to
get history" (1970, 223). At its most extreme, when no traces of past events
within a given time frame exist, the record of that time consists only of a
blank screen. Longstreth writes:
Age poses a further set of problems. In this realm, taste is shaped less
by aesthetic biases, perhaps, than by antiquarian ones. The older a
remnant of the past, the more preservationists tend to venerate it,
even though no historiographical method uses age alone as a measure
of significance. (43)
Because of the pervasiveness of age bias, it is often easier to gain support in
saving secondary examples of earlier eras than for major milestones from
more recent decades. Many people feel that a building less than twenty years
old is too young to be considered a landmark, regardless of its reputation
(Goff, 1988, 31). The public, however, sometimes unofficially declares a
building a landmark upon its completion. The one occasion most often
pointed to is Eero Saarinen's Dulles Airport Terminal Building in Chantilly,
Virginia. Other examples include Saarinen's TWA Terminal building in
New York, I. M. Pei's East Wing of the National Gallery of Art in Washington
D. C. and Louis Kahn's Salk Institute Building in La Jolla, California.

4
The Conclusion of the Findings of the U. S. Conference of Mayors,
Special Committee on Historic Preservation" ends with this statement:
If we wish to have a future with greater meaning, we must concern
ourselves not only with historical highlights, but we must also be
concerned with the total heritage of the nation and all that is worth
preserving from our past as a living part of the present. (194)
The group clearly recognized the need for preserving our "total heritage." No
mention is made of a requirement that buildings be at least fifty years of age
and no room is allowed for bias. Preservationists have, to date, played a role
in encouraging academic disciplines to conduct a more holistic scrutiny of the
past and to move away from a purely textbook-oriented philosophy. This
enhanced understanding of the past is our most valuable and our most
vulnerable inheritance (Hiss, 1990, xxi). We need to continue to insist on an
integrative, interdisciplinary, holistic view of the past; one that gives equal
emphasis to all periods, phases, events and phenomena.
To achieve these objectives, preservationists need new tools and
techniques as well as an awareness of the complex forces that impact
communities, states, regions and the nation as a whole. In addition, today's
preservationists must remember that ultimately their efforts will not just
reflect the past, but will serve as a reflection of themselves and the present as
well. Preservation must be accepted as a natural course of action, designed to
protect valued qualities of landscapes that most people take for granted but

5
that will not be maintained without protection and which cannot be replaced
in kind, should they be lost (Longstreth, 1991 b, 219).
Too often we lose our cultural legacy before we recognize its
importance.
Amy Worden
Unfortunately, buildings themselves often carry the seeds of their own
destruction. Unlike other art forms, buildings must continue to serve an
owner's functional needs, cannot easily be moved and are expensive to
operate and maintain. The American people can no longer assume that sites
developed within the last two generations will remain undisturbed for any
length of time. Age is no longer a prerequisite for rarity. The recent history
of many places has centered on change. As a result, we can no longer afford
to expect that a building, regardless of its importance, will still be standing
fifty years after completion. Honolulu, Hawaii, and the South Beach area of
Miami Beach, Florida, area are clear examples. Hareven writes:
The demolition of dwellings . wipes out a significant chapter of the
history of a place. Even if it does not erase them from local memory, it
tends to reduce or eliminate the recall of that memory, rendering less
meaningful the communication of that heritage to a new generation.
(1981,115)
Eighty percent of America's built environment has been constructed
since the end of World War Two (Goldberg, 1995, 11-12). Despite this, as of
February 14, 1996, there were only 2, 069 listings under exemption G (less than
fifty years of age) on the National Register of Historic Places. Carol Shull,

6
Keeper of the National Register, and Beth Savage have written that the
average time lapse prior to a "modern" building being listed is slightly more
than thirty years (1995, II-3). There does not appear to be a pattern as to one
particular type of structure or site being accepted to the National Register
faster than another. Saarinen's Dulles Airport Terminal was "instantly
regarded as a preeminently important building by the architectural
community" (Shull, 1995, 11-10) but not accepted for listing on the National
Register for eighteen years, and then only because it was threatened. The
Texas School Book Depository building from where Lee Harvey Oswald
allegedly shot President John F. Kennedy was not listed until October of 1993,
almost thirty years after the assassination, but Launch Complex 39 at the
Kennedy Space Center was listed in 1973, not quite four years after the Apollo
11 launch carrying Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin and Michael Collins on the
first manned mission to the moon. One of the latest construction dates listed
for a building on the National Register is the 1963-64 construction date of the
Whitney Museum. Like Dulles, the Whitney was listed on the Register only
after being threatened.
History is not fixed, nor is it finite. Similarly, Perkins writes of
architecture:
Architecture, as in the case with all art is a continuum. It does not
develop in a straight line toward an ideal. Instead each successive
group of ideas is based in part on those ideas which have preceded it.
No period -- old or new should be excluded from this continuum.
(1981,110)

7
Both the present and the past are, and should be considered as,
inseparable parts of a whole. There was no mention of "historic" buildings
being at least fifty years of age when the committee headed by Albert Rains
and Lawrence Henderson concluded:
We do not use bombs and powder kegs to destroy irreplaceable
structures related to the story of America's civilization. We use the
corrosion of neglect or the thrust of bulldozers. . Connections
between successive generations of Americans concretely linking their
ways of life -- are broken by demolition. Sources of memory cease to
exist. (United States Conference of Mayors, 1966, 19)
Nor was an age requirement mentioned when Robert Utley commented on
the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act stating the National Register was
to be "a product of professional evaluation and review rather than a mere list
of antiquarian curiosities" (Glass, 1987, 282). Both statements recognize that
all buildings play a role in the historical memory of a community. However,
it was Robert Utley and his departmental historians who insisted one needed
fifty years distance to recognize objectively whether something was historical
or not (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). It
makes sense that those buildings constructed within the last fifty years are a
reasonable place to begin when constructing links to past generations.
Documenting the history of a building should be viewed no differently than
tracing a family's genealogy. Longstreth rightly points out:
When we exclude much of the 20th century from consideration, we are
in effect creating an artificial separation between contemporary life and

8
that of our forebears. The greater the gap, the less a sense of continuity
there may be and the more the old stuff can seem foreign. (1991, 15)
Change and what is considered to be the past have an inverse
relationship. Consequently, the faster the rate of change, the shorter the time
it takes for something to be considered to be historic. Today, the rate of
change is occurring faster than ever before. Because of that, the National
Park Service needs to expand its definition of "historic" to include the recent
past. In short, it should simply apply the definition of "past" commonly
found in dictionaries. In doing so, the passage of a period of time would no
longer serve as a guideline. In conjunction, the Park Service, along with
other preservationists, needs to expand nationally recognized preservation
activities, including eliminating time as a guideline for listing resources on
the National Register of Historic Places.
Arrangement of Dissertation
The dissertation deals with philosophical arguments for the
preservation of the recent past. In doing so, the issue of the subjective term
"significance" and its relativity must be addressed. However, the focus here is
not to do an in depth study of significance. Instead, significance is viewed in
light of the role it plays in determining the eligibility of resources for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places. The emphasis is on the loss, both

9
potential and real, of valuable resources from the recent past and both the
basis and the need for shortening the existing fifty-year guideline. The
dissertation does not fully address either the personal or political realities of
implementing such a change.
The dissertation is divided into nine chapters. Chapter one consists of
a brief overview of the problem addressed along with discussions of
arrangement, definitions and methodology. Chapter two provides an
overview of preservation history. However, in tracing historical precedents,
concentration is upon the last two centuries in Great Britain and the United
States. This overview continues in chapter three with a detailed look at
changes in preservation activity in the United States predicated by the passage
of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966. Chapter four addresses the
role played by the empiricistpositivist term "significance" in historic
preservation, and the problems using a term which is only defined by itself
can present. The intent of the chapter is not to propose a redefinition of
significance, nor is it to present either a history or overview of empiricist-
positivist philosophies. Discussion is limited to the problems of each as they
relate to the National Register of Historic Places and National Register
Criteria. Chapter five explores problems that can result from continuing a
preservation policy that is exclusionary of a given set of resources. Chapter
six presents an argument for inclusion of buildings less than fifty years of age
on the National Register, without having to meet the criteria of "exceptional

10
significance" as currently stated. Chapter seven summarizes the problems
presented and looks at ways selected cities are currently handling the
problem. Chapter eight presents a point-based system for evaluating
buildings in which specific criteria for buildings less than fifty years of age are
included. The point-based system presented is incomplete in that it excludes
criterion D, those resources "that have yielded, or may be likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history" (Code of Federal Regulations
36, 1974, 248). This criterion is most often used for archaeological resources
and any examination should only be done by someone qualified in that field.
Chapter nine looks at still unanswered questions and issues and explores
where we can go from here.
For the purpose of this dissertation, certain definitions have been
received from references. The terms preservation, rehabilitation, restoration
and reconstruction are defined according to the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Kevin Lynch's definition
of memory, appearing in What Time Is This Place, is used, as is Richard
Longstreth's definition of the recent past. The terms "building," "structure,"
"object," "site," "resource" and "district" are defined in accordance with
National Park Service materials. Last, the terms "history," "past,"
"significant" and "significance" are defined as in Webster's New World
Dictionary.

11
Methodology
I became aware of the Sarasota School of Architecture long before I was
aware that architects and builders were two different sets of people. As a child
growing up in the Sarasota area, I can remember longing to go into the
Galloway Furniture Showroom and wanting to attend Riverview High
School because everybody knew it was the "coolest" school in Sarasota
County. I toured St. Paul's Lutheran Church with my catechism class and sat
in the classrooms of Venice Junior High. As an adult, I taught in some of
those same classrooms.
This idea for this dissertation is the result of several years of recent
study regarding the "Sarasota School of Architecture." During this time I
became painfully aware of just how few of these designs remained, despite
the fact that they were several years shy of the fifty-year guideline established
by the National Register criteria. For example, of the buildings I loved as a
child, the Galloway Furniture Showroom has been stuccoed over and is
unrecognizable, Riverview High School sports a new gabled roof that destroys
both the lines and integrity of the building and at Venice Junior High (today
part of Venice High School) the glass walls have been removed with the
resultant voids filled using concrete block. In addition, its flat roofs have
been replaced with gabled and hipped roofs of green metal. Like the Galloway

12
Showroom, it too is unrecognizable. Only St. Paul's Lutheran Church retains
its integrity.
Research consisted of a review of past and current writings regarding
both historic preservation and the issue of the preservation of the recent past.
Of these writings, those by Richard Longstreth and an article by P. A. Faulkner
became the guiding force. Conversations were held with various holders of
the Beinecke-Reeves Distinguished Chair in Architectural Preservation at the
University of Florida, including William Murtagh, Eduard Sekler and Jan
Abell along with other noted professionals with an interest in the topic, such
as Richard Crisson, de Teel Patterson, III, Nicholas Pappas and Vicki Jo
Sandstead. Of these persons, William Murtagh is of paramount importance.
As the first Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, his first hand
knowledge of both the persons involved and the reasoning behind the
creation of the current guideline was irreplaceable.
Several preservation plans from a variety of cities, including Portland,
Oregon, Grants Pass, Oregon, Boston, Massachusetts, and San Francisco,
California, were collected and reviewed and interviews with persons
responsible for the writing and implementation of those plans were
conducted. Special emphasis was placed on collecting material related to
point-based systems of evaluation. In addition, Harold Kalman's The
Evaluation of Historic Buildings was reviewed. It formed the basis for the
point-based system proposed here.

13
Five noted professionals were gracious enough to read the dissertation
and offer their comments. These were Dr. William Murtagh, first Keeper of
the National Register, educator and author of Keeping Time; Professor Susan
Tate, Professor of Interior Design at the University of Florida and past
Director of the Preservation Institute: Nantucket, Vicki Jo Sandstead, former
Director of the Northeast Region of the National Trust and currently a
consultant specializing in the importance of local involvement in
preservation efforts, Gregory A. Flail, architect, preservationist and former
Associate Director of the Preservation Institute: Nantucket; and Professor
Emeritus F. Blair Reeves. Professor Reeves developed the preservation
program at the University of Florida, supervised documentation teams for
the Historic American Buildings Survey, was active on the American
Institute of Architect's Committee for Historic Buildings and was a co
founder of the Preservation Institute: Nantucket.

CHAPTER 2
PRESERVATION THROUGH THE AGES
Introduction
Isolated instances of deliberate preservation can be found throughout
recorded history. The Greeks preserved architectural forms found in their
wooden temples by recreating those forms in marble (Preamble, 1983, 5).
Plato wrote, "let this tribute be paid to memory, which has caused us to
enlarge upon it now, yearning for what we once possessed" (1952, 34). Later,
Vitruvius wrote that the majesty of the (Roman) empire was expressed
through "the eminent dignity of its public buildings" (1960, 3). Roman
emperors preserved vestiges of the past in an attempt to identify themselves
with earlier "legitimate" rulers (Preamble, 1983, 5). During his time as
emperor of the western Roman empire, Julius Valerius Majorianus
(Majorian), wrote a number of laws that were incorporated into the
Theodosian Code. Among these was one strictly prohibiting the practice of
tearing down ancient monuments.
During the Medieval period, throughout western Europe, the value of
a building came to be determined by its historical associations rather than any
14

15
architectural qualities (Boulting, 1976, 19). The Renaissance introduced the
concept of the past as attractive or desirable with the perception of classical
antiquity being distinguished from and superior to the recent past. It was
during the Renaissance that Raphael, as Commissioner of Antiquities,
became the first to seek an end to the continual extinction of historic
resources (Lowenthal, 1981, 10) and Brunelleschi's Ospedale degli Innocenti
(Foundling Hospital) was begun in Florence. The design of the Foundling
Hospital is generally regarded as the first expression of a passionate interest in
the past (Fitch, 1992,13).
A letter believed to have been written by Raphael with the help of
Baldassare Castiglione to Leo X, around 1519, may be considered one of the
first treatises to be written on preservation. In the missive, Raphael writes
about the usefulness of accurate measurements and drawings of the
monuments. He stresses the need to produce precise ground-plans, cross-
sections and elevations showing all details. He offers advise as to what has to
be done to reconstruct ancient Rome accurately and how to do it by
combining the methods of architects and the recording practices of
archaeologists. Ettinger writes: "Despite Raphael's inclusion of the often
repeated complaint that antiquities were constantly being destroyed, the letter
was clearly intended not as an archaeological report, but as an investigation
into how the Rome of the past was a prelude to the Rome of the future"
(1987,200).

16
In direct contrast with Raphael's beliefs, during the fifteenth century,
rich individuals began building vast private collections of antiquities.
Collections became so popular that artifacts were created in order to satisfy
demand. The content of these collections was unimportant and most had no
unifying theme; the only thing that mattered was size (Skarmeas, 1983, 24).
Sweden is believed to be the first western European nation to pass laws
regarding the preservation of historic resources, in 1677 (Hunter, 1981, 24).
England
In 1751, the English Society of Dilettanti financed an expedition to
Greece to record and illustrate the monuments of ancient Athens (Skarmeas,
1983, 25). These drawings were later published under the title Antiquities of
Athens and spawned a widespread interest in what became known as Greek
Revival architecture. Despite the Society's interest in documenting resources
in situ, during the early nineteenth century removing sculptures from the
Acropolis continued. Even Phidias' friezes on the Parthenon were removed,
taken to London and eventually placed in the British Museum (Skarmeas,
1983, 24).
The first widely documented British architect involved with
preservation issues was James Wyatt (1747 1813). Wyatt was responsible for
the restoration of several English cathedrals. He took enormous liberties in

17
his projects. In various efforts he removed screens, funerary monuments,
porches and chapels. In others, he shortened naves. The quality of his work
further suffered when he continued to accept jobs even after securing far
more than he could adequately handle or properly oversee. Wyatt was widely
vilified for his efforts. The Reverend John Milner's comments were typical:
"[Wyatt] has dishonoured, disfigured, destroyed, and is in the constant
practice of dishonouring, disfiguring and destroying . the most beautiful
and instructive monuments" (Pevsner, 1976, 39). Wyatt continued to secure
commissions via influential friends until his untimely accidental death.
The Church Building Act of 1818 led to the restoration of more than
seven thousand churches in England between 1840 and 1873. The work that
took place during this period formed the basis for widespread philosophical
discussions on restoration practices and appropriate methods. One of the
persons involved in these discussions was Augustus Welby Northmore
Pugin (1812 1852). An expert in Gothic architecture, Pugin believed that
truth and honesty were basic to any architecture considered beautiful. Under
his influence, Gothic became the dominant theme, influencing both ongoing
restoration efforts and what became known as Gothic Revival architecture
(Skarmeas, 1983, 38).
Sir George Gilbert Scott (1811 1878) was involved in approximately
seven hundred fifty restoration projects. Scott developed a set of procedures
related to building restoration to guide his efforts. These consisted of

18
documentation of the resource via measured drawings and, for the first time,
photography, followed by examination of the resource's fabric. The third and
final step involved conjectural restoration based on evidence collected in the
first two steps, with missing features being reconstructed. In addition,
conjectural restoration was based on knowledge of elements in the original
structure, knowledge of local/regional architecture and building practices and
knowledge gained in studying other buildings by the same architect.
Edward Freeman (1823 1892) is widely recognized as the first to put
the questions of restoration in perspective. In his writings, Freeman
emphasized the importance of knowledge and precision:
A restoration requires no less eminent qualities in an architect than
even an original design: this is not the same scope indeed for a creative
genius, but taste and judgement are quite as necessary and even a
deeper acquaintance with antiquarian lore is required. The restorer has
to look carefully to the transmutations of an edifice which may have
received as many successive alterations as there are styles of Christian
architecture .... All this cannot be accomplished without patient
inquiry and sound judgement .... Architectural genius and
antiquarian precision must preside over both .... (Skarmeas, 1983, 39)
Freeman believed there were two types of architectural remains: monuments
which were legitimate objects of restoration and structures to be protected
from further damage.
For the most part, English preservation philosophy in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was dominated by the similar views
of four men: John Ruskin, William Morris, Philip Webb and W. R. Lethaby.

19
Ruskin gained prominence in 1849, Lethaby died in 1931. For the eighty years
between these events, Ruskin's philosophy, commonly referred to as anti
scrape, prevailed. John Ruskin (1819 1900) became widely recognized for his
book The Seven Lamps of Architecture. The chapter entitled "The Lamp of
Memory" contained his views on preservation. Ruskin wrote that time
represented historical memory and should be protected in all historic
buildings. In short, he favored preservation over restoration. He wrote:
It is the centralization and protectress of this sacred influence, that
Architecture is to be regarded by us with the most serious thought. We
may live without her, and worship without her, but we cannot
remember without her. . For indeed the greatest glory of a building
is not in its stones or in its gold. Its glory is in its Age. (Skarmeas, 1983,
58-59)
and
[Restoration] means the most total destruction out of which no
remnants can be gathered .... Do not let us talk then of restoration.
The thing is a lie from beginning to end. . The principle of modern
times is to neglect buildings first, and restore them afterwards. Take
proper care of your monuments, and you will not need to restore
them. (Skarmeas, 1983, 60)
The philosophy of custodianship was first advocated in England by
Nicholas Hawksmoor in 1751 but did not become popular until the cause was
taken up by William Morris (1834 1896). Morris viewed custodianship of the
past by the present an important aspect of providing evidence of the needs
and aspirations of ordinary people. He further believed that the vernacular
architecture of the future could only develop with a study of forms and

20
techniques of the past. Morris was already a leader in the Arts and Crafts
Movement when he became interested in preservation. It was William
Morris who was responsible for founding the Society for the Protection of
Ancient Buildings (SPAB) in 1877. Most members of the society were anti-
restorationists. He wrote:
It has been most truly said . that these old buildings do not belong
to us only; that they have belonged to our forefathers and they will
belong to our descendants unless we play them false. They are not in
any sense our property, to do as we like with. We are only trustees for
those who come after us. (Boulting, 1976, 16)
During his time, Philip Speakman Webb (1831 1915) was considered
to be one of England's greatest architects during the late Victorian English
domestic revival period. He knew William Morris and, for a period, worked
with Morris designing furniture. Webb is known for his assimilation of
medieval and classical vernacular elements into his building designs. He
preferred that his architecture express "an absence of style" (Gebhard, 1982,
383). Webb is significant in preservation as a co-founder of the Society for the
Protection of Ancient Buildings. Today, his fame is largely the result of his
friendship with Morris.
William Richard Lethaby (1857 1931) built very little but was highly
influential as a teacher and writer. He founded the Modern Architecture
Constructive Group which defined architecture as "a developing structural
art satisfying the requirements of the time by experiment" (Rubens, 1982, 693).

21
Lethaby was a leading figure in the Arts and Crafts movement and principle
of the Central School of Arts and Crafts in London. While serving as
surveyor of Westminster Abbey, he applied the Society for the Protection of
Ancient Building's program of preservation, pioneering the cleaning and
conservation of the fabric instead of restoring the structure.
One of the least recognized voices during this time was John J.
Stevenson (1832 1908). Stevenson was trained in the office of Sir Gilbert
Scott, where he met and became friends with William Morris. He served on
the original committee of the SPAB and was a leading member of the
organization. As an architect, Stevenson was respected by both restorers and
anti-restorers. In his article "The View of the Anti-Restorers" in 1878, he
made three points: 1) the best protection for a building is its continued use; 2)
regular maintenance is necessary in every building, either preventative or for
repair; and 3) unnecessary alterations should be avoided. He "detested all
attempts to tamper with [a building's] history under the guide of 'restoration'"
(Troup, 1908, 482). Stevenson was one of the leading architects working in
the vernacular revival style that became known as "Queen Anne." He was
the first architect to design interior decoration for the principle rooms in large
steamships. At the time of his death, Stevenson was working with William
Lethaby on papers regarding a proposed restoration of the mausoleum at
Halicarnassos.

22
France
In France during the late nineteenth century, the voice of preservation
belonged to Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc (1814 1879). Viollet-le-Duc
believed the basis of restoration was a complete understanding of historical
form. This included knowledge of style variations within a region and
among architects. He believed the process of restoration required an
identification of the style of each building member, followed by the dating of
each member and a determination of the building's evolution. Once this was
complete, a study of the nature of materials and building techniques would be
used to determine the building's durability. This would result in the
architect's understanding of the nature of the structure, documentation of the
building's present state and, finally, selection of building materials and
techniques that would best enhance the overall architectonic composition.
Viollet-le-Duc devoted his life to effective restorations and the creation of a
doctrine for historical restoration. He believed preservation of the design of a
building was of greater importance than preservation of its fabric. He
recognized that by preserving the idea enshrined in the design, he was
preserving the true heritage of the building. Viollet-le-Duc considered
architecture to be an expression of the history of a society. He believed that

23
structure and decoration were one and felt that a building was an ensemble
consisting of both its parts and its furnishings (Dupent, 1983, 12). He wrote:
knowing that restoration inevitably unsettles old buildings, one must
compensate for this curtailment of strength by giving power to the new
parts, by perfecting the structure, by clamping walls and by introducing
greater resistances, for prolonging the life of the building is the true
tack of restoration. (Dupent, 1983, 13)
The United States
The historic preservation movement in the United States evolved in
two distinct phases. The first was concerned with the associative value of
buildings; the second with a building's architectural importance. Early
American preservation efforts were undertaken by private individuals,
sometimes working for or under the auspices of patriotic organizations. Early
efforts centered on sites associated with nationally recognized individuals or
events. The first successful acquisition of a property for preservation
purposes took place in New York in 1850 when the state purchased the
Hasbrouck House in Newburgh which had served as George Washington's
headquarters at the end of the American Revolution for $2,000.00. The first national effort in preservation was headed by Ann Pamela Cunningham of South Carolina and centered on the acquisition of Mt. Vernon. Mount Vernon had been an important and well-known site since the Revolutionary War. In 1848 and 1850, petitions were presented to 24 Congress calling for the purchase of Mount Vernon by the federal government and, in 1846, John A. Washington, on behalf of his mother Jane, made an unsuccessful offer to sell Mount Vernon to the federal government for$100,000. By 1851, the property had passed to John Washington and the
asking price increased to 200,000. It was still privately owned in December of 1853 when Ann Pamela Cunningham appealed to the ladies of the South to purchase and preserve Mount Vernon. Miss Cunningham aided her fund raising appeals with articles such as one which appeared in the Charleston, South Carolina, Charleston Mercury signed by "A Southern Matron." It was directed to the "Ladies of the South" and read: Can you still be with closed souls and purses, while the world cries 'Shame on America,' and suffer Mount Vernon, with all its sacred associations, to become, as is spoken of the probable, the seat of manufacturers and manufactories? . Never! Forbid it, shades of the dead ...! (Hosmer, 1965, 44) On March 17, 1856, the Virginia legislature chartered the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union, and offered to accept the title of the Mount Vernon property but not to help raise the purchase money. In 1858, the Ladies' Association successfully purchased Mount Vernon. The group maintains ownership today. The success of the Mount Vernon Ladies' Society was well publicized. As a result, the Society was contacted by individuals hoping to replicate their 25 successful efforts. Among those requesting guidance from the Society were Mrs. William Holstein, hoping to save Washington's headquarters at Valley Forge; Mrs. Andrew Jackson, hoping to preserve the Hermitage; Mrs. Mary Longyear, active in saving houses associated with Mary Baker Eddy (the founder of Christian Science); and representatives for the sites of Meadow Garden, in Georgia; Gunston Hall and Monticello, in Virginia; Theodore Roosevelt's birthplace, in New York City; and the many local groups throughout New England that eventually merged into the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities. Despite involvement by state governments, the federal government did not become active in preservation efforts until 1862 with the passage of the National Battlegrounds and Cemeteries Act. With the creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, the federal government began to assume a leadership position in the conservation of lands. However, preservation movements in 1876 still had a distinctly regional flavor. In New England, homes of revolutionary leaders and places deemed "faithful reproductions of the primitive Colonial life of New England" (King, 1977, 17) were emphasized. In the Middle Atlantic States, interest was on sites of important events during the American Revolution. Movements in the South put major emphasis on homes of nationally recognized figures, and in the West interest centered upon Spanish-Mexican missions. 26 At the turn of the century, buildings began to be recognized as "worthwhile objects in their own right" (Murtagh, 1988, 31). In 1889, the architectural critics John Calvin Stevens and Albert Winslow Cobb wrote: . . wherever the democratic spirit was earliest developed and most marked, there the work done by our American Carpenter-Architects of the Colonial and early National times exhibits most of pure beauty. In and around Philadelphia and along the New England coast from Plymouth to Portland; throughout the territory where the protest against black slavery rang out long before the protest against tyrannies of the Crown; there, especially, we find the genuine refinement and delicacy, the temperate, telling use of detail, so desirable in architectural composition. (Hosmer, 1965, 119) Restoration of buildings such as the John Whipple house in Ipswich, Massachusetts, and the Paul Revere house in Boston was done to what was thought to be their earliest appearance "emphasizing the importance of architectural merit" rather than their association with recognized individuals (Murtagh, 1988, 31). In 1877, Charles McKim, William Rutherford and Stanford White of McKim, Mead and White, along with another architect, William Bigelow, conducted a walking tour of selected New England towns and documented several colonial houses in measured drawings. Because of writings and actions such as these, buildings began to be appreciated not for their associative value to famous persons or well-known events, but for their unique cultural and artistic qualities. In addition, by the turn of the century, historic preservation efforts began to actively involve the middle class. 27 The Antiquities Act was proposed in Congress in 1900 but did not become law until 1906. The act gave the President broad discretion to set aside lands containing important cultural or scientific resources and forbade disturbance of ruins or archaeological sites on federal lands without permission of the responsible land managing agency. These sites were to be called national monuments. The next year the Secretaries of War, Agriculture and the Interior agreed to uniform rules and regulations for administering the Antiquities Act. Each department retained authority for the issuing of permits, subject to recommendations by the Smithsonian. The Secretary of the Interior would administer federal monument sites. This triumvirate would remain in control until 1916 when the responsibility for management of federally owned historic properties was placed within the Department of the Interior. The National Park Service (NPS), a bureau within the Department, became the agency responsible for managing all national parks, monuments and historic sites. In 1910, the face of preservation in America began to change with the founding of the Society for the Prevention of New England Antiquities (SPNEA) by William Sumner Appleton. Appleton pioneered the concept of adaptive use and placed architectural representativeness over patriotic considerations as criteria for preservation. He believed that the private sector should assume full responsibility for the preservation of the nation's heritage. Appleton was largely responsible for the concept of the historic 28 house museum as an educational tool; a physical link to the past, parallel in importance to written documentation (Murtagh, 1988, 80). His beliefs on how buildings should be treated can be traced to those of John Ruskin in the mid nineteenth century. Appleton believed in keeping as much original material as possible and clearly identifying any additions. This anti-scrape philosophy still serves as the basis for preservation efforts in the United States today. In 1926, the most ambitious preservation project to date was undertaken at Williamsburg, Virginia. With this, the concept of the outdoor museum, established in the late nineteenth century in Sweden, was brought to the United States (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). Privately financed by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and under the direction of the Reverend William A. R. Goodwin, sites along designated streets were documented, regardless of their original purpose or occupants. The work ranged from preservation to restoration and, occasionally, reconstruction. Using archaeological fieldwork as a basis for architectural reconstruction became an important part of the work at Williamsburg. The idea behind the project -- that of regarding whole towns or large areas as preservation units -- is now accepted as a basic preservation concept (King, 1977, 21). One of the most important by-products of the Williamsburg project was the development of a group of well-educated preservation professionals (Tomlan, 1994, 187). 29 In 1930, the first federally funded reconstruction project took place at Pope's Creek (George Washington's birthplace) in Westmoreland County, Virginia, with the creation of an eighteenth century style house. The house was opened to the public in 1931. Unfortunately, Park Service officials later acknowledged that not only was the house not an accurate reproduction, archaeological digs confirmed it was not properly sited. Also in 1931, the concept of the historic district was born in Charleston, South Carolina. With the advent of historic districts, a third major form of preservation developed in the United States and attention was drawn to the "little" (i.e. vernacular) houses of neighborhoods (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order transferring all national military parks, battlefields and national monuments to the National Park Service division of the Department of the Interior. The action quadrupled the number of historic areas administered by the NPS and moved it to the forefront of government supported preservation activities. The Great Depression served to increase the role of the federal government in architectural preservation. Its efforts, however, remained rooted in patriotic and commercial themes. In November of 1933, Charles Peterson, then restoration architect for the National Park Service, proposed funding for the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) for the purpose of enhancing the cultural life of the nation by establishing a comprehensive 30 archive of historie architecture, similar to those in Europe, while putting unemployed architects and draftsmen to work. When initiated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934, the project was designed to employ one thousand architects for a total of six months. Responsibility for the project was divided among the National Park Service, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the Library of Congress. The NPS oversaw the administered surveys and conducted fieldwork based on advise from the AIA, who also provided personnel. The Library of Congress received the records and arranged the collection of materials for public use. The project proved to be useful, and in 1935, local chapters of the AIA, along with the National Park Service and the Library of Congress, created a new funding source. With the creation of Historic American Building Survey, the federal government began to show an interest in historic buildings, regardless of ownership. The goal of HABS was to record data regarding American architecture. HABS did not acquire or take an active role in the physical preservation of historic resources. The project became an important training ground for preservationists within the federal system and provided a means for the introduction of preservation into various projects overseen by the National Park Service. HABS remained in operation until the outbreak of World War Two, at which time the program had documented a total of 6,389 resources. It was revived in 1957 as a summer program for students and remains such today. 31 The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) also helped with preservation efforts during the depression. Among their early efforts were the creation of the Colonial National Historical Park at Yorktown, Virginia, and the Morristown National Historical Park in Morristown, New Jersey. In 1935 the nation's preservation efforts were recognized legally with the passage of the Historic Sites Act. This act established a national policy of preservation for public use historic sites, buildings and objects of national significance. It stressed documentation and the development of educational programs and empowered the Secretary of the Interior via the National Park Service "to collect historical data, survey historical buildings and sites, make investigations, accept gifts and bequests, contract with individuals or local governments to protect important property and restore properties of national significance" (Preservation Technology Class Notes, Herschel Shepard, Instructor, Fall, 1994). The Historic Sites Act asserted for the first time a broad federal concern for historic properties. It created an Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings and Monuments and authorized the establishment of a technical advisory committee. Preservation efforts, however, were still largely centered on sites that predated the Civil War. It further specified the Department of the Interior's central role in federal preservation efforts and authorized the perpetuation of projects similar to HABS. In addition, the act made it easier for the government to acquire nonfederal properties of historic importance and established an historic sites 32 survey to document "nationally significant properties" to be designated National Historic Landmarks. Both HABS and the Historic Sites Survey would remain active until the outbreak of World War Two. They were not revived until 1957. In 1946, preservation efforts, temporarily stalled by World War Two, resumed with the creation of the National Council for Historic Sites and Buildings. The Council was created from an informal confederation of interested groups. Along with private support, the council was backed by the National Park Service. The first meeting was held at the National Gallery of Art. Out of this meeting was established the National Trust for Historic Preservation, in 1949. The National Trust began receiving federal funds in 1966 when it was specifically included in the National Historic Preservation Act. It was the only private preservation organization in the United States to be so named (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). Among other things, the National Trust's charter stated its purpose was to "provide for the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, and to facilitate public participation in the preservation of sites, buildings, and objects of national significance or interest" (Murtagh, 1988, 175). Thus, the Trust was chartered for the specific purpose of receiving properties and property stewardship. The principal office of the National Trust was to be in Washington, D.C. and the Board of Trustees was to include both the Attorney General of the United States and 33 the Secretary of the Interior. In 1951, the Trust began acquiring and managing properties. Preservation began to move to the forefront with the depletion of existing building stock as a result of the passage of the Housing Act of 1954. The act emphasized the prevention of slums and blight via the removal of deteriorated buildings and the rehabilitation of sound buildings. Successive acts in 1956 and 1957 increased funding for these urban projects. The housing legislation passed specifically prevented federal dollars being spent to retain and rehabilitate existing building stock. Not until after 1966 could money be used for acquisition and/or demolition (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). In addition, in 1956, Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act for the creation of a national interstate highway system. By the end of 1957, reports in Historic Preservation magazine cited "invasions of scenic and historic areas" by federally funded highway projects (Glass, 1987, 20). In the fall of 1959, Richard Perrin called for controls on Urban Renewal projects, writing they were likely to follow the pattern set by highway construction "riding roughshod over many historically and culturally important structures and sites" (Glass, 1987, 23). As a result of this uproar, in 1959, Congress proposed a method to preserve resources threatened by federally funded projects and programs. A proposal was also made to enlarge the Historic Sites Act, broaden the national 34 preservation policy and provide federal funds to local programs engaged in preserving areas of historic interest. Perhaps the most influential project funded by a Federal Urban Renewal Demonstration Grant was the College Hill Demonstration Project in Providence, Rhode Island. William Murtagh points out "This was a one shot program and a documented first interest by urban renewal that retention and rehabilitation might be an alternative to demolition" (Personal Communication, March, 1996). The project was a landmark in the evolution of American preservation procedures (Jacobs, 1970,112). NPS actions during this time included support of state and local inventories of historic properties, publication of survey lists, public hearings on the value of threatened historic structures and requiring federal agencies to take into account the effect of these projects on listed properties. Unfortunately, Congressional proposals to strengthen the Historic Sites Act were not successful. By the end of the 1950s, the preservation movement in America was a large, complex enterprise involving not only the private sector, but also aspects of federal, state and local governments. As such, it lacked a central organization beyond that provided by the National Trust. This would remain the case until 1966 when United States Conference of Mayors' Special Committee on Historic Preservation emphasized the idea that historic buildings were and are a part of the total modern environment and stressed the need to preserve them in order to maintain a quality 35 environment. This concept grew out of discussions at the White House Conference on Natural Beauty held in Washington, D. C. in May, 1965, as was the Mayor's Special Committee itself (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). CHAPTER 3 A CHANGE IN THE WAY OF DOING BUSINESS THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 In its best sense, preservation does not mean merely setting aside thousands of buildings as museum pieces. It means retaining the culturally valuable structures as useful objects .... Lady Bird Johnson, 1983 In 1966, the Special Committee on Historic Preservation of the United States Conference of Mayors identified three changes they felt were necessary if historic preservation were to be successful: a recognition of "the importance of architecture, design and aesthetics as well as historical and cultural values," a need to look beyond individual buildings and landmarks to historically and architecturally valued districts and the development of tax policies to stimulate preservation efforts (Green, 1991, 88). On October 15,1966, Congress found and declared 1) That the spirit and direction of the nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic past; 2) That the historical and cultural foundations of the nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people; 36 37 3) That in the face of ever-increasing extensions of urban centers, highways, and residential, commercial and industrial developments, the present governmental and non-governmental historic preservation programs and actions are inadequate to insure future generations a genuine opportunity to appreciate and enjoy the rich heritage of our nation; and, 4) That although the major burdens of historic preservation have been borne and major efforts initiated by private agencies and individuals and both should continue to play a vital role, it is nevertheless necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to accelerate its historic preservation programs and activities, to give maximum encouragement to agencies and individuals undertaking preservation by private means, and to assist State and local governments and the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States to expand and concentrate their historic preservation programs and activities. (King et al, 1977, 205) The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) gave the National Park Service the authority to undertake innovations of "immense potential" in its preservation programs. It created the National Register of Historic Places to "record the evidences of our national patrimony that merit preservation" and to become the "national list of classified sites and buildings" and provided an authoritative guide as to what should be "guarded against destruction or impairment" (Glass, 1987, 282). The act is best known for the National Register of Historic Places, its creation of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the resultant hiring of historic preservation officers in each state and territory. The NHPA did not specifically provide for historic preservation officers. The creation of these positions was an administrative decision by the Secretary of the Interior after the NHPA was passed. Congress gave the Secretary of the Interior the 38 responsibility and he chose to decentralize the program (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). Often overlooked is the Secretary's requirement that each state develop a historic preservation plan to guide in the preservation and use of a state's cultural resources. As part of this plan, states are required to conduct systematic surveys. These surveys are to result not only in nominations to the National Register but in other inventories of cultural properties and in predictions about where such properties may exist. The National Register of Historic Places can trace its roots back to 1937 and the creation of the National Survey of Historic Sites and Places as part if the Historic Sites Act of 1935. Intended to help determine which historic and archaeological sites possessed "exceptional national values" (Duerksen, 1983, 231), the survey was suspended during World War Two. It did not resume operation until 1957. In 1960, the designation of National Historic Landmarks from those properties surveyed was begun and named the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The National Register of Historic Places is a further expansion of these earlier programs. Nominations are no longer limited to properties listed in the National Survey of Historic Sites and Places and those determined to possess national significance. Nominations of properties to the National Register may be made by any interested party and include resources of local and state significance as well as those of national importance. 39 Richard Longstreth believes that, although not directly stated, an underlying rationale for the National Historic Preservation Act was that contemporary achievements in architecture, planning and other fields that shaped the built environment were inferior to those of the past (1991, 213).1 William Murtagh disagrees (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Longstreth's belief is rooted in Congress' directive that the National Register record the evidences of our national patrimony" (Glass, 1987, 282). This concentration on objects of antiquity is consistent with both the 1906 Antiquities Act and the Historic Sites Act of 1935. It is also consistent with management of the National Park Service's various preservation efforts being carried out by social historians rather than architectural historians, or preservationists. In fact, in 1966, there were very few architectural historians and preservation had yet to become recognized as an educational opportunity. While in the United States preservation and preservation education have always gone hand in hand, the first college level preservation course was not offered until 1959. That year, Frederick Nichols at the University of Virginia began offering a two semester course that included the architectural language of mouldings and details, materials and forms, philosophy and techniques of architectural surveying and the creation of historic districts and easements (Tomlan, 1994, 188). Shortly after Virginia's program was established, Cornell University began offering preservation related courses. The nation's third 40 program was begun at Columbia University. The fourth school to offer classes in preservation was the University of Florida. Florida's program was begun by Professor F. Blair Reeves in 1960. In 1958, Professor Reeves participated in a HABS summer program at Harper's Ferry, West Virginia. The following year, students from the university also became involved. Reeves then began allowing these students to earn credit for the knowledge gained via their HABS summer experience by enrolling in a special studies course and documenting historic structures near the university's campus in Gainesville. This quickly lead to the establishment of a preservation theory course. During the 1960s, architecture students at Florida took preservation options based on the theory that specialization within a profession was the best way to serve society (F. Blair Reeves, Personal Communication, March 20, 1996). In 1971, the university's College of Architecture began offering a four and two option with preservation as one of the options in the two-year professional Master of Architecture degree. This lead to the development of a sequence of programs including museology, regional history with an emphasis on preservation in Florida and, beginning in 1976, preservation law. Reeves further expanded the university's preservation options in 1972 with the establishment of a nine credit summer program on Nantucket Island. Originally known as the Nantucket Institute, today the program exists as the Preservation Institute: Nantucket. 41 The first program leading to a degree in historic preservation was offered at Columbia University by James Fitch in 1973. Fitch was an architectural critic and editor who had organized the school's certificate awarding program in the mid-nineteen sixties (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). By 1976 at least seventy institutions throughout the country were offering courses in historic preservation. During this time preservation became a separate discipline differentiated by standards that would accommodate its interdisciplinary nature yet promote a sense of identity (Tomlan, 1994, 187). Not until the mid 1980s was preservation recognized as a distinct profession. William Murtagh "strongly disagree[s] with this assertion." He believes it negates, for example, many training programs, mostly through the National Trust, Colonial Williamsburg and other institutions going back to the 1950s (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). The 1966 NHPA was a benchmark because it laid the groundwork for legally protecting places that stood in the path of change and placed architectural value on the same level as historical and archaeological values. The law also created major changes in the way preservation was carried out in the United States. Prior to the passage of the NHPA, the National Trust and the American Institute of Architects were two of the very few private sector voices for the preservation movement at the national level. The Department of the Interior served primarily as custodian of hundreds of 42 historical sites overseen by the National Park Service. The 1966 law made the NPS a leading player in public historic preservation activities at the federal level, and, because of the decision of the Secretary of the Interior to decentralize his new responsibilities, at the state level (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). In addition, the act created an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with the authority to mediate among Federal agencies and advise Congress on policy. In short, the Advisory Council would provide leadership to the public sector. The National Trust continues to provide leadership and act as spokesman for private efforts in preservation. A task force was established by the National Park Service to develop and establish criteria necessary to implement the new law. The chair of this implementation task force was Robert Utley. Its most prominent member, in reality, was a gentleman who did not physically occupy a seat on the committee. Ronald F. Lee, Chief Historian of the National Park Service, according to William Murtagh, was the type of person who did not really care where credit for implementing the NHPA was given as long as the law was implemented in an efficient and productive manner (Personal Communication, February 6, 1996). Lee acted as confidant and advisor to several members of the committee. He believed the role of the National Trust should be one of a fast acting organization capable of saving endangered properties in a manner quicker than the bureaucratic regimen of the 43 government would allow. In short, the National Trust should preserve its role as a property stewardship organization. Furthermore, he believed that the National Park Service must acknowledge the new emphasis in preservation on historic architecture, aesthetic landmarks and urban conservation (Glass, 1990, 28). After several months of meetings the committee finally agreed on criteria to be used to determine eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The criteria were written in such a way they could be applied at local, state, regional and national levels throughout the country. In addition to the threshold criteria of "integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association," there are four general areas of consideration. These include resources (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or, (d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (Code of Federal Regulations 36, 1974,248) 44 Along with these four broad areas, certain criteria considerations were listed. These considerations were reworked from their original format so as to have a positive rather than negative connotation. The criteria considerations state: Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved form their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: (a) a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or, (b) a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or, (c) a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his productive life; or, (d) a cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, form age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or, (e) a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or, (f) a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance; or, (g) a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. (Code of Federal Regulations 36, 1974, 248) The National Historic Preservation Act thus became the basis for a "new" preservation. Whereas the "old" preservation had been concerned 45 with a few "shrines of transcendent significance to the nation," the "new" preservation embraced thousands of local landmarks or groups of buildings important to states or communities (Glass, 1990, 28). Earlier efforts had emphasized associative and inspirational values while the new version balanced out the importance of architectural design and aesthetics as well. The "old" encouraged the preservation of single buildings as museums, but the "new" fostered the conservation of historic communities, areas and districts through adaptation to "compatible modern uses" (Glass, 1990, 28). In 1967, Robert Utley described the difference between "old" and "new" preservation efforts as ". . the difference between a few shrines of transcendent significance to the Nation and thousands of local landmarks of historic, aesthetic or even sentimental importance to the state or community" (Glass, 1987, 279). He described the National Register as a declaration to all concerned of what in the United States was "worthy of preservation" and "should not be destroyed or impaired" (Glass, 1987, 338). Despite this, and because the task force was largely composed of historians, age remained an important consideration. Resources less than fifty years of age were exempt from eligibility for listing on the National Register unless they were of "exceptional importance". It was believed that allowing a fifty- year period would allow for an orderly examination of the past (Luce, 1995, II- 15). In fact, the establishment of fifty years as the time necessary for a resource to be considered historic was a bold step in the context of its time. It implied 46 that things built in the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were equal in significance to those built prior to the Civil War. The fifty-year guideline forced people to learn about a past that for the most part had been overlooked (Longstreth, 1991, 14). The establishment of a fifty-year guideline did not go unnoticed by those in the field. At a conference held to explain the new NPS program in Richmond, Virginia, a Washington D. C. delegate questioned panel members on how a liaison officer could nominate a property less than fifty years of age. Panel members replied that fifty years was a guideline, not a prohibition. Unfortunately, today many people consider it to be just the opposite. William Murtagh, the first Keeper of the National Register, remembers that when he and one other architect/architectural historian (Dr. Ernest Connally, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Architecture) joined the National Park Service in 1967, there was concern among some in the NPS that the "architects were taking over" (W. J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, February 7, 1996). Architectural historians argued that buildings should be preserved for their architectural merits and that preservation efforts should include not just recognized masterpieces, but buildings exemplifying styles, types and trends in the architectural practices of the nation and localities. As a result of these efforts, buildings began to be preserved because of their perceived importance to a community, for their role in the architectural and aesthetic integrity of a 47 neighborhood and as representative of changing cultural values and approaches to the living environment. The National Historic Preservation Act continued to undergo changes. The 1966 law as amended in 1976 and implemented by Executive Order 11593: 1) expressed federal concern for the future of historic properties and gave each federal agency a positive responsibility to identify them, protect them and consult with the advisory council in doing so; 2) established a basis for comprehensive programs of historic preservation and interagency coordination within the Department of the Interior 3) committed the federal government to developing a National Register of the nation's historic properties 4) established an infrastructure for historic preservation including the Department of the Interior, the advisory council and state historic preservation programs with a complex set of structural interlocks and checks and balances 5) required each state to conduct a survey and implement a plan for historic preservation and establish complementary responsibilities for federal agencies. (King, 1977, 47) During the 1970s and 1980s, preservation efforts shifted from an emphasis on individual buildings to a greater recognition of the role of historic districts. William Murtagh writes: A major reason for this: when asked, I always encouraged states to submit a nomination for a district since they could get as much protection for many buildings with one nomination as they could for one building at a time. I was much more cost effective time wise and encouraged the charge to look at things of local importance. (Personal Communication, March, 1996). 48 Along the same lines, Schwarzer writes: Along with an expanded universe of buildings and districts taken on by preservationists, emerged an expanded preservation methodology: The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation and Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Since they were first published in 1966, the Guidelines have served as a set of rigid principles and as a forum for debate on preservation, restoration, historic character and new designs and additions to historic structures and districts. (1994, 6) Experience gained in the administration of the National Historic Preservation Act by the National Park Service, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and local level administrators has resulted in the development of a new perspective as to what constitutes the nation's heritage. This has included the development of an awareness of ethnic and cultural diversities, a recognition of local history, acknowledgement of vernacular architecture and cultural landscapes and an exploration of non- traditional sources of information such as post card scenes, restaurant placemats and/or corporate advertising materials. These changes are more the result of a maturing of architectural history than the creation of a new field of endeavor. While during the 1960s few people carried out a serious study of American architecture, by the 1990s, hundreds were involved. Many of these men and women have academic affiliations; many more are involved in the teaching and study of historic preservation (Longstreth, 1991, 14). 49 The scope of preservation continues to expand today, primarily in two general areas: the scale and the type of resources being preserved. The scale of resources has increased dramatically, from individual buildings to historic districts, heritage corridors and cultural landscapes. The type of resources considered is no longer limited to recognized examples of high style but now includes resources as varied as vernacular landscapes and buildings to industrial complexes and cultural landscapes of every description. CHAPTER 4 THE ENIGMA OF SIGNIFICANCE Knowing is an activity of the knower and the objects of knowing result from that activity. John Dewey Overview As in most western nations, in the United States the notion of significance guides most preservation efforts. It always has. Vitruvius wrote as early as the first century B. C: Especially in architecture are these two things found: that which signifies and that which is signified. That which is signified is the thing proposed about which we speak; that which signifies is the demonstration unfolded in systems of precepts. (1960, 5) Resources are considered to be significant to the extent that their careful study might be expected to shed light on current research questions (Raab, 1977, 632). Unfortunately, the unique characteristics of historic properties prohibits the creation of a consistent approach to the question of significance. Tolstoy wrote of the problem: 50 51 A thing's significance (importance) lies in its being something everyone can understand. -- That is both true and false. What makes a subject hard to understand if it's something significant and important is not that before you can understand it you need to be specially trained in abstruse matters, but the contrast between understanding the subject and what most people want to see. Because of this the very things which are most obvious may become the hardest of all to understand. What has to be overcome is a difficulty having to do with the will rather than the intellect. (Wittgenstein, 1980, 17e) Despite this, federal regulations mandate the division of historic resources into those which are significant and those which are not. Those resources determined to be significant are further divided into those which are actually significant and those which have a reasonable potential to become significant. A resource determined to be actually significant is one in which types of significance are presently determinable. Because all resources are potentially significant (in that we cannot predict what questions they may answer in the future) the government requires there be a reasonable expectation of significance. Potential significance is only mentioned in criterion D, "[sites] that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information. . . (Code of Federal Regulations 36,1974, 248). Significance became an established criterion in historic preservation during the first decades of the twentieth century as a means of identifying resources that potentially have artistic, historic or associative merit. The notion of significance as an essential characteristic of cultural resources falls squarely within the empiricistpositivist tradition. Significance, as applied to historic properties, was apparently meant to be taken as a 'primitive' term, whose meaning the formulators of the 52 laws and regulations believed would be self-evident on the basis of experience. . Cultural properties are seen as possessing or lacking an inherent, immutable quality, significance, that gives rise to our understanding of their importance. (Tainter, 1983, 712) The view of significance as established in laws and regulations pertaining to historic preservation reflects the influence of empiricist- positivist intellectual tradition in America. Therefore, it is important to understand the basis for both empiricist and positivist thought as well as characteristics of each. Only then can this tradition be evaluated. Empiricist Thought The empiricist view subscribes to the metaphysical notion that all phenomena (including historic resources) have meanings or significance inherent in some sense within themselves. Empiricism is concerned with the rhetoric of perception, with the point at which characterizations of linguistic propriety and characterizations of sensory perception intersect, providing a mutually defining relationship between language and image (Law, 1993, ix). It is guided by the idea that observation provides a maximally certain and conceptually irreversible foundation of empirical knowledge, a foundation that supplies the basic premises of all reasoning and without which there would not be any probable knowledge (Morick, 1980,16). Plato 53 wrote in book seven of The Republic, "Thinking is a kind of seeing and clear seeing is true knowledge" (Law, 1993,18). The empiricist concept of sense experience is defended by saying that it is theoretically useful to isolate or abstract what we assimilate by our senses from what we perceive, to abstract what is given from our interpretation. Plato wrote of sense experience "But as for beauty . we can still recapture it, gleaming most clearly as it does, through the clearest of our senses. For sight is the keenest of our physical perceptions" (1952, 34). Experience rather than reason is the source of our knowledge. The treatment of appearances or looks of things as objects is central to the classical empiricist position. Looks are hypostatised and become the entities which we are said to sense or be aware of (Crowley, 1968,137). Each item has a single meaning or, at most, very few meanings (Hill, 1972, 233). This view and its corresponding epistemology often lead the examiner to view certain types as the only truly representative features existing. Types are accepted as fixed and fundamental units; they become basic data not to be questioned. Empiricist types are stylistic patterns, the result of culture and accepted as the norm. Plato wrote: When a man recently initiated [into the world of beauty] . sees a god-like countenance or physical form the beauty of which is a faithful imitation of true beauty, a shudder runs through him and something of the old awe steals over him. (1952, 34) 54 It is implied that the more "correct" a standard type is, the more knowledge we will be able to glean from it. It is further implied that classification is itself a primary method for gaining knowledge (Hill, 1972, 241). Variety is viewed as deviation by a singular entity or, in the extreme, a small group. In addition to dealing with types, the empiricist also relies on modes. A mode is defined as "any standard concept or custom which governs the behaviour of artisans of a community which they hand down from generation to generation, and which may spread from community to community" (Hill, 1972, 243). A. J. Ayer wrote in The Foundations of Empiricist Knowledge that empiricism establishes: "An unambiguous convention for the use of words that stands for modes of perception, freeing us from the verbal problems that develop out of the ambiguous use of such words in ordinary speech" (1968, 141). English empiricists believed that the basis for a "true method of discovery" rested on systematic thinking about what is experienced by the senses as a result of close attention being paid to observational details (Fain, 1970, 23). The basic tenets of English empiricism were developed by David Hume. Hume maintained that the mind, initially a blank slate, receives impressions from the sense organs as a "passive mirror." Thus, properties of the sense organs determine the nature of impressions (Chomsky, 1980, 288). He believed that impressions and ideas are all that really exist. They are as they appear and become known to us by consciousness. Hume further 55 believed that every idea is a copy of a previous impression or set of impressions. He felt that observation and experience teach us that all thoughts are derived from past experience and the nature of man's ideas is understood by contrast with the rest of his/her perceptions or mental contents namely, by contrast with impressions (Morick, 1980, 2). Hume's impressions are what we call sensations and feelings. It is from these impressions that all ideas are ultimately derived. Whereas Hume's beliefs centered on individual observations, contemporary empiricism centers on the objects of perception as publicly observable things. The problem with empiricist thought lies in its premise that it is possible to identify the vast majority of, if not all, characteristics associated with a given resource. It overlooks the fact that the significance of a resource is subject to change and can increase or decrease as both knowledge and research orientation changes. Morick writes of three objections to empiricism commonly raised by critics: 1) Observation claims derive credibility from background assumptions Critics say this is false, what scientific theory does is explain established facts revealed by sense experience. 2) Not only do observation claims derive their credibility from a network of background assumptions, but also derive meaning from this network -- If this is true then observation claims do not retain constant meaning through changes in the theory. 3) Observation claims are not just theory laden but also theory infected -- principles of empiricism are predicated on the belief that beliefs had and assumptions made about objects observed -- That is, empiricism rests on the assumption that there is an absolutely stable and invariant correspondence between perceptions and the stimuli which produce them. (1980, 17) 56 Positivist Thought The positivist view is that phenomena do not have inherent or primary characteristics but are assigned meaning by the human mind. As such, meanings assigned may vary from person to person. In general, positivism is the collection of prohibitions concerning human knowledge intended to confine the name of "knowledge" to those operations which are observable in the evolution of the modern sciences of nature (Kolakowski, 1968, 9). The antecedents of positivist thought can be traced to antiquity. Ancient thinkers believed that experience enables us to ascertain whether a given object has this or that appearance, but that it is illegitimate to go on to infer that the object is in reality such as it appears to be (Kolakowski, 1968, 11). Medieval thought gave expression to the fundamental ideas of positivism which aim at establishing rules of meaningful knowledge and confine it to analytical statements or matter of fact observations (Kolakowski, 1968, 17). As with empiricism, David Hume plays an important role in establishing English beliefs toward the subject and is widely known as the "Father of Positivist Philosophy" (Kolakowski, 1968, 38). Hume believed that perception was divided into two distinct classes, impressions and ideas. Impressions are immediately experienced contents while ideas are less lively perceptions, 57 rooted in memory or imagination. The two are interrelated in that every simple idea is a correspondent to or faded copy of a simple impression. Positivism presupposes that the logical syntax of language is not subject to historical changes because all languages have the same logical syntax. Its basic concept is that any expression in any language can be classified into one of three categories; theoretical terms, observation terms, and logical constants. Theoretical terms are considered to be self-explanatory. Observation terms are those whose meanings can be grasped through simple, direct perception. Color words (i.e. red, blue, etc.) are the paradigms of observation terms. Logical constants are words like "and" and "some" (Fain, 1970, 251). Both empiricists and positivists prefer to describe the world using language based solely on observational terms and logical constants. Positivism presupposes that the connection between cause and effect is known only by experience and never a priori. Inferences as to cause and effect relations are based solely on an expectation of certain specific events. This expectation is rooted in habit. Direct observation teaches us that certain events are associated, but that this association does not imply a mandatory connection. In its simplest form, positivism states that, except for knowledge of logical and mathematical systems, science provides the model for the only kind of knowledge we can attain. All that we know of reality is what we can observe or can legitimately deduce from what we observe (Charlton, 1959, 5). 58 Kolakowski writes in The Alienation of Reason that positivism stands for a certain philosophical attitude concerning human knowledge. It does not prejudge questions about how knowledge is arrived at or the historical foundations of knowledge. It is, however, a collection of rules and evaluative criteria referring to human cognition. These rules are: phenomenalism, nominalism, a rule that denies cognition value to value judgments and normative statements, and, fourth, the unity of the scientific method. Phenomenalism states that the distinction between essence and phenomenon should be eliminated from science on the grounds that it is misleading. We are entitled only to record that what is actually manifested in experience; disagreements over questions that go beyond the domain of experience are purely verbal in character. Phenomenalism establishes that the world we know is a collection of individual observable facts. Science aims at ordering these facts and all abstract concepts are contained in these ordering systems. Ordering systems give experience a coherent, concise form, easy to remember, purified of accidental deviations and deformations present in individual facts. The rule of nominalism establishes that we may not assume that any insight formulated in general terms can have any real referents other than individual concrete objects. According to nominalism, every abstract science is a method of ordering, a quantitative recording of experiences. It has no 59 independent cognitive function in the sense that via its abstractions, it opens access to empirically inaccessible domains of reality. The rule that denies cognitive value to value judgments and normative statements is predicated on the belief that experience contains no such qualities of men, events, or things such as "noble," "ignoble," "good/ "evil," "beautiful," "ugly," etc. The rule that denies establishes that no experience can oblige us, through any logical operations whatever, to accept statements containing commandments or prohibitions, telling us to do something or not to do it. Under positivism, the unity of the scientific method states that methods for acquiring valid knowledge, and the main stages in elaborating experience through theoretical reflection, are essentially the same in all spheres of experience. There is no reason to believe that qualitative differences between particular sciences amount to anything more than the characteristics of a particular historical stage in the development of science. Furthermore, we can expect that future progress will eliminate the differences, or perhaps, reduce all the domains of knowledge to a single science. The problem is that the positivist begins his/her work with tentative inferences or hypotheses about the materials to be or having been observed and then proceeds to select those attributes he/she feels will prove his/her initial hypothesis true (Hill, 1972, 253). It presupposes that, if one were 60 concerned with words, one could escape being involved with the world; that, in particular, it is possible to analyze in a significant way the language of the historian without becoming involved in history (Fain, 1970, 18). Even if positivists were correct in claiming that a clear partitioning between the observational and theoretical expressions of a language could be effected, there still remains the problem of actually reducing the latter to the former (Fain, 1970, 252). Empiricist-Positivist Thought When empiricist and positivist views are combined, it appears that empiricist philosophy prevails in that significance is believed to be present in a resource, rather than in the mind of the observer. This is because Empiricist and positivists share what may be termed as 'atomistic' approach to both semantics and epistemology. They assert the existence of 'primitive' terms or statements whose meaning or truth is non-problematic because of their immediate connection with sense experience. These semantic and epistemological 'atoms' provide the source of all meaning and knowledge. In this view, all meaning and knowledge consist either of these semantic and epistemological primitives, or of statements that can be derived or compounded from them. Moreover, the meaning and knowledge embodied in these primitive terms and/or statements derive only from their direct connection with sense experience. (Tainter, 1983, 711) While empiricistpositivist philosophy has experienced change, the basic belief that knowledge emanates from sense experience remains intact. When viewed in this manner, experiences are objective rather than 61 subjective. Because experience is an objective phenomenon, its meaning should be the same to everyone who has had proper training, regardless of his or her unique perspective or biases. In addition, meaning should not change over time (Tainter, 1983, 713). However, it can be argued that the outstanding quality of significance is its relativity. This quality is also its greatest weakness. The evaluation of significance is dependent on its interpretation relative to a given frame of reference. It should be evident that significance of cultural remains may be evaluated using many different frames of reference. Because of varied interests of researchers, the developing nature of the discipline and project- specific problems related to responsible management planning, significance cannot be viewed as a static property inherent within historic resources. Evaluations of significance have applied two different strategies: either a site is viewed as an isolated resource with inherent characteristics by which its value may be determined, or it is viewed in relation to other sites in a given area (Glassow, 1977, 418). The logical conclusion derived from the latter strategy is that significance is not a static, universally appreciable set of values. The empiricist-positivist view of significance cannot accommodate theoretical change and allows no basis for generalization. Therefore, it provides neither an accurate history of, nor a sound basis for, scientific method (Tainter, 1983, 714). In reality, significance is a dynamic concept varying through time, space and the cultural biases of investigators. As a 62 result, it may be extremely difficult to demonstrate that a site lacks the potential to become significant. Assessing Significance Assessing significance is one of the most difficult tasks for the preservationist. There is no universally applicable set of significance criteria that can be used in the same way so that determinations of such factors as site, type, cultural affinity or period are made. This creates problems stemming from a difficulty in determining the appropriate criteria to be used in measuring significance. Tainter writes: If meaning is assigned rather than fixed to inherent properties, then it is subject to variation between individuals and to change through time. . We cannot speak of significance as an inherent attribute of cultural properties wanting only to be discerned (even though this is precisely what the federal legislation and regulations require us to do). Significance, rather, is a quality that we assign to a cultural resource based on the theoretical framework within which we happen to be thinking. (1983, 714) A common flaw in assessing significance is a failure to recognize all relevant types of significance present in a resource. Ethnic or cultural significance can be especially difficult as its determination requires consultation with the groups who occupy a site, descendants of such groups and/or groups who presently own or live near sites under consideration. The existence of cultural variation is further proof that meaning is assigned by the human 63 mind. In an attempt to avoid these pitfalls, selection of the biggest, the earliest or the best example of whatever type of resource is being evaluated often occurs. The reality of this is that limiting selection of resources to a few exclusive examples results in the creation of bias. Significance and the Federal Government Significance is treated in our federal laws and regulations as an essential attribute of cultural properties, observable, recordable and subject to loss or destruction. The Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Historic Sites Act of 1935 are both rooted in the concept of national significance. With the passage of the 1935 act, significance became embedded in preservation law. Standards devised in 1935, 1949 and 1956 each require that "uniqueness," "importance," or "significance" exist in historic properties selected for preservation. The selection criteria developed by the National Council for Historic Sites and Buildings (the predecessor of the National Trust) in 1949 required that "in the case of a structure, be in itself of sufficient antiquity and artistic or architectural significance to deserve a position of high rank" (Tainter, 1983, 708). In 1956, the National Trust established the basis upon which the federal government describes significance today requiring that a "structure or area should have outstanding historical and cultural significance in the nation or in the state, region, or community in which it exists ..." (Tainter, 1983, 708). 64 The Code of Federal Regulations 36, 60.4 and 36, 800.10 state "the quality of significance ... is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects." Section 36, 60.15 states a property may be removed from the National Register if its significant qualities are "lost or destroyed" (Federal Historic Preservation Laws, 1993, 8). The introductory paragraph of the National Register's Criteria for Evaluation, The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association . . (Code of Federal Regulations 36,1974, 248), is contradictory in that it classifies significance (an objective concept) as a quality a subjective notion (Glass 1987, 361). Criteria A, B and C each have significant properties defined in part as "possessing significance." Categories of significance presented within the criteria are not mutually exclusive. Each is given a degree of flexibility in evaluation. In addition, each criteria must be evaluated within the structure of a particular frame of reference (Lynott, 1980, 117). In reality, the significance criteria used by the National Park Service establish a measure of utility. They determine if a property has some sort of useful function in terms of our understanding or appreciation of the past or in terms of maintaining the quality of our existing environment or for our 65 future environment. To meet the criteria, a property must arguably have at least a potential role to play in maintaining the integrity of a community or neighborhood or in maintaining a sense of place and cultural value or in the enhancement of human knowledge. A property lacks significance when it has no utility at all or when its role is already played by some other entity. Conflicts over significance are complicated further if the resource in question is strong in one area but questionable in another. It can be argued that the criteria set forth by the National Park Service for inclusion of a resource on the National Register of Historic Places are not meaningful, because any fixed set of criteria that are broad enough to apply to many cases are also too non-specific to provide a detailed rationale for assessment of significance in particular cases. William Murtagh points out that "this is why the states were asked to develop professional staffs -- to make assessments of significance based on a local estimate first, before the [federal government] agrees or not" (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Raab questions whether the criteria establish significance at all (1977, 631). There is a danger that at some point significance will be equated with placement on the Register and placement on the Register will be equated with significance. To avoid this, it may be better to simply state that sites do or do not meet National Register criteria. Another suggestion is to put the burden of proof on the federal government that a resource is not now and is not potentially 66 significant if the resource is not to receive protective management consideration (Sharrock, 1979, 327). A standard is valid if it is based on a solid understanding of the problem at hand and designed so that all parties involved know exactly what is expected of them. The significance concept fails the test. Tainter writes: The concept of significance is illogical, unworkable and does not entirely suit the purpose for which it was intended. It is illogical in that, contrary to what is assumed by federal law and regulation, cultural resources do not inherently possess or lack significance. It is unworkable in that significance evaluations can be absolutely rigorous only when all knowledgeable persons have been consulted about each property in question. It does not entirely suit the purpose for which it was intended in that it makes no provision for future achievement of significance. (1983, 715) The concepts of significant and exceptional are continuously influenced by various factors including advancing scholarship, real and perceived threats to historical properties and general public perception (Savage, 1993, 25). This, along with advancements in the fields of architectural history and preservation, lend support to the argument that the time has come for a change in determining resources eligible for inclusion on the National Register. The preservation of our historic heritage is possible if we know and declare what we are attempting to preserve and why. This cannot be done honestly unless we first analyze the significance of the resource as part of that heritage and are satisfied that there will be a loss to that heritage that will be irreplaceable if we do not preserve that significance. 67 In determining significance, we must let the results of our research define the resources that are important rather than starting with a preconceived notion of what is, or is not, significant. Longstreth sums up the problem writing: All things possess some degree of historic significance, however meager it might be. Properly done, preservation provides the framework by which one may select from the past, prioritizing significance in a reasonably consistent and meaningful way. The integrity of method is vital, for preservation's greatest contribution to society is enabling people to gain insights on the past that are real, and to do so in ways that written, pictorial and other forms of communication cannot duplicate. (1994, 45) William Murtagh believes that this is the basic role and function of a professional state staff, even if it relies on local researchers (Personal Communication, March, 1996). CHAPTER 5 THE QUESTION OF THE RECENT PAST Cartoon in the Saturday Review: [pictured] Two helmeted workmen who, in the course of demolishing an office building, have just broken open the cornerstone bearing the date '1952'. One workman is reading a scroll taken from the cornerstone: 'To you children of history, who in some far distant day down the dim dark corridors of time, may breech this stone'. . . John S. Pyke, Jr. In 1932, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) assumed a pioneering role in recognizing outstanding examples of contemporary architecture. To be successful, the exhibition required an accurate and fair assessment of the historic significance of recently constructed buildings. This was achieved by Philip Johnson, Henry Russell Hitchcock and the museum staff. As a result, the exhibit "Modern Architecture" still carries its own sense of historical magnitude. The exhibit revolutionized architectural practice throughout the United States and around the world (Kimball, 1994, 16). It effectively, albeit temporarily, disproved Ada Louise Huxtable's belief that "Genius is seldom acknowledged in its own generation" (1970, 204). Despite the acclaim given to the 1932 MoMA exhibit and the fact that the 1966 Historic Preservation Act states in part "the historical and cultural foundation of the Nation should be 68 69 preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people" (Federal Historic Preservation Laws. 1993, 6), in 1966 there was little interest in the preservation of twentieth century buildings. On December 2, 1966, Secretary of the Interior Stuart Udall spoke in support of the recently passed National Historic Preservation Act: The very survival of vast numbers of our irreplaceable historic buildings and places is at stake. What menaces this, of course, is the dynamic contemporary society of which we are all a part, a society in which men and machines and pavements and structures proliferate at the expense of an older, quieter, less crowded world, a society where new things tend to spread out with incredible speed and obliterate old things. (Glass, 1987, 273) The National Historic Preservation Act made no mention of age as a criterion of preservation. In 1967, the task force overseeing its implementation defined the National Register of Historic Places writing, "The National Register of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology and culture. ... It lists the most significant evidences of our national heritage" (Glass, 1987, 339). Again, no mention was made of age. The implied understanding was that a resource's value was not in its age alone, but in what is represented architecturally, historically and socially. Everything that survives from the past is not only historic because it is of the past, but it is also of our heritage because it is handed on to us by 70 our predecessors of past ages. That the very quality of age affects our evaluation of the heritage is commonplace but not necessarily logical. (Faulkner, 1978, 452) Historic value is based on a consensus among people as to "lasting worth" (Shull, 1995, 11-11). The Federal government does not dictate when a place becomes historic. Rather, it recognizes historicity through a listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It is possible that factors listed as necessary for a building to qualify for listing on the Register under criteria A through D can be present at the time of its completion. In fact, each year, some building designs receive international acclaim upon their completion, if not sooner. Longstreth argues: . . the continued use of separate -- albeit ostensibly equal -- categories of 'architectural' and 'historical' significance [makes it appear] as if architecture has no past and history no physical dimension. Such a division may have been justified in the mid-1960s, given the then prevailing views of the past; however, it now seems both trivializing and archaic in light of the changes that have occurred in historical related disciplines over the last three decades. Architectural history, cultural anthropology, cultural geography, folklore, historic archaeology, social history and urban history, among other fields have contributed to a more holistic approach. (1994, 43) It has been argued that the fifty-year requirement is justified on the basis that a distance of time is necessary for the objective evaluation of buildings and places and that preservation efforts need to be based on more than current taste (Mortin, 1987, 173). A fifty-year time span allows not only academic evaluation of an historic site but also allows for healing, for 71 understanding and for emotions to be sorted out (Luce, 1995, 11-19). Certainly, in highly emotional cases, some time is needed for the factors contributing to a resource to be identified and to allow the subject to be considered with a sense of detachment. In these cases, the question is not whether time is necessary to accomplish these tasks but how much time is needed and whether in today's world fifty years is too long. Richard Longstreth writes: Historical significance is determined from a corpus of facts and from methods of interpretation that are generally accepted among prominent scholars. It can be substantiated and explained clearly and persuasively on both public and professional arenas. Historic significance provides a solid foundation for identifying resources and for determining which of their attributes must be retained to ensure their collective integrity. (1994, 41) By 1981, the destruction of landmarks of the modem movement was already recognized. Bradford Perkins, in an article entitled "Preserving the Landmarks of the Modern Movement" wrote of "the threat to major examples of modern architecture too young or too unpublicized to be protected by a public outcry for landmark designation" saying "modern architectural projects are threatened by all of the same forces that have modified or destroyed many of their predecessors" and pointing out that it is often "assumed that more modern works are either less important or better able to accommodate change" (1981, 109). An example of this attitude is evident in the treatment of many office high-rises of the 1960s and 1970s. These buildings were designed as isolated objects, separated from the street by 72 plazas and sunken courtyards. Now that attitudes regarding urbanism have shifted to emphasize pedestrian connections, architects are adapting the high- rises to a more human scale at the sidewalk level (Harriman, 1992, 106). Apparently the federal government was aware of the potential for loss. Duerksen wrote in 1983 that "in at least three cases the federal government has denied certification to local governments when selection was predetermined by a qualifying age requirement greater than fifty-years, on grounds that the effects of alteration or demolition can best be evaluated on a case by case basis independent of age" (1983, 85). Since the mid-1980s, nominations of twentieth century properties to the National Register have outnumbered those of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries combined. Certainly part of the reason this has occurred is the limited number of properties from these earlier periods that qualify for listing. Nevertheless, the recognition that, in America, the post World War Two time period was a time of immense creativity and building opportunities has become more widely accepted. No preceding period produced such diversity of style or range of building types (Lee, 1994, 28). Lee is not alone in believing this; Dietsch writes: Many of our most treasured landmarks are younger, representing the country's most confident era: the corporate office towers, cultural centers and campus buildings that were built in the 1950s and 1960s. Without landmark protection, some of the best examples of these decades are increasingly being tom down or altered beyond recognition without so much as a whimper from preservationists. (1992, 15) 73 Certainly, as Richard Longstreth points out Not everything can be saved from the recent past any more than from any other period. But there should be no tolerance for positing the problems inherent to so much of preservation, irrespective of the things involved and the periods they represent, as sufficient reason to ignore work that is only a few decades old. (1991, 21) Despite beliefs such as these, architecture from the recent past remains low on the list of preservation priorities. Lack of education and/or bias has led to the improper assumption that the modern movement rejected all previous stylistic designs and that this rejection of the past is the source of many of today's problems. Another incorrect assumption is that glass curtained buildings are not worth preserving. However, as Ada Louise Huxtable points out, "the 'glass box' is the most maligned building idea of our time. It is also one of the best. Whatever its deficiencies, and there are many, it is the genuine vernacular of the mid 20th century" (1970, 205). Most modern architecture originally was intended to be a one-of-a-kind architectural expression. Unadorned surfaces were preferred, not as a rejection of the past, but in order to utilize materials, composition and detailing as a means of design expression. A further example is what has happened to America's main streets. While it was not unusual for traditional mainstreets to survive one hundred to one hundred fifty years, those dating from the 1940s and 1950s have, for the most part, been extensively altered or destroyed. 74 It is encouraging to note that post World War Two architecture is increasingly being recognized as a valuable resource and saving modern buildings has been called "the preservation issue of the decade" (News, 1992, 26). One can only hope that this is proof that Wittgenstein was correct when he wrote "The works of great masters are suns which rise and set around us. The time will come for every great work that is now in the descendent to rise again" (1980,15e). The creation of a sense of place requires both a past and a present. Preservation allows people to live and work in a world that continually provides reminders of past accomplishments in addition to what is being accomplished today. If done correctly, we should never be able to say, as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland, California, "There is no there, there" (Department of Housing, 1983, 62). The existence of a fifty-year guideline negates the sense of place that newer communities seek to achieve. Three cultural tendencies are shared to some degree by preservationists. These are: a proclivity for allowing personal taste in architecture to outweigh more legitimate criteria, a tendency to indulge in aesthetic affinities that can sometimes lead to a trivialization or exaggeration of the past, and a resistance to view the everyday content of our lives in historic terms (Striner, 1995, 11-19). The resultant disregard for a direct link to the remote past often results in the destruction of historic resources. 75 If one accepts custodianship as the guiding philosophy behind preservation, then architecture from the recent past must be considered for protection. Unfortunately, for many people it is easier to deal with the remote past. They feel the remote past does not pose a threat to the present whereas the recent past does. From a preservation perspective, buildings from the remote past will always be considered important. They will always be older, always be more limited in number and always establish the groundwork for today's architectural preferences. They also serve as tools which, when studied, can be used to establish settlement, social, architectural and/or cultural patterns. However, the fact that seventeenth century buildings are more scarce in the United States than early twentieth century office buildings does not make them intrinsically more significant from a historical perspective (Longstreth, 1991, 17). The problem is especially bad in the eastern United States where "feelings still run strong against most -- or even all -- of the 20th century; in some extreme cases, the significance of anything realized after the mid-19th century is summarily dismissed" (Longstreth, 1994, 43). As stated earlier, there is an inverse relationship between the rate of change and the time it takes for something to be considered historic. The greater the gap, the less the sense of continuity and, as a result, a sense of place. 76 Eighty percent of everything built in America has been constructed since the end of World War Two (Goldberg, 1995, 1-12). Much of this construction has taken place in suburbia, where over forty percent of all Americans now live (Jackson, 1991, 7). In fact, A much larger share of the past is recent. It was built or at least was still new within living memory, the product of one's parents' or grandparents' generations. Here the intrinsic worth lies in fostering a sense of continuity, in striking a balance with change, in gaining perspective on the present, in knowing that some of the things one creates can have value over time. (Longstreth, 1994, 45) By expanding our knowledge of the recent past, the temporal boundaries between past and present come closer, thereby integrating preservation more fully with everyday life (Jackson, 1991, 7). Unfortunately this is not often the case. As a result, milestones of the Modern Movement are often neglected, radically altered, or simply razed. Preserving resources from the recent past recognizes that they, along with all other aspects of the recent past, have become part of our history. Preservationists should not be any more reluctant to evaluate a resource created within the last fifty years than one created more that fifty years ago. Within twenty years an entire stylistic grouping of resources can be created and destroyed. Time obliterates -- often literally as easily as it clarifies (Shiffer, 1995, 3). Resources created a generation ago can be evaluated from a fresh perspective. Lynch writes that "a humane environment commemorates recent events quickly" (1972, 61). Therefore, we should 77 actively work to preserve the recent past. It is, after all, where our ties are strongest. In addition, it is what immediately and most directly links us to the remote past. The survival and preservation of structures from the recent past creates both physical and social continuity. We cannot afford to allow only the existence of the remote past. No matter how accurately a resource is preserved, if only selective categories are saved, or if only selective periods are represented, integrity and authenticity are lost. The conception of significance for the recent past is shaped by the fact that for several generations, historiographic emphasis has generally been placed on ideology, artistic expression and a very limited range of technical innovations (Longstreth, 1991, 13). Just as a biographer works not to describe the appearance of a person as much as to understand a whole personality and to place the subject within a society, the preservationist must recognize a place not only in terms of individuality but also of contextuality, as a product both of nature and of nurture (Baker, 1992, 2). William Murtagh once quoted a New York Times article which stated: At best, preservation engages the past in a conversation with the present over a mutual concern for the future" (Green, 1991, 90). Within the last fifty years, it seems the conversation has centered on a series of still unanswered questions including: How important is historical perspective; Why is proving exceptional significance needed; 78 What constitutes exceptional; and, What issues are specific to buildings from the recent past? (Benjamin, 1988, 7) Above and beyond these questions, there are fundamental problems when one deals with all architecture from the recent past. Luce believes these center on the following issues: "1) many -- if not most -- structures or styles are not viewed as historic; 2) accelerated rates of change; 3) the evaluation of common/standard building types; and, 4) persistence of earlier attitudes toward sites/structures related to political correctness" (1995, 11-17). Other problems related to the evaluation of structures from the recent past stem from lack of agreement on style characteristics. This is especially difficult when one remembers that one of the tenets of the movement was individual expression/interpretation of the here and now (Donahue, 1988, 24). Modern architecture did not just eliminate ornament; it did not just eschew references to the past; it did not just emulate a machine aesthetic; it entailed challenges to previously accepted basic assumptions regarding the properties of design (Longstreth, 1995, 1-17). In addition, guidelines regarding basic building typologies have not yet been developed for sites such as shopping malls, military bases and airports. We must also create ways to fairly assess innovative materials, designs and building techniques that, over time, have shown to be less than successful. 79 Despite these problems, age alone should not be reason enough to exclude buildings from the National Register. Nor should it be reason enough to require exceptional" significance. Striner quotes Longstreth as concluding that the issue is not when something becomes 'historic/ but instead when an adequate historical perspective can be gained on a particular kind of thing" (1995, 6). In Longstreth's words: Political historians need not defend studying events of the Eisenhower or Kennedy administrations. Military historians focus on the Korean or Vietnamese wars just as they do earlier conflicts. An interpretive approach imbued with a sense of historicity is assumed. No one believes that a historian of the Third Reich is in business just to criticize that regime any more than to defend or express nostalgia for it. Exploring such realms is to a certain extent predicated on the demand for understanding phenomena beyond what contemporary chronicles can provide, which in turn brings persons to the fore who are capable of meeting the challenge. (1991, 14) William Murtagh writes: Professionals in the field, with few exceptions like Longstreth, have never taken the time to educate the public on the recent past or to establish in the public mind much of a sense of concern for the recent past, the preservation of which runs hard into the agendas of developers and the real estate crowd's [financial gains]. They're the ones which need to be educated about the recent past [in a manner which does not let] them feel that everything they create deserves to be preserved. (Personal Communication, March, 1996) CHAPTER 6 THE NEED FOR INCLUSION OF THE RECENT PAST True historic preservation is objective in its attitude. That is, it regards all periods and styles as inherently equal for learning about our past. . . Historic preservation admits that it is as important to preserve 20th century Eclectic and 19th century neo-Gothic as 18th century Georgian, or Federal, or Classic Revival. David Poinsett In America, we preserve historic resources for several reasons. We preserve because historic resources are all that we have to physically link us with our past. Historic resources are part of us. They tell us not only who we are but how we differ from those around us and they help us preserve that uniqueness. Some believe that historic resources should be valued as art and, as a result, hold on to them in an effort to keep America beautiful. We preserve because historic resources fill social needs. In short, we preserve to fill educational, recreational and inspirational needs and as a means of giving historically and architecturally valuable sites and buildings viable economic uses (Poinsett, 1983, 60). The problem, as Daniel Bluestone points out is that: In valuing certain buildings, preservation devalues others. Carried to the extreme, this process of devaluation leads to destruction and fosters a historical landscape that increasingly conforms to and confirms the privileged narrative. (1994, 210) 80 81 Along the same lines, Ada Louise Huxtable writes A building that may no longer work well or pay its way may still be a superb creative and cultural achievement. It may be the irreproduceable record of the art and ideals of a master or an age. Its concept, craft, materials, and details may be irreplaceable at any price . . and there lies the conflict and the dilemma of preservation. (1970, 233) William Murtagh believes that "In a society where age is justified by money, creativity and aesthetic excellence become trivial in the developer's/realtor's mind unless the development is based on historicity" (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Criterion C of the "new" preservation that came into being in 1966 made it clear that historic resources were to be preserved for architectural and aesthetic as well as historic and patriotic values. The National Register of Historic Places remains today, as it has been since 1966, . . the pivot upon which historic preservation in the United States turns. Properties that qualify for the Register are the subject matter of historic preservation and they are eligible for preservation, enhancement and salvage. If they do not qualify, they are not worth worrying about. The bluntness of this pivot [remains] one of the major sources for trouble for historic preservation. (King, 1977, 95) The idea of extending current preservation philosophical rationale to include the recent past dates to the beginning of the new preservation's implementation and stems from our commitment to save our heritage (Striner, 1993, 1). Respect should be given to all buildings which serve as good 82 examples of an important architectural style, or the work of a distinguished architect or master builder or, simply, which have continued to generate acclaim over time. Included in this should be a means for considering works of living architects. The Keeper of the National Register discourages nominations of properties associated with living architects. The policy was established by William Murtagh during the time he served as the first Keeper of the National Register in 1968. It was designed to avoid the appearance of "endorsing" one architect over another (W. J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, February 5, 1996). However, if Longstreth's belief that If the representation of ideas and practices -- artistic, symbolic, functional, technical, social and/or cultural are clearly different from those in common use today, those differences can allow us to analyze the work as part of a historic phenomena (1991, 15) is applied, not only could this body of work be included in preservation efforts, but the appearance of endorsement could be avoided as well. The problem of how to deal with the recent past exists world wide but is not often addressed by governments. Sweden's SAMDOK is the exception. SAMDOK is the acronym for "samtidsdokumentation" or same time documentation. In 1989, the International Working Party for the Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the Modem Movement (DoCoMoMo) was founded in order to facilitate the exchange of documentation and conservation information, protect threatened 83 Modern Movement buildings, stimulate interest in the Modern Movement and create a register of significant buildings from the Modern Movement. The dominant view of the group was that the cultural importance of Modernist buildings, however utilitarian, meant they must be conserved in the same sense as buildings from other periods (Fraser, 1990, 76). A United States chapter of DoCoMoMo was founded in 1995. The International Council of Monuments and Sites' (ICOMOS) World Heritage List requires that a resource be at least twenty-five years of age to be considered for listing, one-half the time preferred by our National Park Service. In July of 1995, ICOMOS, along with the United Nations Economic Security Council's (UNESCO) World Heritage Center and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Properties (ICCROM), sponsored a seminar on twentieth century heritage. Discussions dealt with how to identify twentieth century properties that could potentially be included on the World Heritage List, including the identification and protection of twentieth century sites and whether different criteria were needed to accurately assess these structures. They determined, in part, that better historic analysis, via objective thematic and monographic studies is needed to avoid reliance on traditional historical interpretation. In addition, item five of the general recommendations reads in part, "Due attention should be paid to the full spectrum of the heritage of the entire century . ." (see Appendix C). 84 In the United States, the American Institute of Architects annually gives an award to a building at least twenty-five years of age believing it has withstood, as the name of the award clearly states, the "test of time." It should be noted that promotional materials state the objective of the award is To recognize distinguished single works of architecture and planned developments affecting more than one building, after a period of time has elapsed in which the function, aesthetic statement and execution can be reassessed Preservation in the United States has always been dependent on community support and recognition. Communities must understand that it is best to preserve historic resources in context, although it is not always possible. Every attempt should be made to allow historic resources to remain part of the local community or neighborhood, as they have always been. Preserving and protecting only the best or earliest will carry forth neither the historic nor architectural character of a locale. Preservation is in a sense a community act. It is as important as a process as in its results, contributing to the mutual education of people who see beauty and value in terms of the architecture or of a building's place in the history of engineering, technology, or town planning, and to those who simply know that buildings and places are meaningful in terms of their own lives. (Hareven, 1981, 122) Extending that thought, W. L. Rathje writes, "A community is preserved in its full context only when both the self recorded picture and the material realities picture are placed side by side" (1995,11-65). Preservation efforts need 85 to encompass the entire spectrum of the community, state, region or nation in question. Every effort must be made to avoid overt, subjective, critical associations. In the same way that preservation activities include both vernacular and formal resources, they should include both the recent and remote. The current listing process in the United States impacts resources hardest within the first thirty years (Lee, 1994, 28). The ever accelerating pace of technological change and the consequent larger scale of alterations to, or destruction of, historically significant resources has become a widespread concern of preservationists. No longer can it be said that neglect is often the best preserver. Longstreth has voiced concern writing: "if we continue to disregard so much that is all around us, we may waste far more than we preserve and bestow upon future generations the difficult task of deciphering the carcass" (1991, 21). A case in point is Chicago where, as Daniel Bluestone writes: "a limited historical view of the city's architecture supported only a modest preservation program in what turned out to be the most destructive period in Chicago since the 1871 fire" (1994, 210). He supports this statement by writing: The narrow focus on the monuments of the so-called Chicago School provided a basis for the cohesion of modernists and preservationists in support of landmark preservation during the 1950s and 1960s. For modernists, preserving the landmarks of the so-called Chicago School fostered a narrative of Chicago history that reinforced contemporary interest in modern urban renewal. Moreover, narrowly conceived preservation simply did not pose a threat to the plans for a massive 86 public and private rebuilding of the city. As renewal and preservation proceeded, the historic city came to look increasingly like the Chicago School narrative; the diversity of the city's nineteenth-century architectural production was either destroyed or overlooked by those who relied on architectural designations to gather their sense of history. For those preservationists who were more concerned with defining and defending a sense of place than with building the city anew, the narrow vision of landmarks also held certain advantages. The ascendancy of aesthetic preservation over a variety of associational narratives encouraged preservationists in their belief that they could locate the essence of the city and its history in a few representative structures of the Chicago School. The absolute priority given to aesthetic over associational landmarks in the 1950s and beyond further restricted the use that citizens could make of history; their efforts to forge a vital sense of neighborhood and community identity based in part on history could only be frustrated by the aesthetic model. (1994, 221) Bluestone's account shows that preservation is only as good or as useful as the histories it values. What the passage does not mention, according to William Murtagh, are the unseen political realities of preserving the recent past which are blatantly present in the Chicago Loop area. Political reality becomes all the more important if most of what is considered was built after World War Two (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Writing history and preserving buildings clearly reinforces particular histories while ignoring others. When historians make errors in fact or interpretation, a record of ideas may be corrected at a later time. Historic preservation, in dealing with history as it was manifested in tangible materials, does not permit that luxury. Preservationists work in a world in which the traces of histories that they choose to ignore often disappear. 87 The job of identifying resources from the recent past which are worth preserving is a matter of ongoing study and interpretation. Preservation efforts must begin with an understanding of the significance of historical and cultural resources. While traditional approaches to the preservation of historic buildings and landscapes are largely applicable to twentieth century resources, some evolution in methodology is required. In fact, methods used to study the recent past will, on occasion, be quite different than those used to study and evaluate the remote past. The preservation of buildings from the recent past requires a new approach with awareness of and responsiveness toward sensibility. When working with the recent past, preservationists, in many cases, need only use the same historiographic methods used to study earlier periods. However, they must be willing to work with unconventional sources of data and to apply innovative techniques, if needed. More than other periods of architecture, the preservation of buildings from the recent past may require the interpretation and/or reinterpretation of the designer's original vision. Today's preservationists have both the duty and the burden of being willing and able to challenge contemporary historical interpretation. By employing principles basic to solid scholarship, the preservability of much of the recent past can be put into perspective now. To do so, preservationists must think less like critics and more like historians. R. G. Collingwood writes: "The Historian's objective is to see events from 'the inside,' to penetrate the thoughts that lie behind the deed. . When this 88 can't/isn't done, actions become opaque and documents describing [historical evidence are] destroyed" (Fain, 1970, 145). In other words, the basic question to be asked is not what visual pleasure and/or intellectual significance given buildings have for us, but what they had for the generation that built them and for the generations between that time and the present. Preservationists should keep in mind that while the reality of the past is objective, the interpretation of the past is subjective; facts and circumstances concerning the past are subject to interpretation by the historian's perceptions. To avoid bias impacting a determination of significance, "Analysis should be based upon as objective a viewpoint as possible, premised on factual evidence and on understanding that evidence within the content of its own time" (Longstreth, 1991,12). Emphasis should be placed on context based research with resources evaluated in terms of how, what and why they contribute to culture. This should include the symbolic value of the resource and the way of life and sense of continuity which it represents (Hareven, 1981, 118). Resources should be treated as social and cultural documents. Buildings derive absolute historical importance not alone from their creation in a particular period, or from their established aesthetic and stylistic value, but also from the social context in which they were used, the functions they fulfilled, and the historical experiences associated with them. (Hareven, 1981, 119) 89 In that historical importance is relative and may change over time, the use of the term "absolute" is questionable. It should be remembered that evaluators are also acting in the context of their time and need to be aware of such to avoid generational bias. Last, demanding that buildings relate to context should be avoided. This frequently leads to an emphasis on qualities of size, materials, color and architectural style; physical qualities measured by original appearance. Architectural history tends to provide an aesthetically pleasing view of the world, one that is limited politically. Perpetuating the concept of "pure" styles by preserving only selected high style examples implies that they are the most important. At its extreme, "Preservationists run the risk of losing credibility in the disciplines that are their professional backbone when they succumb to such shallow typecasting" (Longstreth, 1995, 1-19). Ada Louise Huxtable puts it another way, writing that preservation is in danger of becoming synonymous with the theme park (Longstreth, 1995, 1-19). Places worthy of preservation should represent meaning, orientation, use, or beauty in the lives of a given group or culture. Many preservationists have eschewed various forms of vernacular resources. In doing so, they propagate high culture and aesthetics as those values most associated with permanence (Schwarzer, 1994, 9). The challenge of preservation is to preserve the meaning of the way of life which buildings represent to those who have 90 worked and lived in them, as well as the more abstract and formal qualities based on a knowledge of architecture and technological history (Hareven, 1981 121). William Murtagh states "We preserve the past in order to avoid a loss of identity, maintain a sense of continuity and improve livibility" (1995). Although sentiments are slowly changing, the idea of preserving architecture from the recent past "is still a hard pill for many preservationists to swallow. It remains an area of historic preservation that gets routinely overlooked. There is often little sympathy for the period and in some cases outright hostility" (Gordon, 1992, 22). Despite the fact that eighty percent of the built environment has been constructed since World War Two, as of February 14, 1996, of 65, 317 listings on the National Register of Historic Places, only 2,069 were admitted under exception G (less than fifty-years of age), a mere 3.2 percent (John Burns, Personal Communication, February 14, 1996). Equally discouraging are the figures regarding AIA Test of Time award winners from 1969 to 1994. A check of sites documented by HABS shows that only two of the twenty-five award winners have been documented. A check of listings on the National Register shows only ten of the award winners. While some criteria for selection differ, they are, overall, like enough that all of the award winners should be listed on the National Register. What would be even better would be to have the preservation community recognize these sites prior to their winning a "test of time" award. In doing so, preservationists 91 would make a clear statement that they both understand and appreciate the built environment from all of our past. 92 TABLE 1 ALA Test of Time Award Winners, 1969 1994 Status Regarding Preservation Year Building Location HABS Documented Nat'l Register Listing 1969 Rockefeller Center New York, NY none 1987 1971 Crow School Winnetka, IL none 1989 1972 Balwin Hills Village Louisiana nene not listed 1973 Taliesin West Paradise, AZ nene 1974 1974 Johnson & Son Administration Bldg. Racine, WI yes 1974 1975 Philip Johnson House New Canaan, CT none not listed 1976 860-880 N. Lake Shore Drive Apartments Chicago, 11 none 1980 1977 Christ Lutheran Church Minneapolis, MN nene not listed 1978 Eames House Pacific Palisades, CA nene not listed 1979 Yale University Art Gallery New Haven, CT nene not Usted 1980 Lever House New York, NY none 1983 1981 Farnsworth House Plano, IL yes not listed 1982 Equitable Savings Portland, OR none 1976 1983 Price Tower Barlesville, OK nene 1974 1984 Seagram Building New York, NY nene not Usted 1985 General Motors Technical Center Warren, MI nene not Usted 1986 Guggenheim Museum New York, NY none not Usted 1987 Bowinger House Norman, OK nene not Usted 1988 Dulles Airport Terminal Bldg Chantilly, VA nene 1978 1989 Vanna Venturi House Chestnut Hill, PA none not Usted 1990 Gateway Arch St. Louis, MO nene 1987 1991 Sea Ranch Condos Sea Ranch, CA nene not Usted 1992 Salk Institute La Jolla, CA nene not Usted 1993 Deere & Co. Administration Ctr. Moline, IL none not Usted 1994 Haystack Mountains School of Crafts Deer Isle, ME nene not Usted CHAPTER 7 EVALUATING HISTORIC STRUCTURES Overview We are in no position to choose what we receive from the past ages as our heritage. Our choice lies in how we value it and how we treat it. P. A. Faulkner Preservationists need to examine and analyze more carefully the perspective and content of the historical narratives they preserve and promote. Not only should a critical and analytical approach be applied to issues of documentation, a systematic rationale for selection should be in place as well. Work needs to take place to ensure that the system retains solid perspective and, whenever possible, objectivity. It should be remembered, however, that any evaluation is to some degree bound to be comparative and, therefore, subjective. When nominating resources to the National Register of Historic Places, preservationists along with local, state and national officials and local community members should believe that the resource in question will possess an enduring value for its historical association, appearance and potential for information. The record depends on an arbitrary selection of the 93 94 aspects to be recorded. That selection can only be made with knowledge possessed at the time of recording (Faulkner, 1978, 467). Age should not be an issue, nor should it be a criterion or a guideline. In evaluating works of our more recent past, however, we are thrown back on our judgement. There is no automatic seal of approval and our judgement is bound to be at the mercy of current modes and fashions, eventually to be confirmed or condemned by our successors. . . Up to the nineteenth century, this problem did not exist. The masterpiece, such as Street's Law Courts was recognized as soon as it was built, its quality not to be questioned if endorsed by the Society of Dilettanti or the Royal Academy. In fact, it might be said that it is a twentieth century phenomenon to be unsure of one's own judgement. (1978,454) Faulkner goes on to point out, lack of age can actually be beneficial and may lead to more accurate assessments: With brush, trowel and delicate instruments we examine the debris of two-thousand years ago. The examination of yesterday's debris by the dustbin scavenger appears a much more casual affair. On consideration, though, it may prove to be more selective and be based on a very precise evaluation of the material recovered with an assessment of its significance uncoloured by the effort put into its recovery. (1978, 453) It should be understood, however, that in certain highly emotional cases a passage of time may be needed before the resource can be viewed objectively. In those cases, a passage of time equivalent to no more than one generation (currently ten years) is suggested. There is no sure way of knowing whether attributes selected today will continue to be important. Therefore, just as acquisition and listing 95 procedures are well defined, so should be policies regarding deaccession. Ideally, a periodic review would be mandatory for all listings on the register every ten years and for national landmarks every seven years. In addition, evaluation criteria should be reviewed at least once every ten years. This would be more in line with William Murtagh's view that "revision is more than inevitable, Tt seems clear that the vocabulary of preservation will continue to evolve so long as the activity it describes remains a vital one'" (Weeks, 1996, 32). To lower costs and make a review of listings manageable, this process should be done at the local level. Knowing the impact of a rapid pace of change and continually evolving technologies, it is important that existing policies allow buildings to evolve and keep pace. Policies regarding structures moved in order to be preserved/ saved should be more understanding and center on the moved resource as an artifact in its own right. The primary focus should be on the importance of the resource, not the site to where the resource has been moved. William Murtagh points out that this was "always" the case when he was keeper (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Kliment describes the soul of a building as those "features which make them worthy of special attention" (1992, 87). With that in mind, when dealing with altered or relocated buildings, a guiding criterion should be that "In most historic buildings, when their environment has been adjusted, their soul shows through" (Owings, 1970, 237). 96 In each case, all analysis needs to be completed prior to any evaluation and evaluation must form the basis of selection. This is the key process: a reasoned evaluation tells future generations that we have fairly considered to each item and valued it sufficiently highly in the context of our historical inheritance to be worthy of preservation (Faulkner, 1978, 473). Evaluation systems are successful if properly and carefully designed with strict protection and usable incentives. They must provide property owners both flexibility and encouragement if they are to promote the preservation and rehabilitation of buildings. Faulkner points out that Our inheritance is so vast and so varied that we must select as the legacy we pass on to our successors only those parts that have a definable significance in historic terms. Not only must we select but, as an essential part of that legacy, we must justify to our heirs our selection in some permanent form other than the objects we preserve. (1978,475) One way of accomplishing this is by expanding our graphic record. In addition, a graphic record may be used to record those buildings or remains of comparatively minor value to our heritage and, secondly, as the sole means we have at our disposal to preserve the detailed form of individual elements, such as mouldings, etc. whose decay we cannot prevent. In short, it should be recognized that preservation does not necessarily mean physical preservation. Dixon has proposed five guidelines for resource preservation in the future. These are: the realization that all resources have potential 97 significance unless proven otherwise, the obligation to preserve/protect as many resources as feasible, insurance that the sample of preserved resources be as representative as possible, measures in place to control bias, and an expanded base (1977, 278). To do the job correctly, increased funding and better education of the public regarding preservation philosophy and issues is necessary. Current Preservation Plans Incorporating Recent Buildings In June of 1990, Vancouver, Canada, became one of the first municipalities in North America to expand the scope of its heritage inventory to include buildings that were twenty years old. Twenty years was considered to be a critical period of time to allow for an objective assessment of the historical merit of a building. The Heritage Commission felt that "Maintaining a collection of Modern buildings ensures continuity in our architectural heritage" (Heritage Brochure, not dated). Vancouver's Recent Landmarks Program identifies and documents notable examples of modern architecture on the basis of their aesthetic and design value, innovative technological advances of the time and contributions by prominent architects. It is recognized that landmarks can be architecturally distinguished and/or socially important. 98 Honolulu, Hawaii, has developed a set of "Historic Preservation Value" criteria for use in the Waikiki area. These criteria apply only to buildings less than fifty years of age and provide preservationists with a method for making decisions regarding protection. The criteria include six areas: integrity, uniqueness, rarity, work of an outstanding designer, condition and existing level of public recognition. Due to the fact that so few historic buildings in the Waikiki area remain on their original site, integrity is defined according to National Register criteria, except for the elements of setting and location. These two integrity criteria have been omitted. Boston, Massachusetts, considers all buildings predating 1960 in its landmarks program. All buildings predating that time are assessed according to the same criteria. The Modern Design Preservation League in Denver and the Los Angeles Conservancy, Fifties Task Force, both support the evaluation of all buildings according to National Register criteria, excepting age. Several other cities including San Francisco and Oakland, California include all buildings, regardless of age in their surveys, but do not consider them eligible for active preservation until they reach the magic fifty years. Point-based Systems for Evaluation The first federally funded project for the evaluation of historically significant sites and buildings within a projected renewal area was the 1959 99 College Hill Study in Providence, Rhode, Island. Their pilot project employed a point-based system and was considered to be widely successful at that time. The study was used by the implementation task force in 1967 when creating the criteria for listing on the National Register. The committee chose not to use a point-based system for the National Register after visiting western Europe. In Europe, point-based systems led to building classifications. Some classifications were more protected than others and, once classified, resources did not have the ability to move from one classification level to another. To avoid this happening in the United States, a more general system that resulted in one of two determinations, eligible for listing, or not eligible for listing, was created (W. J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, February 12, 1996). Many preservationists and architectural historians continue to reject objective systematic evaluation systems. They feel architecture's aesthetic qualities cannot be quantified. There is also the lingering concern that buildings with a low ranking will be the first to be sacrificed for new development or the first to be altered beyond recognition. This could be avoided if buildings were reevaluated on a regular basis allowing their potential endangerment to be monitored. Furthermore, as Michael Corbett points out: Despite the resistance of some preservationists, these objective evaluation systems have long been not merely acceptable to political leaders, city planning officials, real-estate developers, and others in 100 positions of influence over land use and development, but they have been almost demanded by them in their hesitancy to work with anything less systematic. In this demand, apart from the reliability of such systems, is the real justification for their use. (c. 1985, 43) Point-based systems appear to be more widely accepted on the west coast. This type of system is in place in a wide variety of communities including Portland, Eugene and Grant's Pass, Oregon and Oakland, Sacramento and San Francisco, California. Vancouver, Canada also uses this type of system. Many of these systems are based on principles presented in Harold Kalman's The Evaluation of Historic Buildings. In addition to associative values, typical subdivisions for determination of architectural significance include: A) Style: Significance as an example of a particular architectural style, building type or convention B) Design/Artistic Quality: Significance because of quality of composition, detailing and craftsmanship C) Materials/Construction: Significance as an example of a particular material or method of construction D) Integrity: Significant because it retains its original design features, materials and characteristics E) Rarity: Significant as the only remaining or one of a few remaining properties of a particular style, building type, design, material, or method of construction. (White, 1994, 10) Buildings are evaluated as being excellent, very good, good, or fair/poor with each of those ratings each having a preassigned point value. In the College Hill Demonstration Study of 1958, evaluation was based on a pre-established set of criteria. Each building received a numerical score 101 for historic significance, architectural significance, importance to neighborhood, desecration of original design and physical condition. Total points in each category ranged from eight (desecration of original design) to thirty (historical significance). Cumulative scores were grouped as exceptional, excellent, good, fair and poor. One person was responsible for completing all forms for the entire area in order to help insure a consistent point of view. The importance of the College Hill Study cannot be overlooked. It was the first of its type conducted in the United States. In that regard, it is difficult to fairly assess it with today's benefit of more than thirty-five years of hindsight. The only action that is questionable, is the decision to use a single evaluator. While the rationale is sound, the fact that 1,350 buildings were involved should have caused some reassessment. Fatigue was a concern. To control this, the evaluator only worked in two hour stretches. However, it is easy to see how the first fifty to one-hundred buildings might have been assessed differently than the last fifty to one-hundred. The San Francisco Downtown Study of 1985 consisted of four categories: architectural significance, historical significance, environmental significance and design integrity. The study was designed so that each category could be evaluated separately. Ratings within each were excellent, very good, good, and fair/poor with each corresponding to a predetermined point value. The four broad categories were subdivided into more specific 102 criterion: architecture into style, construction, age, architect, design and interior; history into person, event and patterns; environment into continuity, setting and landmark; and integrity into alterations. Each subdivision was accompanied by a brief descriptive statement; for instance, style was described as significance as an example of a particular architectural style, type, or convention and design: architectural quality of composition, detailing, and ornament measured, in part in originality, quality as urban architecture, craftsmanship and uniqueness. Total points for each of the four categories varied with design worth twenty-five and construction worth twelve. Ratings and numbers were kept separately. Once a composite score was calculated, buildings were placed into one of four categories. Placement in either of the top two categories meant eligibility to the National Register, placement in the third meant the building had contextual value and placement in the fourth meant the building was of minor or no importance. Results were reviewed by three outside reviewers. With a relatively small area, ("downtown") to deal with, it is surprising that the criteria are as vague as they are. With the exception of age (before 1906 and after 1906) there appears to be no tailoring specific to the area. Buildings with exceptional interiors but altered exteriors were not considered. The result of the process was a classification of sites with those in A and B definitely being preserved, those in C only preserved if part of a district within 103 the downtown area and those in D classified as "sites of opportunity" (Corbett, c. 1985, 45), living up to the fears of the National Register task force. The Grant's Pass, Oregon, evaluation system is based on an early Portland, Oregon, plan. It consists of four general categories: physical condition, importance to neighborhood, architectural interest and historical interest. Total points in each of the four categories range from ten to twenty points. The criteria are very general, i.e. architectural significance. No descriptions of what is meant by architectural significance is provided. Rating sheets were not available for review. In Vancouver, a local steering committee determined that two decades is a period of sufficient historical perspective within which to gauge a building's heritage merit (Leman, 1993, 23). Vancouver uses a weighted numerical evaluation system that takes into consideration the architectural characteristics, cultural value, context and integrity. Each broad area, except for integrity, is subdivided into more specific categories: architectural characteristics into style/type, design, construction and designer/builder; cultural history into historical association and historical pattern; context into landscape, neighborhood and visual. Buildings are reviewed by both style and building type. The importance of construction techniques or the association with a noted designer is also considered. Evaluations for all buildings, regardless of age are done according to the same criteria to help insure a consistent approach. Sample criteria used in Vancouver include: 104 - Is the building a very good/excellent example of an architectural style or design? - Is the building likely to have particular historic significance? - Does the building have significance in terms of environmental context? - Was the building designed or built by a notable designer or builder? - Was an uncommon building method/material used in construction? - Is the building associated with an important person, group, event or activity of historic importance? - Is the building notably early in the developmental history of the area? - Do landscape, surroundings or immediate neighbors contribute to the building's significance? - Is the building an important part of the streetscape or does it have a commanding presence? (Parker, 1986, 3) Total points within the categories of architecture, cultural history and context range from twenty-five (context) to forty (architecture). Integrity points range from negative fifteen (fair/poor) to zero (excellent). Once cumulative scores are established, buildings are grouped by type with houses and apartments in one category and institutions, churches, schools, commercial, and industrial buildings in another. Final evaluation was the result of the placement of the cumulative scores within predetermined point ranges. The Vancouver evaluation process appears to be well thought out and current to today's needs. The only questionable aspect is the over-specificity of locale and locality. Everything is centered on the city as if it is not culturally/socially/economically/historically bound to any other place. Portland, Oregon's system has five broad categories: history, environment, landscape, architecture and integrity. These are further divided 105 into anywhere from one to four subdivisions: history has three subdivisions: persons, events and patterns; architecture has four: style, designer/contractor, materials/construction/artistic quality and rarity. Environment, landscape and environment have one subdivision each environment: environment; landscape: landscape; and integrity: integrity. Each subdivision consists of between two and four descriptive statements, each of which is rated separately. Total points within each category range from one (landscape) to sixteen (architecture). The final point thresholds have not yet been established as the city is in the process of revising their Historic Protection Act (Thayer Donham, Personal Communication, January 29, 1996). Portland's evaluative process is regionally specific yet broad enough to accommodate the unusual, non-indigenous site. The major question of the process employed did not come from the literature, but via a conversation with the Associate Planner. All evaluation is done in a closed room with the evaluators viewing pre selected slides of the resources to be evaluated. It is questionable whether this will allow neighborhood qualities to be as clear as if one were actually at the site. CHAPTER 8 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED EVALUATION SYSTEM The point-based system developed here is an amalgam of Kalman's The Evaluation of Historic Buildings and those systems reviewed by the author in current use today. Model forms can be found in Appendix B. While the forms presented have been field-tested, further testing may result in some changes. The criteria for evaluation are rooted in the criteria of the National Register, however the breakdown of the criteria is original. In addition, points suggested were based on Kalman's writings but ultimately developed by the author. With both the criteria breakdown and suggested points work started with Kalman. From this point, additions, deletions and changes were based on the point-based plans reviewed. The plans were reviewd chronologically from their date of development based on the belief that those recently changed and/or adopted had taken advantage of knowledge gained from older existing plans. Further changes were based on the author's ideas and suggestions made in the various writings reviewd in the literature search. Any evaluation system must be relate to the specific community or area in question while simultaneously meeting criteria standards established 106 by the National Park Service for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As the only factor unique to an area is that dealing with period of time (age), this can be done by merely altering time frames and identifiable chronological periods for the area at hand. With this in mind, the evaluation system proposed here is with Sarasota, Florida, in mind. Sarasota is a relatively new community. It has experienced two distinctive architectural booms; the first lasting from c. 1925 1927 and identified by the preference for Mediterranean Revival style homes, and c. 1948 c. 1962 identified by a design type known as the "Sarasota School of Architecture" (see Appendix A for more information). All other criteria proposals are non-site specific. Knowledge of the Sarasota School resulted in the development of two criteria dealing with published and award winning designs, although these are applicable anywhere in the country. Care must be taken when dealing with published designs and an attempt made to determine who solicited publication. 107 108 National awards should apply to those given by nationally recognized organizations ( i.e. the American Institute of Architects) and/or nationally published and widely recognized magazines (both architectural and social), such as Progressive Architecture. Interiors. McCalls and Better Homes and Gardens. In that many organizations limit awards to their membership, it is important to include as varied a group as possible. Corporate/Industry awards and design competitions (such as the Revere Quality House program) should not be overlooked. Whenever possible, specific comments as to why a design was selected should be solicited and included. In their final state, evaluation forms would, ideally, be on carbon based paper with the evaluator completing those forms marked E (excellent), VG (very good), G (good), F (fair), and P (poor). The final evaluation, done by committee, would involve the use of the second form, where quantitative values replace qualitative ones. Care should be taken to limit any type of "categorization" into those resources that qualify for listing on the National Register and those which do not. Whenever possible, determination of eligibility should be based on observations made by visiting the site. Visual observation conducted via graphics, slides, photographs and/or other visual media alone should be strongly discouraged. As established here, the quantitative minimum for qualification is two hundred points. Any resource with a final quantitative score of between one hundred seventy-five and one hundred ninety-nine should be subject to a mandatory second review. 109 Ideally, this review would be done by persons not involved in the original evaluation and would include at least one visit to the site. All forms may be completed by one evaluator. However, it is recommended that a social/cultural historian, or preservationist with that background, complete all forms for criteria A and B, and also those forms from criterion C dealing with work of a master. An architect, architectural historian, or preservationist with a background in either of those fields, should complete those forms from criterion C dealing with design, method of construction and district. An architectural historian, or preservationist with that background, should complete forms from criterion C centering on type, style and period. A specialist in historic interiors may be brought in to deal with structures requiring that evaluation, if not, an architect or architectural historian should be used. Each set of forms is accompanied by a cover sheet (see Figure A). On this, the evaluator is reminded of the criterion they are evaluating and given the specific aspect of the criterion he/she will be centering on. This aspect is then defined and characteristics of the aspect are given. Bold-faced type is used to designate those phrases appearing on the rating sheet. The qualitative rating forms (see Figure B) require one of three general decisions: yes or no, unique or rare, or E (excellent), VG (very good), G (good), F (fair), or P (poor). Evaluators are not limited to selecting one category, but may circle as many as they feel apply, with the final numerical score being an no Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling 1. notable example of a particular material 2. unique/rare example of a particular material 3. early example of a particular material 4. notable example of a particular method of construction 5. unique/rare example of a particular method of construction 6. early example of a particular method of construction "Early" is defined as dating from before or within five years of appearing in other buildings of the same type. Figure A. Typical Cover Sheet Ill CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling 1.notable example material yes no Justification 2.unique/rare example material unique rare Justification 3.early example material yes no date average date of other buldings of same type Justification 4.notable example method of construction yes no J ustif ication 5.unique/rare example method of construction unique rare Justification 6.early example method of construction yes no date average date of other buldings of same type Justification Figure B. Typical Qualitative Rating Form 112 average of those circled. Those characteristics dealing with age and early examples require the evaluator to denote the date and, in the case of early examples, the average date of other buildings of the same type. For the purposes of the evaluation, early is defined as "dating earlier than or within five years of appearing in other buildings of the same type." This definition is found on each cover sheet where a determination of "early" is required. Each characteristic rated is followed by a series of three lines to be completed explaining the evaluator's reasoning behind his/her rating choice. Completion of the justification section should be required. The evaluator should not be required to limit his/her comments to those three lines, nor should he/she be limited to expressing his/her observations verbally. In these cases, continuation forms, similar to those used in National Register nominations, should be provided and completed. As with the rating forms, these should be carboned. Information contained in this section may serve to answer specific questions during the final evaluation process and places the decision and the evaluator in context. In addition, this information may provide valuable insights for future preservationists/evaluators. Any graphics, slides, photographs and/or other visual media designed to serve as part of the justification section should be described in writing on a continuation form. Upon completion, these should be submitted to the designated person along with all other forms. 113 Attached to each qualitative rating form (see Figure C) is a pre-carboned form containing the quantitative values. These values are weighted with type according to quality of design having the most value. However, the weighting is designed so that strength in any one of the criterion is potentially sufficient to make a resource eligible for listing. In addition, all values increase by a minimum of two points. In those cases where a determination of local, regional, national, or international importance is called for, the point value increase may be as many as fifteen points. Once all forms have been completed, evaluators should meet as a group. At least one community member who was not part of the evaluation team shall be a member of this committee. During this review process, it may be beneficial to have slides of the resources being evaluated as a source of visual reaffirmation. At this point, any statements regarding symbolic value of a resource should be strongly considered. In all cases, the voice of the group shall outweigh the voice of an evaluator, and may change a given rating. In these cases, a statement detailing why the change was made is required. Changing an evaluation based on a slide is strongly discouraged. Any evaluator strongly opposed to a consensus determination is encouraged to write a dissenting statement for inclusion in the final report/file. Once a determination is made as to eligible or not eligible, a statement explaining the decision is written. This statement, along with copies of the both the 114 CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling 1.notable example material 5 0 Justification 2.unique/rare example material 10 5 Justification 3.early example material 5 0 date average date of other buldings of same type Justification 4.notable example method of construction 5 0 Justification 5.unique/rare example method of construction 10 5 Justification 6.early example method of construction 5 0 date average date of other buldings of same type Justification Figure C. Typical Quantitative Rating Form 115 qualitative and quantitative forms and any related materials should be kept on file for future reference /review. This process may seem more complicated than systems in place at the present time. This is so for two reasons. The first is a deliberate attempt to involve both a varied group and as many professionals as possible. Whenever possible, all members of the evaluation team shall be from the local community. When this is not possible, every effort should be made to include trained personnel knowledgeable in local/regional architectural practices. The final determination as the result of a consensus decision is designed to help eliminate the impact of personal bias. Things happen at the local level. Therefore, involvement of community members is imperative as for any preservation plan/program to be effective, it must have community support. This support should not be limited to activists, but should include politicians, educators, the media and interested citizens of all ages. Additionally, the presence of both interested and trained people at the local level is also cost effective. An involved ratings process at the local level by qualified personnel is far easier to manage than at the state or national level. Community involvement can easily result in community interest and support leading to even more involvement. The key to all of this is education, not only in the sense of trained personnel, but also in the sense of developing within each community or identifiable area a strong sense of place. Once this is accomplished, we will 116 have come full circle as a strong sense of place leads directly back to an increase in community involvement, interest and support. Ideally, the end result is the preservation of both what ties the community/area to the state and/or nation (i.e. courthouse squares, post offices, etc.) and what makes each community/area unique (i.e. vernacular styles, cultural influences, etc.). To many, this is the most important role of the preservation movement in the United States today. CHAPTER 9 WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? As with any research project, while one sets out to find answers, often more questions are raised than solutions found. That has been the case with this dissertation. The evaluation system proposed here is only part of the first step. To complete the step, William Murtagh's comment "good as an academic exercise, but does not address the political or personal realities" of implementation must be addressed. To do so will require more work on and field testing of the evaluation forms. For instance, at times the quantitative values seem unwieldy, but uniformly lowering them created other more serious problems. One reader expressed a desire to see the forms simplified; they have been somewhat, but there may be ways to accomplish more. Archaeologists should be consulted and criterion D subdivided with forms developed in a manner consistent with those designed for Criteria A, B and C. There is room for a deeper philosophical investigation of positivism and empiricism as they relate to significance and the National Register criteria. Several articles have been written concerning problems found in the field of archaeology, but only one was located on significance and historic preservation. Additionally, a comprehensive study on the views of Hegel, 117 118 Wittgenstein, Derrida and other potentially relevant contemporary philosophies as they relate to significance and, ultimately, National Register criteria should be conducted. Only then can a better understanding be gained regarding the associated epistemological concerns. While the issue of integrity was mentioned briefly in the dissertation, more in-depth study should be conducted into this threshold criterion. Concern regarding integrity as it relates to moved structures, objects and buildings is often mentioned and some communities have developed programs that allow the protection of moved resources. There is, however, no consistent approach or viewpoint. The rapid increase of the rate of change will continue to make the issue of preserving moved resources a concern. This is especially the case when the only way to save resources is to create an artificial grouping in an historical park. The development and inclusion of rating forms for the aspects of integrity similar to those presented here is an option. Along the same lines, a suggestion was made to investigate the possible re-definition of other current terminology as well. Another unsolved issue deals with the preservation of resources where the designer is still alive. The policy of the Keeper of the National Register has always been to avoid listing these resources. However, with life expectancies of people continually increasing and life expectancies of resources continually decreasing, this may need to be readdressed. Richard Longstreth suggests that if the representation of ideas and practices in the 119 resource being evaluated are clearly different from those in common use it is possible to list resources of living designers while avoiding William Murtagh's concern of endorsing one architect over another. More research into the feasibility of this approach needs to be conducted. In short, there are a variety of avenues to explore and concepts to develop. It may be that there will never be consensus as to how these issues can best be addressed. There will certainly always be debate as to how to best objectify a subjective topic. APPENDIX A THE SARASOTA SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE Regionalism and regional characteristics once dominated American architectural patterns. National as well as the global aspects of twentieth century life have worked to eliminate this once identifiable characteristic. In an article for the Tournal of the American Institute of Architects in 1955, Paul Rudolph looked at the changing aspects of regional architecture. He found architectural regionalism limited by industrialization and national distribution systems, ease of travel and communication, cost of traditional materials, influence of the architectural press, our desire to conform and belong, the 'do it yourself movement, the abstract qualities inherent in the new space concept, and the fact that true expressiveness of new materials has not yet been fully developed. (180) As a result of the above forces, true regionalism in modern architecture is most often expressed in form rather than in the materials used. The term "Sarasota School" was first applied in 1967 when it appeared in an article written by Philip Hiss for Architectural Forum magazine. It was again used in 1982 in materials prepared by Gene Leedy and Dwight Holmes for an American Institute of Architects meeting to be held in Tampa. The 120 121 term referred to one of several groups of architects in America during the late 1940s and 1950s that adhered to the basic tenets of International stylists. What differentiated these groups was their willingness and ability to adapt these basic tenets to the lifestyle and climate of a specific region. The 1950s was a time when Florida served as a "mecca for contemporary architecture" (Test of Time, 1987, 35). "Among all the cities in Florida, perhaps Sarasota alone comes to mind as the one city possessing a significant heritage of contemporary architectural works" (Sarasota Retrospective, 1976, 19). These works "spring from a brief moment of time . . when pent-up creative energies were released in an outpouring of buildings, several of which today rank as classics" (Sarasota Retrospective, 1976, 19). The 1950s saw rapid growth in the city of Sarasota as well as in Sarasota County. Census figures show that in 1950s the population of Sarasota (city) was 13,604; by 1960 it had grown to 34,083 (Morris, 1985,183). Architects viewed Sarasota as a proving ground, a model on which they tested ideas, materials, and planning concepts, in the process forging careers which, for some, propelled them to prominence as lasting as Sarasota's was fleeting. (Horton, 1982, 21) Victor Lundy, one of the school's most renowned members, said Sarasota was an "easy place to be creative...Things were done spontaneously; there was a sense of fun in those days" (Horton, 1982, 20). 122 Work produced by members of the Sarasota School is truly representative of this statement. Tenets of the Sarasota School had their basis in three areas: tenets of the International Style, characteristics of regional Southern architecture, and the architect's original ideas which allowed for adaptation to the lifestyle and climate of the Sarasota area. From the International Style Sarasota architects took an understanding of the concept of borrowed space, the logical use and expression of structure, the separation of structure and enclosure, simple building form and detail, and honest use and expression of materials. From earlier southern regional designs they took: modular construction, a raised floor, and efficient environmental control systems. To these the architects added: the use of low maintenance materials, a play of light and shadow, and a desire to humanize International Style environments. The last of the three additions was perhaps the most challenging. A combination of the design styles of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier accomplished the task. Van der Rohe's concept of architectural space and his belief in the beauty of simplicity were mixed with the concepts of form and space as expressed by Le Corbusier and, finally, the emotional aspects of Wright. It is the successful blending of these elements that creates the identifiable and unique Sarasota School stvle. The flat landscape of the Sarasota area is conducive to an architecture of planes. These planes, when successfully placed, allow a structure to be 123 treated as an element of the landscape. Proper orientation allowed the capture of both scenic views and cooling breezes, while minimizing the impact of direct sunlight. Utilization of post and beam construction allowed for the creation of exterior walls of glass and freed interior wall surfaces to be manipulated within the overall design pattern. This open plan system created both visual and spatial flow while allowing for the unobstructed circulation of air. The distinction between interior and landscape was blurred with the inclusion of a central courtyard or patio area. All major interior spaces adjoined and opened on to this "outdoor" area. An incorporation of indigenous materials in the buildings strengthened the connection between architecture and environment. Ralph Twitchell's unique understanding of local materials, especially wood and cream tinted Ocala block, was passed on to other Sarasota School architects. Twitchell was responsible for introducing Ocala block to the area. This block, made in Ocala, of crushed limestone was laid in stack bond, and often used for walls. Twitchell was also the first to build with block exposed on both interior and exterior wall surfaces. The structural design system was post and beam. This allowed the separation of enclosure and structural support system. Glass was the preferred material used for enclosure. It allowed linkage of interior and exterior areas and could not be misconstrued as structural support. Ada 124 Louise Huxtable writes: "The 'glass box' is the most maligned building idea of our time. It is also one of the best, whatever its deficiencies, and there are many ... it is the genuine vernacular of the 20th century" (1986, 163). The final barrier between interior and exterior was destroyed when architects changed the function of interior walls from support systems for the roof to definers of space. The idea of the disengaged wall is used extensively in modern architecture. Sarasota architects utilized this feature primarily because of its ability to increase air circulation. While control and use of light was often neglected in International Style buildings, this, along with other visual ties, such as scale, color, texture, and the use of recurring features, were standard in Sarasota School designs. Through-out the design and construction process, control of Florida's often extreme climate was an important feature to be considered. This task was frequently accomplished by using long roof overhangs, shade trees, cross ventilation, and careful site orientation. Kaufmann suggests the four main traits of modern rooms are comfort, quality, lightness, and harmony (1953). Sarasota School interiors clearly meet all four criteria. Proper orientation of the structure allowed for indirect lighting and the capture of prevailing breezes. This kept rooms both bright and cool. Use of walls as definers of space rather than support systems further enhanced the level of comfort. Materials were carefully chosen for both durability and texture. Interiors were accented with color; details were 125 carefully enhanced. A sense of lightness was created through the use of exterior walls of glass rather than cut out window areas. Fifteen architects are commonly considered members of the Sarasota School of Architecture: Ralph Twitchell, Paul Rudolph, Victor Lundy, Mark Hampton, the father and son team of Ralph and William Zimmerman, Frank Smith, the unlicensed amateur Philip Hiss, Jack West, Gene Leedy, William Rupee, Ted Siebert, Bert Brosmith, and Carl Abbott. Many of these men are still practicing architects. According to Philip Hiss, in the late 1950s there was a greater concentration of architectural talent in Sarasota than any other town in the United States, except New Canaan, Connecticut (Hiss, 1967). Jack West felt that Sarasota itself was "no mecca for architects; architects made it a mecca" (Horton, 1982, 20). West goes on to say that the commonality of the architects was their "desire to build architecture as great art" (Horton, 1982, 20). In the late 1950s, a right-wing faction of the population began to turn its back on Sarasotas unique architectural designs. This backlash began with the controversy surrounding the Sarasota High School design but was not limited to public architecture. Some felt the backlash was really directed at the outspoken Philip Hiss and the schools simply served as an easy, visible, target. Nonetheless, architects began fleeing the area. Hiss left as well. 126 Victor Lundy may have explained the exodus best when he said: In the last analysis, it is only from within one's own self that one can create any thing. Creation is a great adventure, and any suggestion of fear or cynicism or subservience is against this spirit of adventure and negates its very process . Great architecture is creative architecture . . it results only when creative source is free and unfettered, certain and directed. (Lundy, 1958, 177) Philip Hiss later wrote: Sarasota is a rich community; it can afford distinguished architecture if any community can. And Sarasota has some distinguished architecture; but it will soon become a museum of the 1920s and 1950s unless its sights are raised again. Meanwhile a whole generation of promising architects has left a community that could have offered them expanding opportunities, but has chosen instead mediocrity and worse. (McDonough, 1985, 10) Gene Leedy may have stated the case with the people of Sarasota at the time when he said, "Genius is often difficult to detect when one is too close to it" (Trebbi, 1989, 40). Jack West wrote "Sarasota consciously rejected a marvelous opportunity for a group of talented and idealistic architects and planners to mold its future form" (Horton, 1982, 21). In 1959, the American Institute of Architects at a meeting of the New Orleans Convention for Better Living Program awarded honors to eighteen architects in the United States. The awards program was jointly sponsored by the American Institute of Architects, House and Home magazine and McCalls magazine. Eight awards went to architects from Florida; five of these were given to Sarasota based architects. Victor Lundy received an Honor Award in 127 the Custom Built Category, Paul Rudolph received two Merit Awards, Edward Siebert and Gene Leedy received one Merit Award each. During its centennial exhibition in 1957, the American Institute of Architects again recognized the achievements of Ralph Twitched, Paul Rudolph, Jack West, Victor Lundy, and Edward Siebert. The importance of the work produced by Sarasota School architects lies in their precedent setting designs in all areas of architecture. Four consistent patterns were established and are still adhered to by many Florida architects: the creation of varied and complex spaces and spatial relationships, the refinement and creation of architectural form rather than its creation as a result of other design decisions, the selection and precise detailing of materials, and the incorporation of both cultural and environmental elements of traditional southern architecture (Trebbi, 1989). Work produced by Sarasota architects was held in high regard by the profession as evidenced in the amount of national and international publication space given this group by peer journals of the time, the quantity of work commissioned, and the magnitude of the projects. Numerous design awards were presented to members of the group including the highest levels of professional commendation given by the American Institute of Architects. Time, in many cases, has not treated the buildings of the Sarasota School of Architecture well. Many were not properly maintained, some have had additions which are not of the same genre as the original building. 128 Rudolph expressed his concern saying, "Change is an implied part of the life of a building, but the way in which it is accomplished is important. There must be an understanding of what was the original intent" (Sarasota Retrospect, 1976,19)." Both Rudolph and Hiss voiced their dismay in the community's inattentiveness to its heritage. Rudolph, in 1982, said, "Sarasota is in danger of becoming an architecturally common community, one which is no more distinctive than any other community of similar size and aspect" (Horton, 1982, 21). Hiss, in the same article, is quoted as saying Sarasota is: a community which, despite its period of prominence architecturally, has failed to maintain a feeling of design consistency or direction, becoming instead a collection of random developments and individual projects, none of which has contributed to any sense of the whole, a sense. (Horton, 1982, 21) a sense, as Rudolph defined it, of "place." Unfortunately for Sarasota and its residents, both men have been proven to be correct in both their observations and in their predictions. APPENDIX B EVALUATION FORMS The reader is reminded that the second and third forms in each set of three are designed to be on pre-carboned paper. This will allow the evaluator to circle the qualitative selections, with the circles being transferred to the quantitative equivalent on the sheet below. Comments will also be transferred. 129 130 Criterion A (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with events that have made an identifiable contribution to the broad patterns of our history Evaluators are to complete only one of the following four items. Selection should be based on that item having the most widespread influence. 1. associated with an event that has made an identifiable contribution to the community; or 2. associated with an event that has made an identifiable contribution to the state; or 3. associated with an event that has made an identifiable contribution to the nation; or 4. associated with an event that has made an identifiable contribution to the world. Evaluators are to complete only one of the following two items. Selection should be based on that item most directly associated. 4. event directly associated with the resource; or 5. event indirectly associated with the resource. 131 (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with events that have made an identifiable contribution to the broad patterns of our history SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS 1.identifiable contribution to the community community Justification 2.identifiable contribution to the state state Justification 3.identifiable contribution to the nation nation Justification 4.identifiable contribution to the world world Justification SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS 5.directly associated with the resource direct Justification 6.indirectly associated with the resource Justification indirect 132 (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with events that have made an identifiable contribution to the broad patterns of our history SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS 1.identifiable contribution to the community 5 Justification 2.identifiable contribution to the state 15 J ustification 3.identifiable contribution to the nation 30 Justification 4.identifiable contribution to the world 40 Justification SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS 5.directly associated with the resource 10 Justification 6.indirectly associated with the resource 5 J ustification f 133 Criterion B (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with the lives of persons who have made an identifiable contribution to our past Evaluators are to complete only one of the following four items. Selection should be based on that item having the most widespread influence. 1. associated with the life/activities of a person, group, movement or institution that has made an identifiable contribution to the community; or 2. associated with the life/activities of a person, group, movement or institution that has made an identifiable contribution to the state; or 3. associated with the life /activities of a person, group, movement or institution that has made an identifiable contribution to the nation; or 4. associated with the life/activities of a person, group, movement or institution that has made an identifiable contribution to the world. Evaluators are to complete only one of the following two items. Selection should be based on that item most directly associated. 4. person, group, movement or institution directly associated with the resource; or 5. person, group, movement or institution indirectly associated with the resource. 134 (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with the lives of persons, groups or movements who have made an identifiable contrubution to our past Person/Group/Movement (Name) Person/Group/Movement (Type) Period of Prominence SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS 1.identifiable contribution to the community community Justification 2.identifiable contribution to the state state Justification 3.identifiable contribution to the nation nation Justification 4.identifiable contribution to the world world J ustification SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS 5.directly associated with the resource direct Justification 6.indirectly associated with the resource Justification indirect 135 (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with the lives of persons who have made an identifiable contribution to our past Person/Group/Movement (Name) Person/Group/Movement (Type) Period of Prominence SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS 1. identifiable contribution to the community 5 Justification 2. identifiable contribution to the state 15 Justification 3. identifiable contribution to the nation 30 Justification 4. identifiable contribution to the world 40 Justification SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS 5. directly associated with the resource 10 Justification 6. indirectly associated with the resource 5 Justification 136 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE ACCORDING TO USE type according to use, such as residential, industrial, commercial or transport activity 1. notable example of a particular architectural type according to use 2. unique/rare example of a particular architectural type according to use 3.early example of a particular architectural type according to use "Early" is defined as dating earlier than or within five years of appearing in other buildings of the same type. evaluation of type according to use requires the following: an understanding of the process or activity for which the building was built an understanding of the functional elements of the activity for which the building was build or historically utilized an understanding of the relative merit or rarity of a building type 137 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE ACCORDING USE type associated with activities such as residential, industrial, commercial or transport activity 1.notable example yes no justification 2.unique/rare unique rare Justification 3.early example yes no date average date of other buldings of same type Justification 138 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE ACCORDING TO USE type associated with activities such as residential, industrial, commercial or transport activity 1.notable example 5 0 J ustification 2.unique/rare 10 5 Justification 3.early example 5 0 date average date of other buldings of same type Justification 139 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE ACCORDING TO STYLE style means of expressing visual elements such as form, materials and ornamentation that are characteristic of a particular age, architectural movement/philosophy or developmental period 1. notable example of a particular architectural type according to style 2. unique/rare example of a particular architectural type according to style 3. early example of a particular architectural type according to style Early" is defined as dating earlier than or within five years of appearing in other buildings of the same type. evaluation of type according to style requires the following: an understanding of the style's origin an understanding of the style's characteristics an understanding of the style's developmental history in the area/region an understanding of the relative merit of a building's stylistic elements in comparison to buildings of similar style in the area, region, or nation 140 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE ACCORDING TO STYLE style means of expressing visual elements such as form, materials and ornamentation that are characteristic of a particular age or developmental period 1.notable example yes no Justification 2.unique/rare unique rare Justification 3.early example yes no date average date of other buldings of same type Justification 141 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE ACCORDING TO STYLE style means of expressing visual elements such as form, materials and ornamentation that are characteristic of a particular age or developmental period 1.notable example 5 0 justification 2.unique/rare 10 5 Justification 3.early example 5 0 date average date of other buldings of same type Justification 142 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPE ACCORDING TO QUALITY OF DESIGN design attributes including massing, proportion, scale, layout (composition), materials, detailing (craftsmanship), color, texture, fenestration, ornamentation (details/ornament), or art work (artistic merit) 1. important because of the excellence of its artistic merit 2. important because of its composition 3. important because of its craftsmanship 4. important because of its details/ornament 5. important because of its uniqueness/rarity 6. design recognized/published locally 7. design recognized/published regionally 8. design recognized/published nationally 9. design recognized/published internationally 10. design award winning regionally 11. design award winning nationally **NOTE** When evaluating the building's/structure's interior spaces is appropriate, "Interior" ratings one, two and three should be completed. 143 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPE ACCORDING TO QUALITY OF DESIGN design attributes including massing, proportion, scale, layout (composition), materials, detailing (craftsmanship), color, texture, fenestration, ornamentation (details/ornament), or artwork (artistic merit) 1.artistic merit E VG G F P Justification 2.composition E VG G F P Justification 3.craftsmanship E VG G F P Justification 4.details/ornament E VG G F P J ustif ication 5.uniqueness/rarity unique rare Justification 6.design recognized/published locally twice or more once none Justification 7.design recognized/published regionally twice or more once none Justification 144 8. design recognized/published nationally Justification twice or more once none 9. design recognized/published internationally Justification twice or more once none 10. design award winning regionally Justification twice or more once none 11. design award winning nationally Justification twice or more once none 145 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPE ACCORDING TO QUALITY OF DESIGN design attributes including massing, proportion, scale, layout (composition), materials, detailing (craftsmanship), color, texture, fenestration, ornamentation (details/ornament), or artwork (artistic merit) 1.artistic merit 10 8 4 2 0 Justification 2.composition 10 8 4 2 0 Justification 3.craftsmanship 10 8 4 2 0 Justification 4.details/ornament 10 8 4 2 0 Justification 5.uniqueness/rarity 10 5 Justification 6.design recognized/published locally 2 10 Justification 7. design recognized/published regionally Justification 5 2 0 10 o 146 8.design recognized/published nationally Justification 9.design recognized/published internationally 20 10 0 J ustif ication 10.design award winning regionally 10 5 0 Justification 11.design award winning nationally 20 10 0 Justification 147 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A PERIOD IN TIME **NOTE** Time frames must be adjusted for each community. These should be identified by identifiable periods in an area's past (i.e. First Spanish Occupation, British Colonial, Revolutionary War Era, etc.) with associated dates 1. demonstrative of sites developed/structures built in the area/region during the first half of the nineteenth century or before 2. demonstrative of sites developed/structures built in the area/region during the second half of the nineteenth century 3. demonstrative of sites developed/structures built in the area/region during the first half of the twentieth century 4. demonstrative of sites developed /structures built in the area/region during the second half of the twentieth century **NOTE** these four categories are specific to the Sarasota, Florida area 148 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A PERIOD IN TIME 1. first half of the nineteenth century or before yes no date of constructuion 2. second half of the nineteenth century yes no date of construction 3. first half of the twentieth century yes no date of construction 4. second half of the twentieth century yes no date of construction 149 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A PERIOD IN TIME 1. first half of the nineteenth century or before 50 0 date of constructuion 2. second half of the nineteenth century 20 0 date of construction 3. first half of the twentieth century 5 0 date of construction 4. second half of the twentieth century 0 0 date of construction 150 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling 1. notable example of a particular material 2. unique/rare example of a particular material 3. early example of a particular material 4. notable example of a particular method of construction 5. unique/rare example of a particular method of construction 6. early example of a particular method of construction "Early" is defined as dating from before or within five years of appearing in othr buildings of the same type. **NOTE** When evaluating the building's/structure's interior spaces is appropriate, "Interior" ratings four, five, six, seven and eight should be completed. 151 CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling 1.notable example material yes no Justification 2.unique/rare example material unique rare Justification 3.early example material yes no date average date of other buldings of same type Justification 4.notable example method of construction yes no Justification 5.unique/rare example method of construction unique rare Justification 6.early example method of construction yes no date average date of other buldings of same type Justification 152 CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling 1.notable example material 5 0 Justification 2.unique/rare example material 10 5 J ustif ication 3.early example material 5 0 date average date of other buldings of same type Justification 4.notable example method of construction 5 0 Justification 5.unique/rare example method of construction 10 5 Justification 6.early example method of construction 5 0 date average date of other buldings of same type J ustification 153 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER master notable /recognized architect, designer, engineer and or builder **NOTE** If more than one of those listed above are involved on a single project, the person with the highest level of involvement should be rated. If a determination of level of involvement cannot be made, each person should be rated separately with the final score being an average of all those rated. 1. designed/built by a master who has made an identifiable contribution to the community 2. designed/built by a master who has made an identifiable contribution to the state 3. designed/built by a master who has made an identifiable contribution to the nation The evaluator should complete only one of the three. Selection should be based on that having the greatest contribution. 154 REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER master notable/recognized architect, designer, engineer and or builder 1.identifiable contribution to the community yes no Justification 2.identifiable contribution to the state yes no Justification 3.identifiable contribution to the nation yes no Justification 155 REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER master notable/recognized architect, designer, engineer and or builder 1.identifiable contribution to the community 5 0 Justification 2.identifiable contribution to the state 10 0 Justification 3.identifiable contribution to the nation 20 0 Justification 156 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction INTERIOR (if required) 1. space is important/identifiable, either historically or due to its spatial/proportional qualities 2. has a clear relationship to its surrounding spaces 3. contains important architectural features such as details, materials, light fixtures, hardware, etc. 4. contains a custom constructed or traditional framed roof 5. unique/rare example of a particular structural system 6. early example of a particular structural system 7. unique/rare example of a particular environmental technology system 8. early example of a particular environmental technology system "Early" is defined as dating earlier than or within five years of appearing in other buildings of the same type. "Environmental technology systems" include plumbing, mechanical, electric and similar systems. 157 INTERIOR (if required) 1.important/identifiable yes no Justification 2.relationship yes no Justification 3.architectural features yes no Justification 4.custom constructed or traditional framed roof yes no J ustif ication 5.unique/rare example structural system unique rare Justification 6.early example structural system yes no date average date of other systems of same type Justification 7.unique/rare example mechanical system unique rare Justification 158 8. early example mechanical system yes no date average date of other systems of same type justification 159 INTERIOR (if required) 1.important/identifiable 10 0 Justification 2.relationship 5 0 Justification 3.architectural features 10 0 Justification 4.custom constructed or traditional framed roof 5 0 Justification 5.unique/rare example structural system 10 5 Justification 6.early example structural system 5 0 date average date of other systems of same type Justification 7.unique/rare example mechanical system 10 5 Justification 160 8. early example mechanical system 5 0 date average date of other systems of same type Justification 161 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT AND DISTINGUISHABLE ENTITY WHOSE COMPONENTS MAY LACK INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION (DISTRICT) 1. building is visually prominent in a group of buildings of similar style, type or age in an area of compatible use 2. building is part of a notable group of buildings of similar style, type or age in an area of compatible use 3. building is part of a contiguous group of similar style, type or age in an area of compatible use 4. building maintains individual character despite being part of a group of buildings with similar style, type or age in an area of compatible use 5. site/landscape comprised features which are directly related to building's style, design or history 6. site/landscape part of historical relationship between site and street, railway, waterfront, view or other geographic features which were part of the building's original function or traditional urban environment 7. present use is compatible with current land use/zoning of the street, neighborhood, or area 162 Represents an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (District) 1. building is visually prominent yes no Justification 2. building part of a notable group yes no Justification 3. building part of a contiguous group yes no Justification 4. maintains individual character yes no Justification 5. site/landscape directly related to building's style, design or history yes no Justification 6. site/landscape part of historical relationship yes no Justification 7. present use is compatible yes no Justification 163 Represents an identifable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (District) 1. building is visually prominent 5 0 Justification 2. building part of a notable group 5 0 Justification 3. building part of a contiguous group 2 0 Justification 4. maintains individual character 10 0 Justification 5. site/landscape directly related to building's style, design or history 10 0 Justification 6. site/landscape part of historical relationship 5 0 J ustification 7. present use is compatible 5 0 Justification APPENDIX C ICOMOS Seminar on 20th-Century Heritage, June 18-19, 1995 General Recommendations 1. It is noted that the 20th -century heritage should not be defined only with reference to its architectural forms, but taking into account the broad ecological, social, anthropological, economic and cultural framework which forms the whole. There is a need to stress the importance of memory over consideration of materials. 2. The established principles of conservation are a valid basis for the safeguarding and care of the recent heritage. 3. While some of the heritage of the 20th-century has particular characteristics that differentiate it from earlier constructions, it results substantially from the community of heritage. Its identification and inventory need to be updated on a regular basis. Attention is required to all types and even modest examples of such heritage, and in particular to urban and rural ensembles, housing schemes, and industrial heritage. 4. Systematic documentation of the 20th-century heritage in all its dimensions and in relation to its context is necessary. Such documentation should take into account the potential offered by new recording methods. 5. Due attention should be paid to the full spectrum of the heritage of the entire century, including buildings and ensembles built in new technologies as well as those using traditional building materials and structural forms. 6. It was recognized that the life cycles of man-made environments are mainly based on economic and functional considerations, and require critical choices to guide the process of selection of cultural properties that merit protection. 7. Considering the international character of much of the 20th-century heritage, networking and joint efforts are of particular importance. Such 164 165 action should be taken both in relation to identification and inventory, as well as to education and training in collaboration with existing initiatives. 8. Research programs on specific problems concerning techniques and materials in restoration work with due respect to their aesthetic qualities should be encouraged. The publication of results from achieved experiences and preparation of corresponding specialized bibliographies are priority actions. Attention should be given to the economic consequences of restorations and regular maintenance with respect to employment policy and sustainable development. 9. In order to promote communication and raise public awareness, the media should be used to stress the importance of the 20th-century heritage especially to the young people. The international community should also draw attention to the qualities and values of specific cultural properties. 10. The Council of Europe Recommendation R (91) 13, gives the general guidelines for this field. 11. A follow-up of the seminar is necessary. It should include the distribution of the working documents and keeping regular contacts between participants. If a future meeting is organized on this subject, it should be open to other disciplines and decision makers, and should take place in another part of the world. Recommendations Concerning the World Heritage Convention 1. There should be an on-going process of consultations among ICOMOS, DOCOMOMO, and the World Heritage Centre in order to define the 20th-century heritage and develop a methodology for its identification. 2. It would be advisable only in exceptional cases to propose for inclusion in the World Heritage List properties that are less than 25 years old in order to allow sufficient time for historical perspective and scientific analysis. GLOSSARY building created principally to shelter any form of human activity; may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit district an area possessing a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development history- an account of what has or might have happened; what has happened in the life or development of a people, country, institution, etc. memory result of the process of selection and of organizing what is selected so that it is within reach in expected situations object those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed; although possibly movable, it is associated with a specific setting or environment past gone by; ended; over; of a former time preservation the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity and materials of an historic property recent past a period characterized by attitudes and practices that differ in some substantial way from those now current, but that remain within the living memory of many people reconstruction the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historical location 166 167 rehabilitation resource restoration significance significant (n) site structure the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values term used to describe, collectively, a site, structure, building, object and/or district the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period that which is signified; the quality of being significant something that has significance location of a significant event, activity, building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value those functional constructions made usually for purposes other than creating human shelter LIST OF REFERENCES Alexander, Thomas M. (1987). lohn Dewey's theory of art, experience, and nature: The horizons of feeling. New York: State University of New York Press. Ames, David. (1995). Interpreting post-World War II suburban landscapes as historic resources. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C.: ITistoric Preservation Education Foundation. Baker, Alan R. H. (1992). Introduction: On ideology and landscape. In Alan R. H. Baker & Gideon Biger (Eds.), Ideology and landscape in historical perspective: Essays on the meanings of some places in the past. New York: Cambridge University Press. Benjamin, Susan. (1988, January/February). Inlandscape: Underage landmarks. Inland Architecture. 32, 4-5. Bluestone, Daniel. (1994, May). Preservation and renewal in post-World War II Chicago. lournal of Architectural Education. 47, 210-223. Boulting, Nikolous. (1976). The law's delays: Conservationist legislation in the British Isles. In Jane Fawcett (Ed.), The future of the past. New York: Whitney Library of Design. Bullock, Orin M. Jr. (1996). The restoration manual. Norwalk: Silverman Publishers. Bureau of Planning, City of Portland. (1980, October). Lair Hill conservation district design guidelines. Portland: Bureau of Planning. Bureau of Planning, City of Portland. (1991, July 1). Title 33. Planning and zoning: Chapter 33.845. Historic landmarks. Portland: Bureau of Planning. 168 169 Bureau of Planning, Portland, Oregon. (1995, October). Proposed historic resource protection amendments to Portland's zoning code. Portland: Bureau of Planning. Chapman, William. (1990, Fall). How many historic buildings are there? Forum. 19-23. Chapman, William and Don Hibbard. (1995). Assessing significance and preservation value in Waikiki. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Charlton, D. G. (1959). Positivist thought in France during the second empire 1852-1870. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chomsky, Noam. (1980). Some empirical assumptions in modern philosophy of language. In Harold Molick, (Ed.), Challenges to empiricism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Comte, August. (1957). A general view of positivism. (J. H. Bridges, Trans.). New York: Robert Speller and Sons. Connally, Ernest Allen. (1961, May). Preserving the American tradition. AIA Tournal. 35, 56-60. Corbett, Michael R. (c. 1985). Splendid survivors: San Francisco's downtown architectural heritage. San Francisco: California Living Books. Costonis, John. (1989). Icons and aliens. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Cowley, Fraser. (1968). A critique of British empiricism. New York: St. Martin's Press. D'Agostini, Marco and Robert G. Lemon. (1994, June). Vancouver's recent landmarks program, do. co. mo. mo. 11, 48-51. Dietsch, Deborah K. (1992, November). Editors page: Preservation's new frontier. Architecture. 81, 15. Dixon, Keith A. (1977). Applications of archaeological resources: Broadening the basis of significance. In Michael B. Schiffer and George J. Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation archaeology: A guide for cultural resource management studies. New York: Academic Press. 170 Donahue's demolition. (1988, September). Progressive Architecture, 69, 24. Duerksen, Christopher J. (1983). Handbook on historic preservation law. Washington D. C.: Conservation Foundation: National Center for Preservation Law. Dupent, Jacques. (1983). Viollet- le-duc and restoration in France. In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? what? how? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Elzea, Betty. (1982). Stevenson, John James. In Adolf K. Placzek, (Ed.), MacMillan encyclopedia of architects, vol. 4. New York: The Free Press. Environmental Department, City of Boston. ( not dated). Boston Landmarks Commission's evaluation of significance system with criteria and explanation of groupings. Boston: Environmental Department. Ettinger, Leopold D. and Helen S. (1987). Raphael. Oxford: Phaidon. Fain, Haskell. (1970.) Between philosophy and history: The resurrection of speculation philosophy within the analytic tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Faulkner, P. A. (1978, July). A philosophy for the preservation of our historic heritage, journal of the Royal Society of Arts. 126, 452-480. Federal historic preservation laws. (1993). Washington D. C.: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Program. Fisher, Thomas. (1989 a, April). Preservation: Cost of threatened modernism. Progressive Architecture. 69, 24. Fisher, Thomas. (1989 b, April). Restoring modernism. Progressive Architecture. 70, 32. Fitch, James Marston. (1992). Historic preservation: Curatorial management of the built world. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Fraser, Murray. (1990, September 26). Conferences: Modernist preserve; DoCoMoMo: Inaugural international conference. Architect's Tournal. 192, 76-77. 171 Gebhard, David. (1982). Webb, Philip S. In Adolf K. Placzek, (Ed.), MacMillan encyclopedia of architects, vol. 4. New York: The Free Press. Glass, James Arthur. (1987, August). The national historic preservation program. 1957 1969. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. Glass, James A. (1990). The beginnings of a new national historic preservation program. 1957 1969. Washington D. C.: American Association for State and Local History. Glassow, Michael E. (1977). Issues in evaluating the significance of archaeological resources. American Antiquity. 42, 413-420. Goff, Lisa. (1988, October). John Hancock controversy. Progressive Architecture. 69, 31. Goldberg, Bertrand. (1995). Preserving a recent past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C.: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Gordon, Alastair. (1992, July). Restoration: Back to the future. Interiors. 151, 22-24. Gowans, Alan. (1965, October). Preservation. Tournal of the Society of Architectural Historians. 24, 252-253. Grady, Mark. (1977). Significance evaluation and the Orme Reservoir project. In Michael B. Schiffer and George Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation archaeology: A guide for cultural resource management studies. New York: Academic Press. Greer, Nora Richter. (1991, March). Preserving preservation. Architectural Record. 179, 88-89. Guralnik, David B. (1970). Webster's new world dictionary of the American language: Second college edition. New York: The World Publishing Company. Hall, Gregory Alan. (1986). Rebuilding Tara: Translation of the plantation myth into architectural space. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. 172 Hareven, Tamara K. and Randolph Langenbach. (1981). Living places, work places, and historical identity. In Lowenthal, David (Ed.), Our past before us: Why do we save it? London: Temple Smith. Harriman, Mark S. (1992, November). Towering improvements. Architecture. 81,105-111. Hayden, Dolores. (1988, Spring). Placemaking, preservation and urban history. Tournal of Architectural Education. 41, 45-51. Heritage conservation project, (not dated). Recent landmarks. Vancouver: City of Vancouver Planning. Hill, J. N. and R. K. Evans. (1972). A model for classification and typology. In David L. Clarke (Ed.), Models in archaeology. London: Methuen and Company, Limited. Hiss, Philip. (1967). Sarasota's broken promise. Architectural Forum. 126, 66- 73. Hiss, Tony. (1990). The experience of place. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Horton, Allan. (1982). Building a legacy: The "Sarasota school" of architecture. Sarasota Herald Tribune. 28 November, 18-21. Hosmer, Charles B. Jr. (1965.) Presence of the past: A History of the preservation movement in the United States before Williamsburg. New York: G. P. Putman's Sons. Hunter, Michael. (1981). The preconditions of preservation: A historical perspective. In Lowenthal, David (Ed.), Our past before us: Why do we save it? London: Temple Smith. Huxtable, Ada Louise. (1970). Will they ever finish Bruckner Boulevard? London: Collier-MacMillan Limited. Huxtable, Ada Louise. (1986). Good-bye history, hello hamburger: An anthology of architectural delights and disasters. Washington: The Preservation Press. Jackson, Mike. (1991). Preserving what's new. APT Bulletin. XXIII, 7-11. 173 Jacobs, Stephen W. (1970). Governmental experience in the United States. In National Trust for Historic Preservation (Ed.), Historic preservation today: Essays presented to the seminar on preservation. Williamsburg. Virginia. September 8 11. 1963. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Jandl, H. Ward. (1995). Introduction: Preserving the recent past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Jester, Thomas C. (1995.) International perspectives on 20th century heritage. CRM. 18, 27-29. Kalman, Harold. (1980). Evaluation of historic buildings. Ottawa: Environment Canada Parks Service. Kamman, Michael. (1991). Mystic chords of memory: The transformation of tradition in American culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Kaufmann, Edgar, Jr. (1953). What is modern design? New York: The Museum of Modern Art. Kimball, Roger. (1994, February). Observations: Wright on the walls: Exhibiting a legend. Architectural Record. 182, 16-17. King, Thomas F. (1977). Resolving a conflict of values in American archaeology. In Michael B. Schiffer and George J. Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation archaeology: A guide for cultural resource management studies. New York: Academic Press. King Thomas F., Patricia Parker Hickman and Gary Berg. (1977). Anthropology in historic preservation: Caring for culture's clutter. New York: Academic Press. Kliment, Stephen A. (1992, January). Doing the right thing. Architectural Record. 180, 86-89. Kolakowski, Leszek. (1968). The alienation of reason: A history of Positivist thought. (Norbert Guterman, Trans,). Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc. Law, Jules David. (1993). The rhetoric of empiricism: Language and perception from Locke to I. A. Richards. London: Cornell University Press. 174 Lee, Yvonne S. (1994, December). The dilemma of 'listing' modern buildings. The Journal of the Association of Conservation Officers. 44. Lemon, Robert G. and Marco D'Agostini. (1993). Recent landmarks in Vancouver: The post-1940s. CRM. 16, 31-32. Lethaby, William Richard. (1977). In J. M. Richards (Ed.), Who's who in architecture. 1400 present. New York: Holt Rinehart, Winston. Leubkeman, Christopher Hart. (1992, May). Form swallows function. Progressive Architecture. 73, 96-109. Longstreth, Richard. (1991 a). The significance of the recent past. APT Bulletin. XXIII, 12-24. Longstreth, Richard. (1991 b). When the present becomes the past. In Antoinette J. Lee, (Ed.), Past meets future: Saving America's historic environments. Washington D. C.: The Preservation Press. Longstreth, Richard. (1992, October). The last shopping center. Forum, n.p. Longstreth, Richard. (1993). The significance of the recent past. CRM. 16, 4-7. Longstreth, Richard. (1994, May/June). Taste versus history. Historic Preservation Forum. 8, 40-45. Longstreth, Richard. (1984, December). The problem with style. Forum. VI, n.p. Longstreth, Richard. (1995). I can't see it; I don't understand it; And it doesn't look old to me. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C.: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Lowenthal, David. (1981). Introduction. In Lowenthal, David (Ed.), Our past before us: Why do we save it? London: Temple Smith. Luce, W. Ray. (1995). Kent State, White Castles and subdivisions: Evaluating the recent past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Lundy, Victor. (1958). A place of worship. Architectural Record. 123. 176-177. 175 Lynott, Mark J. (1980). Cultural resource management: The dynamics of significance: An example from central Texas. American Antiquity. 45, 117-120. Lynch, Kevin. (1972). What time is this place? Cambridge: MIT Press. Lynch, Michael F. (1991). What are we going to do with the recent past in the not too distant future? APT Bulletin. XXIII, 6. Lyon Elizabeth A. and Frederick C. Williamson. (1995). The preservation movement rediscovers America. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C.: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Majorian. (1911). Encyclopedia Britannica: A dictionary of arts, sciences. literature and general information. 11th edition, vol. 17. Cambridge: University Press. McDonough, Michael. (1985). Four architects in Sarasota, Florida 1920-1970. Archives, Sarasota County Historical Association, Sarasota. Morick, Harold. (1980). Introduction: The critique of contemporary Empiricism. In Harold Molick, (Ed.), Challenges to empiricism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Morris, Allen. (1985). The Florida Handbook: 1985-1986. Tallahassee: Peninsular Publishing Co, Morton, W. Brown. (1987). What do we preserve and why? In Robert E. Stipe and Antoinette Lee (Eds.), The American mosaic: Preserving a nation's heritage. Washington D. C.: The Preservation Press. Murtagh, William J. (1988). Keeping time: The history and theory of preservation in America. Pittstown: Main Street Press. National Park Service, Interior. (1994, July 1). 36 Code of federal regulations. Washington D. C.: Government Printing Office. National Trust for Historic Preservation. (1983). With heritage so rich. Washington D. C.: The Preservation Press. Nelson, Lee. (1985, May 13). A methodology for identifying historic character. AIA working paper. Unpublished raw data. 176 News: Endangered modern landmarks. (1992, November) Architecture. 81, 26-29. Ochsner, Jeffrey Karl and Gail Lee Dubrow. (1994, May). Architecture and historic preservation: Invigorating the dialogue. Tournal of Architectural Education. 47,186. Owings, Nathaniel A. (1970). Comment. In National Trust for Historic Preservation (Ed.), Historic preservation today: Essays presented to the seminar on preservation. Williamsburg. Virginia. September 8-11. 1963. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Pagliari, Pier Nicola. (1982). Raphael. Trans, by Shara Wasserman. In Adolf K. Placzek (Ed.), MacMillan encyclopedia of architects, vol. 3. New York: The Free Press. Parker, Alan and Associates. (1986). Technical report: Heritage buildings and landscape resources. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. Perkins, Bradford. (1981, July). Preserving the landmarks of the modern movement. Architectural Record. 169, 108-113. Pevsner, Nikolaus. (1976). Scrape and anti-scrape. In Jane Fawcett (Ed.), The future of the past. New York: Whitney Library of Design. Plato. (1952). Phaedrus (W. C. Helmbold and W. G. Rabinowitz, Trans.) Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill Company, Inc. Poinsett, David. (1983). What is historic preservation? In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? what? how? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Preamble. (1983). In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? what? how? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Preserving modernism. (1992, November). Architecture. 81, 61. Price, Kingsley. (1988, Autumn). John Dewey's theory of art, experience and nature: The horizons of feeling. British Tourna of Aesthetics. 28, 385- 387. 177 Providence City Planning Commission. (1967). College Hill: A demonstration study of historic area renewal. Providence: College Hill Press. Providence City Planning Commission and Blair Associates, City Planning Consultants. (1959). College Hill demonstration study. Providence: Providence Preservation Society. Pyke, John S., Jr. (1983). Landmark preservation. In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? What? How? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Raab, L. Mark and Timothy C. Klinger. (1977). A critical appraisal of "significance" in contract archaeology. American Antiquity, 42, 629- 634. Rathje, W. L. (1995). The sense and dollars of preservation. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C.: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Report on principles and guidelines for historic preservation in the United States. (1970). In National Trust for Historic Preservation (Ed.), Historic preservation today: Essays presented to the seminar on preservation. Williamsburg. Virginia. September 8 11. 1963. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Rubens, Godfrey. (1982). Lethaby, W. R. In Adolf K. Placzek (Ed.), MacMillan encyclopedia of architects, vol. 2. New York: The Free Press. Rudolph, Paul. (1955). Regionalism and the south. Tournal of the American Institute of Architects. 23, 179-180. Sarasota retrospect. (1976). Florida Architect. 26,19-22. Savage, Beth L. (1993). Disappearing ducks and other recent relics. CRM. 16, 23-25. Schiffer, Michael. (1977 a). Assessing significance. In Michael B. Schiffer and George Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation archaeology: A guide for cultural resource management studies. New York: Academic Press. 178 Schiffer, Michael. (1977 b). Forecasting impacts. In Michael B. Schiffer and George Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation archaeology: A guide for cultural resource management studies. New York: Academic Press. Schlereth, Thomas J. (1993). Collecting today for tomorrow. CRM. 16, 8-11. Schwarzer, Michael. (1994, September). Myths of permanence and transience in the discourse on historic preservation in the United States, journal of Architectural Education. 48, 2-11. Sharrock, Floyd W. and Donald K. Grayson. (1979). Cultural resource management: 'Significance' in contract archaeology. American Antiquity. 44, 327-328. Sherfy, Marcella and W. Ray Luce. (1990). National Register bulletin 22: Guidelines for evaluating and nominating properties that have achieved significance within the last fifty years. Washington D. C.: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. Shiffer, Rebecca A. (1993). Cultural resources from the recent past. CRM. 16, 1. Shiffer, Rebecca A. (1995). The recent past. CRM. 18, 3-4. Shull, Carol D. and Beth L. Savage. (1995). Trends in recognizing places for significance in the recent past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C.: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Skarmeas, George Christos. (1983). An analysis of architectural preservation theories: From 1790 to 1975. Ann Arbor: University Microfilm International. Stipe, Robert. (1983). Why preserve historic places? In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? what? how? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Stipe, Robert E. (1987). The next twenty years. In Robert E. Stipe and Antoinette Lee (Eds.). The American mosaic: Preserving a nation's heritage. Washington D. C: The Preservation Press. 179 Striner, Richard. (1993.) Information: Number 69. Washington D. C: National Trust for Historic Preservation. Striner, Richard. (1995). Scholarship, strategy, and activism in preserving the recent past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving recent past. Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Summerson, Sir John. (1983). Ruskin, Morris, and the "Anti Scrape" philosophy. In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? what? how? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Tainter, Joseph A, and G. John Lucas. (1983). Epistemology of the significance concept. American Antiquity. 48, 707-719. Test of time award. (1987). Florida Architect. 34, 35. Tomlan, Michael. (1994, May). Historic preservation education: Alongside architecture in academia, journal for Architectural Education. 47, 187- 196. Trebbi, Ronald G. (1989). Gulfcoast regionalist architecture: The Sarasota school revisited. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Troup, F. W. and Harry Redfern. (1908, June 6). The late J. J. Stevenson, FSA. Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects. 15, 482-483. Uguccioni, Ellen J. (1995). The bias of culture: when does a community come of age? In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C.: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. United States Conference of Mayors (1966). With heritage so rich. New York: Random House. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Massachusetts Department of community Affairs. (1983). A future from the past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C.: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. 180 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. (1991). National Register bulletin 15: How to apply the National Register criteria for evaluation. Washington D. C: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. Vitruvius. (1960). The ten books on architecture. (Morris Hickey Morgan, Trans.) New York: Dover. Warden, Amy and Elizabeth Calvit. (1993). Preserving the legacy of the Cold War. CRM. 16, 28-30. Webb, Philip Speakman. (1977). In J. M. Richards (Ed.), Who's who in architecture. 1400 present. New York: Holt Rinehart, Winston. Weeks, Kay D. (1996). Historic preservation treatment: Toward a common language. CRM. 19, 32-35. Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer. (1995). The Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties with guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring and reconstructing historic buildings. Washington D. C.: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services. White, Bradford J. and Richard J. Roddewig. (1994). Preparing a historic preservation plan. Chicago: American Planning Association. Whitehall, Walter Muir. (1983). Promoted to glory ... In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? What? How? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Winks, Robin. (1976). Conservation in America: National character as revealed by preservation. In Jane Fawcett (Ed.), The future of the past. New York: Whitney Library of Design. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1980). Culture and value. (Peter Winch, Trans.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Patty Jo Smith Rice was born in Indianapolis, Indiana, but has been a resident of Venice, Florida, since the age of nine. She received her undergraduate degree in history from Texas Woman's University and her master's degree in American studies from the University of South Florida. The subject of her master's thesis was the architectual philosophy and design of Ralph Spencer Twitchell, founder of the Sarasota School of Architecture. 181 I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy/ r of Philosophy/"^ * ]vtjUg44M kJ<*MA**a**~*1_ R. Wayne Drummond, Chair Professor of Architecture I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. // S Herschel E. Shepam, Cochair Professor of Architecture I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation aqd is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree oLDoctor of Philosophy. William Tilson Associate Professor of Architecture I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degre^ of Doctor of Philosophy. ' ' E. Roy Hunp Distinguished Service Professor of Comparative Law This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Architecture and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of-Philosophy. May, 1996 Dean, Colld ;e of Architecture Dean, Graduate School 55 believed that every idea is a copy of a previous impression or set of impressions. He felt that observation and experience teach us that all thoughts are derived from past experience and the nature of man's ideas is understood by contrast with the rest of his/her perceptions or mental contents namely, by contrast with impressions (Morick, 1980, 2). Hume's impressions are what we call sensations and feelings. It is from these impressions that all ideas are ultimately derived. Whereas Hume's beliefs centered on individual observations, contemporary empiricism centers on the objects of perception as publicly observable things. The problem with empiricist thought lies in its premise that it is possible to identify the vast majority of, if not all, characteristics associated with a given resource. It overlooks the fact that the significance of a resource is subject to change and can increase or decrease as both knowledge and research orientation changes. Morick writes of three objections to empiricism commonly raised by critics: 1) Observation claims derive credibility from background assumptions Critics say this is false, what scientific theory does is explain established facts revealed by sense experience. 2) Not only do observation claims derive their credibility from a network of background assumptions, but also derive meaning from this network -- If this is true then observation claims do not retain constant meaning through changes in the theory. 3) Observation claims are not just theory laden but also theory infected -- principles of empiricism are predicated on the belief that beliefs had and assumptions made about objects observed -- That is, empiricism rests on the assumption that there is an absolutely stable and invariant correspondence between perceptions and the stimuli which produce them. (1980, 17) 25 successful efforts. Among those requesting guidance from the Society were Mrs. William Holstein, hoping to save Washington's headquarters at Valley Forge; Mrs. Andrew Jackson, hoping to preserve the Hermitage; Mrs. Mary Longyear, active in saving houses associated with Mary Baker Eddy (the founder of Christian Science); and representatives for the sites of Meadow Garden, in Georgia; Gunston Hall and Monticello, in Virginia; Theodore Roosevelt's birthplace, in New York City; and the many local groups throughout New England that eventually merged into the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities. Despite involvement by state governments, the federal government did not become active in preservation efforts until 1862 with the passage of the National Battlegrounds and Cemeteries Act. With the creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, the federal government began to assume a leadership position in the conservation of lands. However, preservation movements in 1876 still had a distinctly regional flavor. In New England, homes of revolutionary leaders and places deemed "faithful reproductions of the primitive Colonial life of New England" (King, 1977, 17) were emphasized. In the Middle Atlantic States, interest was on sites of important events during the American Revolution. Movements in the South put major emphasis on homes of nationally recognized figures, and in the West interest centered upon Spanish-Mexican missions. 172 Hareven, Tamara K. and Randolph Langenbach. (1981). Living places, work places, and historical identity. In Lowenthal, David (Ed.), Our past before us: Why do we save it? London: Temple Smith. Harriman, Mark S. (1992, November). Towering improvements. Architecture. 81,105-111. Hayden, Dolores. (1988, Spring). Placemaking, preservation and urban history. Tournal of Architectural Education. 41, 45-51. Heritage conservation project, (not dated). Recent landmarks. Vancouver: City of Vancouver Planning. Hill, J. N. and R. K. Evans. (1972). A model for classification and typology. In David L. Clarke (Ed.), Models in archaeology. London: Methuen and Company, Limited. Hiss, Philip. (1967). Sarasota's broken promise. Architectural Forum. 126, 66- 73. Hiss, Tony. (1990). The experience of place. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Horton, Allan. (1982). Building a legacy: The "Sarasota school" of architecture. Sarasota Herald Tribune. 28 November, 18-21. Hosmer, Charles B. Jr. (1965.) Presence of the past: A History of the preservation movement in the United States before Williamsburg. New York: G. P. Putman's Sons. Hunter, Michael. (1981). The preconditions of preservation: A historical perspective. In Lowenthal, David (Ed.), Our past before us: Why do we save it? London: Temple Smith. Huxtable, Ada Louise. (1970). Will they ever finish Bruckner Boulevard? London: Collier-MacMillan Limited. Huxtable, Ada Louise. (1986). Good-bye history, hello hamburger: An anthology of architectural delights and disasters. Washington: The Preservation Press. Jackson, Mike. (1991). Preserving what's new. APT Bulletin. XXIII, 7-11. 11 Methodology I became aware of the Sarasota School of Architecture long before I was aware that architects and builders were two different sets of people. As a child growing up in the Sarasota area, I can remember longing to go into the Galloway Furniture Showroom and wanting to attend Riverview High School because everybody knew it was the "coolest" school in Sarasota County. I toured St. Paul's Lutheran Church with my catechism class and sat in the classrooms of Venice Junior High. As an adult, I taught in some of those same classrooms. This idea for this dissertation is the result of several years of recent study regarding the "Sarasota School of Architecture." During this time I became painfully aware of just how few of these designs remained, despite the fact that they were several years shy of the fifty-year guideline established by the National Register criteria. For example, of the buildings I loved as a child, the Galloway Furniture Showroom has been stuccoed over and is unrecognizable, Riverview High School sports a new gabled roof that destroys both the lines and integrity of the building and at Venice Junior High (today part of Venice High School) the glass walls have been removed with the resultant voids filled using concrete block. In addition, its flat roofs have been replaced with gabled and hipped roofs of green metal. Like the Galloway 153 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER master notable /recognized architect, designer, engineer and or builder **NOTE** If more than one of those listed above are involved on a single project, the person with the highest level of involvement should be rated. If a determination of level of involvement cannot be made, each person should be rated separately with the final score being an average of all those rated. 1. designed/built by a master who has made an identifiable contribution to the community 2. designed/built by a master who has made an identifiable contribution to the state 3. designed/built by a master who has made an identifiable contribution to the nation The evaluator should complete only one of the three. Selection should be based on that having the greatest contribution. 169 Bureau of Planning, Portland, Oregon. (1995, October). Proposed historic resource protection amendments to Portland's zoning code. Portland: Bureau of Planning. Chapman, William. (1990, Fall). How many historic buildings are there? Forum. 19-23. Chapman, William and Don Hibbard. (1995). Assessing significance and preservation value in Waikiki. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Charlton, D. G. (1959). Positivist thought in France during the second empire 1852-1870. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chomsky, Noam. (1980). Some empirical assumptions in modern philosophy of language. In Harold Molick, (Ed.), Challenges to empiricism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Comte, August. (1957). A general view of positivism. (J. H. Bridges, Trans.). New York: Robert Speller and Sons. Connally, Ernest Allen. (1961, May). Preserving the American tradition. AIA Tournal. 35, 56-60. Corbett, Michael R. (c. 1985). Splendid survivors: San Francisco's downtown architectural heritage. San Francisco: California Living Books. Costonis, John. (1989). Icons and aliens. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Cowley, Fraser. (1968). A critique of British empiricism. New York: St. Martin's Press. D'Agostini, Marco and Robert G. Lemon. (1994, June). Vancouver's recent landmarks program, do. co. mo. mo. 11, 48-51. Dietsch, Deborah K. (1992, November). Editors page: Preservation's new frontier. Architecture. 81, 15. Dixon, Keith A. (1977). Applications of archaeological resources: Broadening the basis of significance. In Michael B. Schiffer and George J. Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation archaeology: A guide for cultural resource management studies. New York: Academic Press. 60 concerned with words, one could escape being involved with the world; that, in particular, it is possible to analyze in a significant way the language of the historian without becoming involved in history (Fain, 1970, 18). Even if positivists were correct in claiming that a clear partitioning between the observational and theoretical expressions of a language could be effected, there still remains the problem of actually reducing the latter to the former (Fain, 1970, 252). Empiricist-Positivist Thought When empiricist and positivist views are combined, it appears that empiricist philosophy prevails in that significance is believed to be present in a resource, rather than in the mind of the observer. This is because Empiricist and positivists share what may be termed as 'atomistic' approach to both semantics and epistemology. They assert the existence of 'primitive' terms or statements whose meaning or truth is non-problematic because of their immediate connection with sense experience. These semantic and epistemological 'atoms' provide the source of all meaning and knowledge. In this view, all meaning and knowledge consist either of these semantic and epistemological primitives, or of statements that can be derived or compounded from them. Moreover, the meaning and knowledge embodied in these primitive terms and/or statements derive only from their direct connection with sense experience. (Tainter, 1983, 711) While empiricistpositivist philosophy has experienced change, the basic belief that knowledge emanates from sense experience remains intact. When viewed in this manner, experiences are objective rather than 156 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction INTERIOR (if required) 1. space is important/identifiable, either historically or due to its spatial/proportional qualities 2. has a clear relationship to its surrounding spaces 3. contains important architectural features such as details, materials, light fixtures, hardware, etc. 4. contains a custom constructed or traditional framed roof 5. unique/rare example of a particular structural system 6. early example of a particular structural system 7. unique/rare example of a particular environmental technology system 8. early example of a particular environmental technology system "Early" is defined as dating earlier than or within five years of appearing in other buildings of the same type. "Environmental technology systems" include plumbing, mechanical, electric and similar systems. 12 Showroom, it too is unrecognizable. Only St. Paul's Lutheran Church retains its integrity. Research consisted of a review of past and current writings regarding both historic preservation and the issue of the preservation of the recent past. Of these writings, those by Richard Longstreth and an article by P. A. Faulkner became the guiding force. Conversations were held with various holders of the Beinecke-Reeves Distinguished Chair in Architectural Preservation at the University of Florida, including William Murtagh, Eduard Sekler and Jan Abell along with other noted professionals with an interest in the topic, such as Richard Crisson, de Teel Patterson, III, Nicholas Pappas and Vicki Jo Sandstead. Of these persons, William Murtagh is of paramount importance. As the first Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, his first hand knowledge of both the persons involved and the reasoning behind the creation of the current guideline was irreplaceable. Several preservation plans from a variety of cities, including Portland, Oregon, Grants Pass, Oregon, Boston, Massachusetts, and San Francisco, California, were collected and reviewed and interviews with persons responsible for the writing and implementation of those plans were conducted. Special emphasis was placed on collecting material related to point-based systems of evaluation. In addition, Harold Kalman's The Evaluation of Historic Buildings was reviewed. It formed the basis for the point-based system proposed here. 108 National awards should apply to those given by nationally recognized organizations ( i.e. the American Institute of Architects) and/or nationally published and widely recognized magazines (both architectural and social), such as Progressive Architecture. Interiors. McCalls and Better Homes and Gardens. In that many organizations limit awards to their membership, it is important to include as varied a group as possible. Corporate/Industry awards and design competitions (such as the Revere Quality House program) should not be overlooked. Whenever possible, specific comments as to why a design was selected should be solicited and included. In their final state, evaluation forms would, ideally, be on carbon based paper with the evaluator completing those forms marked E (excellent), VG (very good), G (good), F (fair), and P (poor). The final evaluation, done by committee, would involve the use of the second form, where quantitative values replace qualitative ones. Care should be taken to limit any type of "categorization" into those resources that qualify for listing on the National Register and those which do not. Whenever possible, determination of eligibility should be based on observations made by visiting the site. Visual observation conducted via graphics, slides, photographs and/or other visual media alone should be strongly discouraged. As established here, the quantitative minimum for qualification is two hundred points. Any resource with a final quantitative score of between one hundred seventy-five and one hundred ninety-nine should be subject to a mandatory second review. 78 What constitutes exceptional; and, What issues are specific to buildings from the recent past? (Benjamin, 1988, 7) Above and beyond these questions, there are fundamental problems when one deals with all architecture from the recent past. Luce believes these center on the following issues: "1) many -- if not most -- structures or styles are not viewed as historic; 2) accelerated rates of change; 3) the evaluation of common/standard building types; and, 4) persistence of earlier attitudes toward sites/structures related to political correctness" (1995, 11-17). Other problems related to the evaluation of structures from the recent past stem from lack of agreement on style characteristics. This is especially difficult when one remembers that one of the tenets of the movement was individual expression/interpretation of the here and now (Donahue, 1988, 24). Modern architecture did not just eliminate ornament; it did not just eschew references to the past; it did not just emulate a machine aesthetic; it entailed challenges to previously accepted basic assumptions regarding the properties of design (Longstreth, 1995, 1-17). In addition, guidelines regarding basic building typologies have not yet been developed for sites such as shopping malls, military bases and airports. We must also create ways to fairly assess innovative materials, designs and building techniques that, over time, have shown to be less than successful. I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy/ r of Philosophy/"^ * ]vtjUg44M kJ<*MA**a**~*1_ R. Wayne Drummond, Chair Professor of Architecture I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. // S Herschel E. Shepam, Cochair Professor of Architecture I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation aqd is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree oLDoctor of Philosophy. William Tilson Associate Professor of Architecture I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degre^ of Doctor of Philosophy. ' ' E. Roy Hunp Distinguished Service Professor of Comparative Law This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Architecture and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of-Philosophy. May, 1996 Dean, Colld ;e of Architecture Dean, Graduate School 135 (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with the lives of persons who have made an identifiable contribution to our past Person/Group/Movement (Name) Person/Group/Movement (Type) Period of Prominence SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS 1. identifiable contribution to the community 5 Justification 2. identifiable contribution to the state 15 Justification 3. identifiable contribution to the nation 30 Justification 4. identifiable contribution to the world 40 Justification SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS 5. directly associated with the resource 10 Justification 6. indirectly associated with the resource 5 Justification 92 TABLE 1 ALA Test of Time Award Winners, 1969 1994 Status Regarding Preservation Year Building Location HABS Documented Nat'l Register Listing 1969 Rockefeller Center New York, NY none 1987 1971 Crow School Winnetka, IL none 1989 1972 Balwin Hills Village Louisiana nene not listed 1973 Taliesin West Paradise, AZ nene 1974 1974 Johnson & Son Administration Bldg. Racine, WI yes 1974 1975 Philip Johnson House New Canaan, CT none not listed 1976 860-880 N. Lake Shore Drive Apartments Chicago, 11 none 1980 1977 Christ Lutheran Church Minneapolis, MN nene not listed 1978 Eames House Pacific Palisades, CA nene not listed 1979 Yale University Art Gallery New Haven, CT nene not Usted 1980 Lever House New York, NY none 1983 1981 Farnsworth House Plano, IL yes not listed 1982 Equitable Savings Portland, OR none 1976 1983 Price Tower Barlesville, OK nene 1974 1984 Seagram Building New York, NY nene not Usted 1985 General Motors Technical Center Warren, MI nene not Usted 1986 Guggenheim Museum New York, NY none not Usted 1987 Bowinger House Norman, OK nene not Usted 1988 Dulles Airport Terminal Bldg Chantilly, VA nene 1978 1989 Vanna Venturi House Chestnut Hill, PA none not Usted 1990 Gateway Arch St. Louis, MO nene 1987 1991 Sea Ranch Condos Sea Ranch, CA nene not Usted 1992 Salk Institute La Jolla, CA nene not Usted 1993 Deere & Co. Administration Ctr. Moline, IL none not Usted 1994 Haystack Mountains School of Crafts Deer Isle, ME nene not Usted 136 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE ACCORDING TO USE type according to use, such as residential, industrial, commercial or transport activity 1. notable example of a particular architectural type according to use 2. unique/rare example of a particular architectural type according to use 3.early example of a particular architectural type according to use "Early" is defined as dating earlier than or within five years of appearing in other buildings of the same type. evaluation of type according to use requires the following: an understanding of the process or activity for which the building was built an understanding of the functional elements of the activity for which the building was build or historically utilized an understanding of the relative merit or rarity of a building type 27 The Antiquities Act was proposed in Congress in 1900 but did not become law until 1906. The act gave the President broad discretion to set aside lands containing important cultural or scientific resources and forbade disturbance of ruins or archaeological sites on federal lands without permission of the responsible land managing agency. These sites were to be called national monuments. The next year the Secretaries of War, Agriculture and the Interior agreed to uniform rules and regulations for administering the Antiquities Act. Each department retained authority for the issuing of permits, subject to recommendations by the Smithsonian. The Secretary of the Interior would administer federal monument sites. This triumvirate would remain in control until 1916 when the responsibility for management of federally owned historic properties was placed within the Department of the Interior. The National Park Service (NPS), a bureau within the Department, became the agency responsible for managing all national parks, monuments and historic sites. In 1910, the face of preservation in America began to change with the founding of the Society for the Prevention of New England Antiquities (SPNEA) by William Sumner Appleton. Appleton pioneered the concept of adaptive use and placed architectural representativeness over patriotic considerations as criteria for preservation. He believed that the private sector should assume full responsibility for the preservation of the nation's heritage. Appleton was largely responsible for the concept of the historic CHAPTER 5 THE QUESTION OF THE RECENT PAST Cartoon in the Saturday Review: [pictured] Two helmeted workmen who, in the course of demolishing an office building, have just broken open the cornerstone bearing the date '1952'. One workman is reading a scroll taken from the cornerstone: 'To you children of history, who in some far distant day down the dim dark corridors of time, may breech this stone'. . . John S. Pyke, Jr. In 1932, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) assumed a pioneering role in recognizing outstanding examples of contemporary architecture. To be successful, the exhibition required an accurate and fair assessment of the historic significance of recently constructed buildings. This was achieved by Philip Johnson, Henry Russell Hitchcock and the museum staff. As a result, the exhibit "Modern Architecture" still carries its own sense of historical magnitude. The exhibit revolutionized architectural practice throughout the United States and around the world (Kimball, 1994, 16). It effectively, albeit temporarily, disproved Ada Louise Huxtable's belief that "Genius is seldom acknowledged in its own generation" (1970, 204). Despite the acclaim given to the 1932 MoMA exhibit and the fact that the 1966 Historic Preservation Act states in part "the historical and cultural foundation of the Nation should be 68 28 house museum as an educational tool; a physical link to the past, parallel in importance to written documentation (Murtagh, 1988, 80). His beliefs on how buildings should be treated can be traced to those of John Ruskin in the mid nineteenth century. Appleton believed in keeping as much original material as possible and clearly identifying any additions. This anti-scrape philosophy still serves as the basis for preservation efforts in the United States today. In 1926, the most ambitious preservation project to date was undertaken at Williamsburg, Virginia. With this, the concept of the outdoor museum, established in the late nineteenth century in Sweden, was brought to the United States (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). Privately financed by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and under the direction of the Reverend William A. R. Goodwin, sites along designated streets were documented, regardless of their original purpose or occupants. The work ranged from preservation to restoration and, occasionally, reconstruction. Using archaeological fieldwork as a basis for architectural reconstruction became an important part of the work at Williamsburg. The idea behind the project -- that of regarding whole towns or large areas as preservation units -- is now accepted as a basic preservation concept (King, 1977, 21). One of the most important by-products of the Williamsburg project was the development of a group of well-educated preservation professionals (Tomlan, 1994, 187). 26 At the turn of the century, buildings began to be recognized as "worthwhile objects in their own right" (Murtagh, 1988, 31). In 1889, the architectural critics John Calvin Stevens and Albert Winslow Cobb wrote: . . wherever the democratic spirit was earliest developed and most marked, there the work done by our American Carpenter-Architects of the Colonial and early National times exhibits most of pure beauty. In and around Philadelphia and along the New England coast from Plymouth to Portland; throughout the territory where the protest against black slavery rang out long before the protest against tyrannies of the Crown; there, especially, we find the genuine refinement and delicacy, the temperate, telling use of detail, so desirable in architectural composition. (Hosmer, 1965, 119) Restoration of buildings such as the John Whipple house in Ipswich, Massachusetts, and the Paul Revere house in Boston was done to what was thought to be their earliest appearance "emphasizing the importance of architectural merit" rather than their association with recognized individuals (Murtagh, 1988, 31). In 1877, Charles McKim, William Rutherford and Stanford White of McKim, Mead and White, along with another architect, William Bigelow, conducted a walking tour of selected New England towns and documented several colonial houses in measured drawings. Because of writings and actions such as these, buildings began to be appreciated not for their associative value to famous persons or well-known events, but for their unique cultural and artistic qualities. In addition, by the turn of the century, historic preservation efforts began to actively involve the middle class. 89 In that historical importance is relative and may change over time, the use of the term "absolute" is questionable. It should be remembered that evaluators are also acting in the context of their time and need to be aware of such to avoid generational bias. Last, demanding that buildings relate to context should be avoided. This frequently leads to an emphasis on qualities of size, materials, color and architectural style; physical qualities measured by original appearance. Architectural history tends to provide an aesthetically pleasing view of the world, one that is limited politically. Perpetuating the concept of "pure" styles by preserving only selected high style examples implies that they are the most important. At its extreme, "Preservationists run the risk of losing credibility in the disciplines that are their professional backbone when they succumb to such shallow typecasting" (Longstreth, 1995, 1-19). Ada Louise Huxtable puts it another way, writing that preservation is in danger of becoming synonymous with the theme park (Longstreth, 1995, 1-19). Places worthy of preservation should represent meaning, orientation, use, or beauty in the lives of a given group or culture. Many preservationists have eschewed various forms of vernacular resources. In doing so, they propagate high culture and aesthetics as those values most associated with permanence (Schwarzer, 1994, 9). The challenge of preservation is to preserve the meaning of the way of life which buildings represent to those who have 125 carefully enhanced. A sense of lightness was created through the use of exterior walls of glass rather than cut out window areas. Fifteen architects are commonly considered members of the Sarasota School of Architecture: Ralph Twitchell, Paul Rudolph, Victor Lundy, Mark Hampton, the father and son team of Ralph and William Zimmerman, Frank Smith, the unlicensed amateur Philip Hiss, Jack West, Gene Leedy, William Rupee, Ted Siebert, Bert Brosmith, and Carl Abbott. Many of these men are still practicing architects. According to Philip Hiss, in the late 1950s there was a greater concentration of architectural talent in Sarasota than any other town in the United States, except New Canaan, Connecticut (Hiss, 1967). Jack West felt that Sarasota itself was "no mecca for architects; architects made it a mecca" (Horton, 1982, 20). West goes on to say that the commonality of the architects was their "desire to build architecture as great art" (Horton, 1982, 20). In the late 1950s, a right-wing faction of the population began to turn its back on Sarasotas unique architectural designs. This backlash began with the controversy surrounding the Sarasota High School design but was not limited to public architecture. Some felt the backlash was really directed at the outspoken Philip Hiss and the schools simply served as an easy, visible, target. Nonetheless, architects began fleeing the area. Hiss left as well. 87 The job of identifying resources from the recent past which are worth preserving is a matter of ongoing study and interpretation. Preservation efforts must begin with an understanding of the significance of historical and cultural resources. While traditional approaches to the preservation of historic buildings and landscapes are largely applicable to twentieth century resources, some evolution in methodology is required. In fact, methods used to study the recent past will, on occasion, be quite different than those used to study and evaluate the remote past. The preservation of buildings from the recent past requires a new approach with awareness of and responsiveness toward sensibility. When working with the recent past, preservationists, in many cases, need only use the same historiographic methods used to study earlier periods. However, they must be willing to work with unconventional sources of data and to apply innovative techniques, if needed. More than other periods of architecture, the preservation of buildings from the recent past may require the interpretation and/or reinterpretation of the designer's original vision. Today's preservationists have both the duty and the burden of being willing and able to challenge contemporary historical interpretation. By employing principles basic to solid scholarship, the preservability of much of the recent past can be put into perspective now. To do so, preservationists must think less like critics and more like historians. R. G. Collingwood writes: "The Historian's objective is to see events from 'the inside,' to penetrate the thoughts that lie behind the deed. . When this 5 that will not be maintained without protection and which cannot be replaced in kind, should they be lost (Longstreth, 1991 b, 219). Too often we lose our cultural legacy before we recognize its importance. Amy Worden Unfortunately, buildings themselves often carry the seeds of their own destruction. Unlike other art forms, buildings must continue to serve an owner's functional needs, cannot easily be moved and are expensive to operate and maintain. The American people can no longer assume that sites developed within the last two generations will remain undisturbed for any length of time. Age is no longer a prerequisite for rarity. The recent history of many places has centered on change. As a result, we can no longer afford to expect that a building, regardless of its importance, will still be standing fifty years after completion. Honolulu, Hawaii, and the South Beach area of Miami Beach, Florida, area are clear examples. Hareven writes: The demolition of dwellings . wipes out a significant chapter of the history of a place. Even if it does not erase them from local memory, it tends to reduce or eliminate the recall of that memory, rendering less meaningful the communication of that heritage to a new generation. (1981,115) Eighty percent of America's built environment has been constructed since the end of World War Two (Goldberg, 1995, 11-12). Despite this, as of February 14, 1996, there were only 2, 069 listings under exemption G (less than fifty years of age) on the National Register of Historic Places. Carol Shull, 170 Donahue's demolition. (1988, September). Progressive Architecture, 69, 24. Duerksen, Christopher J. (1983). Handbook on historic preservation law. Washington D. C.: Conservation Foundation: National Center for Preservation Law. Dupent, Jacques. (1983). Viollet- le-duc and restoration in France. In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? what? how? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Elzea, Betty. (1982). Stevenson, John James. In Adolf K. Placzek, (Ed.), MacMillan encyclopedia of architects, vol. 4. New York: The Free Press. Environmental Department, City of Boston. ( not dated). Boston Landmarks Commission's evaluation of significance system with criteria and explanation of groupings. Boston: Environmental Department. Ettinger, Leopold D. and Helen S. (1987). Raphael. Oxford: Phaidon. Fain, Haskell. (1970.) Between philosophy and history: The resurrection of speculation philosophy within the analytic tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Faulkner, P. A. (1978, July). A philosophy for the preservation of our historic heritage, journal of the Royal Society of Arts. 126, 452-480. Federal historic preservation laws. (1993). Washington D. C.: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Program. Fisher, Thomas. (1989 a, April). Preservation: Cost of threatened modernism. Progressive Architecture. 69, 24. Fisher, Thomas. (1989 b, April). Restoring modernism. Progressive Architecture. 70, 32. Fitch, James Marston. (1992). Historic preservation: Curatorial management of the built world. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Fraser, Murray. (1990, September 26). Conferences: Modernist preserve; DoCoMoMo: Inaugural international conference. Architect's Tournal. 192, 76-77. 16 In direct contrast with Raphael's beliefs, during the fifteenth century, rich individuals began building vast private collections of antiquities. Collections became so popular that artifacts were created in order to satisfy demand. The content of these collections was unimportant and most had no unifying theme; the only thing that mattered was size (Skarmeas, 1983, 24). Sweden is believed to be the first western European nation to pass laws regarding the preservation of historic resources, in 1677 (Hunter, 1981, 24). England In 1751, the English Society of Dilettanti financed an expedition to Greece to record and illustrate the monuments of ancient Athens (Skarmeas, 1983, 25). These drawings were later published under the title Antiquities of Athens and spawned a widespread interest in what became known as Greek Revival architecture. Despite the Society's interest in documenting resources in situ, during the early nineteenth century removing sculptures from the Acropolis continued. Even Phidias' friezes on the Parthenon were removed, taken to London and eventually placed in the British Museum (Skarmeas, 1983, 24). The first widely documented British architect involved with preservation issues was James Wyatt (1747 1813). Wyatt was responsible for the restoration of several English cathedrals. He took enormous liberties in 124 Louise Huxtable writes: "The 'glass box' is the most maligned building idea of our time. It is also one of the best, whatever its deficiencies, and there are many ... it is the genuine vernacular of the 20th century" (1986, 163). The final barrier between interior and exterior was destroyed when architects changed the function of interior walls from support systems for the roof to definers of space. The idea of the disengaged wall is used extensively in modern architecture. Sarasota architects utilized this feature primarily because of its ability to increase air circulation. While control and use of light was often neglected in International Style buildings, this, along with other visual ties, such as scale, color, texture, and the use of recurring features, were standard in Sarasota School designs. Through-out the design and construction process, control of Florida's often extreme climate was an important feature to be considered. This task was frequently accomplished by using long roof overhangs, shade trees, cross ventilation, and careful site orientation. Kaufmann suggests the four main traits of modern rooms are comfort, quality, lightness, and harmony (1953). Sarasota School interiors clearly meet all four criteria. Proper orientation of the structure allowed for indirect lighting and the capture of prevailing breezes. This kept rooms both bright and cool. Use of walls as definers of space rather than support systems further enhanced the level of comfort. Materials were carefully chosen for both durability and texture. Interiors were accented with color; details were 9 potential and real, of valuable resources from the recent past and both the basis and the need for shortening the existing fifty-year guideline. The dissertation does not fully address either the personal or political realities of implementing such a change. The dissertation is divided into nine chapters. Chapter one consists of a brief overview of the problem addressed along with discussions of arrangement, definitions and methodology. Chapter two provides an overview of preservation history. However, in tracing historical precedents, concentration is upon the last two centuries in Great Britain and the United States. This overview continues in chapter three with a detailed look at changes in preservation activity in the United States predicated by the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966. Chapter four addresses the role played by the empiricistpositivist term "significance" in historic preservation, and the problems using a term which is only defined by itself can present. The intent of the chapter is not to propose a redefinition of significance, nor is it to present either a history or overview of empiricist- positivist philosophies. Discussion is limited to the problems of each as they relate to the National Register of Historic Places and National Register Criteria. Chapter five explores problems that can result from continuing a preservation policy that is exclusionary of a given set of resources. Chapter six presents an argument for inclusion of buildings less than fifty years of age on the National Register, without having to meet the criteria of "exceptional 72 plazas and sunken courtyards. Now that attitudes regarding urbanism have shifted to emphasize pedestrian connections, architects are adapting the high- rises to a more human scale at the sidewalk level (Harriman, 1992, 106). Apparently the federal government was aware of the potential for loss. Duerksen wrote in 1983 that "in at least three cases the federal government has denied certification to local governments when selection was predetermined by a qualifying age requirement greater than fifty-years, on grounds that the effects of alteration or demolition can best be evaluated on a case by case basis independent of age" (1983, 85). Since the mid-1980s, nominations of twentieth century properties to the National Register have outnumbered those of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries combined. Certainly part of the reason this has occurred is the limited number of properties from these earlier periods that qualify for listing. Nevertheless, the recognition that, in America, the post World War Two time period was a time of immense creativity and building opportunities has become more widely accepted. No preceding period produced such diversity of style or range of building types (Lee, 1994, 28). Lee is not alone in believing this; Dietsch writes: Many of our most treasured landmarks are younger, representing the country's most confident era: the corporate office towers, cultural centers and campus buildings that were built in the 1950s and 1960s. Without landmark protection, some of the best examples of these decades are increasingly being tom down or altered beyond recognition without so much as a whimper from preservationists. (1992, 15) APPENDIX B EVALUATION FORMS The reader is reminded that the second and third forms in each set of three are designed to be on pre-carboned paper. This will allow the evaluator to circle the qualitative selections, with the circles being transferred to the quantitative equivalent on the sheet below. Comments will also be transferred. 129 113 Attached to each qualitative rating form (see Figure C) is a pre-carboned form containing the quantitative values. These values are weighted with type according to quality of design having the most value. However, the weighting is designed so that strength in any one of the criterion is potentially sufficient to make a resource eligible for listing. In addition, all values increase by a minimum of two points. In those cases where a determination of local, regional, national, or international importance is called for, the point value increase may be as many as fifteen points. Once all forms have been completed, evaluators should meet as a group. At least one community member who was not part of the evaluation team shall be a member of this committee. During this review process, it may be beneficial to have slides of the resources being evaluated as a source of visual reaffirmation. At this point, any statements regarding symbolic value of a resource should be strongly considered. In all cases, the voice of the group shall outweigh the voice of an evaluator, and may change a given rating. In these cases, a statement detailing why the change was made is required. Changing an evaluation based on a slide is strongly discouraged. Any evaluator strongly opposed to a consensus determination is encouraged to write a dissenting statement for inclusion in the final report/file. Once a determination is made as to eligible or not eligible, a statement explaining the decision is written. This statement, along with copies of the both the 33 the Secretary of the Interior. In 1951, the Trust began acquiring and managing properties. Preservation began to move to the forefront with the depletion of existing building stock as a result of the passage of the Housing Act of 1954. The act emphasized the prevention of slums and blight via the removal of deteriorated buildings and the rehabilitation of sound buildings. Successive acts in 1956 and 1957 increased funding for these urban projects. The housing legislation passed specifically prevented federal dollars being spent to retain and rehabilitate existing building stock. Not until after 1966 could money be used for acquisition and/or demolition (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). In addition, in 1956, Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act for the creation of a national interstate highway system. By the end of 1957, reports in Historic Preservation magazine cited "invasions of scenic and historic areas" by federally funded highway projects (Glass, 1987, 20). In the fall of 1959, Richard Perrin called for controls on Urban Renewal projects, writing they were likely to follow the pattern set by highway construction "riding roughshod over many historically and culturally important structures and sites" (Glass, 1987, 23). As a result of this uproar, in 1959, Congress proposed a method to preserve resources threatened by federally funded projects and programs. A proposal was also made to enlarge the Historic Sites Act, broaden the national 180 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. (1991). National Register bulletin 15: How to apply the National Register criteria for evaluation. Washington D. C: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. Vitruvius. (1960). The ten books on architecture. (Morris Hickey Morgan, Trans.) New York: Dover. Warden, Amy and Elizabeth Calvit. (1993). Preserving the legacy of the Cold War. CRM. 16, 28-30. Webb, Philip Speakman. (1977). In J. M. Richards (Ed.), Who's who in architecture. 1400 present. New York: Holt Rinehart, Winston. Weeks, Kay D. (1996). Historic preservation treatment: Toward a common language. CRM. 19, 32-35. Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer. (1995). The Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties with guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring and reconstructing historic buildings. Washington D. C.: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services. White, Bradford J. and Richard J. Roddewig. (1994). Preparing a historic preservation plan. Chicago: American Planning Association. Whitehall, Walter Muir. (1983). Promoted to glory ... In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? What? How? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Winks, Robin. (1976). Conservation in America: National character as revealed by preservation. In Jane Fawcett (Ed.), The future of the past. New York: Whitney Library of Design. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1980). Culture and value. (Peter Winch, Trans.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 46 that things built in the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were equal in significance to those built prior to the Civil War. The fifty-year guideline forced people to learn about a past that for the most part had been overlooked (Longstreth, 1991, 14). The establishment of a fifty-year guideline did not go unnoticed by those in the field. At a conference held to explain the new NPS program in Richmond, Virginia, a Washington D. C. delegate questioned panel members on how a liaison officer could nominate a property less than fifty years of age. Panel members replied that fifty years was a guideline, not a prohibition. Unfortunately, today many people consider it to be just the opposite. William Murtagh, the first Keeper of the National Register, remembers that when he and one other architect/architectural historian (Dr. Ernest Connally, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Architecture) joined the National Park Service in 1967, there was concern among some in the NPS that the "architects were taking over" (W. J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, February 7, 1996). Architectural historians argued that buildings should be preserved for their architectural merits and that preservation efforts should include not just recognized masterpieces, but buildings exemplifying styles, types and trends in the architectural practices of the nation and localities. As a result of these efforts, buildings began to be preserved because of their perceived importance to a community, for their role in the architectural and aesthetic integrity of a 123 treated as an element of the landscape. Proper orientation allowed the capture of both scenic views and cooling breezes, while minimizing the impact of direct sunlight. Utilization of post and beam construction allowed for the creation of exterior walls of glass and freed interior wall surfaces to be manipulated within the overall design pattern. This open plan system created both visual and spatial flow while allowing for the unobstructed circulation of air. The distinction between interior and landscape was blurred with the inclusion of a central courtyard or patio area. All major interior spaces adjoined and opened on to this "outdoor" area. An incorporation of indigenous materials in the buildings strengthened the connection between architecture and environment. Ralph Twitchell's unique understanding of local materials, especially wood and cream tinted Ocala block, was passed on to other Sarasota School architects. Twitchell was responsible for introducing Ocala block to the area. This block, made in Ocala, of crushed limestone was laid in stack bond, and often used for walls. Twitchell was also the first to build with block exposed on both interior and exterior wall surfaces. The structural design system was post and beam. This allowed the separation of enclosure and structural support system. Glass was the preferred material used for enclosure. It allowed linkage of interior and exterior areas and could not be misconstrued as structural support. Ada 167 rehabilitation resource restoration significance significant (n) site structure the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values term used to describe, collectively, a site, structure, building, object and/or district the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period that which is signified; the quality of being significant something that has significance location of a significant event, activity, building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value those functional constructions made usually for purposes other than creating human shelter 67 In determining significance, we must let the results of our research define the resources that are important rather than starting with a preconceived notion of what is, or is not, significant. Longstreth sums up the problem writing: All things possess some degree of historic significance, however meager it might be. Properly done, preservation provides the framework by which one may select from the past, prioritizing significance in a reasonably consistent and meaningful way. The integrity of method is vital, for preservation's greatest contribution to society is enabling people to gain insights on the past that are real, and to do so in ways that written, pictorial and other forms of communication cannot duplicate. (1994, 45) William Murtagh believes that this is the basic role and function of a professional state staff, even if it relies on local researchers (Personal Communication, March, 1996). 126 Victor Lundy may have explained the exodus best when he said: In the last analysis, it is only from within one's own self that one can create any thing. Creation is a great adventure, and any suggestion of fear or cynicism or subservience is against this spirit of adventure and negates its very process . Great architecture is creative architecture . . it results only when creative source is free and unfettered, certain and directed. (Lundy, 1958, 177) Philip Hiss later wrote: Sarasota is a rich community; it can afford distinguished architecture if any community can. And Sarasota has some distinguished architecture; but it will soon become a museum of the 1920s and 1950s unless its sights are raised again. Meanwhile a whole generation of promising architects has left a community that could have offered them expanding opportunities, but has chosen instead mediocrity and worse. (McDonough, 1985, 10) Gene Leedy may have stated the case with the people of Sarasota at the time when he said, "Genius is often difficult to detect when one is too close to it" (Trebbi, 1989, 40). Jack West wrote "Sarasota consciously rejected a marvelous opportunity for a group of talented and idealistic architects and planners to mold its future form" (Horton, 1982, 21). In 1959, the American Institute of Architects at a meeting of the New Orleans Convention for Better Living Program awarded honors to eighteen architects in the United States. The awards program was jointly sponsored by the American Institute of Architects, House and Home magazine and McCalls magazine. Eight awards went to architects from Florida; five of these were given to Sarasota based architects. Victor Lundy received an Honor Award in 10 significance" as currently stated. Chapter seven summarizes the problems presented and looks at ways selected cities are currently handling the problem. Chapter eight presents a point-based system for evaluating buildings in which specific criteria for buildings less than fifty years of age are included. The point-based system presented is incomplete in that it excludes criterion D, those resources "that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history" (Code of Federal Regulations 36, 1974, 248). This criterion is most often used for archaeological resources and any examination should only be done by someone qualified in that field. Chapter nine looks at still unanswered questions and issues and explores where we can go from here. For the purpose of this dissertation, certain definitions have been received from references. The terms preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction are defined according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Kevin Lynch's definition of memory, appearing in What Time Is This Place, is used, as is Richard Longstreth's definition of the recent past. The terms "building," "structure," "object," "site," "resource" and "district" are defined in accordance with National Park Service materials. Last, the terms "history," "past," "significant" and "significance" are defined as in Webster's New World Dictionary. 7 Both the present and the past are, and should be considered as, inseparable parts of a whole. There was no mention of "historic" buildings being at least fifty years of age when the committee headed by Albert Rains and Lawrence Henderson concluded: We do not use bombs and powder kegs to destroy irreplaceable structures related to the story of America's civilization. We use the corrosion of neglect or the thrust of bulldozers. . Connections between successive generations of Americans concretely linking their ways of life -- are broken by demolition. Sources of memory cease to exist. (United States Conference of Mayors, 1966, 19) Nor was an age requirement mentioned when Robert Utley commented on the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act stating the National Register was to be "a product of professional evaluation and review rather than a mere list of antiquarian curiosities" (Glass, 1987, 282). Both statements recognize that all buildings play a role in the historical memory of a community. However, it was Robert Utley and his departmental historians who insisted one needed fifty years distance to recognize objectively whether something was historical or not (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). It makes sense that those buildings constructed within the last fifty years are a reasonable place to begin when constructing links to past generations. Documenting the history of a building should be viewed no differently than tracing a family's genealogy. Longstreth rightly points out: When we exclude much of the 20th century from consideration, we are in effect creating an artificial separation between contemporary life and f 133 Criterion B (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with the lives of persons who have made an identifiable contribution to our past Evaluators are to complete only one of the following four items. Selection should be based on that item having the most widespread influence. 1. associated with the life/activities of a person, group, movement or institution that has made an identifiable contribution to the community; or 2. associated with the life/activities of a person, group, movement or institution that has made an identifiable contribution to the state; or 3. associated with the life /activities of a person, group, movement or institution that has made an identifiable contribution to the nation; or 4. associated with the life/activities of a person, group, movement or institution that has made an identifiable contribution to the world. Evaluators are to complete only one of the following two items. Selection should be based on that item most directly associated. 4. person, group, movement or institution directly associated with the resource; or 5. person, group, movement or institution indirectly associated with the resource. 103 the downtown area and those in D classified as "sites of opportunity" (Corbett, c. 1985, 45), living up to the fears of the National Register task force. The Grant's Pass, Oregon, evaluation system is based on an early Portland, Oregon, plan. It consists of four general categories: physical condition, importance to neighborhood, architectural interest and historical interest. Total points in each of the four categories range from ten to twenty points. The criteria are very general, i.e. architectural significance. No descriptions of what is meant by architectural significance is provided. Rating sheets were not available for review. In Vancouver, a local steering committee determined that two decades is a period of sufficient historical perspective within which to gauge a building's heritage merit (Leman, 1993, 23). Vancouver uses a weighted numerical evaluation system that takes into consideration the architectural characteristics, cultural value, context and integrity. Each broad area, except for integrity, is subdivided into more specific categories: architectural characteristics into style/type, design, construction and designer/builder; cultural history into historical association and historical pattern; context into landscape, neighborhood and visual. Buildings are reviewed by both style and building type. The importance of construction techniques or the association with a noted designer is also considered. Evaluations for all buildings, regardless of age are done according to the same criteria to help insure a consistent approach. Sample criteria used in Vancouver include: 128 Rudolph expressed his concern saying, "Change is an implied part of the life of a building, but the way in which it is accomplished is important. There must be an understanding of what was the original intent" (Sarasota Retrospect, 1976,19)." Both Rudolph and Hiss voiced their dismay in the community's inattentiveness to its heritage. Rudolph, in 1982, said, "Sarasota is in danger of becoming an architecturally common community, one which is no more distinctive than any other community of similar size and aspect" (Horton, 1982, 21). Hiss, in the same article, is quoted as saying Sarasota is: a community which, despite its period of prominence architecturally, has failed to maintain a feeling of design consistency or direction, becoming instead a collection of random developments and individual projects, none of which has contributed to any sense of the whole, a sense. (Horton, 1982, 21) a sense, as Rudolph defined it, of "place." Unfortunately for Sarasota and its residents, both men have been proven to be correct in both their observations and in their predictions. 99 College Hill Study in Providence, Rhode, Island. Their pilot project employed a point-based system and was considered to be widely successful at that time. The study was used by the implementation task force in 1967 when creating the criteria for listing on the National Register. The committee chose not to use a point-based system for the National Register after visiting western Europe. In Europe, point-based systems led to building classifications. Some classifications were more protected than others and, once classified, resources did not have the ability to move from one classification level to another. To avoid this happening in the United States, a more general system that resulted in one of two determinations, eligible for listing, or not eligible for listing, was created (W. J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, February 12, 1996). Many preservationists and architectural historians continue to reject objective systematic evaluation systems. They feel architecture's aesthetic qualities cannot be quantified. There is also the lingering concern that buildings with a low ranking will be the first to be sacrificed for new development or the first to be altered beyond recognition. This could be avoided if buildings were reevaluated on a regular basis allowing their potential endangerment to be monitored. Furthermore, as Michael Corbett points out: Despite the resistance of some preservationists, these objective evaluation systems have long been not merely acceptable to political leaders, city planning officials, real-estate developers, and others in CHAPTER 2 PRESERVATION THROUGH THE AGES Introduction Isolated instances of deliberate preservation can be found throughout recorded history. The Greeks preserved architectural forms found in their wooden temples by recreating those forms in marble (Preamble, 1983, 5). Plato wrote, "let this tribute be paid to memory, which has caused us to enlarge upon it now, yearning for what we once possessed" (1952, 34). Later, Vitruvius wrote that the majesty of the (Roman) empire was expressed through "the eminent dignity of its public buildings" (1960, 3). Roman emperors preserved vestiges of the past in an attempt to identify themselves with earlier "legitimate" rulers (Preamble, 1983, 5). During his time as emperor of the western Roman empire, Julius Valerius Majorianus (Majorian), wrote a number of laws that were incorporated into the Theodosian Code. Among these was one strictly prohibiting the practice of tearing down ancient monuments. During the Medieval period, throughout western Europe, the value of a building came to be determined by its historical associations rather than any 14 127 the Custom Built Category, Paul Rudolph received two Merit Awards, Edward Siebert and Gene Leedy received one Merit Award each. During its centennial exhibition in 1957, the American Institute of Architects again recognized the achievements of Ralph Twitched, Paul Rudolph, Jack West, Victor Lundy, and Edward Siebert. The importance of the work produced by Sarasota School architects lies in their precedent setting designs in all areas of architecture. Four consistent patterns were established and are still adhered to by many Florida architects: the creation of varied and complex spaces and spatial relationships, the refinement and creation of architectural form rather than its creation as a result of other design decisions, the selection and precise detailing of materials, and the incorporation of both cultural and environmental elements of traditional southern architecture (Trebbi, 1989). Work produced by Sarasota architects was held in high regard by the profession as evidenced in the amount of national and international publication space given this group by peer journals of the time, the quantity of work commissioned, and the magnitude of the projects. Numerous design awards were presented to members of the group including the highest levels of professional commendation given by the American Institute of Architects. Time, in many cases, has not treated the buildings of the Sarasota School of Architecture well. Many were not properly maintained, some have had additions which are not of the same genre as the original building. buildings that meet the parallel criteria of historic significance. The problem is actually two-fold; the result of both an insistence that buildings be at least fifty years of age and the lack of a common understanding of the term "significance." The dissertation looks at problems in having evaluative criteria (objective) based on the empiricistpositivist term "significance" a term which is both subjective and relative. It reviews the philosophical basis for the term and proposes evaluation criteria designed to provide a more objective assessment of sites. The proposed forms require the evaluator to state their reasoning, thus placing him/her in the context of the time the evaluation was made. The evaluative procedures suggested are also designed to minimize the impact of bias and personal preference. A review of the preservation movement includes reasoning for the current fifty-year guideline and reminds the reader of why, at the time the guideline was designed, it was an innovative and bold move. Arguments are then presented as to why the existing fifty-year guideline is no longer necessary and should be dropped from inclusion criteria. These arguments are based on developments in the field of preservation, an increase in educational programs resulting in an increase in professionals, and a rapid increase in the rate of change. The evaluative method proposed is ultimately point-based but blends both qualitative and quantitative procedures. Unlike methods in use today, vm 15 architectural qualities (Boulting, 1976, 19). The Renaissance introduced the concept of the past as attractive or desirable with the perception of classical antiquity being distinguished from and superior to the recent past. It was during the Renaissance that Raphael, as Commissioner of Antiquities, became the first to seek an end to the continual extinction of historic resources (Lowenthal, 1981, 10) and Brunelleschi's Ospedale degli Innocenti (Foundling Hospital) was begun in Florence. The design of the Foundling Hospital is generally regarded as the first expression of a passionate interest in the past (Fitch, 1992,13). A letter believed to have been written by Raphael with the help of Baldassare Castiglione to Leo X, around 1519, may be considered one of the first treatises to be written on preservation. In the missive, Raphael writes about the usefulness of accurate measurements and drawings of the monuments. He stresses the need to produce precise ground-plans, cross- sections and elevations showing all details. He offers advise as to what has to be done to reconstruct ancient Rome accurately and how to do it by combining the methods of architects and the recording practices of archaeologists. Ettinger writes: "Despite Raphael's inclusion of the often repeated complaint that antiquities were constantly being destroyed, the letter was clearly intended not as an archaeological report, but as an investigation into how the Rome of the past was a prelude to the Rome of the future" (1987,200). 39 Richard Longstreth believes that, although not directly stated, an underlying rationale for the National Historic Preservation Act was that contemporary achievements in architecture, planning and other fields that shaped the built environment were inferior to those of the past (1991, 213).1 William Murtagh disagrees (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Longstreth's belief is rooted in Congress' directive that the National Register record the evidences of our national patrimony" (Glass, 1987, 282). This concentration on objects of antiquity is consistent with both the 1906 Antiquities Act and the Historic Sites Act of 1935. It is also consistent with management of the National Park Service's various preservation efforts being carried out by social historians rather than architectural historians, or preservationists. In fact, in 1966, there were very few architectural historians and preservation had yet to become recognized as an educational opportunity. While in the United States preservation and preservation education have always gone hand in hand, the first college level preservation course was not offered until 1959. That year, Frederick Nichols at the University of Virginia began offering a two semester course that included the architectural language of mouldings and details, materials and forms, philosophy and techniques of architectural surveying and the creation of historic districts and easements (Tomlan, 1994, 188). Shortly after Virginia's program was established, Cornell University began offering preservation related courses. The nation's third LIST OF REFERENCES Alexander, Thomas M. (1987). lohn Dewey's theory of art, experience, and nature: The horizons of feeling. New York: State University of New York Press. Ames, David. (1995). Interpreting post-World War II suburban landscapes as historic resources. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C.: ITistoric Preservation Education Foundation. Baker, Alan R. H. (1992). Introduction: On ideology and landscape. In Alan R. H. Baker & Gideon Biger (Eds.), Ideology and landscape in historical perspective: Essays on the meanings of some places in the past. New York: Cambridge University Press. Benjamin, Susan. (1988, January/February). Inlandscape: Underage landmarks. Inland Architecture. 32, 4-5. Bluestone, Daniel. (1994, May). Preservation and renewal in post-World War II Chicago. lournal of Architectural Education. 47, 210-223. Boulting, Nikolous. (1976). The law's delays: Conservationist legislation in the British Isles. In Jane Fawcett (Ed.), The future of the past. New York: Whitney Library of Design. Bullock, Orin M. Jr. (1996). The restoration manual. Norwalk: Silverman Publishers. Bureau of Planning, City of Portland. (1980, October). Lair Hill conservation district design guidelines. Portland: Bureau of Planning. Bureau of Planning, City of Portland. (1991, July 1). Title 33. Planning and zoning: Chapter 33.845. Historic landmarks. Portland: Bureau of Planning. 168 152 CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling 1.notable example material 5 0 Justification 2.unique/rare example material 10 5 J ustif ication 3.early example material 5 0 date average date of other buldings of same type Justification 4.notable example method of construction 5 0 Justification 5.unique/rare example method of construction 10 5 Justification 6.early example method of construction 5 0 date average date of other buldings of same type J ustification 77 actively work to preserve the recent past. It is, after all, where our ties are strongest. In addition, it is what immediately and most directly links us to the remote past. The survival and preservation of structures from the recent past creates both physical and social continuity. We cannot afford to allow only the existence of the remote past. No matter how accurately a resource is preserved, if only selective categories are saved, or if only selective periods are represented, integrity and authenticity are lost. The conception of significance for the recent past is shaped by the fact that for several generations, historiographic emphasis has generally been placed on ideology, artistic expression and a very limited range of technical innovations (Longstreth, 1991, 13). Just as a biographer works not to describe the appearance of a person as much as to understand a whole personality and to place the subject within a society, the preservationist must recognize a place not only in terms of individuality but also of contextuality, as a product both of nature and of nurture (Baker, 1992, 2). William Murtagh once quoted a New York Times article which stated: At best, preservation engages the past in a conversation with the present over a mutual concern for the future" (Green, 1991, 90). Within the last fifty years, it seems the conversation has centered on a series of still unanswered questions including: How important is historical perspective; Why is proving exceptional significance needed; 122 Work produced by members of the Sarasota School is truly representative of this statement. Tenets of the Sarasota School had their basis in three areas: tenets of the International Style, characteristics of regional Southern architecture, and the architect's original ideas which allowed for adaptation to the lifestyle and climate of the Sarasota area. From the International Style Sarasota architects took an understanding of the concept of borrowed space, the logical use and expression of structure, the separation of structure and enclosure, simple building form and detail, and honest use and expression of materials. From earlier southern regional designs they took: modular construction, a raised floor, and efficient environmental control systems. To these the architects added: the use of low maintenance materials, a play of light and shadow, and a desire to humanize International Style environments. The last of the three additions was perhaps the most challenging. A combination of the design styles of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier accomplished the task. Van der Rohe's concept of architectural space and his belief in the beauty of simplicity were mixed with the concepts of form and space as expressed by Le Corbusier and, finally, the emotional aspects of Wright. It is the successful blending of these elements that creates the identifiable and unique Sarasota School stvle. The flat landscape of the Sarasota area is conducive to an architecture of planes. These planes, when successfully placed, allow a structure to be 173 Jacobs, Stephen W. (1970). Governmental experience in the United States. In National Trust for Historic Preservation (Ed.), Historic preservation today: Essays presented to the seminar on preservation. Williamsburg. Virginia. September 8 11. 1963. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Jandl, H. Ward. (1995). Introduction: Preserving the recent past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Jester, Thomas C. (1995.) International perspectives on 20th century heritage. CRM. 18, 27-29. Kalman, Harold. (1980). Evaluation of historic buildings. Ottawa: Environment Canada Parks Service. Kamman, Michael. (1991). Mystic chords of memory: The transformation of tradition in American culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Kaufmann, Edgar, Jr. (1953). What is modern design? New York: The Museum of Modern Art. Kimball, Roger. (1994, February). Observations: Wright on the walls: Exhibiting a legend. Architectural Record. 182, 16-17. King, Thomas F. (1977). Resolving a conflict of values in American archaeology. In Michael B. Schiffer and George J. Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation archaeology: A guide for cultural resource management studies. New York: Academic Press. King Thomas F., Patricia Parker Hickman and Gary Berg. (1977). Anthropology in historic preservation: Caring for culture's clutter. New York: Academic Press. Kliment, Stephen A. (1992, January). Doing the right thing. Architectural Record. 180, 86-89. Kolakowski, Leszek. (1968). The alienation of reason: A history of Positivist thought. (Norbert Guterman, Trans,). Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc. Law, Jules David. (1993). The rhetoric of empiricism: Language and perception from Locke to I. A. Richards. London: Cornell University Press. CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM OF THE RECENT PAST Overview The fundamental reason for preservation is to bequeath to the future a reliable representation of the architecture of the past. Orin Bullock, 1966 Historic preservation is predicated on the belief that the past has something to offer the present. Preservation works to create lasting tangible images of the past. If done successfully, it possesses the ability to change the way people think of a specified period of time. Ada Louise Huxtable writes: "Preservation is the job of finding ways to keep those original buildings that provide the city's character and continuity and of incorporating them into its living mainstream" (1970, 212). Historic preservation emerged in the United States in the nineteenth century during the rise of American nationalism. The movement began as an attempt to establish a national identity via cultural affiliation to past events, persons, sites and buildings. Schwarzer writes that: impulses to forge a national identity were motivated by contradictory interests: an estrangement from Great Britain with the goal of creating 1 44 Along with these four broad areas, certain criteria considerations were listed. These considerations were reworked from their original format so as to have a positive rather than negative connotation. The criteria considerations state: Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved form their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: (a) a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or, (b) a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or, (c) a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his productive life; or, (d) a cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, form age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or, (e) a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or, (f) a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance; or, (g) a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. (Code of Federal Regulations 36, 1974, 248) The National Historic Preservation Act thus became the basis for a "new" preservation. Whereas the "old" preservation had been concerned 62 result, it may be extremely difficult to demonstrate that a site lacks the potential to become significant. Assessing Significance Assessing significance is one of the most difficult tasks for the preservationist. There is no universally applicable set of significance criteria that can be used in the same way so that determinations of such factors as site, type, cultural affinity or period are made. This creates problems stemming from a difficulty in determining the appropriate criteria to be used in measuring significance. Tainter writes: If meaning is assigned rather than fixed to inherent properties, then it is subject to variation between individuals and to change through time. . We cannot speak of significance as an inherent attribute of cultural properties wanting only to be discerned (even though this is precisely what the federal legislation and regulations require us to do). Significance, rather, is a quality that we assign to a cultural resource based on the theoretical framework within which we happen to be thinking. (1983, 714) A common flaw in assessing significance is a failure to recognize all relevant types of significance present in a resource. Ethnic or cultural significance can be especially difficult as its determination requires consultation with the groups who occupy a site, descendants of such groups and/or groups who presently own or live near sites under consideration. The existence of cultural variation is further proof that meaning is assigned by the human 100 positions of influence over land use and development, but they have been almost demanded by them in their hesitancy to work with anything less systematic. In this demand, apart from the reliability of such systems, is the real justification for their use. (c. 1985, 43) Point-based systems appear to be more widely accepted on the west coast. This type of system is in place in a wide variety of communities including Portland, Eugene and Grant's Pass, Oregon and Oakland, Sacramento and San Francisco, California. Vancouver, Canada also uses this type of system. Many of these systems are based on principles presented in Harold Kalman's The Evaluation of Historic Buildings. In addition to associative values, typical subdivisions for determination of architectural significance include: A) Style: Significance as an example of a particular architectural style, building type or convention B) Design/Artistic Quality: Significance because of quality of composition, detailing and craftsmanship C) Materials/Construction: Significance as an example of a particular material or method of construction D) Integrity: Significant because it retains its original design features, materials and characteristics E) Rarity: Significant as the only remaining or one of a few remaining properties of a particular style, building type, design, material, or method of construction. (White, 1994, 10) Buildings are evaluated as being excellent, very good, good, or fair/poor with each of those ratings each having a preassigned point value. In the College Hill Demonstration Study of 1958, evaluation was based on a pre-established set of criteria. Each building received a numerical score 29 In 1930, the first federally funded reconstruction project took place at Pope's Creek (George Washington's birthplace) in Westmoreland County, Virginia, with the creation of an eighteenth century style house. The house was opened to the public in 1931. Unfortunately, Park Service officials later acknowledged that not only was the house not an accurate reproduction, archaeological digs confirmed it was not properly sited. Also in 1931, the concept of the historic district was born in Charleston, South Carolina. With the advent of historic districts, a third major form of preservation developed in the United States and attention was drawn to the "little" (i.e. vernacular) houses of neighborhoods (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order transferring all national military parks, battlefields and national monuments to the National Park Service division of the Department of the Interior. The action quadrupled the number of historic areas administered by the NPS and moved it to the forefront of government supported preservation activities. The Great Depression served to increase the role of the federal government in architectural preservation. Its efforts, however, remained rooted in patriotic and commercial themes. In November of 1933, Charles Peterson, then restoration architect for the National Park Service, proposed funding for the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) for the purpose of enhancing the cultural life of the nation by establishing a comprehensive 150 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling 1. notable example of a particular material 2. unique/rare example of a particular material 3. early example of a particular material 4. notable example of a particular method of construction 5. unique/rare example of a particular method of construction 6. early example of a particular method of construction "Early" is defined as dating from before or within five years of appearing in othr buildings of the same type. **NOTE** When evaluating the building's/structure's interior spaces is appropriate, "Interior" ratings four, five, six, seven and eight should be completed. 131 (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with events that have made an identifiable contribution to the broad patterns of our history SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS 1.identifiable contribution to the community community Justification 2.identifiable contribution to the state state Justification 3.identifiable contribution to the nation nation Justification 4.identifiable contribution to the world world Justification SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS 5.directly associated with the resource direct Justification 6.indirectly associated with the resource Justification indirect 18 documentation of the resource via measured drawings and, for the first time, photography, followed by examination of the resource's fabric. The third and final step involved conjectural restoration based on evidence collected in the first two steps, with missing features being reconstructed. In addition, conjectural restoration was based on knowledge of elements in the original structure, knowledge of local/regional architecture and building practices and knowledge gained in studying other buildings by the same architect. Edward Freeman (1823 1892) is widely recognized as the first to put the questions of restoration in perspective. In his writings, Freeman emphasized the importance of knowledge and precision: A restoration requires no less eminent qualities in an architect than even an original design: this is not the same scope indeed for a creative genius, but taste and judgement are quite as necessary and even a deeper acquaintance with antiquarian lore is required. The restorer has to look carefully to the transmutations of an edifice which may have received as many successive alterations as there are styles of Christian architecture .... All this cannot be accomplished without patient inquiry and sound judgement .... Architectural genius and antiquarian precision must preside over both .... (Skarmeas, 1983, 39) Freeman believed there were two types of architectural remains: monuments which were legitimate objects of restoration and structures to be protected from further damage. For the most part, English preservation philosophy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was dominated by the similar views of four men: John Ruskin, William Morris, Philip Webb and W. R. Lethaby. 10 o 146 8.design recognized/published nationally Justification 9.design recognized/published internationally 20 10 0 J ustif ication 10.design award winning regionally 10 5 0 Justification 11.design award winning nationally 20 10 0 Justification 109 Ideally, this review would be done by persons not involved in the original evaluation and would include at least one visit to the site. All forms may be completed by one evaluator. However, it is recommended that a social/cultural historian, or preservationist with that background, complete all forms for criteria A and B, and also those forms from criterion C dealing with work of a master. An architect, architectural historian, or preservationist with a background in either of those fields, should complete those forms from criterion C dealing with design, method of construction and district. An architectural historian, or preservationist with that background, should complete forms from criterion C centering on type, style and period. A specialist in historic interiors may be brought in to deal with structures requiring that evaluation, if not, an architect or architectural historian should be used. Each set of forms is accompanied by a cover sheet (see Figure A). On this, the evaluator is reminded of the criterion they are evaluating and given the specific aspect of the criterion he/she will be centering on. This aspect is then defined and characteristics of the aspect are given. Bold-faced type is used to designate those phrases appearing on the rating sheet. The qualitative rating forms (see Figure B) require one of three general decisions: yes or no, unique or rare, or E (excellent), VG (very good), G (good), F (fair), or P (poor). Evaluators are not limited to selecting one category, but may circle as many as they feel apply, with the final numerical score being an 154 REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER master notable/recognized architect, designer, engineer and or builder 1.identifiable contribution to the community yes no Justification 2.identifiable contribution to the state yes no Justification 3.identifiable contribution to the nation yes no Justification PAGE 1 SYSTEMIZING THE SEARCH FOR SIGNIFICANCE: A POINT-BASED SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING ELIGIBILITY ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES By PATTY JO SMITH RICE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1996 PAGE 2 Copyright 1996 by Patty Jo Smith Rice PAGE 3 This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of Paula Banes Twitchell, who vmderstood all too well the perils of failing to preserve the recent past, to the memory of Edwin William Smith, my father, and to the memory of Eleanor Asker York and Florence Cox Smith, my grandmothers. PAGE 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all those who have helped me complete this project and were kind enough to provide me with information. Dr. Richard Longstreth, Mr. Harold Kalman, Mr. Richard Crisson, Mr. Stephen Lewotsky, Ms. Thayer Donham, Ms. Judith Collins, Mr. Marco D'Agostini, Dr. William Murtagh, Mr. Jef Joslin, Mr. Michael Carmizzo, Dr. Diana Bitz and Ms. Carol Shull. Thanks also to the members of my committee Professors William Tilson, Roy Hunt and R. Wayne Drummond. Special thanks go to Herschel E. Shepard, my committee cochair and mentor whose guidance, wisdom and support have been instrumental. I would also like to recognize those persons who, while not on my committee, volunteered to read and comment on the dissertation, / Professor Emeritus F. Blair Reeves, Dr. William Murtagh, Dr. Diana Bitz, Professor Susan Tate, Mr. Gregory A. Hall and Ms. Vicki Jo Sandstead. None of this would have been possible without the support of my husband. Bill, and my family, especially that of my mother, JoAnn L. Smith. Last, but not least, I want to thank Greg Hall and Jeanne Williams whose friendship and support have kept me sane and grounded throughout everything. iv PAGE 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv ABSTRACT vii THE PROBLEM OF THE RECENT PAST 1 Overview 1 Arrangement of Dissertation 8 Methodology 10 PRESERVATION THROUGH THE AGES 14 Introduction 14 England 16 France 21 The United States 23 A CHANGE IN THE WAY OF DOING BUSINESS THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 35 THE ENIGMA OF SIGNIFICANCE 50 Overview 50 Empiricist Thought 52 Positivist Thought 56 EmpiricistÂ— Positivist Thought 60 Assessing Significance 62 Significance and the Federal Government 63 THE QUESTION OF THE RECENT PAST 68 THE NEED FOR INCLUSION OF THE RECENT PAST 80 EVALUATING HISTORIC STRUCTURES 93 Overview 93 Current Preservation Plans Incorporating Recent Buildings 97 Point-based Systems for Evaluation 98 V PAGE 6 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED EVALUATION SYSTEM 106 WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 117 THE SARASOTA SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE 120 EVALUATION FORMS 129 ICOMOS SEMINAR ON 20TH-CENTURY HERITAGE, JUNE 18-19, 1995 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 164 GLOSSARY 166 LIST OF REFERENCES 168 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 181 vi PAGE 7 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy SYSTEMIZING THE SEARCH FOR SIGNIFICANCE: A POINT-BASED SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING ELIGIBILITY ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES By Patty Jo Smith Rice May, 1996 Chairperson: R. Wayne Drummond Co-chairperson: Herschel E. Shepard Major Department: Architecture Now there is an urgent need for experiment in criticism of a new kind which will consist largely in a logical and dialectical study of the terms used. ... In literary criticism we are constantly using terms which we cannot define, and defining other things by them. We are constantly using terms which have an intention and an extension which do not quite fit; but if they cannot, then some other way must be found of dealing with them so that we may know at every moment what we mean. T. S. Eliot The National Park Service's insistence that historic resources be at least fifty years of age to be considered for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places has resulted in the widespread alteration and destruction of vii PAGE 8 buildings that meet the parallel criteria of historic significance. The problem is actually two-fold; the result of both an insistence that buildings be at least fifty years of age and the lack of a common understanding of the term "significance." The dissertation looks at problems in having evaluative criteria (objective) based on the empiricistÂ— positivist term "significance" ~ a term which is both subjective and relative. It reviews the philosophical basis for the term and proposes evaluation criteria designed to provide a more objective assessment of sites. The proposed forms require the evaluator to state their reasoning, thus placing him/her in the context of the time the evaluation was made. The evaluative procedures suggested are also designed to minimize the impact of bias and personal preference. A review of the preservation movement includes reasoning for the current fifty-year guideline and reminds the reader of why, at the time the guideline was designed, it was an innovative and bold move. Arguments are then presented as to why the existing fifty-year guideline is no longer necessary and should be dropped from inclusion criteria. These arguments are based on developments in the field of preservation, an increase in educational programs resulting in an increase in professionals, and a rapid increase in the rate of change. The evaluative method proposed is ultimately point-based but blends both qualitative and quantitative procedures. Unlike methods in use today. viii PAGE 9 the method proposed takes into account and documents the context of the evaluator as well as the resource. ix PAGE 10 CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM OF THE RECENT PAST Overview The fundamental reason for preservation is to bequeath to the future a reliable representation of the architecture of the past. Orin Bullock, 1966 Historic preservation is predicated on the belief that the past has something to offer the present. Preservation works to create lasting tangible images of the past. If done successfully, it possesses the ability to change the way people think of a specified period of time. Ada Louise Huxtable writes: "Preservation is the job of finding ways to keep those original buildings that provide the city's character and continuity and of incorporating them into its living mainstream" (1970, 212). Historic preservation emerged in the United States in the nineteenth century during the rise of American nationalism. The movement began as an attempt to establish a national identity via cultural affiliation to past events, persons, sites and buildings. Schwarzer writes that: impulses to forge a national identity were motivated by contradictory interests: an estrangement from Great Britain with the goal of creating 1 PAGE 11 2 an independent American nationality and an equally powerful struggle to overcome feelings of separation from British tradition. [It] concentrated on architecture associated with the revolutionary era and neo-English institutions of democracy. (1994, 3) These early efforts were often controlled by wealthy private citizens and societies and, generally, appealed to the political patriotism of upper classes. Preservation allows for an individual understanding of what has gone on before. An accurate understanding can only be reached by assembling a rational and unbiased sample of data about the past and by making that data available to the public. This approach to preservation is the usual approach in the United States. It is, for the most part, a phenomenon of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Despite this systematic method, many aspects of preservation encourage value judgements and allow personal preferences to impact not only what we preserve, but how we preserve it. Value judgements impact the entire spectrum of preservation activities. Bias often takes the form of overemphasizing certain recognized styles or forms and preserving the past in terms of the positive. In an attempt to avoid bias, some state historic preservation officers adhere to an unofficial policy of selecting only one or two of the "best" examples. This thinking excludes most of the built environment and favors resources that are rare, unconventional, or exotic over those deemed commonplace (Longstreth, 1994, 41). Any selective PAGE 12 3 creation of an official past is nothing nnore than another form of bias, potentially as damaging as preserving no past at all. In the same way, a preservation of the past represented only by sites and buildings of a certain age is a subtle yet persuasive form of discrimination. As Ada Louise Huxtable puts it: "You don't erase history to get history" (1970, 223). At its most extreme, when no traces of past events within a given time frame exist, the record of that time consists only of a blank screen. Longstreth writes: Age poses a further set of problems. In this realm, taste is shaped less by aesthetic biases, perhaps, than by antiquarian ones. The older a remnant of the past, the more preservationists tend to venerate it, even though no historiographical method uses age alone as a measure of significance. (43) Because of the pervasiveness of age bias, it is often easier to gain support in saving secondary examples of earlier eras than for major milestones from more recent decades. Many people feel that a building less than twenty years old is too young to be considered a landmark, regardless of its reputation (Goff, 1988, 31). The public, however, sometimes unofficially declares a building a landmark upon its completion. The one occasion most often pointed to is Eero Saarinen's Dulles Airport Terminal Building in Chantilly, Virginia. Other examples include Saarinen's TWA Terminal building in New York, I. M. Pel's East Wing of the National Gallery of Art in Washington D. C. and Louis Kahn's Salk Institute Building in La Jolla, California. PAGE 13 4 The "Conclusion of the Findings of the U. S. Conference of Mayors, Special Committee on Historic Preservation" ends with this statement: If we wish to have a future with greater meaning, we must concern ourselves not only with historical highlights, but we must also be concerned with the total heritage of the nation and all that is worth preserving from our past as a living part of the present. (194) The group clearly recognized the need for preserving our "total heritage." No mention is made of a requirement that buildings be at least fifty years of age and no room is allowed for bias. Preservationists have, to date, played a role in encouraging academic disciplines to conduct a more holistic scrutiny of the past and to move away from a purely textbook-oriented philosophy. This enhanced understanding of the past is our most valuable and our most vulnerable inheritance (Hiss, 1990, xxi). We need to continue to insist on an integrative, interdisciplinary, holistic view of the past; one that gives equal emphasis to all periods, phases, events and phenomena. To achieve these objectives, preservationists need new tools and techniques as well as an awareness of the complex forces that impact communities, states, regions and the nation as a whole. In addition, today's preservationists must remember that ultimately their efforts will not just reflect the past, but will serve as a reflection of themselves and the present as well. Preservation must be accepted as a natural course of action, designed to protect valued qualities of landscapes that most people take for granted but PAGE 14 5 that will not be maintained without protection and which cannot be replaced in kind, should they be lost (Longstreth, 1991 b, 219). Too often we lose our cultural legacy before we recognize its importance. Amy Worden Unfortunately, buildings themselves often carry the seeds of their own destruction. Unlike other art forms, buildings must continue to serve an owner's functional needs, cannot easily be moved and are expensive to operate and maintain. The American people can no longer assume that sites developed within the last two generations will remain undisturbed for any length of time. Age is no longer a prerequisite for rarity. The recent history of many places has centered on change. As a result, we can no longer afford to expect that a building, regardless of its importance, will still be standing fifty years after completion. Honolulu, Hawaii, and the South Beach area of Miami Beach, Florida, area are clear examples. Hareven writes: The demolition of dwellings wipes out a significant chapter of the history of a place. Even if it does not erase them from local memory, it tends to reduce or eliminate the recall of that memory, rendering less meaningful the communication of that heritage to a new generation. (1981, 115) Eighty percent of America's built environment has been constructed since the end of World War Two (Goldberg, 1995, 11-12). Despite this, as of February 14, 1996, there were only 2, 069 listings under exemption G (less than fifty years of age) on the National Register of Historic Places. Carol Shuil, PAGE 15 6 Keeper of the National Register, and Beth Savage have written that the average time lapse prior to a "modern" building being listed is slightly more than thirty years (1995, II-3). There does not appear to be a pattern as to one particular type of structure or site being accepted to the National Register faster than another. Saarinen's Dulles Airport Terminal was "instantly regarded as a preeminently important building by the architectural community" (Shull, 1995, 11-10) but not accepted for listing on the National Register for eighteen years, and then only because it was threatened. The Texas School Book Depository building from where Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly shot President John F. Kennedy was not listed until October of 1993, almost thirty years after the assassination, but Launch Complex 39 at the Kennedy Space Center was listed in 1973, not quite four years after the Apollo 11 launch carrying Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin and Michael Collins on the first manned mission to the moon. One of the latest construction dates listed for a building on the National Register is the 1963-64 construction date of the Whitney Museum. Like Dulles, the Whitney was listed on the Register only after being threatened. History is not fixed, nor is it finite. Similarly, Perkins writes of architecture: Architecture, as in the case with all art is a continuum. It does not develop in a straight line toward an ideal. Instead each successive group of ideas is based in part on those ideas which have preceded it. No period ~ old or new ~ should be excluded from this continuum. (1981, 110) PAGE 16 7 Both the present and the past are, and should be considered as, inseparable parts of a whole. There was no mention of "historic" buildings being at least fifty years of age when the committee headed by Albert Rains and Lawrence Henderson concluded: We do not use bombs and powder kegs to destroy irreplaceable structures related to the story of America's civilization. We use the corrosion of neglect or the thrust of bulldozers. Connections between successive generations of Americans ~ concretely linking their ways of life Â— are broken by demolition. Sources of memory cease to exist. (Uruted States Conference of Mayors, 1966, 19) Nor was an age requirement mentioned when Robert Utley commented on the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act stating the National Register was to be "a product of professional evaluation and review rather than a mere list of antiquarian curiosities" (Glass, 1987, 282). Both statements recognize that all buildings play a role in the historical memory of a community. However, it was Robert Utley and his departmental historians who insisted one needed fifty years distance to recognize objectively whether something was historical or not (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). It makes sense that those buildings constructed within the last fifty years are a reasonable place to begin when constructing links to past generations. Documenting the history of a building should be viewed no differently than tracing a family's genealogy. Longstreth rightly points out: When we exclude much of the 20th century from consideration, we are in effect creating an artificial separation between contemporary life and PAGE 17 8 that of our forebears. The greater the gap, the less a sense of continuity there may be and the more the old stuff can seem foreign. (1991, 15) Change and what is considered to be the past have an inverse relationship. Consequently, the faster the rate of change, the shorter the time it takes for something to be considered to be historic. Today, the rate of change is occurring faster than ever before. Because of that, the National Park Service needs to expand its definition of "historic" to include the recent past. In short, it should simply apply the definition of "past" commonly found in dictionaries. In doing so, the passage of a period of time would no longer serve as a guideline. In conjunction, the Park Service, along with other preservationists, needs to expand nationally recognized preservation activities, including eliminating time as a guideline for listing resources on the National Register of Historic Places. Arrangement of Dissertation The dissertation deals with philosophical arguments for the preservation of the recent past. In doing so, the issue of the subjective term "significance" and its relativity must be addressed. However, the focus here is not to do an in depth study of significance. Instead, significance is viewed in light of the role it plays in determining the eligibility of resources for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The emphasis is on the loss, both PAGE 18 9 potential and real, of valuable resources from the recent past and both the basis and the need for shortening the existing fifty-year guideline. The dissertation does not fully address either the personal or political realities of implementing such a change. The dissertation is divided into nine chapters. Chapter one consists of a brief overview of the problem addressed along with discussions of arrangement, definitions and methodology. Chapter two provides an overview of preservation history. However, in tracing historical precedents, concentration is upon the last two centuries in Great Britain and the United States. This overview continues in chapter three with a detailed look at changes in preservation activity in the United States predicated by the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966. Chapter four addresses the role played by the empiricistÂ—positivist term "significance" in historic preservation, and the problems using a term which is only defined by itself can present. The intent of the chapter is not to propose a redefinition of significance, nor is it to present either a history or overview of empiricistÂ— positivist philosophies. Discussion is limited to the problems of each as they relate to the National Register of Historic Places and National Register Criteria. Chapter five explores problems that can result from continuing a preservation policy that is exclusionary of a given set of resources. Chapter six presents an argument for inclusion of buildings less than fifty years of age on the National Register, without having to meet the criteria of "exceptional PAGE 19 10 significance" as currently stated. Chapter seven summarizes the problems presented and looks at ways selected cities are currently handling the problem. Chapter eight presents a point-based system for evaluating buildings in which specific criteria for buildings less than fifty years of age are included. The point-based system presented is incomplete in that it excludes criterion D, those resources "that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history" (Code of Federal Regulations 36, 1974, 248). This criterion is most often used for archaeological resources and any examination should only be done by someone qualified in that field. Chapter nine looks at still unanswered questions and issues and explores where we can go from here. For the purpose of this dissertation, certain definitions have been received from references. The terms preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction are defined according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Kevin Lynch's definition of memory, appearing in What Time Is This Place, is used, as is Richard Longstreth's definition of the recent past. The terms "building," "structure," "object," "site," "resource" and "district" are defined in accordance with National Park Service materials. Last, the terms "history," "past," "significant" and "significance" are defined as in Webster's New World Dictionary PAGE 20 11 Methodology I became aware of the Sarasota School of Architecture long before I was aware that architects and builders were two different sets of people. As a child growing up in the Sarasota area, I can remember longing to go into the Galloway Furniture Showroom and wanting to attend Riverview High School because everybody knew it was the "coolest" school in Sarasota Coimty. I toured St. Paul's Lutheran Church with my catechism class and sat in the classrooms of Venice Junior High. As an adult, I taught in some of those same classrooms. This idea for this dissertation is the result of several years of recent study regarding the "Sarasota School of Architecture." During this time I became painfully aware of just how few of these designs remained, despite the fact that they were several years shy of the fifty-year guideline established by the National Register criteria. For example, of the buildings I loved as a child, the Galloway Furniture Showroom has been stuccoed over and is unrecognizable, Riverview High School sports a new gabled roof that destroys both the lines and integrity of the building and at Venice Junior High (today part of Venice High School) the glass walls have been removed with the resultant voids filled using concrete block. In addition, its flat roofs have been replaced with gabled and hipped roofs of green metal. Like the Galloway PAGE 21 12 Showroom, it too is unrecognizable. Only St. Paul's Lutheran Church retains its integrity. Research consisted of a review of past and current writings regarding both historic preservation and the issue of the preservation of the recent past. Of these writings, those by Richard Longstreth and an article by P. A. Faulkner became the guiding force. Conversations were held with various holders of the Beinecke-Reeves Distinguished Chair in Architectural Preservation at the University of Florida, including William Murtagh, Eduard Sekler and Jan Abell along with other noted professionals with an interest in the topic, such as Richard Crisson, de Teel Patterson, III, Nicholas Pappas and Vicki Jo Sandstead. Of these persons, William Murtagh is of paramount importance. As the first Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, his first hand knowledge of both the persons involved and the reasoning behind the creation of the current guideline was irreplaceable. Several preservation plans from a variety of cities, including Portland, Oregon, Grants Pass, Oregon, Boston, Massachusetts, and San Francisco, California, were collected and reviewed and interviews with persons responsible for the writing and implementation of those plans were conducted. Special emphasis was placed on collecting material related to point-based systems of evaluation. In addition, Harold Kalman's The Evaluation of Historic Building s was reviewed. It formed the basis for the point-based system proposed here. PAGE 22 13 Five noted professionals were gracious enough to read the dissertation and offer their comments. These were Dr. William Murtagh, first Keeper of the National Register, educator and author of Keeping Time: Professor Susan Tate, Professor of Interior Design at the University of Florida and past Director of the Preservation Institute: Nantucket, Vicki Jo Sandstead, former Director of the Northeast Region of the National Trust and currently a consultant specializing in the importance of local involvement in preservation efforts, Gregory A. Hall, architect, preservatiorust and former Associate Director of the Preservation Institute: Nantucket; and Professor Emeritus F. Blair Reeves. Professor Reeves developed the preservation program at the University of Florida, supervised documentation teams for the Historic American Buildings Survey, was active on the American Institute of Architect's Committee for Historic Buildings and was a cofounder of the Preservation Institute: Nantucket. PAGE 23 CHAPTER 2 PRESERVATION THROUGH THE AGES Introduction Isolated instances of deliberate preservation can be found throughout recorded history. The Greeks preserved architectural forms found in their wooden temples by recreating those forms in marble (Preamble, 1983, 5). Plato wrote, "let this tribute be paid to memory, which has caused us to enlarge upon it now, yearning for what we once possessed" (1952, 34). Later, Vitruvius wrote that the majesty of the (Roman) empire was expressed through "the eminent dignity of its public buildings" (1960, 3). Roman emperors preserved vestiges of the past in an attempt to identify themselves with earlier "legitimate" rulers (Preamble, 1983, 5). During his time as emperor of the western Roman empire, Julius Valerius Majorianus (Majorian), wrote a number of laws that were incorporated into the Theodosian Code. Among these was one strictly prohibiting the practice of tearing down ancient monuments. During the Medieval period, throughout western Europe, the value of a building came to be determined by its historical associations rather than any 14 PAGE 24 15 architectural qualities (Boultir\g, 1976, 19). The Rer\aissance introduced the concept of the past as attractive or desirable with the perception of classical antiquity being distinguished from and superior to the recent past. It was during the Renaissance that Raphael, as Commissioner of Antiquities, became the first to seek an end to the continual extinction of historic resources (Lowenthal, 1981, 10) and Brunelleschi's Ospedale degli Irmocenti (Foundling Hospital) was begun in Florence. The design of the Foundling Hospital is generally regarded as the first expression of a passionate interest in the past (Fitch, 1992, 13). A letter believed to have been written by Raphael with the help of Baldassare Castiglione to Leo X, around 1519, may be considered one of the first treatises to be written on preservation. In the missive, Raphael writes about the usefulness of accurate measurements and drawings of the monuments. He stresses the need to produce precise ground-plans, crosssections and elevations showing all details. He offers advise as to what has to be done to reconstruct ancient Rome accurately and how to do it by combining the methods of architects and the recording practices of archaeologists. Ettinger writes: "Despite Raphael's inclusion of the often repeated complaint that antiquities were constantly being destroyed, the letter was clearly intended not as an archaeological report, but as an investigation into how the Rome of the past was a prelude to the Rome of the future" (1987, 200). PAGE 25 16 In direct contrast with Raphael's beliefs, during the fifteenth century, rich individuals began building vast private collections of antiquities. Collections became so popular that artifacts were created in order to satisfy demand. The content of these collections was unimportant and most had no unifying theme; the only thing that mattered was size (Skarmeas, 1983, 24). Sweden is believed to be the first western European nation to pass laws regarding the preservation of historic resources, in 1677 (Hunter, 1981, 24). England In 1751, the English Society of Dilettanti financed an expedition to Greece to record and illustrate the monuments of ancient Athens (Skarmeas, 1983, 25). These drawings were later published under the title Antiquities of Athens and spawned a widespread interest in what became known as Greek Revival architecture. Despite the Society's interest in documenting resources in situ, during the early nineteenth century removing sculptures from the Acropolis continued. Even Phidias' friezes on the Parthenon were removed, taken to London and eventually placed in the British Museum (Skarmeas, 1983, 24). The first widely documented British architect involved with preservation issues was James Wyatt (1747 1813). Wyatt was responsible for the restoration of several English cathedrals. He took enormous liberties in PAGE 26 17 his projects. In various efforts he removed screens, funerary monuments, porches and chapels. Li others, he shortened naves. The quality of his work further suffered when he continued to accept jobs even after securing far more than he could adequately handle or properly oversee. Wyatt was widely vilified for his efforts. The Reverend John Milner's comments were typical: "[Wyatt] has dishonoured, disfigured, destroyed, and is in the constant practice of dishonouring, disfiguring and destroying the most beautiful and instructive monuments" (Pevsner, 1976, 39). Wyatt continued to secure commissions via influential friends until his untimely accidental death. The Church Building Act of 1818 led to the restoration of more than seven thousand churches in England between 1840 and 1873. The work that took place during this period formed the basis for widespread philosophical discussions on restoration practices and appropriate methods. One of the persons involved in these discussions was Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin (1812 1852). An expert in Gothic architecture, Pugin believed that truth and honesty were basic to any architecture considered beautiful. Under his influence, Gothic became the dominant theme, influencing both ongoing restoration efforts and what became known as Gothic Revival architecture (Skarmeas, 1983, 38). Sir George Gilbert Scott (1811 1878) was involved in approximately seven hvmdred fifty restoration projects. Scott developed a set of procedures related to building restoration to guide his efforts. These consisted of PAGE 27 18 documentation of the resource via measured drawings and, for the first time, photography, followed by examination of the resource's fabric. The third and final step involved conjectural restoration based on evidence collected in the first two steps, with missing features being reconstructed. In addition, conjectural restoration was based on knowledge of elements in the original structure, knowledge of local/ regional architecture and building practices and knowledge gained in studying other buildings by the same architect. Edward Freeman (1823 1892) is widely recognized as the first to put the questions of restoration in perspective. In his writings. Freeman emphasized the importance of knowledge and precision: A restoration requires no less eminent qualities in an architect than even an original design: this is not the same scope indeed for a creative genius, but taste and judgement are quite as necessary and even a deeper acquaintance with antiquarian lore is required. The restorer has to look carefully to the transmutations of an edifice which may have received as many successive alterations as there are styles of Christian architecture .... All this cannot be accomplished without patient inquiry and sound judgement .... Architectural genius and antiquarian precision must preside over both .... (Skarmeas, 1983, 39) Freeman believed there were two types of architectural remains: monuments which were legitimate objects of restoration and structures to be protected from further damage. For the most part, English preservation philosophy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was dominated by the similar views of four men: John Ruskin, William Morris, Philip Webb and W. R. Lethaby. PAGE 28 19 Ruskin gained prominence in 1849, Lethaby died in 1931. For the eighty years between these events, Ruskin's philosophy, commonly referred to as antiscrape, prevailed. John Ruskin (1819 1900) became widely recognized for his book The Seven Lamps of Architecture The chapter entitled "The Lamp of Memory" contained his views on preservation. Ruskin wrote that time represented historical memory and should be protected in all historic buildings. In short, he favored preservation over restoration. He wrote: It is the centralization and protectress of this sacred influence, that Architecture is to be regarded by us with the most serious thought. We may live without her, and worship without her, but we cannot remember without her. For indeed the greatest glory of a building is not in its stones or in its gold. Its glory is in its Age. (Skarmeas, 1983, 58-59) and [Restoration] means the most total destruction out of which no renmants can be gathered .... Do not let us talk then of restoration. The thing is a lie from beginning to end. The principle of modern times is to neglect buildings first, and restore them afterwards. Take proper care of your monuments, and you will not need to restore them. (Skarmeas, 1983, 60) The philosophy of custodianship was first advocated in England by Nicholas Hawksmoor in 1751 but did not become popular until the cause was taken up by William Morris (1834 1896). Morris viewed custodianship of the past by the present an important aspect of providing evidence of the needs and aspirations of ordinary people. He further believed that the vernacular architecture of the future could only develop with a study of forms and PAGE 29 20 techniques of the past. Morris was already a leader in the Arts and Crafts Movement when he became interested in preservation. It was William Morris who was responsible for founding the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) in 1877. Most members of the society were antirestorationists. He wrote: It has been most truly said that these old buildings do not belong to us only; that they have belonged to our forefathers and they will belong to our descendants unless we play them false. They are not in any sense our property, to do as we like with. We are only trustees for those who come after us. (Boulting, 1976, 16) During his time, Philip Speakman Webb (1831 1915) was considered to be one of England's greatest architects during the late Victorian English domestic revival period. He knew William Morris and, for a period, worked with Morris designing furniture. Webb is known for his assimilation of medieval and classical vernacular elements into his building designs. He preferred that his architecture express "an absence of style" (Gebhard, 1982, 383). Webb is significant in preservation as a co-founder of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. Today, his fame is largely the result of his friendship with Morris. William Richard Lethaby (1857 1931) built very little but was highly influential as a teacher and writer. He founded the Modern Architecture Constructive Group which defined architecture as "a developing structural art satisfying the requirements of the time by experiment" (Ruber\s, 1982, 693). PAGE 30 21 Lethaby was a leading figure in the Arts and Crafts movement and principle of the Central School of Arts and Crafts in London. While serving as surveyor of Westminster Abbey, he applied the Society for the Protection of Ancient Building's program of preservation, pioneering the cleaning and conservation of the fabric instead of restoring the structure. One of the least recognized voices during this time was John J. Stevenson (1832 1908). Stevenson was trained in the office of Sir Gilbert Scott, where he met and became friends with William Morris. He served on the original committee of the SPAB and was a leading member of the organization. As an architect, Stevenson was respected by both restorers and anti-restorers. In his article "The View of the Anti-Restorers" in 1878, he made three points: 1) the best protection for a building is its continued use; 2) regular maintenance is necessary in every building, either preventative or for repair; and 3) unnecessary alterations should be avoided. He "detested all attempts to tamper with [a building's] history under the guide of 'restoration'" (Troup, 1908, 482). Stevenson was one of the leading architects working in the vernacular revival style that became known as "Queen Anne." He was the first architect to design interior decoration for the principle rooms in large steamships. At the time of his death, Stevenson was working with William Lethaby on papers regarding a proposed restoration of the mausoleum at Halicamassos. PAGE 31 22 France In France during the late nineteenth century, the voice of preservation belonged to Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc (1814 1879). Viollet-Ie-Duc believed the basis of restoration was a complete understanding of historical form. This included knowledge of style variations within a region and among architects. He believed the process of restoration required an identification of the style of each building member, followed by the dating of each member and a determination of the building's evolution. Once this was complete, a study of the nature of materials and building techniques would be used to determine the building's durability. This would result in the architect's understanding of the nature of the structure, documentation of the building's present state and, finally, selection of building materials and techniques that would best enhance the overall architectonic composition. Viollet-le-Duc devoted his life to effective restorations and the creation of a doctrine for historical restoration. He believed preservation of the design of a building was of greater importance than preservation of its fabric. He recognized that by preserving the idea enshrined in the design, he was preserving the true heritage of the building. Viollet-le-Duc considered architecture to be an expression of the history of a society. He believed that PAGE 32 23 structure and decoration were one and felt that a building was an ensemble consisting of both its parts and its furnishings (Dupent, 1983, 12). He wrote: knowing that restoration inevitably unsettles old buildings, one must compensate for this curtailment of strength by giving power to the new parts, by perfecting the structure, by clamping walls and by introducing greater resistances, for prolonging the life of the building is the true tack of restoration. (Dupent, 1983, 13) The United States The historic preservation movement in the United States evolved in two distinct phases. The first was concerned with the associative value of buildings; the second with a building's architectural importance. Early American preservation efforts were undertaken by private individuals, sometimes working for or under the auspices of patriotic organizations. Early efforts centered on sites associated with nationally recognized individuals or events. The first successful acquisition of a property for preservation purposes took place in New York in 1850 when the state purchased the Hasbrouck House in Newburgh which had served as George Washington's headquarters at the end of the American Revolution for2,000.00. The first national effort in preservation was headed by Ann Pamela Cunningham of South Carolina and centered on the acquisition of Mt. Vernon. Mount Vernon had been an important and well-known site since the Revolutionary War. In 1848 and 1850, petitions were presented to

PAGE 33

24 Congress calling for the purchase of Mount Vernon by the federal government and, in 1846, John A. Washington, on behalf of his mother Jane, made an unsuccessful offer to sell Mount Vernon to the federal government for $100,000. By 1851, the property had passed to John Washington and the asking price increased to$200,000. It was still privately owned in December of 1853 when Ann Pamela Cunningham appealed to the ladies of the South to purchase and preserve Mount Vernon. Miss Cuimingham aided her fund raising appeals with articles such as one which appeared in the Charleston, South Carolina, Charleston Mercury signed by "A Southern Matron." It was directed to the "Ladies of the South" and read: Can you still be with closed souls and purses, while the world cries 'Shame on America,' and suffer Mount Vernon, with all its sacred associations, to become, as is spoken of the probable, the seat of manufacturers and manufactories? Never! Forbid it, shades of the dead (Hosmer, 1965, 44) On March 17, 1856, the Virginia legislature chartered the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union, and offered to accept the title of the Mount Vernon property but not to help raise the purchase money. In 1858, the Ladies' Association successfully purchased Mount Vernon. The group maintains ownership today. The success of the Mount Vernon Ladies' Society was well publicized. As a result, the Society was contacted by individuals hoping to replicate their

PAGE 34

25 successful efforts. Among those requesting guidance from the Society were Mrs. William Holstein, hoping to save Washington's headquarters at Valley Forge; Mrs. Andrew Jackson, hoping to preserve the Hermitage; Mrs. Mary Longyear, active in saving houses associated with Mary Baker Eddy (the founder of Christian Science); and representatives for the sites of Meadow Garden, in Georgia; Gunston Hall and Monticello, in Virginia; Theodore Roosevelt's birthplace, in New York City; and the many local groups throughout New England that eventually merged into the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities. Despite involvement by state governments, the federal government did not become active in preservation efforts until 1862 with the passage of the National Battlegrounds and Cemeteries Act. With the creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, the federal government began to assume a leadership position in the conservation of lands. However, preservation movements in 1876 still had a distinctly regional flavor. In New England, homes of revolutionary leaders and places deemed "faithful reproductions of the primitive Colonial life of New England" (King, 1977, 17) were emphasized. In the Middle Atlantic States, interest was on sites of important events during the American Revolution. Movements in the South put major emphasis on homes of nationally recognized figures, and in the West interest centered upon Spanish-Mexican missions.

PAGE 35

26 At the turn of the century, buildings began to be recognized as "worthwhile objects in their own right" (Murtagh, 1988, 31). In 1889, the architectural critics John Calvin Stevens and Albert Winslow Cobb wrote: wherever the democratic spirit was earliest developed and most marked, there the work done by our American Carpenter-Architects of the Colonial and early National times exhibits most of pure beauty. In and around Philadelphia and along the New England coast from Plymouth to Portland; throughout the territory where the protest against black slavery rang out long before the protest against tyrannies of the Crown; there, especially, we find the genuine refinement and delicacy, the temperate, telling use of detail, so desirable in architectural composition. (Hosmer, 1965, 119) Restoration of buildings such as the John Whipple house in Ipswich, Massachusetts, and the Paul Revere house in Boston was done to what was thought to be their earliest appearance "emphasizing the importance of architectural merit" rather than their association with recognized individuals (Murtagh, 1988, 31). In 1877, Charles McKim, William Rutherford and Stanford White of McKim, Mead and White, along with another architect, William Bigelow, conducted a walking tour of selected New England towns and documented several colonial houses in measured drawings. Because of writings and actions such as these, buildings began to be appreciated not for their associative value to famous persons or well-known events, but for their unique cultural and artistic qualities. In addition, by the turn of the century, historic preservation efforts began to actively involve the middle class.

PAGE 36

27 The Antiquities Act was proposed in Congress in 1900 but did not become law until 1906. The act gave the President broad discretion to set aside lands containing important cultural or scientific resources and forbade disturbance of ruins or archaeological sites on federal lands without permission of the responsible land managing agency. These sites were to be called national monuments. The next year the Secretaries of War, Agriculture and the Interior agreed to uniform rules and regulations for administering the Antiquities Act. Each department retained authority for the issuing of permits, subject to recommendations by the Smithsonian. The Secretary of the Interior would administer federal monument sites. This triumvirate would remain in control until 1916 when the responsibility for management of federally owned historic properties was placed within the Department of the Interior. The National Park Service (NPS), a bureau within the Department, became the agency responsible for managing all national parks, monuments and historic sites. In 1910, the face of preservation in America began to change with the founding of the Society for the Prevention of New England Antiquities (SPNEA) by William Sumner Appleton. Appleton pioneered the concept of adaptive use and placed architectural representativeness over patriotic considerations as criteria for preservation. He believed that the private sector should assume full responsibility for the preservation of the nation's heritage. Appleton was largely responsible for the concept of the historic

PAGE 37

28 house museum as an educational tool; a physical link to the past, parallel in importance to written documentation (Murtagh, 1988, 80). His beliefs on how buildings should be treated can be traced to those of John Ruskin in the midnineteenth century. Appleton believed in keeping as much original material as possible and clearly identifying any additions. This anti-scrape philosophy still serves as the basis for preservation efforts in the United States today. In 1926, the most ambitious preservation project to date was imdertaken at Williamsburg, Virginia. With this, the concept of the outdoor museum, established in the late nineteenth century in Sweden, was brought to the United States (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). Privately financed by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and under the direction of the Reverend William A. R. Goodwin, sites along designated streets were documented, regardless of their original purpose or occupants. The work ranged from preservation to restoration and, occasionally, reconstruction. Using archaeological fieldwork as a basis for architectural reconstruction became an important part of the work at Williamsburg. The idea behind the project that of regarding whole towns or large areas as preservation units is now accepted as a basic preservation concept (King, 1977, 21). One of the most important by-products of the Williamsburg project was the development of a group of well-educated preservation professionals (Tomlan, 1994, 187).

PAGE 38

29 In 1930, the first federally funded reconstruction project took place at Pope's Creek (George Washington's birthplace) in Westmoreland County, Virginia, with the creation of an eighteenth century style house. The house was opened to the public in 1931. Unfortunately, Park Service officials later acknowledged that not only was the house not an accurate reproduction, archaeological digs confirmed it was not properly sited. Also in 1931, the concept of the historic district was born in Charleston, South Carolina. With the advent of historic districts, a third major form of preservation developed in the United States and attention was drawn to the "little" (i.e. vernacular) houses of neighborhoods (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order transferring all national military parks, battlefields and national monuments to the National Park Service division of the Department of the Interior. The action quadrupled the number of historic areas administered by the NPS and moved it to the forefront of government supported preservation activities. The Great Depression served to increase the role of the federal government in architectural preservation. Its efforts, however, remained rooted in patriotic and commercial themes. In November of 1933, Charles Peterson, then restoration architect for the National Park Service, proposed fimding for the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) for the purpose of enhancing the cultural life of the nation by establishing a comprehensive

PAGE 39

30 archive of historic architecture, similar to those in Europe, while putting unemployed architects and draftsmen to work. When initiated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934, the project was designed to employ one thousand architects for a total of six months. Responsibility for the project was divided among the National Park Service, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the Library of Congress. The NFS oversaw the administered surveys and conducted fieldwork based on advise from the AIA, who also provided persoimel. The Library of Congress received the records and arranged the collection of materials for public use. The project proved to be useful, and in 1935, local chapters of the AIA, along with the National Park Service and the Library of Congress, created a new funding source. With the creation of Historic American Building Survey, the federal government began to show an interest in historic buildings, regardless of ownership. The goal of HABS was to record data regarding American architecture. HABS did not acquire or take an active role in the physical preservation of historic resources. The project became an important training ground for preservationists within the federal system and provided a means for the introduction of preservation into various projects overseen by the National Park Service. HABS remained in operation until the outbreak of World War Two, at which time the program had documented a total of 6,389 resources. It was revived in 1957 as a summer program for students and remains such today.

PAGE 40

31 The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) also helped with preservation efforts during the depression. Among their early efforts were the creation of the Colonial National Historical Park at Yorktown, Virginia, and the Morristown National Historical Park in Morristown, New Jersey. In 1935 the nation's preservation efforts were recognized legally with the passage of the Historic Sites Act. This act established a national policy of preservation for public use historic sites, buildings and objects of national significance. It stressed documentation and the development of educational programs and empowered the Secretary of the Interior via the National Park Service "to collect historical data, survey historical buildings and sites, make investigations, accept gifts and bequests, contract with individuals or local governments to protect important property and restore properties of national significance" (Preservation Technology Class Notes, Herschel Shepard, Instructor, Fall, 1994). The Historic Sites Act asserted for the first time a broad federal concern for historic properties. It created an Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings and Monuments and authorized the establishment of a technical advisory committee. Preservation efforts, however, were still largely centered on sites that predated the Civil War. It further specified the Department of the Interior's central role in federal preservation efforts and authorized the perpetuation of projects similar to HABS. In addition, the act made it easier for the government to acquire nonfederal properties of historic importance and established an historic sites

PAGE 41

32 survey to document "nationally significant properties" to be designated National Historic Landmarks. Both HABS and the Historic Sites Survey would remain active until the outbreak of World War Two. They were not revived until 1957. In 1946, preservation efforts, temporarily stalled by World War Two, resumed with the creation of the National Council for Historic Sites and Buildings. The Council was created from an informal confederation of interested groups. Along with private support, the council was backed by the National Park Service. The first meeting was held at the National Gallery of Art. Out of this meeting was established the National Trust for Historic Preservation, in 1949. The National Trust began receiving federal funds in 1966 when it was specifically included in the National Historic Preservation Act. It was the only private preservation organization in the United States to be so named (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). Among other things, the National Trust's charter stated its purpose was to "provide for the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, and to facilitate public participation in the preservation of sites, buildings, and objects of national significance or interest" (Murtagh, 1988, 175). Thus, the Trust was chartered for the specific purpose of receiving properties and property stewardship. The principal office of the National Trust was to be in Washington, D.C. and the Board of Trustees was to include both the Attorney General of the United States and

PAGE 42

33 the Secretary of the Interior. Ir\ 1951, the Trust began acquiring and managing properties. Preservation began to move to the forefront with the depletion of existing building stock as a result of the passage of the Housing Act of 1954. The act emphasized the prevention of slums and blight via the removal of deteriorated buildings and the rehabilitation of sound buildings. Successive acts in 1956 and 1957 increased funding for these urban projects. The housing legislation passed specifically prevented federal dollars being spent to retain and rehabilitate existing building stock. Not until after 1966 could money be used for acquisition and/or demolition (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). In addition, in 1956, Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act for the creation of a national interstate highway system. By the end of 1957, reports in Historic Preservation magazine cited "invasions of scenic and historic areas" by federally funded highway projects (Glass, 1987, 20). In the fall of 1959, Richard Perrin called for controls on Urban Renewal projects, writing they were likely to follow the pattern set by highway construction "riding roughshod over many historically and culturally important structures and sites" (Glass, 1987, 23). As a result of this uproar, in 1959, Congress proposed a method to preserve resources threatened by federally funded projects and programs. A proposal was also made to enlarge the Historic Sites Act, broaden the national

PAGE 43

34 preservation policy and provide federal funds to local programs engaged in preserving areas of historic interest. Perhaps the most influential project funded by a Federal Urban Renewal Demonstration Grant was the College Hill Demonstration Project in Providence, Rhode Island. William Murtagh points out "This was a one shot program and a documented first interest by urban renewal that retention and rehabilitation might be an alternative to demolition" (Personal Communication, March, 1996). The project was a landmark in the evolution of American preservation procedures (Jacobs, 1970, 112). NPS actions during this time included support of state and local inventories of historic properties, publication of survey lists, public hearings on the value of threatened historic structures and requiring federal agencies to take into account the effect of these projects on listed properties. Unfortunately, Congressional proposals to strengthen the Historic Sites Act were not successful. By the end of the 1950s, the preservation movement in America was a large, complex enterprise involving not only the private sector, but also aspects of federal, state and local governments. As such, it lacked a central organization beyond that provided by the National Trust. This would remain the case until 1966 when United States Conference of Mayors' Special Committee on Historic Preservation emphasized the idea that historic buildings were and are a part of the total modern environment and stressed the need to preserve them in order to maintain a quality

PAGE 44

35 environment. This concept grew out of discussions at the White House Conference on Natural Beauty held in Washington, D. C. in May, 1965, as was the Mayor's Special Committee itself (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996).

PAGE 45

CHAPTER 3 A CHANGE IN THE WAY OF DOING BUSINESS THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 In its best sense, preservation does not mean merely setting aside thousands of buildings as museum pieces. It means retaining the culturally valuable structures as useful objects .... Lady Bird Johnson, 1983 In 1966, the Special Committee on Historic Preservation of the United States Conference of Mayors identified three changes they felt were necessary if historic preservation were to be successful: a recognition of "the importance of architecture, design and aesthetics as well as historical and cultural values," a need to look beyond individual buildings and landmarks to historically and architecturally valued districts and the development of tax policies to stimulate preservation efforts (Green, 1991, 88). On October 15, 1966, Congress foimd and declared 1) That the spirit and direction of the nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic past; 2) That the historical and cultural foundations of the nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people; 36

PAGE 46

37 3) That in the face of ever-increasing extensions of urban centers, highways, and residential, commercial and industrial developments, the present governmental and non-governmental historic preservation programs and actions are inadequate to insure future generations a genuine opportunity to appreciate and enjoy the rich heritage of our nation; and, 4) That although the major burdens of historic preservation have been borne and major efforts initiated by private agencies and individuals and both should continue to play a vital role, it is nevertheless necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to accelerate its historic preservation programs and activities, to give maximum encouragement to agencies and individuals undertaking preservation by private means, and to assist State and local governments and the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States to expand and concentrate their historic preservation programs and activities. (King et al, 1977, 205) The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) gave the National Park Service the authority to undertake innovations of "immense potential" in its preservation programs. It created the National Register of Historic Places to "record the evidences of our national patrimony that merit preservation" and to become the "national list of classified sites and buildings" and provided an authoritative guide as to what should be "guarded against destruction or impairment" (Glass, 1987, 282). The act is best known for the National Register of Historic Places, its creation of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the resultant hiring of historic preservation officers in each state and territory. The NHPA did not specifically provide for historic preservation officers. The creation of these positions was an administrative decision by the Secretary of the Interior after the NHPA was passed. Congress gave the Secretary of the Interior the

PAGE 47

38 responsibility and he chose to decentralize the program (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). Often overlooked is the Secretary's requirement that each state develop a historic preservation plan to guide in the preservation and use of a state's cultural resources. As part of this plan, states are required to conduct systematic surveys. These surveys are to result not only in nominations to the National Register but in other inventories of cultural properties and in predictions about where such properties may exist. The National Register of Historic Places can trace its roots back to 1937 and the creation of the National Survey of Historic Sites and Places as part if the Historic Sites Act of 1935. Intended to help determine which historic and archaeological sites possessed "exceptional national values" (Duerksen, 1983, 231), the survey was suspended during World War Two. It did not resume operation until 1957. In 1960, the designation of National Historic Landmarks from those properties surveyed was begun and named the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The National Register of Historic Places is a further expansion of these earher programs. Nominations are no longer limited to properties listed in the National Survey of Historic Sites and Places and those determined to possess national significance. Nominations of properties to the National Register may be made by any interested party and include resources of local and state significance as well as those of national importance.

PAGE 48

39 Richard Longstreth believes that, although not directly stated, an underlying rationale for the National Historic Preservation Act was that contemporary achievements in architecture, plarming and other fields that shaped the built environment were inferior to those of the past (1991, 213). i William Murtagh disagrees (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Longstreth's belief is rooted in Congress' directive that the National Register "record the evidences of our national patrimony" (Glass, 1987, 282). This concentration on objects of antiquity is consistent with both the 1906 Antiquities Act and the Historic Sites Act of 1935. It is also consistent with management of the National Park Service's various preservation efforts being carried out by social historians rather than architectural historians, or preservationists. In fact, in 1966, there were very few architectural historians and preservation had yet to become recognized as an educational opportunity. While in the United States preservation and preservation education have always gone hand in hand, the first college level preservation course was not offered imtil 1959. That year, Frederick Nichols at the University of Virginia began offering a two semester course that included the architectural language of mouldings and details, materials and forms, philosophy and techniques of architectural surveying and the creation of historic districts and easements (Tomlan, 1994, 188). Shortly after Virginia's program was established, Cornell University began offering preservation related courses. The nation's third

PAGE 49

40 program was begun at Columbia University. The fourth school to offer classes in preservation was the University of Florida. Florida's program was begun by Professor F. Blair Reeves in 1960. In 1958, Professor Reeves participated in a HABS summer program at Harper's Ferry, West Virginia. The following year, students from the university also became involved. Reeves then began allowing these students to earn credit for the knowledge gained via their HABS summer experience by enrolling in a special studies course and documenting historic structures near the university's campus in Gainesville. This quickly lead to the establishment of a preservation theory course. During the 1960s, architecture students at Florida took preservation options based on the theory that specialization within a profession was the best way to serve society (F. Blair Reeves, Personal Communication, March 20, 1996). In 1971, the university's College of Architecture began offering a four and two option with preservation as one of the options in the two-year professional Master of Architecture degree. This lead to the development of a sequence of programs including museology, regional history with an emphasis on preservation in Florida and, beginning in 1976, preservation law. Reeves further expanded the university's preservation options in 1972 with the establishment of a nine credit summer program on Nantucket Island. Originally known as the Nantucket Institute, today the program exists as the Preservation Institute: Nantucket.

PAGE 50

41 The first program leading to a degree in historic preservation was offered at Columbia University by James Fitch in 1973. Fitch was an architectural critic and editor who had organized the school's certificate awarding program in the mid-nineteen sixties (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). By 1976 at least seventy institutions throughout the country were offering courses in historic preservation. During this time preservation became a separate discipline differentiated by standards that would accommodate its interdisciplinary nature yet promote a sense of identity (Tomlan, 1994, 187). Not until the mid 1980s was preservation recognized as a distinct profession. William Murtagh "strongly disagree[s] with this assertion." He believes it negates, for example, many training programs, mostly through the National Trust, Colonial Williamsburg and other institutions going back to the 1950s (William J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, March, 1996). The 1966 NHPA was a benchmark because it laid the groundwork for legally protecting places that stood in the path of change and placed architectural value on the same level as historical and archaeological values. The law also created major changes in the way preservation was carried out in the United States. Prior to the passage of the NHPA, the National Trust and the American Institute of Architects were two of the very few private sector voices for the preservation movement at the national level. The Department of the Interior served primarily as custodian of hundreds of

PAGE 51

PAGE 52

43 government would allow. In short, the National Trust should preserve its role as a property stewardship organization. Furthermore, he believed that the National Park Service must acknowledge the new emphasis in preservation on historic architecture, aesthetic landmarks and urban conservation (Glass, 1990, 28). After several months of meetings the committee finally agreed on criteria to be used to determine eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The criteria were written in such a way they could be applied at local, state, regional and national levels throughout the country. In addition to the threshold criteria of "integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association," there are four general areas of consideration. These include resources (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or, (d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (Code of Federal Regulations 36, 1974, 248)

PAGE 53

44 Along with these four broad areas, certam criteria considerations were listed. These considerations were reworked from their original format so as to have a positive rather than negative connotation. The criteria considerations state: Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved form their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: (a) a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or, (b) a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or, (c) a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his productive life; or, (d) a cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, form age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or, (e) a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or, (f) a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance; or, (g) a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. (Code of Federal Regulations 36, 1974, 248) The National Historic Preservation Act thus became the basis for a "new" preservation. Whereas the "old" preservation had been concerned

PAGE 54

45 with a few "shrines of transcendent significance to the nation," the "new" preservation embraced thousands of local landmarks or groups of buildings important to states or communities (Glass, 1990, 28). Earlier efforts had emphasized associative and inspirational values while the new version balanced out the importance of architectural design and aesthetics as well. The "old" encouraged the preservation of single buildings as museums, but the "new" fostered the conservation of historic communities, areas and districts through adaptation to "compatible modem uses" (Glass, 1990, 28). In 1967, Robert Utley described the difference between "old" and "new" preservation efforts as ". the difference between a few shrines of transcendent significance to the Nation and thousands of local landmarks of historic, aesthetic or even sentimental importance to the state or community" (Glass, 1987, 279). He described the National Register as a declaration to all concerned of what in the United States was "worthy of preservation" and "should not be destroyed or impaired" (Glass, 1987, 338). Despite this, and because the task force was largely composed of historiaris, age remained an important consideration. Resources less than fifty years of age were exempt from eligibility for listing on the National Register unless they were of "exceptional importance". It was believed that allowing a fiftyyear period would allow for an orderly examination of the past (Luce, 1995, 1115). In fact, the establishment of fifty years as the time necessary for a resource to be considered historic was a bold step in the context of its time. It implied

PAGE 55

46 that things buih in the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were equal in significance to those built prior to the Civil War. The fifty-year guideline forced people to learn about a past that for the most part had been overlooked (Longstreth, 1991, 14). The establishment of a fifty-year guideline did not go unnoticed by those in the field. At a conference held to explain the new NFS program in Richmond, Virginia, a Washington D. C. delegate questioned panel members on how a liaison officer could nominate a property less than fifty years of age. Panel members replied that fifty years was a guideline, not a prohibition. Unfortimately, today many people consider it to be just the opposite. William Murtagh, the first Keeper of the National Register, remembers that when he and one other architect /architectural historian (Dr. Ernest Connally, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Architecture) joined the National Park Service in 1967, there was concern among some in the NPS that the "architects were taking over" (W. J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, February 7, 1996). Architectural historians argued that buildings should be preserved for their architectural merits and that preservation efforts should include not just recognized masterpieces, but buildings exemplifying styles, types and trends in the architectural practices of the nation and localities. As a result of these efforts, buildings began to be preserved because of their perceived importance to a community, for their role in the architectural and aesthetic integrity of a

PAGE 56

47 neighborhood and as representative of changing cultural values and approaches to the living environment. The National Historic Preservation Act continued to undergo changes. The 1966 law as amended in 1976 and implemented by Executive Order 11593: 1) expressed federal concern for the future of historic properties and gave each federal agency a positive responsibility to identify them, protect them and consult with the advisory council in doing so; 2) established a basis for comprehensive programs of historic preservation and interagency coordination within the Department of the Interior 3) committed the federal government to developing a National Register of the nation's historic properties 4) established an infrastructure for historic preservation including the Department of the Interior, the advisory council and state historic preservation programs with a complex set of structural interlocks and checks and balances 5) required each state to conduct a survey and implement a plan for historic preservation and establish complementary responsibilities for federal agencies. (King, 1977, 47) During the 1970s and 1980s, preservation efforts shifted from an emphasis on individual buildings to a greater recognition of the role of historic districts. William Murtagh writes: A major reason for this: when asked, I always encouraged states to submit a nomination for a district since they could get as much protection for many buildings with one nomination as they could for one building at a time. I was much more cost effective time wise and encouraged the charge to look at things of local importance. (Personal Communication, March, 1996).

PAGE 57

48 Along the same lines, Schwarzer writes: Along with an expanded universe of buildings and districts taken on by preservationists, emerged an expanded preservation methodology: The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation and Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Since they were first published in 1966, the Guidelines have served as a set of rigid principles and as a forum for debate on preservation, restoration, historic character and new designs and additions to historic structures and districts. (1994, 6) Experience gained in the administration of the National Historic Preservation Act by the National Park Service, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and local level administrators has resulted in the development of a new perspective as to what constitutes the nation's heritage. This has included the development of an awareness of ethnic and cultural diversities, a recognition of local history, acknowledgement of vernacular architecture and cultural landscapes and an exploration of nontraditional sources of information such as post card scenes, restaurant placemats and /or corporate advertising materials. These changes are more the result of a maturing of architectural history than the creation of a new field of endeavor. While during the 1960s few people carried out a serious study of American architecture, by the 1990s, himdreds were involved. Many of these men and women have academic affiliations; many more are involved in the teaching and study of historic preservation (Longstreth, 1991, 14).

PAGE 58

49 The scope of preservation continues to expand today, primarily in two general areas: the scale and the type of resources being preserved. The scale of resources has increased dramatically, from individual buildings to historic districts, heritage corridors and cultural landscapes. The type of resources considered is no longer limited to recognized examples of high style but now includes resources as varied as vernacular landscapes and buildings to industrial complexes and cultural landscapes of every description.

PAGE 59

CHAPTER 4 THE ENIGMA OF SIGNIFICANCE Knowing is an activity of the knower and the objects of knowing result from that activity. John Dewey Overview As in most western nations, in the United States the notion of significance guides most preservation efforts. It always has. Vitruvius wrote as early as the first century B. C: Especially in architecture are these two things found: that which signifies and that which is signified. That which is signified is the thing proposed about which we speak; that which signifies is the demonstration unfolded in systems of precepts. (1960, 5) Resources are considered to be significant to the extent that their careful study might be expected to shed Ught on current research questions (Raab, 1977, 632). Unfortunately, the unique characteristics of historic properties prohibits the creation of a consistent approach to the question of significance. Tolstoy wrote of the problem: 50

PAGE 60

51 A thing's significance (importance) lies in its being something everyone can understand. That is both true and false. What makes a subject hard to understand ~ if it's something significant and important ~ is not that before you can understand it you need to be specially trained in abstruse matters, but the contrast between imderstanding the subject and what most people want to see. Because of this the very things which are most obvious may become the hardest of all to understand. What has to be overcome is a difficulty having to do with the will rather than the intellect. (Wittgenstein, 1980, 17e) Despite this, federal regulations mandate the division of historic resources into those which are significant and those which are not. Those resources determined to be significant are further divided into those which are actually significant and those which have a reasonable potential to become significant. A resource determined to be actually significant is one in which types of significance are presently determinable. Because all resources are potentially significant (in that we cannot predict what questions they may answer in the future) the government requires there be a reasonable expectation of significance. Potential significance is only mentioned in criterion D, "[sites] that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information. ." (Code of Federal Regulations 36, 1974, 248). Significance became an established criterion in historic preservation during the first decades of the twentieth century as a means of identifying resources that potentially have artistic, historic or associative merit. The notion of significance as an essential characteristic of cultural resources falls squarely within the empiricistÂ— positivist tradition. Significance, as applied to historic properties, was apparently meant to be taken as a 'primitive' term, whose meaning the formulators of the

PAGE 61

52 laws and regulations believed would be self-evident on the basis of experience. Cultural properties are seen as possessing or lacking an inherent, immutable quality, significance, that gives rise to our vmderstanding of their importance. (Tainter, 1983, 712) The view of significance as established in laws and regulations pertaining to historic preservation reflects the influence of empiricistÂ— positivist intellectual tradition in America. Therefore, it is important to understand the basis for both empiricist and positivist thought as well as characteristics of each. Only then can this tradition be evaluated. Empiricist Thoug ht The empiricist view subscribes to the metaphysical notion that all phenomena (including historic resources) have meanings or significance inherent in some sense within themselves. Empiricism is concerned with the rhetoric of perception, with the point at which characterizations of linguistic propriety and characterizations of sensory perception intersect, providing a mutually defining relationship between language and image (Law, 1993, ix). It is guided by the idea that observation provides a maximally certain and conceptually irreversible foundation of empirical knowledge, a foimdation that supplies the basic premises of all reasoning and without which there would not be any probable knowledge (Morick, 1980, 16). Plato

PAGE 62

53 wrote in book seven of The Republic, "Thinking is a kind of seeing and clear seeing is true knowledge" (Law, 1993, 18). The empiricist concept of sense experience is defended by saying that it is theoretically useful to isolate or abstract what we assimilate by our senses from what we perceive, to abstract what is given from our interpretation. Plato wrote of sense experience "But as for beauty we can still recapture it, gleaming most clearly as it does, through the clearest of our senses. For sight is the keenest of our physical perceptions" (1952, 34). Experience rather than reason is the source of our knowledge. The treatment of appearances or looks of things as objects is central to the classical empiricist position. Looks are hypostatised and become the entities which we are said to sense or be aware of (Crowley, 1968, 137). Each item has a single meaning or, at most, very few meanings (Hill, 1972, 233). This view and its corresponding epistemology often lead the examiner to view certain types as the only truly representative features existing. Types are accepted as fixed and fundamental units; they become basic data not to be questioned. Empiricist types are stylistic patterns, the result of culture and accepted as the norm. Plato wrote: When a man recently initiated [into the world of beauty] sees a god-like countenance or physical form the beauty of which is a faithful imitation of true beauty, a shudder runs through him and something of the old awe steals over him. (1952, 34)

PAGE 63

54 It is implied that the more "correct" a standard type is, the more knowledge we will be able to glean from it. It is further implied that classification is itself a primary method for gaining knowledge (Hill, 1972, 241). Variety is viewed as deviation by a singular entity or, in the extreme, a small group. In addition to dealing with types, the empiricist also relies on modes. A mode is defined as "any standard concept or custom which governs the behaviour of artisans of a community which they hand down from generation to generation, and which may spread from community to community" (Hill, 1972, 243). A. J. Ayer wrote in The Foundations of Empiricist Knowledg e that empiricism establishes: "An unambiguous convention for the use of words that stands for modes of perception, freeing us from the verbal problems that develop out of the ambiguous use of such words in ordinary speech" (1968, 141). English empiricists believed that the basis for a "true method of discovery" rested on systematic thinking about what is experienced by the senses as a result of close attention being paid to observational details (Fain, 1970, 23). The basic tenets of English empiricism were developed by David Hume. Hume maintained that the mind, initially a blank slate, receives impressions from the sense organs as a "passive mirror." Thus, properties of the sense organs determine the nature of impressions (Chomsky, 1980, 288). He believed that impressions and ideas are all that really exist. They are as they appear and become known to us by consciousness. Hume further

PAGE 64

55 believed that every idea is a copy of a previous impression or set of impressions. He felt that observation and experience teach us that all thoughts are derived from past experience and the nature of man's ideas is understood by contrast with the rest of his/her perceptions or mental contents Â— namely, by contrast with impressions (Morick, 1980, 2). Hume's impressions are what we call sensations and feelings. It is from these impressions that all ideas are ultimately derived. Whereas Hume's beliefs centered on individual observations, contemporary empiricism centers on the objects of perception as publicly observable things. The problem with empiricist thought lies in its premise that it is possible to identify the vast majority of, if not all, characteristics associated with a given resource. It overlooks the fact that the significance of a resource is subject to change and can increase or decrease as both knowledge and research orientation changes. Morick writes of three objections to empiricism commonly raised by critics: 1) Observation claims derive credibility from background assumptions Â— Critics say this is false, what scientific theory does is explain established facts revealed by sense experience. 2) Not only do observation claims derive their credibility from a network of background assumptions, but also derive meaning from this network ~ If this is true then observation claims do not retain constant meaning through changes in the theory. 3) Observation claims are not just theory laden but also theory infected Â— principles of empiricism are predicated on the belief that beliefs had and assumptions made about objects observed Â— That is, empiricism rests on the assumption that there is an absolutely stable and invariant correspondence between perceptions and the stimuli which produce them. (1980, 17)

PAGE 65

56 Positivist Thoug ht The positivist view is that phenomena do not have inherent or primary characteristics but are assigned meaning by the human mind. As such, meanings assigned may vary from person to person. In general, positivism is the collection of prohibitions concerning human knowledge intended to confine the name of "knowledge" to those operations which are observable in the evolution of the modern sciences of nature (Kolakowski, 1968, 9). The antecedents of positivist thought can be traced to antiquity. Ancient thinkers believed that experience enables us to ascertain whether a given object has this or that appearance, but that it is illegitimate to go on to infer that the object is in reality such as it appears to be (Kolakowski, 1968, 11). Medieval thought gave expression to the fundamental ideas of positivism which aim at establishing rules of meaningful knowledge and confine it to analytical statements or matter of fact observations (Kolakowski, 1968, 17). As with empiricism, David Hume plays an important role in establishing English beliefs toward the subject and is widely known as the "Father of Positivist Philosophy" (Kolakowski, 1968, 38). Hume believed that perception was divided into two distinct classes, impressions and ideas. Impressions are immediately experienced contents while ideas are less lively perceptior\s.

PAGE 66

57 rooted in memory or imagination. The two are interrelated in that every simple idea is a correspondent to or faded copy of a simple impression. Positivism presupposes that the logical syntax of language is not subject to historical changes because all languages have the same logical syntax. Its basic concept is that any expression in any language can be classified into one of three categories; theoretical terms, observation terms, and logical constants. Theoretical terms are considered to be self-explanatory. Observation terms are those whose meanings can be grasped through simple, direct perception. Color words (i.e. red, blue, etc.) are the paradigms of observation terms. Logical constants are words like "and" and "some" (Fain, 1970, 251). Both empiricists and positivists prefer to describe the world using language based solely on observational terms and logical constants. Positivism presupposes that the connection between cause and effect is known only by experience and never a priori. Inferences as to cause and effect relations are based solely on an expectation of certain specific events. This expectation is rooted in habit. Direct observation teaches us that certain events are associated, but that this association does not imply a mandatory connection. In its simplest form, positivism states that, except for knowledge of logical and mathematical systems, science provides the model for the only kind of knowledge we can attain. All that we know of reality is what we can observe or can legitimately deduce from what we observe (Charlton, 1959, 5).

PAGE 67

58 Kolakowski writes in The Alienation of Reason that positivism stands for a certain philosophical attitude concerning human knowledge. It does not prejudge questions about how knowledge is arrived at or the historical foimdations of knowledge. It is, however, a collection of rules and evaluative criteria referring to human cognition. These rules are: phenomenalism, nominalism, a rule that denies cognition value to value judgments and normative statements, and, fourth, the unity of the scientific method. Phenomenalism states that the distinction between essence and phenomenon should be eliminated from science on the groimds that it is misleading. We are entitled only to record that what is actually manifested in experience; disagreements over questions that go beyond the domain of experience are purely verbal in character. Phenomenalism establishes that the world we know is a collection of individual observable facts. Science aims at ordering these facts and all abstract concepts are contained in these ordering systems. Ordering systems give experience a coherent, concise form, easy to remember, purified of accidental deviations and deformations present in individual facts. The rule of nominalism establishes that we may not assume that any insight formulated in general terms can have any real referents other than individual concrete objects. According to nominalism, every abstract science is a method of ordering, a quantitative recording of experiences. It has no

PAGE 68

59 independent cognitive function in the sense that via its abstractions, it opens access to empirically inaccessible domains of reality. The rule that denies cognitive value to value judgments and normative statements is predicated on the belief that experience contains no such qualities of men, events, or things such as "noble," "ignoble," "good,' "evil," "beautiful," "ugly," etc. The rule that denies establishes that no experience can oblige us, through any logical operations whatever, to accept statements containing commandments or prohibitions, telling us to do something or not to do it. Under positivism, the unity of the scientific method states that methods for acquiring valid knowledge, and the main stages in elaborating experience through theoretical reflection, are essentially the same in all spheres of experience. There is no reason to believe that qualitative differences between particular sciences amount to anything more than the characteristics of a particular historical stage in the development of science. Furthermore, we can expect that future progress will eliminate the differences, or perhaps, reduce all the domains of knowledge to a single science. The problem is that the positivist begins his/her work with tentative inferences or hypotheses about the materials to be or having been observed and then proceeds to select those attributes he/she feels will prove his/her initial hypothesis true (Hill, 1972, 253). It presupposes that, if one were

PAGE 69

60 concerned with words, one could escape being involved with the world; that, in particular, it is possible to analyze in a significant way the language of the historian without becoming involved in history (Fain, 1970, 18). Even if positivists were correct in claiming that a clear partitioning between the observational and theoretical expressions of a language could be effected, there still remains the problem of actually reducing the latter to the former (Fain, 1970, 252). EmpiricistÂ—Positivist Thoug ht When empiricist and positivist views are combined, it appears that empiricist philosophy prevails in that significance is believed to be present in a resource, rather than in the mind of the observer. This is because Empiricist and positivists share what may be termed as 'atomistic' approach to both semantics and epistemology. They assert the existence of 'primitive' terms or statements whose meaning or truth is non-problematic because of their immediate connection with sense experience. These semantic and epistemological 'atoms' provide the source of all meaning and knowledge. In this view, all meaning and knowledge consist either of these semantic and epistemological primitives, or of statements that can be derived or compounded from them. Moreover, the meaning and knowledge embodied in these primitive terms and /or statements derive only from their direct cormection with sense experience. (Tainter, 1983, 711) While empiricistÂ—positivist philosophy has experienced change, the basic belief that knowledge emanates from sense experience remains intact. When viewed in this manner, experiences are objective rather than

PAGE 70

61 subjective. Because experience is an objective phenomenon, its meaning should be the same to everyone who has had proper training, regardless of his or her unique perspective or biases. In addition, meaning should not change over time (Tainter, 1983, 713). However, it can be argued that the outstanding quality of significance is its relativity. This quality is also its greatest weakness. The evaluation of significance is dependent on its interpretation relative to a given frame of reference. It should be evident that significance of cultural remains may be evaluated using many different frames of reference. Because of varied interests of researchers, the developing nature of the discipline and projectspecific problems related to responsible management planning, significance cannot be viewed as a static property inherent within historic resources. Evaluations of significance have applied two different strategies: either a site is viewed as an isolated resource with inherent characteristics by which its value may be determined, or it is viewed in relation to other sites in a given area (Glassow, 1977, 418). The logical conclusion derived from the latter strategy is that significance is not a static, universally appreciable set of values. The empiricistÂ— positivist view of significance cannot accommodate theoretical change and allows no basis for generalization. Therefore, it provides neither an accurate history of, nor a sound basis for, scientific method (Tainter, 1983, 714). In reality, significance is a dynamic concept varying through time, space and the cultural biases of investigators. As a

PAGE 71

62 result, it may be extremely difficult to demonstrate that a site lacks the poteritial to become significarit. Assessing Significance Assessing significance is one of the most difficult tasks for the preservationist. There is no universally applicable set of significance criteria that can be used in the same way so that determinations of such factors as site, type, cultural affinity or period are made. This creates problems stemming from a difficulty in determining the appropriate criteria to be used in measuring significance. Tainter writes: If meaning is assigned rather than fixed to inherent properties, then it is subject to variation between individuals and to change through time. We carmot speak of significance as an inherent attribute of cultural properties wanting only to be discerned (even though this is precisely what the federal legislation and regulations require us to do). Significance, rather, is a quality that we assign to a cultural resource based on the theoretical framework within which we happen to be thinking. (1983, 714) A common flaw in assessing significance is a failure to recognize all relevant types of significance present in a resource. Ethnic or cultural significance can be especially difficult as its determination requires consultation with the groups who occupy a site, descendants of such groups and /or groups who presently own or live near sites under consideration. The existence of cultural variation is further proof that meaning is assigned by the human

PAGE 72

63 mind. In an attempt to avoid these pitfalls, selection of the biggest, the earliest or the best example of whatever type of resource is being evaluated often occurs. The reality of this is that limiting selection of resources to a few exclusive examples results in the creation of bias. Significance and the Federal Government Significance is treated in our federal laws and regulations as an essential attribute of cultural properties, observable, recordable and subject to loss or destruction. The Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Historic Sites Act of 1935 are both rooted in the concept of national significance. With the passage of the 1935 act, significance became embedded in preservation law. Standards devised in 1935, 1949 and 1956 each require that "uiuqueness," "importance," or "significance" exist in historic properties selected for preservation. The selection criteria developed by the National Council for Historic Sites and Buildings (the predecessor of the National Trust) in 1949 required that "in the case of a structure, be in itself of sufficient antiquity and artistic or architectural significance to deserve a position of high rank" (Tainter, 1983, 708). In 1956, the National Trust established the basis upon which the federal government describes significance today requiring that a "structure or area should have outstanding historical and cultural significance in the nation or in the state, region, or community in which it exists ." (Tainter, 1983, 708).

PAGE 73

64 The Code of Federal Regulations 36, 60.4 and 36, 800.10 state "the quality of significance ... is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects." Section 36, 60.15 states a property may be removed from the National Register if its significant qualities are "lost or destroyed" ( Federal Historic Preservation Laws. 1993, 8). The introductory paragraph of the National Register's Criteria for Evaluation, The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (Code of Federal Regulations 36, 1974, 248), is contradictory in that it classifies significance (an objective concept) as a quality a subjective notion (Glass 1987, 361). Criteria A, B and C each have significant properties defined in part as "possessing significance." Categories of significance presented within the criteria are not mutually exclusive. Each is given a degree of flexibility in evaluation. In addition, each criteria must be evaluated within the structure of a particular frame of reference (Lynott, 1980, 117). In reality, the significance criteria used by the National Park Service establish a measure of utility. They determine if a property has some sort of useful function in terms of our understanding or appreciation of the past or in terms of maintaining the quality of our existing environment or for our

PAGE 74

65 future environment. To meet the criteria, a property must arguably have at least a potential role to play in maintaining the integrity of a community or neighborhood or in maintaining a sense of place and cultural value or in the enhancement of human knowledge. A property lacks significance when it has no utility at all or when its role is already played by some other entity. Conflicts over significance are complicated further if the resource in question is strong in one area but questionable in another. It can be argued that the criteria set forth by the National Park Service for inclusion of a resource on the National Register of Historic Places are not meaningful, because any fixed set of criteria that are broad enough to apply to many cases are also too non-specific to provide a detailed rationale for assessment of significance in particular cases. William Murtagh points out that "this is why the states were asked to develop professional staffs Â— to make assessments of significance based on a local estimate first, before the [federal government] agrees or not" (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Raab questioris whether the criteria establish significance at all (1977, 631). There is a danger that at some point significance will be equated with placement on the Register and placement on the Register will be equated with significance. To avoid this, it may be better to simply state that sites do or do not meet National Register criteria. Another suggestion is to put the burden of proof on the federal government that a resource is not now and is not potentially

PAGE 75

66 ~ significant if the resource is not to receive protective management consideration (Sharrock, 1979, 327). A standard is valid if it is based on a solid understanding of the problem at hand and designed so that all parties involved know exactly vsrhat is expected of them. The significance concept fails the test. Tainter writes: The concept of significance is illogical, unworkable and does not entirely suit the purpose for which it was intended. It is illogical in that, contrary to what is assumed by federal law and regulation, cultural resources do not iiUierently possess or lack significance. It is unworkable in that significance evaluatior\s can be absolutely rigorous only when all knowledgeable persons have been consulted about each property in question. It does not entirely suit the purpose for which it was intended in that it makes no provision for future achievement of significance. (1983, 715) The concepts of significant and exceptional are continuously influenced by various factors including advancing scholarship, real and perceived threats to historical properties and general public perception (Savage, 1993, 25). This, along with advancements in the fields of architectural history and preservation, lend support to the argument that the time has come for a change in determining resources eligible for inclusion on the National Register. The preservation of our historic heritage is possible if we know and declare what we are attempting to preserve and why. This cannot be done honestly unless we first analyze the significance of the resource as part of that heritage and are satisfied that there will be a loss to that heritage that will be irreplaceable if we do not preserve that significance.

PAGE 76

67 In determining significance, we must let the results of our research define the resources that are important rather than starting with a preconceived notion of what is, or is not, significant. Longstreth sums up the problem writing: All things possess some degree of historic significance, however meager it might be. Properly done, preservation provides the framework by which one may select from the past, prioritizing significance in a reasonably consistent and meaningful way. The integrity of method is vital, for preservation's greatest contribution to society is enabling people to gain insights on the past that are real, and to do so in ways that written, pictorial and other forms of communication carmot duplicate. (1994, 45) William Murtagh believes that this is the basic role and function of a professional state staff, even if it relies on local researchers (Personal Communication, March, 1996).

PAGE 77

CHAPTER 5 THE QUESTION OF THE RECENT PAST Cartoon in the Saturday Review: [pictured] Two helmeted workmen who, in the course of demolishing an office building, have just broken open the cornerstone bearing the date '1952'. One workman is reading a scroll taken from the cornerstone: 'To you children of history, who in some far distant day down the dim dark corridors of time, may breech this stone'. John S. Pyke, Jr. In 1932, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) assumed a pioneering role in recognizing outstanding examples of contemporary architecture. To be successful, the exhibition required an accurate and fair assessment of the historic significance of recently constructed buildings. This was achieved by Philip Johnson, Henry Russell Hitchcock and the museum staff. As a result, the exhibit "Modern Architecture" still carries its own sense of historical magnitude. The exhibit revolutionized architectural practice throughout the United States and around the world (Kimball, 1994, 16). It effectively, albeit temporarily, disproved Ada Louise Huxtable's belief that "Genius is seldom acknowledged in its own generation" (1970, 204). Despite the acclaim given to the 1932 MoMA exhibit and the fact that the 1966 Historic Preservation Act states in part "the historical and cultural foundation of the Nation should be 68

PAGE 78

69 preserved as a livmg part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people" (Fedgral Higtqric Preservation Laws 1993, 6), in 1966 there was little interest in the preservation of twentieth century buildings. On December 2, 1966, Secretary of the Interior Stuart Udall spoke in support of the recently passed National Historic Preservation Act: The very survival of vast numbers of our irreplaceable historic buildings and places is at stake. What menaces this, of course, is the dynamic contemporary society of which we are all a part, a society in which men and machines and pavements and structures proliferate at the expense of an older, quieter, less crowded world, a society where new things tend to spread out with incredible speed and obliterate old things. (Glass, 1987, 273) The National Historic Preservation Act made no mention of age as a criterion of preservation. In 1967, the task force overseeing its implementation defined the National Register of Historic Places writing, "The National Register of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology and culture. ... It lists the most significant evidences of our national heritage" (Glass, 1987, 339). Again, no mention was made of age. The implied understanding was that a resource's value was not in its age alone, but in what is represented architecturally, historically and socially. Everything that survives from the past is not only historic because it is of the past, but it is also of our heritage because it is handed on to us by

PAGE 79

70 our predecessors of past ages. That the very quaUty of age affects our evaluation of the heritage is commonplace but not necessarily logical. (Faulkner, 1978, 452) Historic value is based on a consensus among people as to "lasting worth" (Shull, 1995, 11-11). The Federal government does not dictate when a place becomes historic. Rather, it recognizes historicity through a listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It is possible that factors listed as necessary for a building to qualify for Hsting on the Register under criteria A through D can be present at the time of its completion. In fact, each year, some building designs receive international acclaim upon their completion, if not sooner. Longstreth argues: the continued use of separate ~ albeit ostensibly equal categories of 'architectural' and 'historical' significance [makes it appear] as if architecture has no past and history no physical dimension. Such a division may have been justified in the mid-1960s, given the then prevailing views of the past; however, it now seems both trivializing and archaic in light of the changes that have occurred in historical related disciplines over the last three decades. Architectural history, cultural anthropology, cultural geography, folklore, historic archaeology, social history and urban history, among other fields have contributed to a more holistic approach. (1994, 43) It has been argued that the fifty-year requirement is justified on the basis that a distance of time is necessary for the objective evaluation of buildings and places and that preservation efforts need to be based on more than current taste (Mortin, 1987, 173). A fifty-year time span allows not only academic evaluation of an historic site but also allows for healing, for

PAGE 80

71 understanding and for emotions to be sorted out (Luce, 1995, 11-19). Certainly, in highly emotional cases, some time is needed for the factors contributing to a resource to be identified and to allow the subject to be corisidered with a sense of detachment. In these cases, the question is not whether time is necessary to accomplish these tasks but how much time is needed and whether in today's world fifty years is too long. Richard Longstreth writes: Historical significance is determined from a corpus of facts and from methods of interpretation that are generally accepted among prominent scholars. It can be substantiated and explained clearly and persuasively on both public and professional arenas. Historic significance provides a solid foundation for identifying resources and for determining which of their attributes must be retained to ensure their collective integrity. (1994, 41) By 1981, the destruction of landmarks of the modem movement was already recognized. Bradford Perkins, in an article entitled "Preserving the Landmarks of the Modern Movement" wrote of "the threat to major examples of modern architecture too young or too unpublicized to be protected by a public outcry for landmark designation" saying "modern architectural projects are threatened by all of the same forces that have modified or destroyed many of their predecessors" and pointing out that it is often "assumed that more modem works are either less important or better able to accommodate change" (1981, 109). An example of this attitude is evident in the treatment of many office high-rises of the 1960s and 1970s. These buildings were designed as isolated objects, separated from the street by

PAGE 81

72 plazas and sunken courtyards. Now that attitudes regarding urbanism have shifted to emphasize pedestrian connections, architects are adapting the highrises to a more human scale at the sidewalk level (Harriman, 1992, 106). Apparently the federal government was aware of the potential for loss. Duerksen wrote in 1983 that "in at least three cases the federal government has denied certification to local governments when selection was predetermined by a qualifying age requirement greater than fifty-years, on groimds that the effects of alteration or demolition can best be evaluated on a case by case basis independent of age" (1983, 85). Since the mid-1980s, nominations of twentieth century properties to the National Register have outnumbered those of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries combined. Certainly part of the reason this has occurred is the limited number of properties from these earlier periods that qualify for listing. Nevertheless, the recognition that, in America, the post World War Two time period was a time of immense creativity and building opportunities has become more widely accepted. No preceding period produced such diversity of style or range of building types (Lee, 1994, 28). Lee is not alone in believing this; Dietsch writes: Many of our most treasured landmarks are yoimger, representing the country's most confident era: the corporate office towers, cultural centers and campus buildings that were built in the 1950s and 1960s. Without landmark protection, some of the best examples of these decades are increasingly being torn down or altered beyond recognition without so much as a whimper from preservationists. (1992, 15)

PAGE 82

73 Certainly, as Richard Longstreth points out Not everything can be saved from the recent past any more than from any other period. But there should be no tolerance for positing the problems inherent to so much of preservation, irrespective of the things involved and the periods they represent, as sufficient reason to ignore work that is only a few decades old. (1991, 21) Despite beliefs such as these, architecture from the recent past remains low on the list of preservation priorities. Lack of education and /or bias has led to the improper assumption that the modern movement rejected all previous stylistic designs and that this rejection of the past is the source of many of today's problems. Another incorrect assumption is that glass curtained buildings are not worth preserving. However, as Ada Louise Huxtable points out, "the 'glass box' is the most maligned building idea of our time. It is also one of the best. Whatever its deficiencies, and there are many, it is the genuine vernacular of the mid 20th century" (1970, 205). Most modern architecture originally was intended to be a one-of-a-kind architectural expression. Unadorned surfaces were preferred, not as a rejection of the past, but in order to utilize materials, composition and detailing as a means of design expression. A further example is what has happened to America's main streets. While it was not unusual for traditional mainstreets to survive one hundred to one hundred fifty years, those dating from the 1940s and 1950s have, for the most part, been extensively altered or destroyed.

PAGE 83

74 It is encouraging to note that post World War Two architecture is increasingly being recognized as a valuable resource and saving modern buildings has been called "the preservation issue of the decade" (News, 1992, 26). One can only hope that this is proof that Wittgenstein was correct when he wrote "The works of great masters are sims which rise and set around us. The time will come for every great work that is now in the descendent to rise again" (1980, 15e). The creation of a sense of place requires both a past and a present. Preservation allows people to live and work in a world that continually provides reminders of past accomplishments in addition to what is being accomplished today. If done correctly, we should never be able to say, as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland, California, "There is no there, there" (Department of Housing, 1983, 62). The existence of a fifty-year guideline negates the sense of place that newer coiiunimities seek to achieve. Three cultural tendencies are shared to some degree by preservationists. These are: a proclivity for allowing personal taste in architecture to outweigh more legitimate criteria, a tendency to indulge in aesthetic affinities that can sometimes lead to a trivialization or exaggeration of the past, and a resistance to view the everyday content of our lives in historic terms (Striner, 1995, 11-19). The resultant disregard for a direct link to the remote past often results in the destruction of historic resources.

PAGE 84

75 If one accepts custodianship as the guiding philosophy behind preservation, then architecture from the recent past must be considered for protection. Unfortunately, for many people it is easier to deal with the remote past. They feel the remote past does not pose a threat to the present whereas the recent past does. From a preservation perspective, buildings from the remote past will always be considered important. They will always be older, always be more limited in number and always establish the grovmdwork for today's architectural preferences. They also serve as tools which, when studied, can be used to establish settlement, social, architectural and /or cultural patterns. However, the fact that seventeenth century buildings are more scarce in the United States than early twentieth century office buildings does not make them intrinsically more significant from a historical perspective (Longstreth, 1991, 17). The problem is especially bad in the eastern United States where "feelings still run strong against most or even all ~ of the 20th century; in some extreme cases, the significance of anything realized after the mid-19th century is summarily dismissed" (Longstreth, 1994, 43). As stated earlier, there is an inverse relationship between the rate of change and the time it takes for something to be considered historic. The greater the gap, the less the sense of continuity and, as a result, a sense of place.

PAGE 85

76 Eighty percent of everything built in America has been constructed since the end of World War Two (Goldberg, 1995, 1-12). Much of this construction has taken place in suburbia, where over forty percent of all Americans now live (Jackson, 1991, 7). In fact, A much larger share of the past is recent. It was built ~ or at least was still new ~ within living memory, the product of one's parents' or grandparents' generations. Here the intrinsic worth lies in fostering a sense of continuity, in striking a balance with change, in gaining perspective on the present, in knowing that some of the things one creates can have value over time. (Longstreth, 1994, 45) By expanding our knowledge of the recent past, the temporal boundaries between past and present come closer, thereby integrating preservation more fully with everyday life (Jackson, 1991, 7). Unfortunately this is not often the case. As a result, milestones of the Modern Movement are often neglected, radically altered, or simply razed. Preserving resources from the recent past recognizes that they, along with all other aspects of the recent past, have become part of our history. Preservationists should not be any more reluctant to evaluate a resource created within the last fifty years than one created more that fifty years ago. Within twenty years an entire stylistic grouping of resources can be created and destroyed. Time obliterates ~ often literally ~ as easily as it clarifies (Shiffer, 1995, 3). Resources created a generation ago can be evaluated from a fresh perspective. Lynch writes that "a humane environment commemorates recent events quickly" (1972, 61). Therefore, we should

PAGE 86

77 actively work to preserve the recent past. It is, after all, where our ties are strorigest. In addition, it is what immediately and most directly links us to the remote past. The survival and preservation of structures from the recent past creates both physical and social continuity. We cannot afford to allow only the existence of the remote past. No matter how accurately a resource is preserved, if only selective categories are saved, or if only selective periods are represented, integrity and authenticity are lost. The conception of significance for the recent past is shaped by the fact that for several generations, historiographic emphasis has generally been placed on ideology, artistic expression and a very limited range of technical innovations (Longstreth, 1991, 13). Just as a biographer works not to describe the appearance of a person as much as to understand a whole personality and to place the subject within a society, the preservationist must recognize a place not only in terms of individuality but also of contextuality, as a product both of nature and of nurture (Baker, 1992, 2). Wilham Murtagh once quoted a New York Times article which stated: "At best, preservation engages the past in a conversation with the present over a mutual concern for the future" (Green, 1991, 90). Within the last fifty years, it seems the conversation has centered on a series of still unanswered questions including: How important is historical perspective; Why is proving exceptional significance needed;

PAGE 87

78 What constitutes exceptional; and. What issues are specific to buildings from the recent past? (Benjamin, 1988, 7) Above and beyond these questions, there are fundamental problems when one deals with all architecture from the recent past. Luce believes these center on the following issues: "1) many -if not most structures or styles are not viewed as historic; 2) accelerated rates of change; 3) the evaluation of common /standard building types; and, 4) persistence of earlier attitudes toward sites /structures related to political correctness" (1995, 11-17). Other problems related to the evaluation of structures from the recent past stem from lack of agreement on style characteristics. This is especially difficult when one remembers that one of the tenets of the movement was individual expression /interpretation of the here and now (Donahue, 1988, 24). Modem architecture did not just eliminate ornament; it did not just eschew references to the past; it did not just emulate a machine aesthetic; it entailed challenges to previously accepted basic assumptions regarding the properties of design (Longstreth, 1995, 1-17). In addition, guidelines regarding basic building typologies have not yet been developed for sites such as shopping malls, military bases and airports. We must also create ways to fairly assess innovative materials, designs and building techniques that, over time, have shown to be less than successful.

PAGE 88

79 Despite these problems, age alone should not be reason enough to exclude buildings from the National Register. Nor should it be reason enough to require "exceptional" significance. Striner quotes Longstreth as concluding that "the issue is not when something becomes 'historic/ but instead when an adequate historical perspective can be gained on a particular kind of thing" (1995, 6). In Longstreth's words: Political historians need not defend studying events of the Eisenhower or Kermedy administrations. Military historians focus on the Korean or Vietnamese wars just as they do earlier conflicts. An interpretive approach imbued with a sense of historicity is assumed. No one believes that a historian of the Third Reich is in business just to criticize that regime any more than to defend or express nostalgia for it. Exploring such realms is to a certain extent predicated on the demand for understanding phenomena beyond what contemporary chronicles can provide, which in turn brings persons to the fore who are capable of meeting the challenge. (1991, 14) William Murtagh writes: Professionals in the field, with few exceptions like Longstreth, have never taken the time to educate the public on the recent past or to establish in the pubUc mind much of a sense of concern for the recent past, the preservation of which runs hard into the agendas of developers and the real estate crowd's [financial gains]. They're the ones which need to be educated about the recent past [in a manner which does not let] them feel that everything they create deserves to be preserved. (Personal Communication, March, 1996)

PAGE 89

CHAPTER 6 THE NEED FOR INCLUSION OF THE RECENT PAST True historic preservation is objective in its attitude. That is, it regards all periods and styles as inherently equal for learning about our past. Historic preservation admits that it is as important to preserve 20th century Eclectic and 19th century neo-Gothic as 18th century Georgian, or Federal, or Classic Revival. David Poinsett In America, we preserve historic resources for several reasons. We preserve because historic resources are all that we have to physically link us with our past. Historic resources are part of us. They tell us not only who we are but how we differ from those around us and they help us preserve that uniqueness. Some believe that historic resources should be valued as art and, as a result, hold on to them in an effort to keep America beautiful. We preserve because historic resources fill social needs. In short, we preserve to fill educational, recreational and inspirational needs and as a means of giving historically and architecturally valuable sites and buildings viable economic uses (Poinsett, 1983, 60). The problem, as Daniel Bluestone points out is that: In valuing certain buildings, preservation devalues others. Carried to the extreme, this process of devaluation leads to destruction and fosters a historical landscape that increasingly conforms to and confirms the privileged narrative. (1994, 210) 80

PAGE 90

81 Along the same lines, Ada Louise Huxtable writes A building that may no longer work well or pay its way may still be a superb creative and cultural achievement. It may be the irreproduceable record of the art and ideals of a master or an age. Its concept, craft, materials, and details may be irreplaceable at any price and there lies the conflict and the dilemma of preservation. (1970, 233) William Murtagh believes that "In a society where age is justified by money, creativity and aesthetic excellence become trivial in the developer's /realtor's mind unless the development is based on historicity" (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Criterion C of the "new" preservation that came into being in 1966 made it clear that historic resources were to be preserved for architectural and aesthetic as well as historic and patriotic values. The National Register of Historic Places remains today, as it has been since 1966, ... the pivot upon which historic preservation in the United States turns. Properties that qualify for the Register are the subject matter of historic preservation and they are eligible for preservation, enhancement and salvage. If they do not qualify, they are not worth worrying about. The bluntness of this pivot [remains] one of the major sources for trouble for historic preservation. (King, 1977, 95) The idea of extending current preservation philosophical rationale to include the recent past dates to the beginning of the new preservation's implementation and stems from our commitment to save our heritage (Striner, 1993, 1). Respect should be given to all buildings which serve as good

PAGE 91

82 examples of an important architectural style, or the work of a distinguished architect or master builder or, simply, which have continued to generate acclaim over time. Included in this should be a means for considering works of living architects. The Keeper of the National Register discourages nominations of properties associated with living architects. The policy was established by William Murtagh during the time he served as the first Keeper of the National Register in 1968. It was designed to avoid the appearance of "endorsing" one architect over another (W. J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, February 5, 1996). However, if Longstreth's belief that If the representation of ideas and practices -artistic, symbolic, functional, technical, social and /or cultural ~ are clearly different from those in common use today, those differences can allow us to analyze the work as part of a historic phenomena (1991, 15) is applied, not only could this body of work be included in preservation efforts, but the appearance of endorsement could be avoided as well. The problem of how to deal with the recent past exists world wide but is not often addressed by governments. Sweden's SAMDOK is the exception. SAMDOK is the acronym for "samtidsdokumentation" or same time documentation. In 1989, the International Working Party for the Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the Modem Movement (DoCoMoMo) was founded in order to facilitate the exchange of documentation and conservation information, protect threatened

PAGE 92

83 Modern Movement buildings, stimulate interest in the Modern Movement and create a register of significant buildings from the Modern Movement. The dominant view of the group was that the cultural importance of Modernist buildings, however utilitarian, meant they must be conserved in the same sense as buildings from other periods (Fraser, 1990, 76). A Uruted States chapter of DoCoMoMo was founded in 1995. The International Council of Monuments and Sites' (ICOMOS) World Heritage List requires that a resource be at least twenty-five years of age to be considered for listing, one-half the time preferred by our National Park Service. In July of 1995, ICOMOS, along with the United Nations Economic Security Council's (UNESCO) World Heritage Center and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Properties (ICCROM), sponsored a seminar on twentieth century heritage. Discussions dealt with how to identify twentieth century properties that could potentially be included on the World Heritage List, including the identification and protection of twentieth century sites and whether different criteria were needed to accurately assess these structures. They determined, in part, that better historic analysis, via objective thematic and monographic studies is needed to avoid reliance on traditional historical interpretation. In addition, item five of the general recommendations reads in part, "Due attention should be paid to the full spectrum of the heritage of the entire century ..." (see Appendix C).

PAGE 93

84 In the United States, the American Institute of Architects annually gives an award to a building at least twenty-five years of age believing it has withstood, as the name of the award clearly states, the "test of time." It should be noted that promotional materials state the objective of the award is To recognize distinguished single works of architecture and planned developments affecting more than one building, after a period of time has elapsed in which the function, aesthetic statement and execution can be reassessed Preservation in the United States has always been dependent on community support and recognition. Communities must understand that it is best to preserve historic resources in context, although it is not always possible. Every attempt should be made to allow historic resources to remain part of the local community or neighborhood, as they have always been. Preserving and protecting only the best or earliest will carry forth neither the historic nor architectural character of a locale. Preservation is in a sense a community act. It is as important as a process as in its results, contributing to the mutual education of people who see beauty and value in terms of the architecture or of a building's place in the history of engineering, technology, or town planning, and to those who simply know that buildings and places are meaningful in terms of their own lives. (Hareven, 1981, 122) Extending that thought, W. L. Rathje writes, "A community is preserved in its full context only when both the self recorded picture and the material realities picture are placed side by side" (1995, 11-65). Preservation efforts need

PAGE 94

85 to encompass the entire spectrum of the community, state, region or nation in question. Every effort must be made to avoid overt, subjective, critical associations. In the same way that preservation activities include both vernacular and formal resources, they should include both the recent and remote. The current listing process in the United States impacts resources hardest within the first thirty years (Lee, 1994, 28). The ever accelerating pace of technological change and the consequent larger scale of alterations to, or destruction of, historically significant resources has become a widespread concern of preservationists. No longer can it be said that neglect is often the best preserver. Longstreth has voiced concern writing: "if we continue to disregard so much that is all around us, we may waste far more than we preserve and bestow upon future generations the difficult task of deciphering the carcass" (1991, 21). A case in point is Chicago where, as Daniel Bluestone writes: "a limited historical view of the city's architecture supported only a modest preservation program in what turned out to be the most destructive period in Chicago since the 1871 fire" (1994, 210). He supports this statement by writing: The narrow focus on the monuments of the so-called Chicago School provided a basis for the cohesion of modernists and preservationists in support of landmark preservation during the 1950s and 1960s. For modernists, preserving the landmarks of the so-called Chicago School fostered a narrative of Chicago history that reinforced contemporary interest in modern urban renewal. Moreover, narrowly conceived preservation simply did not pose a threat to the plans for a massive

PAGE 95

86 public and private rebuilding of the city. As renewal and preservation proceeded, the historic city came to look increasingly like the Chicago School narrative; the diversity of the city's nineteenth-century architectural production was either destroyed or overlooked by those who relied on architectural designations to gather their sense of history. For those preservationists who were more concerned with defining and defending a sense of place than with building the city anew, the narrow vision of landmarks also held certain advantages. The ascendancy of aesthetic preservation over a variety of associational narratives encouraged preservationists in their belief that they could locate the essence of the city and its history in a few representative structures of the Chicago School. The absolute priority given to aesthetic over associational landmarks in the 1950s and beyond further restricted the use that citizens could make of history; their efforts to forge a vital sense of neighborhood and community identity based in part on history could only be frustrated by the aesthetic model. (1994, 221) Bluestone's account shows that preservation is only as good or as useful as the histories it values. What the passage does not mention, according to William Murtagh, are the unseen political realities of preserving the recent past which are blatantly present in the Chicago Loop area. PoHtical reality becomes all the more important if most of what is considered was built after World War Two (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Writing history and preserving buildings clearly reinforces particular histories while ignoring others. When historians make errors in fact or interpretation, a record of ideas may be corrected at a later time. Historic preservation, in dealing with history as it was manifested in tangible materials, does not permit that luxury. Preservationists work in a world in which the traces of histories that they choose to ignore often disappear.

PAGE 96

87 The job of identifying resources from the recent past which are worth preserving is a matter of ongoing study and interpretation. Preservation efforts must begin with an understanding of the significance of historical and cultural resources. While traditional approaches to the preservation of historic buildings and landscapes are largely applicable to twentieth century resources, some evolution in methodology is required. In fact, methods used to study the recent past will, on occasion, be quite different than those used to study and evaluate the remote past. The preservation of buildings from the recent past requires a new approach with awareness of and responsiveness toward sensibility. When working with the recent past, preservationists, in many cases, need only use the same historiographic methods used to study earlier periods. However, they must be willing to work with vmconventional sources of data and to apply innovative techniques, if needed. More than other periods of architecture, the preservation of buildings from the recent past may require the interpretation and /or reinterpretation of the designer's original vision. Today's preservationists have both the duty and the burden of being willing and able to challenge contemporary historical interpretation. By employing principles basic to solid scholarship, the preservability of much of the recent past can be put into perspective now. To do so, preservationists must think less like critics and more like historians. R. G. CoUingwood writes: "The Historian's objective is to see events from 'the inside,' to penetrate the thoughts that lie behind the deed. When this

PAGE 97

88 can't/isn't done, actions become opaque and documents describing [historical evidence are] destroyed" (Fain, 1970, 145). In other words, the basic question to be asked is not what visual pleasure and /or intellectual significance given buildings have for us, but what they had for the generation that built them and for the generations between that time and the present. Preservationists should keep in mind that while the reality of the past is objective, the interpretation of the past is subjective; facts and circumstances concerning the past are subject to interpretation by the historian's perceptions. To avoid bias impacting a determination of significance, "Analysis should be based upon as objective a viewpoint as possible, premised on factual evidence and on understanding that evidence within the content of its own time" (Longstreth, 1991, 12). Emphasis should be placed on context based research with resources evaluated in terms of how, what and why they contribute to culture. This should include the symbolic value of the resource and the way of life and sense of continuity which it represents (Hareven, 1981, 118). Resources should be treated as social and cultural documents. Buildings derive absolute historical importance not alone from their creation in a particular period, or from their established aesthetic and stylistic value, but also from the social context in which they were used, the functions they fulfilled, and the historical experiences associated with them. (Hareven, 1981, 119)

PAGE 98

89 In that historical importance is relative and may change over time, the use of the term "absolute" is questionable. It should be remembered that evaluators are also acting in the context of their time and need to be aware of such to avoid generational bias. Last, demanding that buildings relate to context should be avoided. This frequently leads to an emphasis on qualities of size, materials, color and architectural style; physical qualities measured by original appearance. Architectural history tends to provide an aesthetically pleasing view of the world, one that is limited politically. Perpetuating the concept of "pure" styles by preserving only selected high style examples implies that they are the most important. At its extreme, "Preservationists run the risk of losing credibility in the disciplines that are their professional backbone when they succumb to such shallow typecasting" (Longstreth, 1995, 1-19). Ada Louise Huxtable puts it another way, writing that preservation is in danger of becoming synonymous with the theme park (Longstreth, 1995, 1-19). Places worthy of preservation should represent meaning, orientation, use, or beauty in the lives of a given group or culture. Many preservationists have eschewed various forms of vernacular resources. In doing so, they propagate high culture and aesthetics as those values most associated with permanence (Schwarzer, 1994, 9). The challenge of preservation is to preserve the meaning of the way of life which buildings represent to those who have

PAGE 99

90 worked and lived in them, as well as the more abstract and formal qualities based on a knowledge of architecture and technological history (Hareven, 1981 121). William Murtagh states "We preserve the past in order to avoid a loss of identity, maintain a sense of continuity and improve livibility" (1995). Although sentiments are slowly changing, the idea of preserving architecture from the recent past "is still a hard pill for many preservationists to swallow. It remains an area of historic preservation that gets routinely overlooked. There is often little sympathy for the period and in some cases outright hostility" (Gordon, 1992, 22). Despite the fact that eighty percent of the built environment has been constructed since World War Two, as of February 14, 1996, of 65, 317 listings on the National Register of Historic Places, only 2,069 were admitted under exception G (less than fifty-years of age), a mere 3.2 percent (John Bums, Personal Communication, February 14, 1996). Equally discouraging are the figures regarding AIA Test of Time award winners from 1969 to 1994. A check of sites documented by HABS shows that only two of the twenty-five award wirmers have been documented. A check of listings on the National Register shows only ten of the award winners. While some criteria for selection differ, they are, overall, like enough that all of the award winners should be listed on the National Register. What would be even better would be to have the preservation community recognize these sites prior to their wirming a "test of time" award. In doing so, preservationists

PAGE 100

would make a clear statement that they both understand and appreciate built environment from all of our past.

PAGE 101

92 TABLE 1 AIA Test of Time Award Winners, 1969 1994 Status Regarding Preservation ^^^^ Register Year Building Location Documented Listing 1969 Rockefeller Center New York, NY none 1987 1971 Crow School Winnetka, IL none 1989 1972 Balwin Hills Village Louisiana none not listed 1973 Taliesin West Paradise, AZ ncne 1974 1974 Johnson & Son Administration Bldg. Racine, WI yes 1974 1975 Philip Johnson House New Canaan, CT ncHie not listed 1976 860-880 N. Lake Shore Drive Apartments Chicago, 11 none 1980 1977 Christ Lutheran Church Minneapolis, MN none not listed 1978 Eames House Pacific Palisades, CA none not listed 1979 Yale University Art Gallery New Haven, CT ncne not listed 1980 Lever House New York, NY none 1983 1981 Famsworth House Piano, IL yes not listed 1982 Equitable Savings Portland, OR none 1976 1983 Price Tower Barlesville, OK none 1974 1984 Seagram Building New York, NY none not listed 1985 General Motors Technical Center Warren, MI none not listed 1986 Guggenheim Museum New York, NY none not listed 1987 Bowinger House Norman, OK none not listed 1988 Dulles Airport Terminal Bldg Chantilly, VA none 1978 1989 Vanna Venturi House Chestnut Hill, PA none not listed 1990 Gateway Arch St. Louis, MO none 1987 1991 Sea Ranch Condos Sea Ranch, CA none not listed 1992 Salk Institute La Jolla, CA ncjie not listed 1993 Deere & Co. Administration Ctr. Moline, IL none not listed 1994 Haystack Moimtains School of Crafts Deer Isle, ME none not listed

PAGE 102

CHAPTER 7 EVALUATING HISTORIC STRUCTURES Overview We are in no position to choose what we receive from the past ages as our heritage. Our choice lies in how we value it and how we treat it. P. A. Faulkner Preservationists need to examine and analyze more carefully the perspective and content of the historical narratives they preserve and promote. Not only should a critical and analytical approach be applied to issues of documentation, a systematic rationale for selection should be in place as well. Work needs to take place to ensure that the system retains solid perspective and, whenever possible, objectivity. It should be remembered, however, that any evaluation is to some degree bound to be comparative and, therefore, subjective. When nominating resources to the National Register of Historic Places, preservationists along with local, state and national officials and local community members should believe that the resource in question will possess an enduring value for its historical association, appearance and potential for information. The record depends on an arbitrary selection of the 93

PAGE 103

94 aspects to be recorded. That selection can only be made with knowledge possessed at the time of recording (Faulkner, 1978, 467). Age should not be an issue, nor should it be a criterion or a guideline. In evaluating works of our more recent past, however, we are thrown back on our judgement. There is no automatic seal of approval and our judgement is bound to be at the mercy of current modes and fashions, eventually to be confirmed or condemned by our successors. Up to the nineteenth century, this problem did not exist. The masterpiece, such as Street's Law Courts was recognized as soon as it was built, its quality not to be questioned if endorsed by the Society of Dilettanti or the Royal Academy. In fact, it might be said that it is a twentieth century phenomenon to be unsure of one's own judgement. (1978, 454) Faulkner goes on to point out, lack of age can actually be beneficial and may lead to more accurate assessments: With brush, trowel and delicate instruments we examine the debris of two-thousand years ago. The examination of yesterday's debris by the dustbin scavenger appears a much more casual affair. On consideration, though, it may prove to be more selective and be based on a very precise evaluation of the material recovered with an assessment of its significance uncoloured by the effort put into its recovery. (1978, 453) It should be understood, however, that in certain highly emotional cases a passage of time may be needed before the resource can be viewed objectively. In those cases, a passage of time equivalent to no more than one generation (currently ten years) is suggested. There is no sure way of knowing whether attributes selected today will continue to be important. Therefore, just as acquisition and listing

PAGE 104

95 procedures are well defined, so should be policies regarding deaccession. Ideally, a periodic review would be mandatory for all listings on the register every ten years and for national landmarks every seven years. In addition, evaluation criteria should be reviewed at least once every ten years. This would be more in line with William Murtagh's view that "revision is more than inevitable, 'It seems clear that the vocabulary of preservation will continue to evolve so long as the activity it describes remains a vital one'" (Weeks, 1996, 32). To lower costs and make a review of listings manageable, this process should be done at the local level. Knowing the impact of a rapid pace of change and continually evolving technologies, it is important that existing policies allow buildings to evolve and keep pace. Policies regarding structures moved in order to be preserved/ saved should be more understanding and center on the moved resource as an artifact in its own right. The primary focus should be on the importance of the resource, not the site to where the resource has been moved. William Murtagh points out that this was "always" the case when he was keeper (Personal Communication, March, 1996). Kliment describes the soul of a building as those "features which make them worthy of special attention" (1992, 87). With that in mind, when dealing with altered or relocated buildings, a guiding criterion should be that "In most historic buildings, when their environment has been adjusted, their soul shows through" (Owings, 1970, 237).

PAGE 105

96 In each case, all analysis needs to be completed prior to any evaluation and evaluation must form the basis of selection. This is the key process: a reasoned evaluation tells future generations that we have fairly considered to each item and valued it sufficiently highly in the context of our historical inheritance to be worthy of preservation (Faulkner, 1978, 473). Evaluation systems are successful if properly and carefully designed with strict protection and usable incentives. They must provide property owners both flexibility and encouragement if they are to promote the preservation and rehabilitation of buildings. Faulkner points out that Our inheritance is so vast and so varied that we must select as the legacy we pass on to our successors only those parts that have a definable significance in historic terms. Not only must we select but, as an essential part of that legacy, we must justify to our heirs our selection in some permanent form other than the objects we preserve. (1978, 475) One way of accomplishing this is by expanding our graphic record. In addition, a graphic record may be used to record those buildings or remains of comparatively minor value to our heritage and, secondly, as the sole mear\s we have at our disposal to preserve the detailed form of individual elements, such as mouldings, etc. whose decay we caimot prevent. In short, it should be recognized that preservation does not necessarily mean physical preservation. Dixon has proposed five guidelines for resource preservation in the future. These are: the realization that all resources have potential

PAGE 106

97 significance unless proven otherwise, the obligation to preserve /protect as many resources as feasible, insurance that the sample of preserved resources be as representative as possible, measures in place to control bias, and an expanded base (1977, 278). To do the job correctly, increased funding and better education of the public regarding preservation philosophy and issues is necessary. Current Preservation Plans Incorporating Recent Building s In June of 1990, Vancouver, Canada, became one of the first municipalities in North America to expand the scope of its heritage inventory to include buildings that were twenty years old. Twenty years was considered to be a critical period of time to allow for an objective assessment of the historical merit of a building. The Heritage Commission felt that "Maintaining a collection of Modern buildings ensures continuity in our architectural heritage" (Heritage Brochure, not dated). Vancouver's Recent Landmarks Program identifies and documents notable examples of modern architecture on the basis of their aesthetic and design value, innovative technological advances of the time and contributions by prominent architects. It is recognized that landmarks can be architecturally distinguished and /or socially important.

PAGE 107

98 Honolulu, Hawaii, has developed a set of "Historic Preservation Value" criteria for use in the Waikiki area. These criteria apply only to buildings less than fifty years of age and provide preservationists with a method for making decisions regarding protection. The criteria include six areas: integrity, uniqueness, rarity, work of an outstanding designer, condition and existing level of public recognition. Due to the fact that so few historic buildings in the Waikiki area remain on their original site, integrity is defined according to National Register criteria, except for the elements of setting and location. These two integrity criteria have been omitted. Boston, Massachusetts, considers all buildings predating 1960 in its landmarks program. All buildings predating that time are assessed according to the same criteria. The Modern Design Preservation League in Denver and the Los Angeles Conservancy, Fifties Task Force, both support the evaluation of all buildings according to National Register criteria, excepting age. Several other cities including San Francisco and Oakland, California include all buildings, regardless of age in their surveys, but do not consider them eligible for active preservation until they reach the magic fifty years. Point-based Systems for Evaluation The first federally funded project for the evaluation of historically significant sites and buildings within a projected renewal area was the 1959

PAGE 108

99 College Hill Study in Providence, Rhode, Island. Their pilot project employed a point-based system and was considered to be widely successful at that time. The study was used by the implementation task force in 1967 when creating the criteria for listing on the National Register. The committee chose not to use a point-based system for the National Register after visiting western Europe. In Europe, point-based systems led to building classifications. Some classifications were more protected than others and, once classified, resources did not have the ability to move from one classification level to another. To avoid this happening in the United States, a more general system that resulted in one of two determinations, eligible for listing, or not eligible for listing, was created (W. J. Murtagh, Personal Communication, February 12, 1996). Many preservationists and architectural historians continue to reject objective systematic evaluation systems. They feel architecture's aesthetic qualities cannot be quantified. There is also the lingering concern that buildings with a low ranking will be the first to be sacrificed for new development or the first to be altered beyond recognition. This could be avoided if buildings were reevaluated on a regular basis allowing their potential endangerment to be monitored. Furthermore, as Michael Corbett points out: Despite the resistance of some preservationists, these objective evaluation systems have long been not merely acceptable to political leaders, city planning officials, real-estate developers, and others in

PAGE 109

100 positions of influence over land use and development, but they have been almost demanded by them in their hesitancy to work with anything less systematic. In this demand, apart from the reliability of such systems, is the real justification for their use. (c. 1985, 43) Point-based systems appear to be more widely accepted on the west coast. This type of system is in place in a wide variety of communities including Portland, Eugene and Grant's Pass, Oregon and Oakland, Sacramento and San Francisco, California. Vancouver, Canada also uses this type of system. Many of these systems are based on principles presented in Harold Kalman's The Evaluation of Historic Buildings In addition to associative values, typical subdivisions for determination of architectural significance include: A) Style: Significance as an example of a particular architectural style, building type or convention B) Design/Artistic Quality: Significance because of quality of composition, detailing and craftsmanship C) Materials /Construction: Significance as an example of a particular material or method of construction D) Integrity: Significant because it retains its original design features, materials and characteristics E) Rarity: Significant as the only remaining or one of a few remaining properties of a particular style, building type, design, material, or method of construction. (White, 1994, 10) Buildings are evaluated as being excellent, very good, good, or fair/ poor with each of those ratings each having a preassigned point value. In the College Hill Demonstration Study of 1958, evaluation was based on a pre-established set of criteria. Each building received a numerical score

PAGE 110

101 for historic sigr\ificarice, architectural significance, importance to neighborhood, desecration of original design and physical condition. Total points in each category ranged from eight (desecration of original design) to thirty (historical significance). Cumulative scores were grouped as exceptional, excellent, good, fair and poor. One person was responsible for completing all forms for the entire area in order to help insure a consistent point of view. The importance of the College Hill Study caimot be overlooked. It was the first of its type conducted in the United States. In that regard, it is difficult to fairly assess it with today's benefit of more than thirty-five years of hindsight. The only action that is questionable, is the decision to use a single evaluator. While the rationale is sound, the fact that 1,350 buildings were involved should have caused some reassessment. Fatigue was a concern. To control this, the evaluator only worked in two hour stretches. However, it is easy to see how the first fifty to one-hundred buildings might have been assessed differently than the last fifty to one-himdred. The San Francisco Downtown Study of 1985 consisted of four categories: architectural significance, historical significance, environmental significance and design integrity. The study was designed so that each category could be evaluated separately. Ratings within each were excellent, very good, good, and fair /poor with each corresponding to a predetermined point value. The four broad categories were subdivided into more specific

PAGE 111

102 criterion: architecture ir\to style, construction, age, architect, design and interior; history into person, event and patterns; environment into continuity, setting and landmark; and integrity into alterations. Each subdivision was accompanied by a brief descriptive statement; for instance, style was described as significance as an example of a particular architectural style, type, or convention and design: architectural quality of composition, detailing, and ornament measured, in part in originality, quality as urban architecture, craftsmanship and uniqueness. Total points for each of the four categories varied with design worth twenty-five and construction worth twelve. Ratings and numbers were kept separately. Once a composite score was calculated, buildings were placed into one of four categories. Placement in either of the top two categories meant eligibility to the National Register, placement in the third meant the building had contextual value and placement in the fourth meant the building was of minor or no importance. Results were reviewed by three outside reviewers. With a relatively small area, ("downtown") to deal with, it is surprising that the criteria are as vague as they are. With the exception of age (before 1906 and after 1906) there appears to be no tailoring specific to the area. Buildings with exceptional interiors but altered exteriors were not considered. The result of the process was a classification of sites with those in A and B definitely being preserved, those in C only preserved if part of a district within

PAGE 112

103 the downtown area and those in D classified as "sites of opportunity" (Corbett, c. 1985, 45), living up to the fears of the National Register task force. The Grant's Pass, Oregon, evaluation system is based on an early Portland, Oregon, plan. It consists of four general categories: physical condition, importance to neighborhood, architectural interest and historical interest. Total points in each of the four categories range from ten to twenty points. The criteria are very general, i.e. architectural significance. No descriptions of what is meant by architectural significance is provided. Rating sheets were not available for review. In Vancouver, a local steering committee determined that two decades is a period of sufficient historical perspective within which to gauge a building's heritage merit (Leman, 1993, 23). Vancouver uses a weighted numerical evaluation system that takes into consideration the architectural characteristics, cultural value, context and integrity. Each broad area, except for integrity, is subdivided into more specific categories: architectural characteristics into style/type, design, construction and designer /builder; cultural history into historical association and historical pattern; context into landscape, neighborhood and visual. Buildings are reviewed by both style and building type. The importance of construction techniques or the association with a noted designer is also considered. Evaluations for all buildings, regardless of age are done according to the same criteria to help insure a consistent approach. Sample criteria used in Vancouver include:

PAGE 113

104 Is the building a very good /excellent example of an architectural style or design? Is the building likely to have particular historic significance? Does the building have significance in terms of envirorunental context? Was the building designed or built by a notable designer or builder? Was an uncommon building method /material used in construction? Is the building associated with an important person, group, event or activity of historic importance? Is the building notably early in the developmental history of the area? Do landscape, surroundings or immediate neighbors contribute to the building's significance? Is the building an important part of the streetscape or does it have a commanding presence? (Parker, 1986, 3) Total points within the categories of architecture, cultural history and context range from twenty-five (context) to forty (architecture). Integrity points range from negative fifteen (fair/poor) to zero (excellent). Once cumulative scores are established, buildings are grouped by type with houses and apartments in one category and institutions, churches, schools, commercial, and industrial buildings in another. Final evaluation was the result of the placement of the cumulative scores within predetermined point ranges. The Vancouver evaluation process appears to be well thought out and current to today's needs. The only questionable aspect is the over-specificity of locale and locality. Everything is centered on the city as if it is not culturally/socially /economically/historically bound to any other place. Portland, Oregon's system has five broad categories: history, environment, landscape, architecture and integrity. These are further divided

PAGE 114

105 into anywhere from one to four subdivisions: history has three subdivisior\s: persons, events and patterns; architecture has four: style, designer /contractor, materials /construction /artistic quality and rarity. Environment, landscape and environment have one subdivision each ~ environment: environment; landscape: landscape; and integrity: integrity. Each subdivision consists of between two and four descriptive statements, each of which is rated separately. Total points within each category range from one (landscape) to sixteen (architecture). The final point thresholds have not yet been established as the city is in the process of revising their Historic Protection Act (Thayer Donham, Personal Communication, January 29, 1996). Portland's evaluative process is regionally specific yet broad enough to accommodate the unusual, non-indigenous site. The major question of the process employed did not come from the literature, but via a conversation with the Associate Plarmer. All evaluation is done in a closed room with the evaluators viewing pre selected slides of the resources to be evaluated. It is questionable whether this will allow neighborhood qualities to be as clear as if one were actually at the site.

PAGE 115

CHAPTER 8 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED EVALUATION SYSTEM The point-based system developed here is an amalgam of Kalman's The Evaluation of Historic Buildings and those systems reviewed by the author in current use today. Model forms can be found in Appendix B. While the forms presented have been field-tested, further testing may result in some changes. The criteria for evaluation are rooted in the criteria of the National Register, however the breakdown of the criteria is original. In addition, points suggested were based on Kalman's writings but ultimately developed by the author. With both the criteria breakdown and suggested points work started with Kalman. From this point, additions, deletions and changes were based on the point-based plans reviewed. The plans were reviewd chronologically from their date of development based on the belief that those recently changed and /or adopted had taken advantage of knowledge gained from older existing plans. Further changes were based on the author's ideas and suggestions made in the various writings reviewd in the literature search. Any evaluation system must be relate to the specific community or area in question while simultaneously meeting criteria standards established 106

PAGE 116

by the National Park Service for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As the only factor unique to an area is that dealing with period of time (age), this can be done by merely altering time frames and identifiable chronological periods for the area at hand. With this in mind, the evaluation system proposed here is with Sarasota, Florida, in mind. Sarasota is a relatively new community. It has experienced two distinctive architectural booms; the first lasting from c. 1925 1927 and identified by the preference for Mediterranean Revival style homes, and c. 1948 c. 1962 identified by a design type known as the "Sarasota School of Architecture" (see Appendix A for more information). All other criteria proposals are non-site specific. Knowledge of the Sarasota School resulted in the development of two criteria dealing with published and award winning designs, although these are applicable anywhere in the country. Care must be taken when dealing with published desigr\s and an attempt made to determine who solicited publication. 107

PAGE 117

108 National awards should apply to those given by nationally recognized organizations ( i.e. the American Institute of Architects) and /or nationally published and widely recognized magazines (both architectural and social), such as Progressive Architecture. Interiors. McCalls and Better Homes and Gardens In that many organizations limit awards to their membership, it is important to include as varied a group as possible. Corporate /Industry awards and design competitions (such as the Revere Quality House program) should not be overlooked. Whenever possible, specific comments as to why a design was selected should be solicited and included. In their final state, evaluation forms would, ideally, be on carbon based paper with the evaluator completing those forms marked E (excellent), VG (very good), G (good), F (fair), and P (poor). The final evaluation, done by committee, would involve the use of the second form, where quantitative values replace qualitative ones. Care should be taken to limit any type of "categorization" into those resources that qualify for listing on the National Register and those which do not. Whenever possible, determination of eligibility should be based on observations made by visiting the site. Visual observation conducted via graphics, slides, photographs and /or other visual media alone should be strongly discouraged. As established here, the quantitative minimum for qualification is two hundred points. Any resource with a final quantitative score of between one hundred seventy-five and one hundred ninety-nine should be subject to a mandatory second review.

PAGE 118

109 Ideally, this review would be done by persons not involved in the original evaluation and would include at least one visit to the site. All forms may be completed by one evaluator. However, it is recommended that a social/cultural historian, or preservationist with that background, complete all forms for criteria A and B, and also those forms from criterion C dealing with work of a master. An architect, architectural historian, or preservationist with a background in either of those fields, should complete those forms from criterion C dealing with design, method of construction and district. An architectural historian, or preservationist with that background, should complete forms from criterion C centering on type, style and period. A specialist in historic interiors may be brought in to deal with structures requiring that evaluation, if not, an architect or architectural historian should be used. Each set of forms is accompanied by a cover sheet (see Figure A). On this, the evaluator is reminded of the criterion they are evaluating and given the specific aspect of the criterion he/she will be centering on. This aspect is then defined and characteristics of the aspect are given. Bold-faced type is used to designate those phrases appearing on the rating sheet. The qualitative rating forms (see Figure B) require one of three general decisions: yes or no, unique or rare, or E (excellent), VG (very good), G (good), F (fair), or P (poor). Evaluators are not limited to selecting one category, but may circle as many as they feel apply, with the final numerical score being an

PAGE 119

110 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling 1. notable example of a particular material 2. unique/rare example of a particular material 3. early example of a particular material 4. notable example of a particular method of construction 5. unique/rare example of a particular method of construction 6. early example of a particular method of construction "Early" is defined as dating from before or within five years of appearing in other buildings of the same type. Figure A. Typical Cover Sheet

PAGE 120

Ill CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling 1. notable example material yes to Justification 2. unique/rare example material unique rare Justification 3. early example material yes no date average date of other buldings of same type Justification 4. notable example method of construction yes id Justification 5. unique/rare example method of construction unique rare Justification 6. early example method of construction yes id date average date of other buldings of same type Justification Figure B. Typical Qualitative Rating Form

PAGE 121

112 average of those circled. Those characteristics deaUng with age and earlyexamples require the evaluator to denote the date and, in the case of early examples, the average date of other buildings of the same type. For the purposes of the evaluation, early is defined as "dating earlier than or within five years of appearing in other buildings of the same type." This definition is found on each cover sheet where a determination of "early" is required. Each characteristic rated is followed by a series of three lines to be completed explaining the evaluator's reasoning behind his/her rating choice. Completion of the justification section should be required. The evaluator should not be required to limit his/her comments to those three lines, nor should he/she be limited to expressing his/her observations verbally. In these cases, continuation forms, similar to those used in National Register nominations, should be provided and completed. As with the rating forms, these should be carboned. Information contained in this section may serve to answer specific questions during the final evaluation process and places the decision and the evaluator in context. In addition, this information may provide valuable insights for future preservationists /evaluators. Any graphics, slides, photographs and/or other visual media designed to serve as part of the justification section should be described in writing on a continuation form. Upon completion, these should be submitted to the designated person along with all other forms.

PAGE 122

113 Attached to each qualitative rating form (see Figure C) is a pre-carboned form containing the quantitative values. These values are weighted with type according to quality of design having the most value. However, the weighting is designed so that strength in any one of the criterion is potentially sufficient to make a resource eligible for listing. In addition, all values increase by a minimum of two points. In those cases where a determination of local, regional, national, or international importance is called for, the point value increase may be as many as fifteen points. Once all forms have been completed, evaluators should meet as a group. At least one community member who was not part of the evaluation team shall be a member of this committee. During this review process, it may be beneficial to have slides of the resources being evaluated as a source of visual reaffirmation. At this point, any statements regarding symbolic value of a resource should be strongly considered. In all cases, the voice of the group shall outweigh the voice of an evaluator, and may change a given rating. In these cases, a statement detailing why the change was made is required. Changing an evaluation based on a slide is strongly discouraged. Any evaluator strongly opposed to a consensus determination is encouraged to write a dissenting statement for inclusion in the final report/file. Once a determination is made as to eHgible or not eligible, a statement explaining the decision is written. This statement, along with copies of the both the

PAGE 123

CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling 1. notable example material 5 0 Justification 2. unique/rare example material 10 5 Justification 3. early example material 5 0 date average date of other buldings of same type Justification 4. notable example method of construction 5 0 Justification 5. unique/rare example method of construction 10 5 Justification 6. early example method of construction 5 0 date average date of other buldings of same type Justification Figure C. Typical Quantitative Rating Form

PAGE 124

115 qualitative and quantitative forms and any related materials should be kept on file for future reference /review. This process may seem more complicated than systems in place at the present time. This is so for two reasons. The first is a deliberate attempt to involve both a varied group and as many professionals as possible. Whenever possible, all members of the evaluation team shall be from the local community. When this is not possible, every effort should be made to include trained personnel knowledgeable in local/regional architectural practices. The final determination as the result of a consensus decision is designed to help eliminate the impact of personal bias. Things happen at the local level. Therefore, involvement of community members is imperative as for any preservation plan /program to be effective, it must have community support. This support should not be limited to activists, but should include politicians, educators, the media and interested citizens of all ages. Additionally, the presence of both interested and trained people at the local level is also cost effective. An involved ratings process at the local level by qualified personnel is far easier to manage than at the state or national level. Community involvement can easily result in community interest and support leading to even more involvement. The key to all of this is education, not only in the sense of trained persormel, but also in the sense of developing within each community or identifiable area a strong sense of place. Once this is accomplished, we will

PAGE 125

116 have come full circle as a strong sense of place leads directly back to an increase in community involvement, interest and support. Ideally, the end result is the preservation of both what ties the community /area to the state and/or nation (i.e. courthouse squares, post offices, etc.) and what makes each community /area unique (i.e. vernacular styles, cultural influences, etc.). To many, this is the most important role of the preservation movement in the United States today.

PAGE 126

CHAPTER 9 WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? As with any research project, while one sets out to find answers, often more questions are raised than solutions found. That has been the case with this dissertation. The evaluation system proposed here is only part of the first step. To complete the step, William Murtagh's comment "good as an academic exercise, but does not address the political or personal realities" of implementation must be addressed. To do so will require more work on and field testing of the evaluation forms. For instance, at times the quantitative values seem unwieldy, but uniformly lowering them created other more serious problems. One reader expressed a desire to see the forms simplified; they have been somewhat, but there may be ways to accomplish more. Archaeologists should be consulted and criterion D subdivided with forms developed in a maimer consistent with those designed for Criteria A, B and C. There is room for a deeper philosophical investigation of positivism and empiricism as they relate to significance and the National Register criteria. Several articles have been written concerning problems found in the field of archaeology, but only one was located on significance and historic preservation. Additionally, a comprehensive study on the views of Hegel, 117

PAGE 127

118 Wittgenstein, Derrida and other potentially relevant contemporary philosophies as they relate to significance and, uUimately, National Register criteria should be conducted. Only then can a better understanding be gained regarding the associated epistemological concerns. While the issue of integrity was mentioned briefly in the dissertation, more in-depth study should be conducted into this threshold criterion. Concern regarding integrity as it relates to moved structures, objects and buildings is often mentioned and some communities have developed programs that allow the protection of moved resources. There is, however, no consistent approach or viewpoint. The rapid increase of the rate of change will continue to make the issue of preserving moved resources a concern. This is especially the case when the only way to save resources is to create an artificial grouping in an historical park. The development and inclusion of rating forms for the aspects of integrity similar to those presented here is an option. Along the same lines, a suggestion was made to investigate the possible re-definition of other current terminology as well. Another unsolved issue deals with the preservation of resources where the designer is still alive. The policy of the Keeper of the National Register has always been to avoid listing these resources. However, with life expectancies of people continually increasing and life expectancies of resources continually decreasing, this may need to be readdressed. Richard Longstreth suggests that if the representation of ideas and practices in the

PAGE 128

119 resource being evaluated are clearly different from those in common use it is possible to list resources of living designers while avoiding William Murtagh's concern of endorsing one architect over another. More research into the feasibility of this approach needs to be conducted. In short, there are a variety of avenues to explore and concepts to develop. It may be that there will never be consensus as to how these issues can best be addressed. There will certainly always be debate as to how to best objectify a subjective topic.

PAGE 129

APPENDIX A THE SARASOTA SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE Regionalism and regional characteristics once dominated American architectural patterns. National as well as the global aspects of twentieth century life have worked to eliminate this once identifiable characteristic. In an article for the Tournal of the American Institute of Architects in 1955, Paul Rudolph looked at the changing aspects of regional architecture. He fovmd architectural regionalism limited by industrialization and national distribution systems, ease of travel and communication, cost of traditional materials, influence of the architectural press, our desire to conform and belong, the Mo it yourself movement, the abstract qualities inherent in the new space concept, and the fact that true expressiveness of new materials has not yet been fully developed. (180) As a result of the above forces, true regionalism in modern architecture is most often expressed in form rather than in the materials used. The term "Sarasota School" was first applied in 1967 when it appeared in an article written by Philip Hiss for Architectural Forum magazine. It was again used in 1982 in materials prepared by Gene Leedy and Dwight Holmes for an American Institute of Architects meeting to be held in Tampa. The 120

PAGE 130

121 term referred to one of several groups of architects in America during the late 1940s and 1950s that adhered to the basic tenets of International stylists. What differentiated these groups was their willingness and ability to adapt these basic tenets to the lifestyle and climate of a specific region. The 1950s was a time when Florida served as a "mecca for contemporary architecture" (Test of Time, 1987, 35). "Among all the cities in Florida, perhaps Sarasota alone comes to mind as the one city possessing a significant heritage of contemporary architectural works" (Sarasota Retrospective, 1976, 19). These works "spring from a brief moment of time when pent-up creative energies were released in an outpouring of buildings, several of which today rank as classics" (Sarasota Retrospective, 1976, 19). The 1950s saw rapid growth in the city of Sarasota as well as in Sarasota County. Census figures show that in 1950s the population of Sarasota (city) was 13,604; by 1960 it had grown to 34,083 (Morris, 1985, 183). Architects viewed Sarasota as a proving ground, a model on which they tested ideas, materials, and planning concepts, in the process forging careers which, for some, propelled them to prominence as lasting as Sarasota's was fleeting. (Horton, 1982, 21) Victor Lundy, one of the school's most renowned members, said Sarasota was an "easy place to be creative. ..Things were done spontaneously; there was a sense of fun in those days" (Horton, 1982, 20).

PAGE 131

122 Work produced by members of the Sarasota School is trulyrepresentative of this statement. Tenets of the Sarasota School had their basis in three areas: tenets of the International Style, characteristics of regional Southern architecture, and the architect's original ideas which allowed for adaptation to the lifestyle and climate of the Sarasota area. From the International Style Sarasota architects took an understanding of the concept of borrowed space, the logical use and expression of structure, the separation of structure and enclosure, simple building form and detail, and honest use and expression of materials. From earlier southern regional designs they took: modular construction, a raised floor, and efficient environmental control systems. To these the architects added: the use of low maintenance materials, a play of light and shadow, and a desire to humanize International Style environments. The last of the three additions was perhaps the most challenging. A combination of the design styles of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier accomplished the task. Van der Rohe's concept of architectural space and his belief in the beauty of simplicity were mixed with the concepts of form and space as expressed by Le Corbusier and, finally, the emotional aspects of Wright. It is the successful blending of these elements that creates the identifiable and unique Sarasota School style. The flat landscape of the Sarasota area is conducive to an architecture of planes. These planes, when successfully placed, allow a structure to be

PAGE 132

123 treated as an element of the landscape. Proper orientation allowed the capture of both scenic views and cooling breezes, while minimizing the impact of direct sunlight. Utilization of post and beam construction allowed for the creation of exterior walls of glass and freed interior wall surfaces to be manipulated within the overall design pattern. This open plan system created both visual and spatial flow while allowing for the unobstructed circulation of air. The distinction between interior and landscape was blurred with the inclusion of a central courtyard or patio area. All major interior spaces adjoined and opened on to this "outdoor" area. An incorporation of indigenous materials in the buildings strengthened the connection between architecture and environment. Ralph Twitchell's unique understanding of local materials, especially wood and cream tinted Ocala block, was passed on to other Sarasota School architects. Twitchell was responsible for introducing Ocala block to the area. This block, made in Ocala, of crushed limestone was laid in stack bond, and often used for walls. Twitchell was also the first to build with block exposed on both interior and exterior wall surfaces. The structural design system was post and beam. This allowed the separation of enclosure and structural support system. Glass was the preferred material used for enclosure. It allowed linkage of interior and exterior areas and could not be misconstrued as structural support. Ada

PAGE 133

124 Louise Huxtable writes: "The 'glass box' is the most maligned building idea of our time. It is also one of the best, whatever its deficiencies, and there are many ... it is the genuine vernacular of the 20th century" (1986, 163). The final barrier between interior and exterior was destroyed when architects changed the function of interior walls from support systems for the roof to definers of space. The idea of the disengaged wall is used extensively in modern architecture. Sarasota architects utilized this feature primarily because of its ability to increase air circulation. While control and use of light was often neglected in International Style buildings, this, along with other visual ties, such as scale, color, texture, and the use of recurring features, were standard in Sarasota School designs. Through-out the design and construction process, control of Florida's often extreme climate was an important feature to be considered. This task was frequently accomplished by using long roof overhangs, shade trees, cross ventilation, and careful site orientation. Kaufmann suggests the four main traits of modern rooms are comfort, quality, lightness, and harmony (1953). Sarasota School interiors clearly meet all four criteria. Proper orientation of the structure allowed for indirect lighting and the capture of prevailing breezes. This kept rooms both bright and cool. Use of walls as definers of space rather than support systems further enhanced the level of comfort. Materials were carefully chosen for both durability and texture. Interiors were accented with color; details were

PAGE 134

125 carefully enhanced. A sense of lightness was created through the use of exterior walls of glass rather than cut out window areas. Fifteen architects are commonly considered members of the Sarasota School of Architecture: Ralph Twitchell, Paul Rudolph, Victor Lundy, Mark Hampton, the father and son team of Ralph and William Zimmerman, Frank Smith, the unlicensed amateur Philip Hiss, Jack West, Gene Leedy, William Rupee, Ted Siebert, Bert Brosmith, and Carl Abbott. Many of these men are still practicing architects. According to Philip Hiss, in the late 1950s there was a greater concentration of architectural talent in Sarasota than any other town in the United States, except New Canaan, Connecticut (Hiss, 1967). Jack West felt that Sarasota itself was "no mecca for architects; architects made it a mecca" (Horton, 1982, 20). West goes on to say that the commonality of the architects was their "desire to build architecture as great art" (Horton, 1982, 20). In the late 1950s, a right-wing faction of the population began to turn its back on Sarasota's unique architectural designs. This backlash began with the controversy surrounding the Sarasota High School design but was not limited to public architecture. Some felt the backlash was really directed at the outspoken Philip Hiss and the schools simply served as an easy, visible, target. Nonetheless, architects began fleeing the area. Hiss left as well.

PAGE 135

126 Victor Lundy may have explained the exodus best when he said: In the last analysis, it is only from within one's own self that one can create any thing. Creation is a great adventure, and any suggestion of fear or cynicism or subservience is against this spirit of adventure and negates its very process Great architecture is creative architecture it results only when creative source is free and unfettered, certain and directed. (Lundy, 1958, 177) Philip Hiss later wrote: Sarasota is a rich community; it can afford distinguished architecture if any community can. And Sarasota has some distinguished architecture; but it will soon become a museum of the 1920s and 1950s unless its sights are raised again. Meanwhile a whole generation of promising architects has left a community that could have offered them expanding opportunities, but has chosen instead mediocrity -and worse. (McDonough, 1985, 10) Gene Leedy may have stated the case with the people of Sarasota at the time when he said, "Genius is often difficult to detect when one is too close to it" (Trebbi, 1989, 40). Jack West wrote "Sarasota consciously rejected a marvelous opportunity for a group of talented and idealistic architects and planners to mold its future form" (Horton, 1982, 21). In 1959, the American Institute of Architects at a meeting of the New Orleans Convention for Better Living Program awarded honors to eighteen architects in the United States. The awards program was jointly sponsored by the American Institute of Architects, House and Home magazine and McCalls magazine. Eight awards went to architects from Florida; five of these were given to Sarasota based architects. Victor Lundy received an Honor Award in

PAGE 136

127 the Custom Built Category, Paul Rudolph received two Merit Awards, Edward Siebert and Gene Leedy received or\e Merit Award each. During its centennial exhibition in 1957, the American Institute of Architects again recognized the achievements of Ralph Twitchell, Paul Rudolph, Jack West, Victor Lundy, and Edward Siebert. The importance of the work produced by Sarasota School architects lies in their precedent setting designs in all areas of architecture. Four consistent patterns were established and are still adhered to by many Florida architects: the creation of varied and complex spaces and spatial relationships, the refinement and creation of architectural form rather than its creation as a result of other design decisions, the selection and precise detailing of materials, and the incorporation of both cultural and environmental elements of traditional southern architecture (Trebbi, 1989). Work produced by Sarasota architects was held in high regard by the profession as evidenced in the amount of national and international publication space given this group by peer journals of the time, the quantity of work commissioned, and the magnitude of the projects. Numerous design awards were presented to members of the group including the highest levels of professional commendation given by the American Institute of Architects. Time, in many cases, has not treated the buildings of the Sarasota School of Architecture well. Many were not properly maintained, some have had additions which are not of the same genre as the original building.

PAGE 137

128 Rudolph expressed his concern saying, "Change is an implied part of the life of a building, but the way in which it is accomplished is important. There must be an understanding of what was the original intent" (Sarasota Retrospect, 1976, 19)." Both Rudolph and Hiss voiced their dismay in the community's inattentiveness to its heritage. Rudolph, in 1982, said, "Sarasota is in danger of becoming an architecturally common community, one which is no more distinctive than any other community of similar size and aspect" (Horton, 1982, 21). Hiss, in the same article, is quoted as saying Sarasota is: a community which, despite its period of prominence architecturally, has failed to maintain a feeling of design consistency or direction, becoming instead a collection of random developments and individual projects, none of which has contributed to any sense of the whole, a sense. (Horton, 1982, 21) a sense, as Rudolph defined it, of "place." Unfortunately for Sarasota and its residents, both men have been proven to be correct in both their observations and in their predictions.

PAGE 138

APPENDIX B EVALUATION FORMS The reader is reminded that the second and third forms in each set of three are designed to be on pre-carboned paper. This will allow the evaluator to circle the qualitative selections, with the circles being transferred to the quantitative equivalent on the sheet below. Comments will also be transferred. 129

PAGE 139

130 Criterion A (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with events that have made an identifiable contribution to the broad patterns of our history Evaluators are to complete only one of the following four items. Selection should be based on that item having the most widespread influence. 1. associated with an event that has made an identifiable contribution to the community; or 2. associated with an event that has made an identifiable contribution to the state; or 3. associated with an event that has made an identifiable contribution to the nation; or 4. associated with an event that has made an identifiable contribution to the world. Evaluators are to complete only one of the following two items. Selection should be based on that item most directly associated. 4. event directly associated with the resource; or 5. event indirectly associated with the resource.

PAGE 140

131 (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with events that have made an identifiable contribution to the broad patterns of our history SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS 1. identifiable contribution to the community community Justification 2. identifiable contribution to the state state Justification 3. identifiable contribution to the nation nation Justification 4. identifiable contribution to the world world Justification SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS 5. directly associated with the resource direct Justification 6. indirectly associated with the resource Justification indirect

PAGE 141

132 (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with events that have made an identifiable contribution to the broad patterns of our history SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS 1. identifiable contribution to the community 5 Justification 2. identifiable contribution to the state 15 Justification 3. identifiable contribution to the nation 30 Justification 4. identifiable contribution to the worid 40 Justification SELECTT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS 5. directly associated with the resource 10 Justification 6. indirectly associated with the resource Justification 5

PAGE 142

I 133 Criterion B (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with the lives of persons who have made an identifiable contribution to our past Evaluators are to complete only one of the following four items. Selection should be based on that item having the most widespread influence. 1. associated with the life /activities of a person, group, movement or institution that has made an identifiable contribution to the community; or 2. associated with the life /activities of a person, group, movement or institution that has made an identifiable contribution to the state; or 3. associated with the life /activities of a person, group, movement or institution that has made an identifiable contribution to the nation; or 4. associated with the life /activities of a person, group, movement or institution that has made an identifiable contribution to the world. Evaluators are to complete only one of the following two items. Selection should be based on that item most directly associated. 4. person, group, movement or institution directly associated with the resource; or 5. person, group, movement or institution indirectly associated with the resource.

PAGE 143

134 (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with the lives of persons, groups or movements who have made an identifiable contrubution to our past Person/Group/Movement (Name) Person/Group/Movement (Type) Period of Prominence SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS 1. identifiable contribution to the community community Justification 2. identifiable contribution to the state state Justification 3. identifiable contribution to the nation nation Justification 4. identifiable contribution to the world world Justification SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS 5. directly associated with the resource direct Justification 6. indirectly associated with the resource Justification indirect

PAGE 144

135 (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) associated with the lives of persons who have made an identifiable contribution to our past Person/Group/Movement (Name) Person/Group/Movement (Type) Period of Prominence SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS 1. identifiable contribution to the community 5 Justification 2. identifiable contribution to the state 15 Justification 3. identifiable contribution to the nation 30 Justification 4. identifiable contribution to the world 40 Justification SELECT ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS 5. directly associated with the resource 10 Justification 6. indirectly associated with the resource Justification 5

PAGE 145

136 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE ACCORDING TO USE type according to use, such as residential, industrial, commercial or transport activity 1. notable example of a particular architectural type according to use 2. unique/rare example of a particular architectural type according to use 3. early example of a particular architectural type according to use "Early" is defined as dating earlier than or within five years of appearing in other buildings of the same type. evaluation of type according to use requires the following: Â• an understanding of the process or activity for which the building was built Â• an understanding of the functional elements of the activity for which the building was build or historically utilized Â• an understanding of the relative merit or rarity of a building type

PAGE 146

137 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTEPaSTICS OF A TYPE ACCORDING USE type associated with activities such as residential, industrial, commercial or transport activity 1. notable example yes no Justification 2. unique/rare unique rare Justification 3. early example yes no date average date of other buldings of same type Justification

PAGE 147

138 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE ACCORDING TO USE type associated with activities such as residential, industrial, commercial or transport activity 1. notable example 5 0 lustification 2. unique/rare 10 Tustification 3. early example date average date of other buldings of same type Justification

PAGE 148

139 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE ACCORDING TO STYLE style means of expressing visual elements such as form, materials and ornamentation that are characteristic of a particular age, architectural movement/philosophy or developmental period 1. notable example of a particular architectural type according to style 2. unique/rare example of a particular architectural type according to style 3. early example of a particular architectural type according to style "Early" is defined as dating earlier than or within five years of appearing in other buildings of the same type. evaluation of type according to style requires the following: Â• an understanding of the style's origin Â• an understanding of the style's characteristics Â• an understanding of the style's developmental history in the area/region Â• an understanding of the relative merit of a building's stylistic elements in comparison to buildings of similar style in the area, region, or nation

PAGE 149

140 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE ACCORDING TO STYLE style means of expressing visual elements such as form, materials and ornamentation that are characteristic of a particular age or developmental period 1. notable example yes no Justification 2. unique/rare unique rare Justification 3. early example yes no date average date of other buldings of same type Justification

PAGE 150

141 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE ACCORDING TO STYLE style means of expressing visual elements such as form, materials and ornamentation that are characteristic of a particular age or developmental period 1. notable example 5 0 Justification 2. unique/rare 10 5 Justification 3. early example 5 0 date average date of other buldings of same type Justification

PAGE 151

142 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPE ACCORDING TO QUALITY OF DESIGN design attributes including massing, proportion, scale, layout (composition), materials, detailing (craftsmanship), color, texture, fenestration, ornamentation (details/ornament), or art work (artistic merit) 1. important because of the excellence of its artistic merit 2. important because of its composition 3. important because of its craftsmanship 4. important because of its details/ornament 5. important because of its uniqueness/rarity 6. design recognized/published locally 7. design recognized/published regionally 8. design recognized/published nationally 9. design recognized/published internationally 10. design award winning regionally 11. design award winning nationally **NOTE** When evaluating the building's/structure's interior spaces is appropriate, "Interior" ratings one, two and three should be completed.

PAGE 152

143 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPE ACCORDING TO QUALITY OF DESIGN design attributes including massing, proportion, scale, layout (composition), materials, detailing (craftsmanship), color, texture, fenestration, ornamentation (details/ornament), or artwork (artistic merit) 1. artistic merit E VG G F P Justification 2. composition E VG G F P Justification 3. craftsmanship E VG G F P Justification 4. details/ornament E VG G F P Justification 5. uniqueness/rarity unique rare Justification 6. design recognized/published locally twice or more once ncHie Justification 7. design recognized/published regionally Justification twice or more once none

PAGE 153

144 8. design recognized/published nationally twice or more once ntme Justification 9. design recognized/published internationally hvice or more once none Justification 10. design award winning regionally twice or more once none Justification 11. design award winning nationally Justification twice or more once none

PAGE 154

145 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPE ACCORDING TO QUALITY OF DESIGN design attributes including massing, proportion, scale, layout (composition), materials, detailing (craftsmanship), color, texture, fenestration, ornamentation (details/ornament), or artwork (artistic merit) 1. artistic merit 10 8 4 2 0 Justification 2. composition 10 8 4 2 0 Justification 3. craftsmanship 10 8 4 2 0 Justification 4. details/ornament 10 8 4 2 0 Justification 5. uniqueness/rarity 10 5 Justification 6. design recognized/published locally 2 10 Justification 7. design recognized/published regionally Justification 5 2 0

PAGE 155

8. design recognized/published nationally Justification 10 5 0 9. design recognized/published internationally 20 10 0 Justification 10. design award winning regionally 10 Justification 11. design award winning nationally Justification 20 10 0

PAGE 156

147 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A PERIOD IN TIME **NOTE** Time frames must be adjusted for each community. These should be identified by identifiable periods in an area's past (i.e. First Spanish Occupation, British Colonial, Revolutionary War Era, etc.) with associated dates 1. demonstrative of sites developed /structures built in the area /region during the first half of the nineteenth century or before 2. demonstrative of sites developed /structures built in the area /region during the second half of the nineteenth century 3. demonstrative of sites developed /structures built in the area /region during the first half of the twentieth century 4. demonstrative of sites developed /structures built in the area /region during the second half of the twentieth century **NOTE** these four categories are specific to the Sarasota, Florida area

PAGE 157

148 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHAPIACTERISTICS OF A PERIOD IN TIME 1. first half of the nineteenth century or before yes no date of constructuion 2. second half of the nineteenth century yes no date of construction 3. first half of the twentieth century yes no date of construction 4. second half of the twentieth century yes no date of construction

PAGE 158

149 EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A PERIOD IN TIME 1. first half of the nineteenth century or before 50 0 date of constructuion 2. second half of the nineteenth century 20 0 date of construction 3. first half of the twentieth century 5 0 date of construction 4. second half of the twentieth century 0 0 date of construction

PAGE 159

150 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that enibody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling 1. notable example of a particular material 2. unique/rare example of a particular material 3. early example of a particular material 4. notable example of a particular method of construction 5. unique/rare example of a particular method of construction 6. early example of a particular method of construction "Early" is defined as dating from before or within five years of appearing in othr buildings of the same type. **NOTE** When evaluating the building's/structure's interior spaces is appropriate, "Interior" ratings four, five, six, seven and eight should be completed.

PAGE 160

151 CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or irmovative means of assembling 1. notable example material yes no Justification 2. unique/rare example material unique rare Justification 3. early example material yes no date average date of other buldings of same type Justification 4. notable example method of construction yes no Justification 5. unique/rare example method of construction unique rare Justification 6. early example method of construction yes no date average date of other buldings of same type Justification

PAGE 161

152 CONSTRUCTION construction building materials; early or innovative means of assembling 1. notable example material 5 0 Justification 2. unique/rare example material 10 5 Justification 3. early example material 5 0 date average date of other buldings of same type Justification 4. notable example method of construction 5 0 Justification 5. xmique/rare example method of construction 10 5 Justification 6. early example method of construction 5 0 date average date of other buldings of same type Justification

PAGE 162

153 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildirigs, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER master notable /recognized architect, designer, engineer and or builder **NOTE** If more than one of those listed above are involved on a single project, the person with the highest level of involvement should be rated. If a determination of level of involvement carmot be made, each person should be rated separately with the final score being an average of all those rated. 1. designed /built by a master who has made an identifiable contribution to the community 2. designed /built by a master who has made an identifiable contribution to the state 3. designed /built by a master who has made an identifiable contribution to the nation The evaluator should complete only one of the three. Selection should be based on that having the greatest contribution.

PAGE 163

154 REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER master notable /recognized architect, designer, engineer and or builder 1. identifiable contribution to the community yes no Justification 2. identifiable contribution to the state yes no Justification 3. identifiable contribution to the nation yes no Justification

PAGE 164

155 REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER master notable/recognized architect, designer, engineer and or builder 1. identifiable contribution to the community 5 0 Justification 2. identifiable contribution to the state 10 0 Justification 3. identifiable contribution to the nation 20 0 Justification

PAGE 165

156 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction INTERIOR (if required) 1. space is important/identifiable, either historically or due to its spatial /proportional qualities 2. has a clear relationship to its surroimding spaces 3. contains important architectural features such as details, materials, light fixtures, hardware, etc. 4. contains a custom constructed or traditional framed roof 5. unique/rare example of a particular structural system 6. early example of a particular structural system 7. unique/rare example of a particular environmental technology system 8. early example of a particular environmental technology system "Early" is defined as dating earlier than or within five years of appearing in other buildings of the same type. "Environmental technology systems" include plumbing, mechanical, electric and similar systems.

PAGE 166

157 INTERIOR (if required) 1. importantyidentifiable yes no Justification 2. relationship yes no Justification 3. architectural features yes no Justification 4. custom constructed or traditional framed roof yes no Justification 5. xmique/rare example structural system unique rare Justification 6. early example structural system yes no date average date of other systems of same type Justification 7. unique/rare example mechanical system Justification unique rare

PAGE 167

158 8. early example mechanical system yes no date average date of other systems of same type Justification

PAGE 168

INTERIOR (if required) 1. important/identifiable 10 0 Justification 2. relationship 5 0 Justification 3. architectural features 10 0 Justification 4. custom constructed or traditional framed roof 5 0 Justification 5. imique/rare example structural system 10 5 Justification 6. early example structural system 5 0 date average date of other systems of same type Justification 7. unique/rare example mechanical system Justification 10 5

PAGE 169

160 8. early example mechanical system 5 0 date average date of other systems of same type Justification

PAGE 170

161 Criterion C (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that represent an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT AND DISTINGUISHABLE ENTITY WHOSE COMPONENTS MAY LACK INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION (DISTRICT) 1. building is visually prominent in a group of buildings of similar style, type or age in an area of compatible use 2. building is part of a notable group of buildings of similar style, type or age in an area of compatible use 3. building is part of a contiguous group of similar style, type or age in an area of compatible use 4. building maintains individual character despite being part of a group of buildings with similar style, type or age in an area of compatible use 5. site/landscape comprised features which are directly related to building's style, design or history 6. site/landscape part of historical relationship between site and street, railway, waterfront, view or other geographic features which were part of the building's original function or traditional urban environment 7. present use is compatible with current land use/ zoning of the street, neighborhood, or area

PAGE 171

162 Represents an identifiable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (District) 1. building is visually prominent yes no Justification 2. building part of a notable group yes no Justification 3. building part of a contiguous group yes no Justification 4. maintains individual character yes no Justification 5. site/landscape directly related to building's style, design or history yes no Justification 6. site/landscape part of historical relationship yes no Justification 7. present use is compatible Justification yes no

PAGE 172

163 Represents an identifable and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (District) 1. building is visually prominent 5 0 Justification 2. building part of a notable group 5 0 Justification 3. building part of a contiguous group 2 0 Justification 4. maintains individual character 10 0 Justification 5. site/landscape directly related to building's style, design or history 10 0 Justification 6. site/landscape part of historical relationship 5 0 Justification 7. present use is compatible Justification 5 0

PAGE 173

APPENDIX C ICOMOS Seminar on 20th-century Heritage, June 18-19, 1995 General Recommendations 1. It is noted that the 20th -century heritage should not be defined only with reference to its architectural forms, but taking into account the broad ecological, social, anthropological, economic and cultural framework which forms the whole. There is a need to stress the importance of memory over consideration of materials. 2. The established principles of conservation are a valid basis for the safeguarding and care of the recent heritage. 3. While some of the heritage of the 20th-century has particular characteristics that differentiate it from earlier constructions, it results substantially from the community of heritage. Its identification and inventory need to be updated on a regular basis. Attention is required to all types and even modest examples of such heritage, and in particular to urban and rural ensembles, housing schemes, and industrial heritage. 4. Systematic documentation of the 20th-century heritage in all its dimensions and in relation to its context is necessary. Such documentation should take into account the potential offered by new recording methods. 5. Due attention should be paid to the full spectrum of the heritage of the entire century, including buildings and ensembles built in new technologies as well as those using traditional building materials and structural forms. 6. It was recognized that the life cycles of man-made environments are mainly based on economic and functional considerations, and require critical choices to guide the process of selection of cultural properties that merit protection. 7. Considering the international character of much of the 20th-century heritage, networking and joint efforts are of particular importance. Such 164

PAGE 174

165 action should be taken both in relation to identification and inventory, as well as to education and training in collaboration with existing initiatives. 8. Research programs on specific problems concerning techniques and materials in restoration work with due respect to their aesthetic qualities should be encouraged. The publication of results from achieved experiences and preparation of corresponding specialized bibliographies are priority actions. Attention should be given to the economic consequences of restorations and regular maintenance with respect to employment policy and sustainable development. 9. In order to promote communication and raise public awareness, the media should be used to stress the importance of the 20th-century heritage especially to the young people. The international community should also draw attention to the qualities and values of specific cultural properties. 10. The Council of Europe Recommendation R (91) 13, gives the general guidelines for this field. 11. A follow-up of the seminar is necessary. It should include the distribution of the working documents and keeping regular contacts between participants. If a future meeting is organized on this subject, it should be open to other disciplines and decision makers, and should take place in another part of the world. Recommendations Concerning the World Heritage Convention 1. There should be an on-going process of consultations among ICOMOS, DOCOMOMO, and the World Heritage Centre in order to define the 20th-century heritage and develop a methodology for its identification. 2. It would be advisable only in exceptional cases to propose for inclusion in the World Heritage List properties that are less than 25 years old in order to allow sufficient time for historical perspective and scientific analysis.

PAGE 175

GLOSSARY building unit district historymemory object past preservation recent past reconstruction created principally to shelter any form of human activity; may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related an area possessing a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development an account of what has or might have happened; what has happened in the life or development of a people, country, institution, etc. result of the process of selection and of organizing what is selected so that it is within reach in expected situations those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed; although possibly movable, it is associated with a specific setting or environment gone by; ended; over; of a former time the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity and materials of an historic property a period characterized by attitudes and practices that differ in some substantial way from those now current, but that remain within the living memory of many people the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features and detailing of a non-surviving site, Ian dscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historical location 166

PAGE 176

167 the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values term used to describe, collectively, a site, structure, building, object and /or district the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period that which is signified; the quality of being significant something that has significance location of a significant event, activity, building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value those functional constructions made usually for purposes other than creating human shelter

PAGE 177

LIST OF REFERENCES Alexander, Thomas M. (1987). Tohn Dewey's theory of art, experience, and nature: The horizons of feeling New York: State University of New York Press. Ames, David. (1995). Interpreting postWorld War II suburban landscapes as historic resources. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Baker, Alan R. H. (1992). Introduction: On ideology and landscape. In Alan R. H. Baker & Gideon Biger (Eds.), Ideology and landscap e in historical perspective: Essays on the meanings of some places in the past New York: Cambridge University Press. Benjamin, Susan. (1988, January/February). Inlandscape: Underage landmarks. Inland Architecture. 32, 4-5. Bluestone, Daniel. (1994, May). Preservation and renewal in post-World War II Chicago. Tournal of Architectural Education, 47, 210-223. Boulting, Nikolous. (1976). The law's delays: Conservationist legislation in the British Isles. In Jane Fawcett (Ed.), The future of the past New York: Whitney Library of Design. Bullock, Orin M. Jr. (1996). The restoration manual Norwalk: Silverman Publishers. Bureau of Planning, City of Portland. (1980, October). Lair Hill conservation district design guidelines Portland: Bureau of Planning. Bureau of Planning, City of Portland. (1991, July 1). Title 33. Planning and zoning: Chapter 33.845. Historic landmarks Portland: Bureau of Planning. 168

PAGE 178

169 Bureau of Planning, Portland, Oregon. (1995, October). Proposed historic resource protection amendments to Portland's zoning code Portland: Bureau of Planning. Chapman, William. (1990, Fall). How many historic buildings are there? Forum. 19-23. Chapman, William and Don Hibbard. (1995). Assessing significance and preservation value in Waikiki. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Charlton, D. G. (1959). Positivist thought in France during the second empire 1852-1870 Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chomsky, Noam. (1980). Some empirical assumptions in modern philosophy of language. In Harold Molick, (Ed.), Challenges to empiricism Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Comte, August. (1957). A general view of positivism (J. H. Bridges, Trans.). New York: Robert Speller and Sons. Connally, Ernest Allen. (1961, May). Preserving the American tradition. AIA lournal. 35, 56-60. Corbett, Michael R. (c. 1985). Splendid survivors: San Francisco's downtown architectural heritag e. San Francisco: California Living Books. Costonis, John. (1989). Icons and aliens Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Cowley, Eraser. (1968). A critique of British empiricism New York: St. Martin's Press. D'Agostini, Marco and Robert G. Lemon. (1994, June). Vancouver's recent landmarks program, do. co. mo. mo. 11, 48-51. Dietsch, Deborah K. (1992, November). Editors page: Preservation's new frontier. Architecture. 81, 15. Dixon, Keith A. (1977). Applications of archaeological resources: Broadening the basis of significance. In Michael B. Schiffer and George J. Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation archaeology: A guide for cultural resource management studies New York: Academic Press.

PAGE 179

170 Donahue's demolition. (1988, September). Progressive Architecture. 69, 24. Duerksen, Christopher J. (1983). Handbook on historic preservation law Washington D. C: Conservation Foundation: National Center for Preservation Law. Dupent, Jacques. (1983). VioUetle-duc and restoration in France. In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? what? how? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Elzea, Betty. (1982). Stevenson, John James. In Adolf K. Placzek, (Ed.), MacMillan encyclopedia of architects, vol. 4 New York: The Free Press. Environmental Department, City of Boston. ( not dated). Boston Landmarks Commission's evaluation of significance system with criteria and explanation of grouping s. Boston: Environmental Department. Ettinger, Leopold D. and Helen S. (1987). Raphael Oxford: Phaidon. Fain, Haskell. (1970.) Between philosophy and history: The resurrection of speculation philosophy within the analytic tradition Princeton: Princeton University Press. Faulkner, P. A. (1978, July). A philosophy for the preservation of our historic heritage. Toumal of the Royal Society of Arts, 126, 452-480. Federal historic preservation laws (1993). Washington D. C: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Program. Fisher, Thomas. (1989 a, April). Preservation: Cost of threatened modernism. Progressive Architecture. 69, 24. Fisher, Thomas. (1989 b, April). Restoring modernism. Progressive Architecture. 70, 32. Fitch, James Marston. (1992). Historic preservation: Curatorial management of the built world Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Eraser, Murray. (1990, September 26). Conferences: Modernist preserve; DoCoMoMo: Inaugural international conference. Architect's Toumal. 192, 76-77.

PAGE 180

171 Gebhard, David. (1982). Webb, Philip S. In Adolf K. Placzek, (Ed.), MacMillan encyclopedia of architects, vol. 4 New York: The Free Press. Glass, James Arthur. (1987, August). The national historic preservation program. 1957 1969 Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. Glass, James A. (1990). The beginnings of a new national historic preservation program. 1957 1969 Washington D. C: American Association for State and Local History. Glassow, Michael E. (1977). Issues in evaluating the significance of archaeological resources. American Antiquity. 42, 413-420. Goff, Lisa. (1988, October). John Hancock controversy. Progressive Architecture. 69, 31. Goldberg, Bertrand. (1995). Preserving a recent past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past Washington D. C.: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Gordon, Alastair. (1992, July). Restoration: Back to the future. Interiors, 151, 22-24. Gowans, Alan. (1965, October). Preservation. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. 24, 252-253. Grady, Mark. (1977). Significance evaluation and the Orme Reservoir project. In Michael B. Schiffer and George Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation archaeology: A guide for cultural resource management studies New York: Academic Press. Greer, Nora Richter. (1991, March). Preserving preservation. Architectural Record. 179, 88-89. Guralnik, David B. (1970). Webster's new world dictionary of the American language: Second college edition New York: The World Publishing Company. Hall, Gregory Alan. (1986). Rebuilding Tara: Translation of the plantation myth into architectural space Unpublished master's thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 181

172 Hareven, Tamara K. and Randolph Langenbach. (1981). Living places, work places, and historical identity. In Lowenthal, David (Ed.), Our past before us: Why do we save it? London: Temple Smith. Harriman, Mark S. (1992, November). Towering improvements. Architecture. 81, 105-111. Hayden, Dolores. (1988, Spring). Placemaking, preservation and urban history. Journal of Architectural Education. 41, 45-51. Heritage conservation project, (not dated). Recent landmarks Vancouver: City of Vancouver Planning. Hill, J. N. and R. K. Evans. (1972). A model for classification and typology. In David L. Clarke (Ed.), Models in archaeolog y. London: Methuen and Company, Limited. Hiss, Philip. (1967). Sarasota's broken promise. Architectural Forum. 126, 6673. Hiss, Tony. (1990). The experience of place New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Horton, Allan. (1982). Building a legacy: The "Sarasota school" of architecture. Sarasota Herald Tribune. 28 November, 18-21. Hosmer, Charles B. Jr. (1965.) Presence of the past: A History of the preservation movement in the United States before Williamsburg New York: G. P. Putman's Sons. Hunter, Michael. (1981). The preconditions of preservation: A historical perspective. In Lowenthal, David (Ed.), Our past before us: Why do we save it? London: Temple Smith. Huxtable, Ada Louise. (1970). Will they ever finish Bruckner Boulevard? London: Collier-MacMillan Limited. Huxtable, Ada Louise. (1986). Good-bye history, hello hamburger: An anthology of architectural delights and disasters Washington: The Preservation Press. Jackson, Mike. (1991). Preserving what's new. APT Bulletin. XXm. 7-11.

PAGE 182

173 Jacobs, Stephen W. (1970). Governmental experience in the United States. In National Trust for Historic Preservation (Ed.), Historic preservation today: Essays presented to the seminar on preservation. Williamsburg Virginia. September 8 11. 1963 Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Jandl, H. Ward. (1995). Introduction: Preserving the recent past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Jester, Thomas C. (1995.) International perspectives on 20th century heritage. CRM. 18, 27-29. Kalman, Harold. (1980). Evaluation of historic building s. Ottawa: Environment Canada Parks Service. Kamman, Michael. (1991). Mystic chords of memory: The transformation of tradition in American culture New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Kaufmarm, Edgar, Jr. (1953). What is modern desig n? New York: The Museum of Modern Art. Kimball, Roger. (1994, February). Observations: Wright on the walls: Exhibiting a legend. Architectural Record. 182, 16-17. King, Thomas F. (1977). Resolving a conflict of values in American archaeology. In Michael B. Schiffer and George J. Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation archaeology: A guide for cultural resource management studies New York: Academic Press. King Thomas F., Patricia Parker Hickman and Gary Berg. (1977). Anthropology in historic preservation: Caring for culture's clutter New York: Academic Press. Kliment, Stephen A. (1992, January). Doing the right thing. Architectural Record. 180, 86-89. Kolakowski, Leszek. (1968). The alienation of reason: A history of Positivist thoug ht. (Norbert Guterman, Trans,). Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc. Law, Jules David. (1993). The rhetoric of empiricism: Language and perception from Locke to I. A. Richards London: Cornell University Press.

PAGE 183

174 Lee, Yvonne S. (1994, December). The dilem.ma of 'listing' modern buildings. The Journal of the Association of Conservation Officers. 44. Lemon, Robert G. and Marco D'Agostini. (1993). Recent landmarks in Vancouver: The post-1940s. CRM. 16, 31-32. Lethaby, William Richard. (1977). In J. M. Richards (Ed.), Who's who in architecture. 1400 present New York: Holt Rinehart, Winston. Leubkeman, Christopher Hart. (1992, May). Form swallows function. Progressive Architecture. 73, 96-109. Longstreth, Richard. (1991 a). The significance of the recent past. APT Bulletin. XXEI, 12-24. Longstreth, Richard. (1991 b). When the present becomes the past. In Antoinette J. Lee, (Ed.), Past meets future: Saving America's historic environments. Washington D. C: The Preservation Press. Longstreth, Richard. (1992, October). The last shopping center. Forum, n.p. Longstreth, Richard. (1993). The sigiuficance of the recent past. CRM. 16, 4-7. Longstreth, Richard. (1994, May /June). Taste versus history. Historic Preservation Forum. 8, 40-45. Longstreth, Richard. (1984, December). The problem with style. Forum. VI, n.p. Longstreth, Richard. (1995). I can't see it; I don't understand it; And it doesn't look old to me. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Lowenthal, David. (1981). Introduction. In Lowenthal, David (Ed.), Our past before us: Why do we save it? London: Temple Smith. Luce, W. Ray. (1995). Kent State, White Castles and subdivisions: Evaluating the recent past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Lundy, Victor. (1958). A place of worship. Architectural Record. 123, 176-177.

PAGE 184

175 Lynott, Mark J. (1980). Cultural resource management: The dynamics of significance: An example from central Texas. American Antiquity, 45, 117-120. Lynch, Kevin. (1972). What time is this place? Cambridge: MIT Press. Lynch, Michael F. (1991). What are we going to do with the recent past in the not too distant future? APT Bulletin. XXIII, 6. Lyon Elizabeth A. and Frederick C. Williamson. (1995). The preservation movement rediscovers America. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Majorian. (1911). Encyclopedia Britannica: A dictionary of arts, sciences. literature and general information. 11th edition, vol. 17 Cambridge: University Press. McDonough, Michael. (1985). Four architects in Sarasota, Florida -1920-1970. Archives, Sarasota County Historical Association, Sarasota. Mo rick, Harold. (1980). Introduction: The critique of contemporary Empiricism. In Harold Molick, (Ed.), Challenges to empiricism Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Morris, Allen. (1985). The Florida Handbook: 1985-1986 Tallahassee: Peninsular Publishing Co, Morton, W. Brown. (1987). What do we preserve and why? In Robert E. Stipe and Antoinette Lee (Eds.), The American mosaic: Preserving a nation's heritag e. Washington D. C: The Preservation Press. Murtagh, William J. (1988). Keeping time: The history and theory of preservation in America Pittstown: Main Street Press. National Park Service, Interior. (1994, July 1). 36 Code of federal regulations Washington D. C: Goverrunent Printing Office. National Trust for Historic Preservation. (1983). With heritage so rich Washington D. C: The Preservation Press. Nelson, Lee. (1985, May 13). A methodology for identifying historic character. AIA working paper Unpublished raw data.

PAGE 185

176 News: Endangered modern landmarks. (1992, November) Architecture. 81, 26-29. Ochsner, Jeffrey Karl and Gail Lee Dubrow. (1994, May). Architecture and historic preservation: Invigorating the dialogue. Tournal of Architectural Education. 47, 186. Owings, Nathaniel A. (1970). Comment. In National Trust for Historic Preservation (Ed.), Historic preservation today: Essays presented to the seminar on preser\^ation. Williamsburg. Virginia, September 8 11. 1963. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Pagliari, Pier Nicola. (1982). Raphael. Trans, by Shara Wasserman. In Adolf K. Placzek (Ed.), MacMillan encyclopedia of architects, vol. 3 New York: The Free Press. Parker, Alan and Associates. (1986). Technical report: Heritage buildings and landscape resources Vancouver: City of Vancouver. Perkins, Bradford. (1981, July). Preserving the landmarks of the modem movement. Architectural Record. 169, 108-113. Pevsner, Nikolaus. (1976). Scrape and anti-scrape. In Jane Fawcett (Ed.), The future of the past New York: Whitney Library of Design. Plato. (1952). Phaedrus (W. C. Helmbold and W. G. Rabinowitz, Trans.) Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill Company, Inc. Poinsett, David. (1983). What is historic preservation? In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Reading s in historic preservation: Why? what? how? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Preamble. (1983). In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? what? how? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Preserving modernism. (1992, November). Architecture. 81, 61. Price, Kingsley. (1988, Autumn). John Dewey's theory of art, experience and nature: The horizons of feeling. British lournal of Aesthetics. 28, 385387.

PAGE 186

177 Providence City Planning Commission. (1967). College Hill: A demonstration study of historic area renewal Providence: College Hill Press. Providence City Planning Commission and Blair Associates, City Planning Consultants. (1959). College Hill demonstration study Providence: Providence Preservation Society. Pyke, John S., Jr. (1983). Landmark preservation. In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? What? How? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Raab, L. Mark and Timothy C. Klinger. (1977). A critical appraisal of "significance" in contract archaeology. American Antiquity. 42, 629634. Rathje, W. L. (1995). The sense and dollars of preservation. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca A. Shifter (Eds.), Preserving the recent past Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Report on principles and guidelines for historic preservation in the United States. (1970). In National Trust for Historic Preservation (Ed.), Historic preservation today: Essays presented to the seminar on preservation. Williamsburg, Virginia, September 8 11. 1963 Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Rubens, Godfrey. (1982). Lethaby, W. R. In Adolf K. Placzek (Ed.1. MacMillan encyclopedia of architects, vol. 2 New York: The Free Press. Rudolph, Paul. (1955). Regionalism and the south, lournal of the American Institute of Architects. 23, 179-180. Sarasota retrospect. (1976). Florida Architect. 26, 19-22. Savage, Beth L. (1993). Disappearing ducks and other recent relics. CRM. 16, 23-25. Schiffer, Michael. (1977 a). Assessing significance. In Michael B. Schiffer and George Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation archaeology: A guide for cultural resource management studies New York: Academic Press.

PAGE 187

178 Schiffer, Michael. (1977 b). Forecasting impacts. In Michael B. Schiffer and George Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation archaeology: A guide for f cultural resource management studies New York: Academic Press. Schlereth, Thomas J. (1993). Collecting today for tomorrow. CRM. 16, 8-11. Schwarzer, Michael. (1994, September). Myths of permanence and transience in the discourse on historic preservation in the United States. Journal of Architectural Education. 48, 2-11. Sharrock, Floyd W. and Donald K. Grayson. (1979). Cultural resource management: 'Significance' in contract archaeology. American Antiquity. 44, 327-328. Sherfy, Marcella and W. Ray Luce. (1990). National Register bulletin 22: Guidelines for evaluating and nominating properties that have achieved significance within the last fifty years Washington D. C: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. Shiffer, Rebecca A. (1993). Cultural resources from the recent past. CRM. 16, 1. Shiffer, Rebecca A. (1995). The recent past. CRM. 18, 3-4. Shull, Carol D. and Beth L. Savage. (1995). Trends in recognizing places for significance in the recent past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Skarmeas, George Christos. (1983). An analysis of architectural preservation theories: From 1790 to 1975 Ann Arbor: University Microfilm International. Stipe, Robert. (1983). Why preserve historic places? In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservati on: Why? what? how? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Stipe, Robert E. (1987). The next twenty years. In Robert E. Stipe and Antoinette Lee (Eds.). The American mosaic: Preserving a nation's heritage. Washington D. C: The Preservation Press.

PAGE 188

179 Striner, Richard. (1993.) Information: Number 69 Washington D. C: National Trust for Historic Preservation. Striner, Richard. (1995). Scholarship, strategy, and activism in preserving the recent past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving recent past Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. Summerson, Sir John. (1983). Ruskin, Morris, and the "Anti Scrape" philosophy. In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic preservation: Why? what? how? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Tainter, Joseph A, and G. John Lucas. (1983). Epistemology of the significance concept. American Antiquity. 48, 707-719. Test of time award. (1987). Florida Architect. 34, 35. Tomlan, Michael. (1994, May). Historic preservation education: Alongside architecture in academia. Journal for Architectural Education, 47, 187196. Trebbi, Ronald G. (1989). Gulfcoast regionalist architecture: The Sarasota school revisited Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Troup, F. W. and Harry Redfern. (1908, June 6). The late J. J. Stevenson, FSA. Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects. 15, 482-483. Uguccioni, Ellen J. (1995). The bias of culture: when does a community come of age? In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past Washington D. C.: Historic Preservation Education Foundation. United States Conference of Mayors (1966). With heritage so rich New York: Random House. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Massachusetts Department of community Affairs. (1983). A future from the past. In Deborah Slatin and Rebecca Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington D. C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation.

PAGE 189

180 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. (1991). National Register bulletin 15: How to apply the National Register criteria for evaluation Washington D. C: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. Vitruvius. (1960). The ten books on architecture (Morris Hickey Morgan, Trans.) New York: Dover. Warden, Amy and Elizabeth Calvit. (1993). Preserving the legacy of the Cold War. CRM. 16, 28-30. Webb, Philip Speakman. (1977). In J. M. Richards (Ed.), Who's who in architecture. 1400 present New York: Holt Rinehart, Winston. Weeks, Kay D. (1996). Historic preservation treatment: Toward a common language. CRM. 19, 32-35. Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer. (1995). The Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties with guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring and reconstructing historic building s. Washington D. C: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services. White, Bradford J. and Richard J. Roddewig. (1994). Preparing a historic preservation plan Chicago: American Planning Association. Whitehall, Walter Muir. (1983). Promoted to glory ... In Norman Williams, Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Reading s in historic preservation: Why? What? How? New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Winks, Robin. (1976). Conservation in America: National character as revealed by preservation. In Jane Fawcett (Ed.), The future of the past New York: Whitney Library of Design. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1980). Culture and value (Peter Winch, Trans.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

PAGE 190

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Patty Jo Smith Rice was bom in Indianapolis, Indiana, but has been a resident of Venice, Florida, since the age of nine. She received her undergraduate degree in history from Texas Woman's University and her master's degree in American studies from the University of South Florida. The subject of her master's thesis was the architectual philosophy and design of Ralph Spencer Twitchell, founder of the Sarasota School of Architecture. 181

PAGE 191

177
Providence City Planning Commission. (1967). College Hill: A
demonstration study of historic area renewal. Providence: College Hill
Press.
Providence City Planning Commission and Blair Associates, City Planning
Consultants. (1959). College Hill demonstration study. Providence:
Providence Preservation Society.
Pyke, John S., Jr. (1983). Landmark preservation. In Norman Williams, Jr.,
Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert (Eds.), Readings in historic
preservation: Why? What? How? New Brunswick: Center for Urban
Policy Research.
Raab, L. Mark and Timothy C. Klinger. (1977). A critical appraisal of
"significance" in contract archaeology. American Antiquity, 42, 629-
634.
Rathje, W. L. (1995). The sense and dollars of preservation. In Deborah Slatin
and Rebecca A. Shiffer (Eds.), Preserving the recent past. Washington
D. C.: Historic Preservation Education Foundation.
Report on principles and guidelines for historic preservation in the United
States. (1970). In National Trust for Historic Preservation (Ed.),
Historic preservation today: Essays presented to the seminar on
preservation. Williamsburg. Virginia. September 8 11. 1963.
Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Rubens, Godfrey. (1982). Lethaby, W. R. In Adolf K. Placzek (Ed.), MacMillan
encyclopedia of architects, vol. 2. New York: The Free Press.
Rudolph, Paul. (1955). Regionalism and the south. Tournal of the American
Institute of Architects. 23, 179-180.
Sarasota retrospect. (1976). Florida Architect. 26,19-22.
Savage, Beth L. (1993). Disappearing ducks and other recent relics. CRM. 16,
23-25.
Schiffer, Michael. (1977 a). Assessing significance. In Michael B. Schiffer and
George Gumerman (Eds.), Conservation archaeology: A guide for
cultural resource management studies. New York: Academic Press.

53
wrote in book seven of The Republic, "Thinking is a kind of seeing and clear
seeing is true knowledge" (Law, 1993,18).
The empiricist concept of sense experience is defended by saying that it
is theoretically useful to isolate or abstract what we assimilate by our senses
from what we perceive, to abstract what is given from our interpretation.
Plato wrote of sense experience "But as for beauty . we can still recapture
it, gleaming most clearly as it does, through the clearest of our senses. For
sight is the keenest of our physical perceptions" (1952, 34). Experience rather
than reason is the source of our knowledge. The treatment of appearances or
looks of things as objects is central to the classical empiricist position. Looks
are hypostatised and become the entities which we are said to sense or be
aware of (Crowley, 1968,137).
Each item has a single meaning or, at most, very few meanings (Hill,
1972, 233). This view and its corresponding epistemology often lead the
examiner to view certain types as the only truly representative features
existing. Types are accepted as fixed and fundamental units; they become
basic data not to be questioned. Empiricist types are stylistic patterns, the
result of culture and accepted as the norm. Plato wrote:
When a man recently initiated [into the world of beauty] . sees a
god-like countenance or physical form the beauty of which is a faithful
imitation of true beauty, a shudder runs through him and something
of the old awe steals over him. (1952, 34)

19
Ruskin gained prominence in 1849, Lethaby died in 1931. For the eighty years
between these events, Ruskin's philosophy, commonly referred to as anti
scrape, prevailed. John Ruskin (1819 1900) became widely recognized for his
book The Seven Lamps of Architecture. The chapter entitled "The Lamp of
Memory" contained his views on preservation. Ruskin wrote that time
represented historical memory and should be protected in all historic
buildings. In short, he favored preservation over restoration. He wrote:
It is the centralization and protectress of this sacred influence, that
Architecture is to be regarded by us with the most serious thought. We
may live without her, and worship without her, but we cannot
remember without her. . For indeed the greatest glory of a building
is not in its stones or in its gold. Its glory is in its Age. (Skarmeas, 1983,
58-59)
and
[Restoration] means the most total destruction out of which no
remnants can be gathered .... Do not let us talk then of restoration.
The thing is a lie from beginning to end. . The principle of modern
times is to neglect buildings first, and restore them afterwards. Take
proper care of your monuments, and you will not need to restore
them. (Skarmeas, 1983, 60)
The philosophy of custodianship was first advocated in England by
Nicholas Hawksmoor in 1751 but did not become popular until the cause was
taken up by William Morris (1834 1896). Morris viewed custodianship of the
past by the present an important aspect of providing evidence of the needs
and aspirations of ordinary people. He further believed that the vernacular
architecture of the future could only develop with a study of forms and

69
preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to
give a sense of orientation to the American people" (Federal Historic
Preservation Laws. 1993, 6), in 1966 there was little interest in the
preservation of twentieth century buildings.
On December 2, 1966, Secretary of the Interior Stuart Udall spoke in
support of the recently passed National Historic Preservation Act:
The very survival of vast numbers of our irreplaceable historic
buildings and places is at stake. What menaces this, of course, is the
dynamic contemporary society of which we are all a part, a society in
which men and machines and pavements and structures proliferate at
the expense of an older, quieter, less crowded world, a society where
new things tend to spread out with incredible speed and obliterate old
things. (Glass, 1987, 273)
The National Historic Preservation Act made no mention of age as a criterion
of preservation. In 1967, the task force overseeing its implementation defined
the National Register of Historic Places writing, "The National Register of
districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American
history, architecture, archaeology and culture. ... It lists the most significant
evidences of our national heritage" (Glass, 1987, 339). Again, no mention was
made of age. The implied understanding was that a resource's value was not
in its age alone, but in what is represented architecturally, historically and
socially.
Everything that survives from the past is not only historic because it is
of the past, but it is also of our heritage because it is handed on to us by