Community Restoration and Revitalization Act

The Community Restoration and Revitalization Act has been all over the preservation blogs and news lately, but it’s such an important issue that it can stand to be discussed in as many places as possible. Many people have at least heard of tax credits (20%) for restoring a historic building. The fine print is that the building is a “certified” (i.e. significant) historic and it must be an incoming producing building and in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. In other words, no one can restore their own home and receive tax credits.

However, this Community Revitalization and Restoration Act consists of eight proposed amendments to the Federal Tax rehabilitation Tax Credit could change all of that. These proposed amendments would encourage greater use and rehabilitation of historic buildings by qualifying owner occupied residences (rather than just downtown rentals), allow for tax credits for energy efficiency, allow for an increased credit for smaller rehabilitation projects (re: size and cost), specify that tax credits are not federal income, among other aspects. The abbreviated list, from the National Trust, is this:

1. Increase the federal historic tax credit from 20% to 30% for “small projects” with $5 million or less in qualified rehabilitation expenditures.

2. Permit the 10% non-historic credit for older buildings to be used for rehabilitating residential rental property.

3. Use the common definition of an older building as one that is at least 50 years old in determining eligibility for the 10% non-historic rehabilitation credit.

4. Allow for certain leasing arrangements with non-profits and other tax-exempt entities that are now precluded.

5. Encourage building owners who are rehabilitating historic buildings to achieve substantial energy savings and allow graduated increases in the credit based on the scale of energy efficiencies achieved.

6. Allow for the transfer of historic tax credits to another taxpayer for projects under $5 million in qualified rehabilitation costs.

7. Allow for moderate rehabilitation by reducing by half the substantial rehabilitation requirements.

8. Specify that state historic tax credits should not be considered federal income for tax purposes.

source: PreservationNation

For the entire list explained, check out he National Trust blog post.  Or read this document from the National Trust in which the eight amendments are explained a bit more in depth (it’s only three pages, don’t panic).

And once you’ve read all about it, encourage your local representatives to support this amendment. The National Trust also has a page where you can look up who is supporting it so far and the Trust has a letter example that you can personalize and email to your representatives. Also, you can send a thank you letter.

Those of us who dream of restoring our own home someday, this will be incredibly beneficial to us. Really anyone who works with historic buildings serves to gain something from these proposals.

More on New Houses

With preservationists I know, myself included, there is often a fair amount of snickering when new buildings and developments are concerned. Either they are insensitive to the surroundings, the massing is completely overstated, it’s one of those new giant McMansion cookie cutter homes, it’s in a poorly chosen location, or it replaced a farm or existing structures. I’ve heard people laugh at new construction that mimics historic architecture. Oh it’s trying too hard or oh, isn’t that cute, it kind of looks like saltbox houses. You get my point. There is always something. So what’s the answer? We can’t stop building. (Remember preservation is NOT anti-development; rather smart, complementary development. Development is not necessarily meant in the structural sense either.) Unfortunately, it is impossible, even with all of the rehabilitation of existing historic structures, to house the ever expanding population. The 21st century population does not fit in the 20th century built environment in terms of numbers. Thus, new construction and development is inevitable.

I bring up these points to address a, perhaps indistinguishable, fine line – the gray area of new construction looking new and original or mimicking historic architecture. Do we as preservationists and architectural historians scoff at new “planned” communities or suburban developments as a knee-jerk reaction because we automatically think that it is unnecessary? Let’s say development is needed: when should it blend into the existing built environment and when should (or can) it be different? Do you see what I mean? I’ve been thinking that new developments are what irk preservationists the most, whether thoughtless, ill planned cookie cutter plats or “thoughtful” new urbanism type developments. What we prefer is clever infill or sympathetic and complementary “additions” to existing towns and cities.  Smart Growth factors come into play here: mixed use, compact design, existing communities. When infill and extensions are concerned, it seems that sympathetic architectural designs fit well. But, when these same “colonial” houses are blown out of proportion and placed on flat, treeless lots is when we snicker.

For me, there is an internal debate of wanting to like the carefully, thoughtfully designed new housing developments because they look like more than boxes vs. despising any kind of giant housing that claims to promote neighborhoods when really it’s just a bunch of housing with some park space. Am I the only one? Come on preservationists, have you seen a development that you almost wanted to like but your preservation ethics prevent you from doing so? I should add the disclaimer that 99% of the time I tend to glare at housing developments stuck in the middle of nowhere – you know, those with names based on the farm they replaced.

Considering design and to prevent snickering, maybe clearly distinguishing the historic from the non historic would be a better idea? Look at the architecture in the mid 20th century. It is a new kind of animal, a step in the opposite direction of Queen Anne, Romanesque, Italianate and similar styles. But then homeowners seemed to switch back to wanting more traditional looking elements in their houses, hence the everlasting “style” of Colonial Revival. (Which, for the record is inaccurate – not every type of house is Colonial Revival!) How do we accurately describe the styles of 21st century buildings? The wonderful book, A Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia and Lee McAlester pays less attention to the architecture styles of the late 20th century. Are we not far enough removed to describe recent structures? Will everything always be traced back to Georgian, Italianate, Greek, Post Colonial, Queen Anne, Spanish Colonial, Prairie, etc.? I am curious to learn about modern (as in the last couple decades) architecture and how it will later mesh will preservationists. Any thoughts?

Preservation Photos #3

Cemetery in Grafton, VT

A quiet, peaceful setting for the final resting place of early Grafton settlers. Headstones ranged from granite to field stone, newly engraved or worn away with time and weather.

Nashville 2009: The National Trust Conference

National Trust Conference in Nashville. Click to go to the site.

How wonderful it would be to be in Nashville, TN this week. After all, historic preservation, country music and cowboy hats, some good southern food, and typing preservation with sustainability, with many other activities in between – it sounds great, huh? (Not to mention, I love the conference banner above.)

For anyone who hasn’t heard, those of us who cannot go are able to “attend” virtually.  Unless I’m missing something, the webcasts and live session feeds are free to anyone who would like to listen. Simply go to the webpage at the time of the session that interests you. Just remember, Nashville is the Central Time Zone. And if you’re a part of the Twitter crowd you can join the National Trust team – see Preservation Nation for a list of who is twittering. Afraid you’ll miss handouts, etc? Check out this page for handouts that correspond to some of the webcasts.

Of course, unless you’re incredibly savvy with twitter and other electronic means of communication, and even then, getting the true experience of being at a conference cannot be had. Tours, nights in Nashville, and face to face interaction will be missing. However, as education remains a main mission of the conference, this idea of a virtual attendee is a great step for the National Trust. Conferences can be very expensive and thus do not cater to the younger professionals or those in the smaller, lower budget organizations. But this new opportunity will be a useful tool for everyone. Now everyone can talk about the conference, which will be especially helpful for organizations or schools that can only send a few people.

The conference begins tomorrow, October 13 and continues through Saturday October 17. If you’re going or if you’re virtually attending, let me know and we’ll talk! Have fun in Nashville!

The Book of all Books

At Mary Washington, one of the required courses in the preservation sequence was HISP305: American Building, taught by Professor W. Brown Morton, III. Professor Morton had more accolades in historic preservation than we could ever dream of, so we students tended to hang onto his words and take his advice. One book he introduced us to was Twentieth Century Building Materials: History and Conservation, edited by Thomas C. Jester of the National Park Service.This book is long out of print, but most of us cannot figure out why since it’s an incredibly rich resource with sections and chapters on metals, concrete, wood, masonry, glass, flooring, and roofing. It’s a beautiful book. Take a look at the Amazon preview pages and you’ll see what I mean. As of today it appears that Amazon is selling it for $69.95, which is barely more than it’s in-print price. If I were you and wanting this book (normally around $100) I’d buy it today!

As I had mentioned in one of the Preservation in Pink Christmas posts, this book would make an excellent gift for those interested in historic preservation and historic architecture or those involved in restoration. But, I’m mentioning it again because it is just that good. Are you writing a building description of an 18th century building, but wonder when that glass block window was added? Well, the chapter on glass block may help you a lot. Or how old is that plate glass window on that storefront? When was that terra cotta added? It’s so much fun.

Inevitably, I cracked and bought a copy of this book before starting graduate school, rationalizing the purchase by the fact that I already had some of the other expensive required texts (such as Recording Historic Structures).  And I will admit that sometimes I just like to flip through the pages and gaze at them. Aside from McAlester’s Field Guide to American Houses, this is my favorite book. And it’s a marvelous addition to any preservationist’s library. My point of all this? You should own this book.

What’s your favorite book? What can you not resist, even if it is a splurge on a book? What makes homework or work not so bad because you’re happy to familiarize yourself with the book?

Giant Flamingo

Seriously, how has no one ever pointed this out to me before? Who’s been to Baltimore and seen this giant flamingo at Cafe Hon?

Cafe Hon in Baltimore, MD

click picture for original source.

Along the lines of all things giant, one of my favorite places to browse is the Vintage Roadside blog. Currently the blog writers (the owners of Vintage Roadside – an online gift shop and history site – are road tripping to the National Trust for Historic Preservation conference, which makes their trip from Portland, OR to Nashville, TN. No matter where they travel, they find the best roadside architecture particularly of neon signs, vintage motels, roadside attractions, and the like. Not only that, but they often can identify everything they see and share. Check out the blog for a good road trip or check out flickr for some great photographs.

Preservation Photos #2

Townshend, VT

I may have been out on a mission to photograph barns, but I couldn’t pass by this house without gazing. Look at its story and its architectural details: the vergeboard, the side lights, the ghost lines and foundation of a former porch, the pilasters and the entablature above the door, the wide frieze band, and of course, its apparent long state of neglect. When was the last time someone lived here? (I did not peak in the windows.) This is the kind of house you could write a story about (based on historical research, of course). Excuse the distorted angle of the photograph.

Buzzword: Sustainability

We all love to talk about sustainability, green building, environmentalism, recycling, hybrid cars, walkability, local businesses, and so much more. All of these are buzzwords in the media and when you can talk about them, you’re considered hip (in some circles) or at least on top of the latest news in the green generation. And while it’s easy to casually bring up one of the aforementioned topics in a conversation and to focus your passionate discussion on one or another, sustainability is about more than that, more than just one of those. It’s a complicated issue, but one that makes so much sense when considering our future, ours and generations after us.

Maybe everyone else already consciously grasped this, but I feel as though my understanding of the web of sustainability is improving by taking a Community Design through Sustainability class this semester. It’s a class offered through the Community Development and Applied Economics department, but it’s an elective for many so there are about half environmental studies (and related fields) students, a handful of us preservationists, and a few other departments scattered in there.  During the first or second class, I had a moment when I thought to myself, “Wow, I live in Vermont.” Those who have lived here longer than a few weeks talked about living machines, cow power, towns without cars, wind farms, and so many environmentally friendly aspects of development. I, on the other hand, like the trained preservationist that I am, spoke of walkability and diversity in stores and living spaces. Some things, such as living machines, I had never heard of.

In addition to readings on sustainability, ecological design, and other topics, we draw maps, design towns based on topography and what we think is vital, all in preparation for our big semester projects: working with actual sites in order to design their future uses in a “sustainable” way.  Sustainable, huh – what does that really mean? Well, that’s what I’m getting at… generally I think of it as environmentally related, and for environmentally related I think of nature and green roofs and such things. But, now I’m realizing that sustainable is the big picture. It involves historic preservation, green building, communities where people want to live and can support themselves, machines and homes that use less energy and respect the environment. With one aspect missing, sustainability is not complete. Constructing LEED certified gold standard buildings when you have perfectly sound historic structures sitting next to it is not sustainable; it’s a waste of energy and resources. Storm water must have a place to drain that will not hurt other water sources. Vegetation should be native, not imported, in order to survive and to represent the unique environment.

Like historic preservation, sustainability can be a lifestyle that stretches far beyond one community. It would be impossible for one town to be completely self sufficient these days, but perhaps thinking locally, regionally will be much more beneficial than thinking internationally for certain products.

Many of these points are things I’ve known, some are things I’ve learned, but it still seems like a new way of connecting everything. Perhaps it is paying more attention to the ecological factors in connection with the built environment.  There are so many overlaps between my preservation classes and my sustainability class. In both we talk or read about Jane Jacobs and about the early era of urban planning and town design and the theories behind them. When designing my own town with only the topography given to me, I could think about Jane Jacobs’ theories or the Garden City movement (which, I should add, are very different philosophies). At first I hit a wall for designing a town. Design a town – as in put buildings there? I normally think of towns with existing structures. It was difficult and completely different to the majority of my education so far. But, it’s a great way to step out of the preservation box, while successfully melding it with another field (it’s also further assurance of how connected preservation is to other fields).

What do you think?

Coincidentally, while all of this was on my mind, a friend (thanks, Ellen!) sent me this link to a book review for Green Metropolis by David Owen.  From what I gather, the gist of it is how living in New York City is actually a “green” existence. Owens writes about how sprawl is driven by people looking for a “green” place to live. His book is based on an article he wrote for The New Yorker in 2004. Here’s how it begins:

My wife and I got married right out of college, in 1978. We were young and naïve and unashamedly idealistic, and we decided to make our first home in a utopian environmentalist community in New York State. For seven years, we lived, quite contentedly, in circumstances that would strike most Americans as austere in the extreme: our living space measured just seven hundred square feet, and we didn’t have a dishwasher, a garbage disposal, a lawn, or a car. We did our grocery shopping on foot, and when we needed to travel longer distances we used public transportation. Because space at home was scarce, we seldom acquired new possessions of significant size. Our electric bills worked out to about a dollar a day. [David Owen, The New Yorker, 10.18.2004]

You expect him to say some little known “utopian” community, right?  Me too. And then he writes, “The utopian community was Manhattan.” I’m hooked. It looks like a great read and very relative to this sustainability buzzword.

Book: Recording Historic Structures

If you are involved in researching and documenting historic structures (buildings, structures) one of the best books you can invest in is Recording Historic Structures, edited by John A. Burns (see here).  The book covers documentation standards for HABS and HAER, discussing how to properly photograph buildings, teaching readers how to do conduct thorough historical research, and how to do measurements and drawings. Basically, this is everything you need to know for being up to par with the standards of the National Park Service. The lessons in the book are understandable and supplemented with case studies, photographs, and documents.

Aside from the technical side, the book often gives the readers thought provoking statements. One of my favorites so far is, “The effectiveness of the primary sources will depend on the questions being asked” (p. 28). It may sound obvious, but it’s a statement to remind me to stay on my toes. Even if you have all of the information in front of you, it’s only useful if you know how to use it and how something is significant to research.

I read this book for my documentation at the University of Mary Washington and I’m reading it again at UVM. While some may not want to read a textbook more than once, I’m finding that I am learning more the second time around. The beautiful hardcover book is worth the $75 investment, because it you gain more in knowledge and the book serves as a good reference manual.