Looking Forward in Preservation
October 24, 2024
There is a growing movement looking toward a more radical reassessment of the standards.
There is a tension between historic buildings and adapting them to serve future needs. As we move forward, climate and weather conditions will differ radically from the times in which our building stock was constructed. Preservation takes on a different significance when we think about the potential destruction of historic buildings on our coasts or in other areas prone to flood or wildfires. Even buildings that may be safe from the most radical threats of climate change will cease to be useful if they’re not inhabitable due to a lack of interior climate control.
Since the landmark National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, the federal government has also played a role in encouraging and regulating the treatment of historic buildings. Through various programs developed in the 1970s, the Secretary of the Interior has taken the lead on guiding the approach to historic properties. The first version of today’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, was published in 1977 and has been widely adopted at the federal, state, and local level.
Strawbery Banke Museum Penhallow House
These standards provide definitions for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction – terms that are commonly used interchangeably but technically mean very different things. The existence of a standard is helpful to both owners and architects as we determine the best way to both preserve original materials and what changes are appropriate as we seek to honor the past and extend the useful life of a building. Over the years, moderate updates to the standards have been published – most recently in 2017.
There is a growing movement looking toward a more radical reassessment of the standards. Earlier this year, Sara C. Bronin, chair of the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), made a public call for the standards to be updated. Her position was based on research from across the country, finding that “strict interpretations of the standards have hindered economic growth and environmental sustainability.”
“Structures which have been standing for hundreds of years and archaeology previously buried safely underground are in increasing danger from extremes of wetting, drying and temperature fluctuation.” – Historic England
Earlier this month, the ACHP hosted a conference titled “U.S. Climate Heritage Policy in the International Context” which focused on how countries around the world are re-using existing buildings as a decarbonization tool, supporting indigenous knowledge, adapting historic sites to climate change, and bringing climate heritage into their domestic policy.
Historic England has been working to incorporate climate risk assessment, mitigation and adaptation strategies into their historic properties. The UK Climate Change Act of 2008, established both carbon reduction and climate change adaptation strategies and committed the UK to reduce carbon emissions by at least 100% below 1990 levels by 2050. Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn’t have any such guiding document that can underpin changes to our preservation standards. But that shouldn’t stop us from recognizing that making changes that contribute to the preservation of planetary health and society at large are clearly also in the interest of preservation as we’ve known it.
Closer to home, we have also been inspired by the thinking of Ben Haavik, a Placework client and Team Leader for Property Care at Historic New England. In a recent article for Historic New England magazine, he addressed how attitudes toward historic preservation are evolving by necessity. While remaining grounded in the values of preserving original materials and minimizing intervention, Haavik notes that “to ensure historic resources survive for future generations, we must change our thinking.” Historic New England is making steps toward climate action by creating site-specific climate action plans and committing to carbon neutrality for all Historic New England sites by 2050.
To accomplish goals like this we will need to broaden our understanding of preservation. We need to update not only the technical standards but our common understanding of what preservation means. We need to prepare our historic buildings for a future that they did not anticipate.
We need to update not only the technical standards but our common understanding of what preservation means.
In our work, we’re addressing these challenges at historic properties like the Governor Langdon House and Strawbery Banke Museum, as well as in our work with municipalities and campuses around the region.
We strongly advocate for building reuse – because the greenest building is that one that’s already built. We also recognize that preserving historic buildings needs to incorporate strategies for both climate mitigation and adaptation.
