The URL can be used to link to this page

INTERPRETING THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARD FOR REHABILITION Page Separator Interpreting The Secretary of the Interior's Standard for Rehabilition Box # 43 Folder # 4 Delray SO 8373 Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation i mit104_, 1 I I ICI I O g h1 14 lc ri N HI H H H H H H HI H rH H HI H I I 1 1 1 1 si ! 1 n 2 ,-, ---- 1.., n ci-- n --1.- ii 0 1 1 �El 4.--1 1 i ....._ ...._. 7 I _ I 1 J 1 i I ^I - _ t r f I inn 1 _1 — Q. F 1 r1 I 1 1 '1 .1 Volume I Cover drawing: Sharon C. Park, AIA Interpreting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Introduction One of the most daunting tasks that a local historic preservation board faces is design review. The ten Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation have been incorporated into many local historic preservation ordinances to guide design review. These Standards were developed by the National Park Service in the mid 1970s and continue to form the basis for review of historic building rehabilitation projects under the federal rehabilitation tax incentives program, as well as a variety of other federal and state funded or licensed programs. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes and occupancy, and address the exterior and interior of buildings, related site and landscape features, as well as attached, adjacent or related new construction. In 1997, the Park Service developed the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings to help with application of the Standards during the project planning stage by providing general design and technical recommendations. Even with this additional guidance,there are specific design issues that cannot be clearly addressed within the framework of the generalized rehabilitation model provided by the Standards and Guidelines. Beginning in 1980, such issues were addressed by the enclosed series of case studies Ale entitled Interpreting the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. These case studies explain decisions made by the National Park Service in considering appeals of rehabilitation projects denied certification under the rehabilitation tax incentives program. It is important to note that the enclosed Interpreting the Standards bulletins are case-specific and are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each case. Nonetheless, they have significant value in providing insight regarding the manner in which the National Park Services evaluates compliance with the Standards. An understanding of the Standards and their application is critical for all members of a local historic preservation board. Without such knowledge, it will be impossible to render consistent and fair decisions regarding the appropriateness of proposed work. Board and local program staff members are encouraged to review these enclosed case studies and use them as a reference tool when considering design treatments that are not clearly consistent with the Standards. For additional information and guidance on technical preservation and rehabilitation techniques for historic buildings, contact the architectural staff of Bureau of Historic Preservation: Bureau of Historic Preservation R.A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 telephone: (850) 487-2333 fax: (850) 922-0496 e-mail: wmarder@mail.dos.state.fl.us or dferro@mail.dos.state.fl.us 111 This material is not copyrighted and can be reproduced without penalty. Normal procedures for credit to theauthors and the National Park Service should be followed. INTRODUCTION "Interpreting the Standards" bulletins were initiated in April 1980 by the Preservation Assistance Division (then Technical Preservation Services Division) to explain rehabilitation project decisions made by the National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior. Rather than describe every aspect of the overall rehabilitations in great detail, the bulletins focus on specific issues—alterations to storefronts, through- the-wall air conditioning, interior alterations—that posed problems in the review process. To this extent, then, the bulletins may emphasize controversial aspects of a project and neglect, or make only passing reference to, other aspects of the work that posed no special concerns. The following ten Standards for Rehabilitation are used by the Secretary of the Interior to determine if a rehabilitation project qualifies as "certified rehabilitation" pursuant to sections 48(g), 167(o), and 191 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Standards comprise the sole regulatory basis for determining whether or not a rehabilitation is consistent with the historic character of the structure or the district in which it is located. The applicable Standards as well as project conformance or nonconformance to those Standards is referenced at the top of each bulletin in italics. 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. 3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. 4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. 7. The surface leaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project. 9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. 10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. "Interpreting the Standards" bulletins are designed for use primarily by program administrators at the State and Federal level who make recommendations and decisions on rehabilitation projects. The bulletins are case-specific and are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each case. The bulletins are explanations of past decisions and should not be considered as the basis for approving or denying other projects. The procedures for obtaining certifications of rehabilitation are explained in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 67. These regulations control in the event of any inconsistency with these bulletins. Bulletins are arranged in order of issuance. The number assigned to each is composed of the fiscal year in which the bulletin appeared and an overall cumulative number (e.g., 80-001, 80-002). Each bulletin bears the name of the author. The index keys the bulletins to particular Standards and to such topics as Abrasive Cleaning, Roof Alterations, and Windows. A looseleaf format has been followed in order to allow for easy removal for xeroxing as well as for easy insertion of future supplements. This material is not copyrighted and can be reproduced without penalty. Normal procedures for credit to the authors and the National Park Service are appreciated. "Interpreting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation," has been developed under the technical editorship of Lee H. Nelson, AIA, Chief, Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. Comments on the usefulness of this information are welcomed and can be sent to Mr. Nelson at the above address. Additional information and guidance on technical preservation and rehabilitation techniques for historic buildings may be found in the Preservation Briefs, Technical Reports, and Preservation Case Studies developed by the Preservation Assistance Division. For a complete list of publications including price and GPO stock number information, write to: Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 20240. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 80-001 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance; nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (conformance; nonconformance) Subject: PORCH ENCLOSURES Issue: Enclosing previously open porches is often seen as an easy way to provide additional interior space at relatively low cost to an owner. Where such porches contribute to the architectural character of a building or are a distinctive feature of a district, NPS takes the position that enclosing such spaces may represent a significant loss in character. Factors weighed in such a determination include location of the porch (whether it is on prominent facade or not) and the proposed enclosure treatment (whether existing historic fabric is retained and whether the open spaces, when enclosed by glass, still give the appearance of a porch). Depending on the particular situation, such a treatment may result in disapproval of the overall project. Application: A 19th-century mansion within a historic district was recently converted to office space, and part of the rehabilitation involved enclosing the second floor of a two-story porch located at the rear of the building. Because this facade was a prominent feature of the building, considerable care was taken to retain the form and integrity of the porch. Large glass walls were placed behind the porch's columns and balusters, with most of the framing members and meeting rails hidden behind the columns and balustrade (see illus. 1 and 2). None of the columns or balusters was removed or altered in the process. Because of the sensitive manner in which the porch was enclosed, NPS approved the project. A second project, also in a historic district, involved the conversion of servant quarters of a large house into rental residential use. Plans called for the enclosure of a two-story, four-bay porch that, while at the rear of the property, nonetheless was visible from the street. Clapboarded walls with 6/6 windows were inserted between the columns and behind a simple balustrade. While it was possible to discern the original configuration of the porch, what had been an open area--a void now read as a solid wall (see illus. 3). NPS identified the two-story gallery as a distinctive feature not only of the building but of many other 19th-century buildings in the area. NPS determined that the historical and architectural character of the building had been significantly altered by enclosing the prominent two-story porch with dapboarding and disapproved the project on those grounds. 80-001 Following this determination, the owner supplied photographs of the building prior to rehabilitation showing that several porch bays had been enclosed by a previous owner some years before. NPS subsequently approved the project because the current owner was not legally responsible for the initial alterations to the porch. Prepared by: H. Ward Jandl, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. r—i i I r-4 4-1 80-001 ./ ----._._....s..s. _ . _____. .... ..,...,_ 1, ____-.........._-....... ......., -.,,...__—_,,,_-.. _ . _._ . _. • -— - --- d1:7 LEL ,-.t-- 5---'------ 17 .. - , If \ / •--r- _ Now qu1/47 ' 1 , , ,:61111 I1 1 i 1"-'''-1) i ) 1 -101 II ipirw_Egrdtprpii to .... __. . 111111111rrill 70..I7 =allow MN 1.11— I 1111 I I i 1 I ii ,, Hi ill i , III. , , .• • , , ,..• .,....„.... .„....,.., .. ... . :., 4 k.;:••. .0...' ' 40‘;` 1. Elevation showing proposed glazed-in .4 )*-1 ....;."krel g;;;„iiie,N:, second floor porch. Note that the glazing is •• • S' "f 01111•••••' V•1`..- •f.d„,,6%.. to be kept behind the plane of the columns and -'•i, 'p :.' railings. ..i. - • I' •t,- -' . ••Sk, ..,$.1 '• .. 4 •• . -W., .....-• TV - . 10; • .1-rtV'_„- .Y.,4i, '. 5. t•of ..,...........• „,,-.4 ,. ,-.- 2. View from the interior of the porch I.•la --- i'.- - '.444,,l'"... showing the successful glazing-in without the 1111# : • Millak•.4,.. ." . .4.• loss of historic detailing. 4., . ‘.."V----.. oaf,.... ....z. ........ . .54 e2'.. ...:1 , 74:21.4: .;Aft. • - -la '1"-:' I • -.1 -'-, I ..,4 • , - .x.. IL- - 1PP ' '• - . ;. . ..4..' * '.•4 ....'PI I........ ••• •'. •i 171'•',.... w. . .....• • .•. ..... ...t.,1,....• . 4'4:3, 3. View of the exterior of 11111.. ----I . I . .. .. . 7-..A 4 IP 111,6 r......................------ \ 1 .1 • the porch enclosure which II ,tg t•i.. .: resulted in denial of certifi- g ...---- cation. It was determined that • • ' ,KO --- ---- fwavoil J, --- • A:"..1 ..:...,.....-- ______. the heavy infill and the i I ! -----.--' , 1, -- -- . I ---- -- 1----- _--___ Pi---,------- 1111 r + installation of residential ..: •, j.--V •----- ....-- __ , .____ I windows resulted in a loss of character to this gallery,a r ---v- -Tra- r--=- - -- c - ; - ---; - - it : 1_,.. • . . ,... .., significant architectural •:: • feature. ' . .. . ---• ..i t;'..•t'i / . . It••$,'i:..'"... ..• °....._ i _ r t,... U1 .11 ill --------:. 4:3t; • . • 1 - ..vji. •di...ii. ----- s!,,,, •.Ir 11•',1..: ______ r. 0 0—..---z. MI ------- : /I P• t • ma,• 0 fs NM ....• MI 1.11111114AMIUTNI.t'li ilir i- . . l !I WI 1 1 111,• rt 11441;14'.0.(44,144il'' .‘liAlli.citiel.Wra.. g\ th I- - t -•4,,...131 :::,„..,...w-,:•,,,,, , .,.,/,,,k1Mmyk...., _r;.vcLKIiiiaingurir._Rnmmvtri,•;:zr"!.**s,-:---, .; 4..44.t.....,.• ....•,*.':,...,,&:%.::%.,b! r3-1,111111A4Vallilkill , ,iv.. 0.111,4111M7rAt -r ..., ; ' VT.'.4.k.,. .:4•-•:-- , , . _ -.....•:.-J... ..-. -,,,- • tl.' -wc. • 41 .‘.11;ti 4.3 4.: .... .'' 11‘""'t t":r -- %.'I•e''.,".•',..A.,It°WiNgoa!'11".•,,E:r...;.. ...t' 7".•,... •f!'•.c. ,• • -• •- Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 80-002 Applicable Standard: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) Subject: ALTERATIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT OR SETTING Issue: Increasingly, historic residential districts and individually listed National Register buildings located in landscaped settings are facing development pressure in the form of new construction or expanded onsite parking. The environmental context of an individual building or the relationship between structures and open space within a district are often significant aspects of the historic character of a building or a district. In planning for rehabilitation and adaptive use of historic buildings, distinguishing landscape features that have traditionally linked buildings to their environments should be retained (Standard 2). Features such as parks, gardens, street lights, signs, benches, walkways, streets, alleys and building set-backs may be considered part of the distinguishing original qualities or character of a building or a district. New construction and expanded parking, if needed, should be located unobtrusively and with the least amount of alteration to historic landscape features. Application: The rehabilitation of an 1840 Greek Revival mansion was determined not to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects, in large part because the physical setting for the building was drastically altered in the course of rehabilitation. Individually listed in the National Register and termed"one of the most architecturally significant structures" in the State, the classically designed masonry building historically was within a landscaped yard with a double row of magnolia trees planted from the front steps to the street. Although the magnolia trees no longer existed at the time rehabilitation began, the walkway extending across an expanse of lawn with trees retained the landscaped context of the house (see illus. 1). Rehabilitation plans included restoration of the exterior of the house and substantial new construction of clustered townhouses flanking the historic house for the depth of the lot. Extensive paved parking areas were added to the front and rear of the historic house, leaving little remaining green space (see illus. 2). NPS determined that the landscaped setting for the house was a distinguishing original quality that should have been retained in the course of rehabilitation. Alternative parking locations, fewer new townhouses, and sympathetic landscaping could have resulted in a more sensitive and successful reuse project. The restored exterior of the mansion now appears out of context and overwhelmed by the parking lots and new construction. Upon appeal of the denial of certification, the hearing officer agreed with the finding that the Standards had not been met, yet because of mitigating factors certified the rehabilitation. Primary consideration was given to the fact that the Standards had not 80-002 been published by the Department at the time work began on the building. The appeal decision stated that "environmental damage to the property is extreme as a result of the size and placement of the parking areas" and that the integrity of the setting "has been severely compromised. I would not expect to make a similar finding with regard to projects where the owner had full and proper access to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation." Prepared by: Floy A. Brown, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. • 'II -r1 80-002 • t �. ;+t`'' `z /14 I. • A-,� ••.. �+..� .�.__ -..-'- -.. - _ t+• ilkr-.. • ---z ••-.f,i. .....'r .. -�}n - 503 : ' ' . - -. ... , „:. ..„.;.,), . 1 I. ii"dimi„.. • •. i ..,_,- . _ ..,„,.....,. 1IF ll .. ..•E i.i I lAi iii' em ."4::;•• il IFI ill i • I. ).," • g , .,....:._,. gi a• .'1111! sty'. se _`� • imi 1. Mansion prior to rehabilitation. 2. Rehabilitated mansion with added parking facilities and new construction. 4/2 ir- -es'? t, • A l.\ j)ifIl*I' ' . iii 1 . - . r _ r e,, _�,� — - I'I • • 5' - - �: , i: Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 80-003 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (conformance) Subject: STOREFRONT ALTERATIONS Issu: When renovating commercial buildings with a storefront on the ground floor, owners and their architects are often faced with a question of what to do when original or early storefronts no longer exist or are too deteriorated to save. In these situations, NPS recommends that the commercial character of the building be retained through 1) contemporary design on the ground floor that is compatible with the historic structure in scale, design, materials, color and texture; or 2) an accurate restoration of the missing storefront based on historical research and physical evidence. Retention of a building's commercial qualities is especially important when seen in the context of an entire streetscape. Contemporary treatments that substitute masonry for glass on the ground floor or that introduce new design elements incompatible with the historic commercial and architectural character of the building or that alter its relationship with the street may result in denial of the overall project. Application: A two-story Victorian masonry building was denied certification because the new ground floor treatment significantly altered the historic commercial character of the building (in violation of numbers 2 and 9 of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation). This new design repeated the arched window motif of the second floor and substantially reduced the amount of glass at the street level. The building, and others like it in the historic district, originally had a plate glass storefont at the ground level with a pronounced cornice separating it from the upper floor (see illus. 1). Traditionally, the architectural elements on the second floor--notably the cast iron decorative elements—were not repeated on the ground floor (although an adjacent building had been recently renovated in this fashion). The historic commercial qualities of the building, characterized by a wide expanse of glass on the ground floor, were largely destroyed by the new, predominantly masonry treatment at the street level (see illus. 2). Even though little or no significant fabric existed at the street 80-003 level when rehabilitation was undertaken, the alterations were determined to have changed the character of the building and to be incompatible with the district (see ill us. 3). On appeal, the initial certification denial was sustained by the hearing officer. Prepared by: H. Ward land', TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 80-003 -... N. --..,..... -_ _ ' ' • --., . „ .. .1 1 --- 4 . - - --i*- •. _• '..t-t f,: T ES • I. pi •I . •ig • . • • fa° ..• •, . • I1 -... 4... i 1 ' . - .. _,-_-__.- V 111111111111111k •tiv. 411" t , / .., •"1.• , AI - . - • i • , • . -,_-_-_ _ / • • ..,.. . ., _.. . • • i:-.,..t. • • I - .• _ , ---• :•-,- ' L.. ..: It _ - ' •/- ' k '' ' ' ik, • --!--: _, I 'a, i I I .-- '1 .. . t----- 'e , , li . t . ( . I • 4., .:i.-_--.. -r. . • _ . 7; • __ -h: . ‘.,• .,..„ , . _ .. •c..-.- , , ._.., . - 1— _--- • . ::,742..: 1-5-,:...--,_,...r ::.,,,,:, _ -a • • 01 h -•••;- . _,1 7 , ' - .1 -: !- .., -.!.:.•‘, ' -- • . " • ''-- f,- --''•III- ;-...::`,' 44. - - :7 --- _,..' ':"7 ''' '••••,m .--TA, 3 .-:, 1 .1 .„,_ "fia-- • . . . ...., . . i.'' ''---.' • _ ._--4 " --••" ' 4.... r. _ . •V - . 2. The building after renovation. - • ., %,3i,-, 3.441 ,. .,.:...----, ,.:-., •... .., :-i• ,,,, . , ° -.-.. ..., III. , . - ..,,- --"7"-jN ''i' " -a", - ' i,"--4 ,• iT-".•-:. A -7.r- -•---.4.a --t; -.",,,v,•:•-:-.,.....-,-,- -.3737_.• 7-4' •i .-' --.,, . ;, -f- • i•.--Vir..--..:',,, . or„,„,T.a. - ' _vc .,.. -- ...ICP.A. .-- *a. .. :, 4 • .7...:v,f,... .1...t., .....r.: • - - -. iv- . , •- zt,.... '---. . #r - , .."4404-•V• 04.,..., :De /e`E: :41/4"",;.. +•••••44: '• • .. _ ,4 4 ,e... _. • r •' 1.'.. - '. 4.---; . • - , iv.: - :e., _ , • . — 44. .7..... . , . . . • , . . . . g _.,•-•,!. - - , . loi- • ----Tr-4,, •-•,--.7.-z.-.. .....----,,L- ,,• - . . • • , ,,,,,. - . .-1 ,, ..:-...,,, - ... • .4.- ,-...,,,,-,..,- .•••••,,,,,,,,--' .,1.,-:••.,- 1. The building before renovation. - ---- — s-_.- ...• - - - . - - - --.,-..--:!':%17i -.',"1:t A .• k----'" "; ..,• -- - ----'''_:''',':' --,!,:l.•',2, - ' A - 1 • , • --- -, , ..'aea:::•,:.:'..:--'\‘:- ' 1 :•-• _- __.- , Lek. ,.. ...:- r i .114 ---- . 1 I :-' • , * Ir,-• . I - . --- •: ,• w= ....,_ • . _ • - • ''. • 1.vi.is., -... ... - rl 3. The building seen in context of the district. _ .... • . _ - Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service the Department of the Interiorhe Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 80-004 Applicable Standard: 3. Recognition of Historic Period (nonconformance) Subject: USE OF HISTORICALLY INAPPROPRIATE DETAILS Issue: In an effort to "improve" the appearance of their properties, owners of historic buildings occasionally utilize architectural details that create an earlier appearance than is appropriate. Standard 3 states, "All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations which have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged." In planning a rehabilitation project, property owners should evaluate the historical and architectural significance of their buildings to determine appropriate stylistic details. National Register forms and photographs should be consulted and other sources of historical documentation explored to establish the types of decorative ornament in keeping with the historic character of a building. By encouraging owners to submit historic preservation certification applications before work begins, State and Federal preservation offices can help prevent the "earlying up" of historic buildings. Application: A turn-of-the-century brick commercial building with Italianate details was to be converted into law offices. The major decorative elements of this simply detailed, two-story building were its bracketed metal cornice, brick corbelling, and one-over-one windows on the second floor. A storefront of glass and metal, installed in the 1950's, extended the full width of the ground floor (see illus. 1). Plans called for the replacement of existing second floor windows with Georgian nine-over-nine sash and the installation of two matching windows with keystone lintels and a pedimented doorway with flanking pilasters on the ground floor (see illus. 2). NPS determined that the proposed rehabilitation did not meet Standard 3, citing the Georgian detailing as inappropriate to the character of the building. Although the building did not have significant historic fabric on the street level prior to rehabilitation, the proposed design for replacing the storefront with two residential-type windows and historically inaccurate architectural details would have dramatically changed the appearance of the building. NPS was further concerned that the proposed treatment might establish a precedent for replacing other storefronts on the street with similar door and window treatments. In appealing the decision, the owner presented photographs of other buildings in the multiple resource nomination that had pedimented entryways and multipaned windows. These structures, however, were earlier than the building in question, and the hearing officer sustained the determination by NPS that the proposed rehabilitation would not be consistent with the historic character of the building. Prepared by: Floy A. Brown, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 80-004 1. The existing condition of the - �7 - building. The major decorative elements of this turn-of-the-century simply . - --_�-: - "-rt ''-=-- : detailed, two-story building are its r �.` ri-:~ = N. =w' r_` = ..: , bracketed metal cornice, brick corbelling, ._. ---+ - '= and one-over-one windows on the second i- =--__ _ �.,., - floor. The storefront of glass and �= =j^ - ---• metal was installed in the 1950s. s-: ''1 • • _.-____ �_rt... =;'y_-•mac...__ _ • -- { FL. i y y �.� yJC. NUL: I {1 Li l.i .1 L JJ `L 11�- Iina_11 I lr—!(L 11- d L_I G 11. MI —* ' --D r. --3► -,--Min.—. 6 ____ , . - . ,/t .., . ..... . ......,...4%. 14, ` � l I t r r 15:.s0 �. gXI51-.11951c)-7-7c,2n uq caxse5owygau Clow) ►ar 4.s. FiAsl+. (Ntar aCcx mac) f KE ie s 1 11 1l 1(,-f 11164904 :. Kew 2. The proposed design. The proposedM4:1\ 2^ "r rehabilitation design called for the 111 El installation of Georgian detailing as seen I4s in the nine-over-nine window sash with keystone lintels and a pedimented doorway ;° with flanking pilasters. As there was no . grate historical basis for these details, the .__ r--- --1,� project was denied certification. �DRicK -ro Mara1 E5a r-*dr 1 -- 1 IF AVAIL• Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service the Department of the Interiorhe Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards tor Rehabilitation Number: 80-005 Applicable Standard: 3. Recognition of Historic Period (nonconformance) Subject: USE OF HISTORICALLY INAPPROPRIATE MATERIALS Issue: In rehabilitating historic buildings, property owners occasionally utilize materials that are inappropriate to the style and character of their building. Standard 3 states: "All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations which have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged." Before undertaking a rehabilitation project, the property owner is encouraged to evaluate the historical and architectural significance of his or her building and to determine which materials are appropriate to its style and period. This may include consulting National Register nomination forms and photographs and other available sources of historic documentation. It is important that this research be undertaken, because use of historically inappropriate materials can dramatically alter the appearance of a building and can lead to disapproval of the overall project. Application: A mid-19th century brick house and attached later frame warehouse addition were converted into three rental apartment units and an effort was made to "colonialize" the appearance of the buildings (see illus. 1). NPS denied certification of the rehabilitation based on Standard 3, having determined that the "rustic" wood shake siding used on the side elevations was historically inappropriate to both the brick building and the frame addition. While possibly appropriate to 18th-century Nantucket, the shake siding was out of place on mid-19th century brick structures in this mid-Atlantic state (see illus. 2). Having decided to remove the Bricktex that covered the side elevations of both the house and warehouse prior to rehabilitation, the owner could have repainted the brick side walls of the house and/or selected a siding for the warehouse similar in appearance to the remnants of clapboards uncovered beneath the Bricktex. The owner contended that the wood shake siding was commercially available and improved the appearance of the buildings. NPS also determined that the conversion of an industrial elevator shaft on the warehouse into a residential entrance with French doors salvaged from another building added to the stylistic confusion of the buildings. The use of colonial details in windows, doors, and trim along the side elevations of the warehouse and on the fence and adjoining garage was found to be stylistically inappropriate and highly visible from the street. The result of the rehabilitation was to obscure the fact that the buildings 80-005 had developed over a period of time through a mixture of commercial and residential uses. The "improved" appearance actually detracted from the architectural integrity of the buildings and the neighboring structures in the historic district. The denial of certification was sustained upon appeal by the hearing officer. Prepared by: Floy A. Brown, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 80-005 MULTIPANED SASH 1 OVER 1 SASH BRICKTEX SIDING A;', ': SHAKE SIDING `. ems.: � 3 .,44 ,--' : . D . . ,..,...,..: , .... . .- - - , • f .J - .. .. I, si•.i .'it, • _. �• {! I I Ir. - -: ,-, , . . , ..3-:;..;.e.,-....,,, ,_,. i ...___ _ _ I i ti: NEWLY ADDED "COLONIAL" TRIM i • , :�,� ,---d - PAINTED BRICK 1. Before rehabilitation. Bricktex siding covered the side elevations of the brick building and frame addition. 2. After rehabilitation. The "rustic" wood shake siding installed by the owner was determined to be historically inappropriate to both the brick building and the frame addition. The installation of French doors and use of colonial details on the side elevations further added to the stylistic confusion of the buildings. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service the Department of the Interiorhe Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 80-006 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 3. Recognition of Historic Period (nonconformance) Subject: INSTALLATION OF ARTIFICIAL SIDING AND LOSS OF DECORATIVE FEATURES Issue: When rehabilitating historic frame buildings, property owners are often tempted to replace or cover wood siding with artificial materials such as imitation stone, brick veneer, asphalt shingles, and vinyl or aluminum siding. In addition to the loss of architectural detailing found on historic wood siding (beveling or beading, for example), installation of artificial siding often results in removal of decorative trim around doors and windows and under the roof line. Such treatments can alter the distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, thus violating Standard 2. The artificial siding can also cause damage to the historic fabric underneath by trapping moisture and encouraging decay or insect infestation. The loss of these features can have a cumulative detrimental effect on the architectural character of a neighborhood or district. Application: A property owner chose to rehabilitate a two and a half story frame house dating from 1900 within a historic district to create a single family rental property (see illus. 1). In an effort to modernize the structure and reduce maintenance, the owner removed the front porch and installed four inch wide aluminum siding over the clapboards (see illus. 2). NPS denied certification of the rehabilitation, stating that the architectural character of the building had been significantly diminished through the removal of the front porch (typical of many buildings in the historic district), the installation of aluminum siding over the original clapboard, and the subsequent loss of wood details. The width of the aluminum siding did not match the clapboards; the loss of the porch and decorative trim further detracted from the historic character of the building. A second project, also within a historic district, involved the rehabilitation of a two- story frame double house dating from 1820. The original narrow clapboards had been covered by asbestos siding in the 1920's; however, in rehabilitating the house, the owner decided to install wide vinyl siding, which was equally inappropriate (see illus. 3). NPS denied certification, supporting the State Historic Preservation Office's determination that the installation of vinyl siding was incompatible with the historic character of the building. While it was understood that the frame building was covered with asbestos siding at the time rehabilitation began, resurfacing the building with another new material that was unavailable when the building was constructed and that did not match the original clapboards in size and texture was viewed as a historically inappropriate treatment. The design of the new storm doors in a colonial 80-006 motif, violating Standard 3, and the chain link fence constructed around the front yard were additional factors in the denial. The conclusion drawn was that the overall result of the rehabilitation left little of the historic finishes characteristic of a 19th-century frame house. Prepared by: Floy A. Brown, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 80-006 Ar :` s -' 1. First house before rehabilitation.i _- _ Decorative bargeboards, narrow novelty yY Y ynj'w- '- ., - siding, and front porch characterize this simple turn-of-the-century frame structure. le— : � 4` 1 , -•. • � , 1, • -'1 .Mew ,.y-. .. K = r , — ``^ ' _ . • 0 111 N t1 • y 0 I t .i 2. First house after rehabilitation. The loss of the porch and decorative - ■ i i" trim, in addition to the installation l I �."`' : � of aluminum siding, all have had a i ` i I:�r:r1 cumulative negative effect on this .; 1 4 M.. __. • . certified historic structure. •~ _ .., ` 3. Second house after rehabili- tation. Installation of wide vinyl siding was determined to be inappro- riate to this 19th-century frame r•; .,.11 structure. Additional inappropriate 'z':: details include the colonial type storm '�` W C . doors and chain link fence. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 80-007 Applicable Standards: 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (conformance; nonconformance) Subject: APPROPRIATE LOCATION OF GREENHOUSE ADDITIONS Issue: To maximize available square footage in rehabilitated historic commercial buildings, developers often resort to greenhouse or glass-enclosed additions. Such additions may be incompatible with the historic character of a building, and have a negative visual impact when located on a prominent elevation, violating Standard 9. In reviewing proposals for glass-enclosed additions to historic buildings, NPS considers the location and size of the proposed addition and its overall effect on the appearance of the historic building. The extent of alteration to the historic building necessary to attach the new addition and the reversibility of the treatment are also important factors in determining whether the addition meets the Standards. Application: In the first project the developer rehabilitating an interconnected group of buildings individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places, which date from 1902 and occupy one-third of a city block (see illus. 1), proposed a sidewalk cafe enclosed in a glass "greenhouse" to be installed along a primary street facade. The glass-enclosed area was to extend 10 feet onto the sidewalk along a frontage of 65 feet, obscuring part of the ground floor level of the imposing Beaux Arts building to which it was to be attached (see illus. 2a and 2b). After consulting with NPS, the State Historic Preservation Office advised the developer that the proposed greenhouse addition did not meet Standard 9, citing "the visual incompatibility of the light, airy, open glass lower level with the much heavier, solid Beaux Arts facade above the first floor level. These two segments of the building (lower 'greenhouse' versus upper Beaux Arts style facade) would be incompatible in scale, material and character." The State Historic Preservation Office was also concerned about the impact of this proposal on the rest of the city block. The developer reconsidered his plans and withdrew the proposal to install the sidewalk greenhouse. A second project involves the rehabilitation of an individually designated brewery complex, dating from the 1890's, which will be adaptively used as a specialty shopping and entertainment center. NPS approved the proposed rehabilitation work, which includes a large glass enclosure over a pedestrian plaza at the rear of the complex, linking the main brewhouse, the keg storage buildings, and the former bottling plant (see illus. 3). The glass structure was approved in part because it will be located at the rear of the complex abutting facades of lesser significance than the main facade, 80-007 which faces the city. It is also designed to be freestanding, with its own self- contained structural system. Finally, little destruction of historic fabric will be involved because existing openings will be used as connections into the glass structure. Prepared by: Floy A. Brown, TPS, with Judith Kitchen, Ohio State Historic Preservation Office. These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. , . , 1 r I _frmum ilimmim , 80-007 1. Existing south elevation showing _�[r 7 � "_ / s,/ =A_ later storefront additions. r fk-; I� AI= Mil • , C I -=a:1 1:M 1�1 •ii III f! = ., a, . . er as 1 *1 a 1-r -r-lrap,t=tt._.- -...1-.,,,-‘.-., =--..---_ i.i-- =-::,.. pasts' olIIIl .„4, lnuunNll=1 RIMED lq(IIIIIIIID t=1(IIIIDIIDIalD111101Q i 2a. The pro- 11 11170 lm d[Ill JfOdl, 0TIFQ LiQr r posed projecting S _ greenhouse addi- L ��_ tion was deter- mined to be �' - ' incompatible III - with the Beaux- 1111 — — Arts design of — ,;�.7" the building. (� j . . ,, ,.1 . Li "UFA i---- . , , 2b. Section. Note . ,.: ___` removal of store- _ ;�= = fronts. i - 1 .. ' 'T ..ice / '= ` _ z %, %�. 3. The proposed glass structure �_�� was approved because it was located _ - _ _--� at the rear of the complex; with its -t` own self-contained structural system, = — „� __'� _ it involves little destruction of F -- - historic fabric. • , x.,--- • IftoRionwiii ,----., - amiczaw----____________ /, f -�.. �,- 0 1 to ._//I -." r y' .,— _ , Ili _Pr ��' lit •F'."''++�� .-, , S,:.w, J � ., '''LiWit:; •':i i r Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Paris Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 81-008 Applicable Standard: 3. Recognition of Historic Period (nonconformance) Subject: ALTERATIONS WITHOUT HISTORICAL BASIS Issue: Standard 3 states that "All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations which have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged." It is generally inappropriate to copy details and stylistic features from similar neighboring buildings unless physical research or historical evidence clearly substantiates the suitability of recreating such an appearance for the building being rehabilitated. This is particularly true where the details and stylistic features are distinctive and establish the architectural character of the building. By adopting a"prototype" historic appearance for rehabilitated buildings within a district, property owners may also be inadvertently diminishing the architectural diversity of the area. Application: A rehabilitation was denied certification for tax purposes when the owner proposed adding an ornate two-story gallery across the front facades of his two 19th- century buildings (built in 1836; renovated in the 1870s) (see illus. 1 and 2). The documentation made it dear that the gallery was based not on physical research or historical evidence but on examples located elsewhere in the historic district. Denial of certification•was based on Standard 3. In appealing the decision, the owner pointed to other buildings in the immediate vicinity that had balconies similar to the one being proposed, using these examples as justifications for his proposal. The hearing officer sustained the initial NPS determination that the balcony design was inappropriate for these two buildings, stating that while other buildings of the period may have been constructed with galleries, there was no evidence that these particular buildings ever had such a feature. The owner also contended that the balcony was required to provide a second means of egress; building plans, however, indicated several other alternative means of egress that would have less of an impact on the building's historic character, and this argument was dismissed. Prepared by: H. Ward Jandl, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 81-008 l — — 5.� $ r \ i 1 iii •ai I in iii MIN I iii I dl 1---r i _U Il I II41 I( II I.!J ll II �JI L�l L IM- Ii I� \\c rl IF ►Ivi vp ,,,,,N I 14 r ti bait Ir - \\\\Iiiii/N--- 'ffr \ - / T1 = �t�\ =II71— E =L. 1. This drawing shows the buildings prior to rehabilitation. The fire escape across the facade is nonhistoric; the altered storefronts are faced with permastone. 0iI IIIIIIIIIIIIlU I III ; � 111i,,Lil ..•`' ,i i 1u Illllt- 1 / t s - t••■' I MI 0 1 ... Mal RIM v T1-17 MT T I I i t mil "MEC Tom' I,"Illlii!HIIIiii N IIIIIIIIIII11111111111Ii111111rII1I111111111111illillll IIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii1111111iliiiiIliiiiliiiiiiiiiii ii MN I MU 7■■ ■■iI■■�I NM q•■• •■• •■■ •■■ ■■l •■■ �C •■• •■• ■■■ •■ ■■t •■■ I I I I -1--( I I I I mil ', 1 ! ► I �I�I�l�I�,�lpI�1�1�l�� I II I ^lI 'mini I!!Ii I,IIifl I�IIIIIIIII( .) -�LLLL1 illlllliiiiii 1I1111111lllll 111111iiilII _ r 1 r L J L I Innini ■•■ . •■ �� UM■ :CII � I.■ MI 1 - r- _. _7170_,[a F E, ii. P 2. This drawing shows the proposed two-story gallery NPS found to be inappropriate. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interiors Washington, D.C. [Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 81-009 Applicable Standard: 7. Cleaning with Gentlest Method Possible (nonconformance) Subject: SANDBLASTING EXTERIOR BRICK SURFACES Issue: Sandblasting or any other cleaning method that damages historic building materials is specifically prohibited by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. It not only changes the visual qualities of a historic brick wall but is a generally destructive treatment that erodes the outer surface of brick masonry, thus increasing the likelihood of water damage. Sandblasting is an irreversible act, which often hastens the deterioration of the masonry and cannot be considered a preservation treatment. For these reasons, except where sandblasting was undertaken by a previous owner, sandblasted projects involving historic brickwork do not meet the Secretary's Standards and cannot be approved. In very limited circumstances a sandblasted building can be approved, providing all of the following four conditions are met: 1) if the owner undertook the abrasive cleaning prior to the fall of 1977 (when technical information on the dangers of abrasive cleaning, such as Preservation Brief No. 1 and the Standards for Rehabilitation, was made widely available) and was unaware of the dangers of abrasive cleaning at that time; 2) if the overall project is otherwise commendable; 3) if the exterior sandblasted surface historically had been painted; and 4) if the owner agrees to repaint the sandblasted surface with an approved paint of a historically compatible color. This approval has occurred administratively in the appeals process. Application: A completed preservation project in a historic district, was denied certification for tax purposes in 1978 after it was learned that sandblasting of the front facade had been undertaken (see illus. 1). In appealing the decision, the owner's preservation consultant acknowledged that historically the building had been painted to protect the particularly soft brick. The owner having begun the protect in early 1977, had been unaware of the dangers of abrasive cleaning while undertaking his otherwise commendable work. At the recommendation of NPS , the owner agreed to repaint the brick facade (which had never been exposed) in a color appropriate to other Victorian structures in the district (see illus. 2). Once this work was completed, the hearing officer certified the rehabilitation. Prepared by: H. Ward Jandl, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. . • 81-009 ▪ --- - r� � 4--- .. - =":-----7-745.: : a..il...•=r--."---"----'.-171::" • —• - _7tee ==s.= --- , i ▪ 4 i 1 -r--..-.7-:77:7 ....y c Ac 1._F.,.. 7 . .� d ............_.... , . _- - - - -- - - - - f•_. R_• tan kg ___I., 1.5 trel'ilr- Bit 1 _ .,.,t._.z--.,-.,..1..... _. _ . .. _,..._____.. 1 - .__,___ AD f � `r.�t..-.•n.....1�,,may[ j ,---:-. f 1 - V 1 - r4 1. The building after sandblasting had removed the ,M ti-`-- - - -_._ -- protective coatings of paint. The soft, low quality brick had never been exposed. A Wf � r; I . t .111 ■ 2. The building after it had been repainted a dark brown • color compatible with other Victorian buildings in the - '•` district. Repainting, in this particular case, was seen as < -.:-_ •-rm— . an appropriate treatment to mitigate the damage caused _. by abrasive cleaning. • 'd ,? t:t,,: ,ir:gr`e * iit -V s. Technical ti n Preservation ServicesDDivision Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 81-010 Applicable Standards: 3. Recognition of Historic Period (conformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (conformance) Subject: NEW CONSTRUCTION AS CONNECTOR INFILL Issue: Connecting adjacent buildings to form a large complex makes economic sense, in certain situations, when these smaller buildings can share services, such as elevators, which would be prohibitively expensive for each building. Such infill construction, however, should not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, and should be compatible with the scale and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. Application: A developer undertaking the rehabilitation of several apartment buildings wanted to connect two smaller four-story apartments. Both were excellent, though deteriorated, examples of late 19th-century brick bow-fronts typical of a large portion of the historic district. The developer was concerned that the two smaller buildings, which were walk-up apartments, might not have the market appeal of the other rehabilitated buildings in the complex. As the two buildings were adjacent to a larger apartment building with elevator service, the developer asked the architect to connect all three buildings (see illus. 1). By designing two small connectors in the areaways between the larger building (A) and the smaller buildings (B and C), the architect connected all three on an axis with the main entrance and elevator service in Building A. In addition to the corridor connections, the infill structures provided a required stairway and an additional room on each floor. This first proposal was not acceptable to NPS. The connector between Buildings B and C was treated as a masonry infill that replicated the historic detailing of the 19th- century buildings. The proposed design would have made the two bow-front buildings appear as one structure, thus altering the scale and character of the historic district, which is noted for its freestanding smaller apartment buildings. The proposed connector between Buildings B and C also made unclear what was historic fabric and what was new construction. NPS requested that the architect redesign the connector providing for a greater set-back and a change of detailing. This was accomplished when the architect modified his plan to bring a smaller stairway to the narrowest part of the areaway and by placing the additional bedroom to the rear. A set-back of 12 feet was achieved, keeping the connector behind an important side bay of Building C (see illus. 2 and 3). The architect also selected large glazed panels for the infill material. These modifications retained the separate identity of the historic buildings 81-010 while the contemporary infills succeeded in connecting the three buildings to meet functional needs. With the modifications described above, NPS approved the overall project. • Prepared by: Sharon C. Park, AIA, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 81-010 1. Proposed plan (rejected). I 1 1 Note that the infill structure EL j ::::::-...L between Buildings B & C is too close to the front facade, thus I II I making the two buildings appear as one. Also the architectural detailing of the infill duplicated the historic detailing making unclear I i what is original and what is new J . construction. I, I - I portion Z Z !—BUILDING A— ,p -BUILDING B—r�- BUILDING C --,k- I I I i 1 e :>, 7 _ r e. an . . 2. Approved plan. 1 t Note that the infill structure <>`'b EL between Buildings B & C has been _ pulled back behind the side I, bay on Building C. The 12' setback plus the contemporary L..detailing of the structure infill allows Buildings B and C to retain their identities as N - • separate buildings. I LL 2 Port ion Z Z -BUILDING A-0- --.-BUILDING B '-BUILDING C-0- 2 oc I]o ► . ' l: . 3. Approved elevation. o DunE n EEL L r. Ll .... The contemporary designs of a-.= 0° the infill structures plus their �A .oQ deep set-backs allow the historicU!-TEEU, buildings to retain their identities o as separate buildings although connected as part of a large complex. .17;�— (� ull1101:10A0.;..-,::.::,..:20_0_211,n,2 `11 ( -cP portion fi, i 1 . :I I 4-BUILDING A BUILDING B —it #—BUILDING C --rj- Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 81-011 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) Subject: PAINTING HISTORIC MASONRY Issue: The color of historic masonry is often one of the most visually prominent features of the exterior facades of buildings. Color can be used in complementary and contrasting ways as part of the overall character of the building, and, over the years, color can acquire historic significance. To paint the proverbial red brick schoolhouse white, or the White House red would represent major changes in both categories of historical and architectural character, even though no physical destruction of building fabric would occur. Changing the color of masonry buildings through paint applications often is considered by property owners as a way to give a refreshing "new look" to the exterior appearance of historic buildings or to "unify" a building with many additions. In cases where the masonry is unpainted, however, the application of a paint coating usually is not recommended by NPS, as it may set in motion a series of visual and physical effects that can drastically alter the character of a historic building. Application: The rehabilitation of an early 19th-century, three-story residence was determined not to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation primarily because of the changes in the historic character of the building as a result of the application of a light-colored paint coating to an unpainted brick surface. Like many other Federal style buildings in the historic district, the house was not intended to be painted; quite the contrary, the variation in brick color, bonding pattern, treatment of mortar joints and the texture of the masonry were subtle yet important components of the historic character of this particular building. The following Standards, therefore, were not met in the course of rehabilitation: 2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 81-011 Five important areas of the masonry building were adversely affected by the application of the light-colored paint coating: 1. The dark red color of the brick was a local characteristic of brick buildings constructed in the Federal style. Subtle variations in color also added to the visual qualities of the brickwork and reflected the technology, firing practices, and clay deposits used during the period. The application of a paint coating and the use of a light color contrasts with the historic appearance of the house (see illus. 1 and 2). 2. The semi-circular arch over the main door and the jack, or flat, arches over the window represented ornamental as well as structural features of the building. The color of the brick used in these features contrasted for decorative purposes with the predominantly darker color of the brick used throughout most of the exterior walls; this contrast was lost as a result of the application of paint to the masonry (see illus. 3 and 4). 3. The high quality face brick used as a veneer on the front facade represented an important feature of the building and was the result of an early alteration. The brick facade contrasted with the lesser quality brickwork on the sides of the building; this contrast was lost through the application of a paint coating. 4. The brick bonding pattern was a functional as well as a stylistic feature. Each successive coat of paint will further obscure this original stylistic feature of the building. 5. The mortar joints, through their coloration, tooling, texture, and width of the joints, were design and stylistic elements that contributed to the historic character of the building and reflected the skilled workmanship of the era. The visual qualities of the mortar joints were altered as a result of the paint application (see illus. 5 and 6). In denying certification of rehabilitation, NPS also advised the property owner that the painting of the structure was a decision with both immediate and long term consequences, architecturally and financially. The Brick Institute of America notes that once painted, exterior masonry generally will require repainting every three to five years. Each successive coat will further obscure the original masonry characteristics of the building. Upon appeal of the denial of certification, the hearing officer sustained the decision by NPS. Prepared by: Charles E. Fisher, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 81-011 `= f li III 1II1 ir L r- ::::,,,,,,...4 . . . _ . ._... ..._ -_ :re �,i, 1. House before painting. 2. House after painting. • • • . 1±1 ITI Il": ' ra. may.. .:..-.. ' ''';`.1 ::4::.‘"1 -; 3. Before. Note the color contrast 4. After. Note the loss of architec- between the lighter colored bricks in tural details of the bricks over the the arch and window lintels as opposed doorway and windows as a result of the to the facade face bricks. application of paint. 81-011 , \ ; i �..4 , -iz 4 5. Before. • k4 • • • •{y J• gyp "RV +. ` ,k * 1, Y A, • . ?.R t c A P _ ... Raw � v �� is .`..i - c _ - _ ... J 1 - - , . -pm -.17- r.. . .a...,....„m‘......m.r_. . . zr,--.--7.- -..: : - :.:, ...-r. _ . .. _ r_. • In 6. After. Note that the visual qualities of the mortar joints were changed as a result of the paint application. On the rear portion of the building there was historically a strong interplay between the mortar joints and the brick that was lost as a result of the painting. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 81-012 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 4. Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: DEMOLITION AS PART OF CERTIFIED REHABILITATION Issue: Industrial or mill complexes listed in the National Register often include a number of structures varying in use, age, condition, and significance. Adaptive uses (such as housing, shops, or offices) are frequently chosen for these complexes. Unfortunately such plans may propose the selective demolition of certain buildings or additions or industrial features such as smokestacks and millraces. This work will be reviewed as part of the overall rehabilitation plans (see regulations 36 CFR Part 67.6) and evaluated in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for • Rehabilitation. In limited situations, demolition of components of a historic complex may be approved as part of the overall rehabilitation when 1) the component is a secondary structure or feature lacking special historic, engineering, or architectural significance; and 2) the component does not comprise a major portion of the historic site; and 3) persuasive evidence is presented to show that retention of the component is not technically or economically feasible. Application:t Proposed changes to a mill complex were denied approval because of the extensive demolition planned as part of its conversion into housing for the elderly. In the National Register nomination forms, 11 brick structures were identified as significant, in part because they comprised an urban textile mill complex that grew by accretion from the 1820s up until around 1900. Many of the structures have architectural significance, with dentilled cornices and flat-arched windows characteristic of 19th-century mill buildings. Even though a main street bisects the complex, the buildings are related as a cohesive unit both historically and architecturally (see illus. 1, 2 and 3). NPS determined that the proposed demolition of four large 19th-century structures comprising nearly half the complex (see illus. 4) would greatly alter the distinguishing character of the historic resource; because the buildings proposed for demolition were integral to the entire complex, approval was withheld. In appealing the decision, the owners cited the deteriorating condition of the buildings and the apparently limited development potential of the site. No evidence was presented to show that the structural condition of the buildings necessitated their 81-012 demolition. The initial determination of NPS—that a sufficient portion of the complex was not being retained and that the industrial setting was not being adequately preserved—was sustained by the hearing officer. Prepared by: H. Ward Jandl, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 1 . tti r ^ `-`r it ` �, 1871 In"► ��`� E(- ..II•• 'EHi 1836 1 015 1828 Il iil IIl i tii tit uc r iYi. Itrl t i 3 1 VS 1 1011/1111117 /P.m' I 111t _ 1 11, - 111 t'� ------- i"---opr3 1I.7;71 ! flop r , i".1 11140 , I I ' Ilf 1. I . IC-- jj 11 I i � it ' ' t 1865 2. /� {� 191� Igo %` q 10 111 y i� lk N. / J , , 4. f. , 1 I'• t , IIII ji , • f i� i I i \ 11 iyh4 sw _ 3 E I I { 1 �! !�!"� 1. This historic photograph shows the mill III . . I ill' If - complex ca. 1875. Note bridge across the 1 il'il , . street connecting mill buildings. 1 "` ':"" --`' =�- r 2. Although greatly altered, the buildings ,I` • --^M* ••.».._ " ''� " . •i shown here are still standing, including the • v,• . ` bridge across the street. ii ; J', c. 3. s „`y " fi + 3. This photograph shows three of the major}; � 4 , buildings (nos. 5, 7, 9) proposed for demo- 1111\7.--lie, 0 �94. x • , �•,• lition as part of the overall rehabilita- ,...�_ . ...— tion; this includes buildings on both ji sides of the street. °o „. o 4 - I'� 4 4. This site plan shows the buildings (nos. IV o e I o — 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11) to be demolished as part i t 1 ! i - of the rehabilitation. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Depart the Secretary of the Interior's Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 81-013 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance; nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (conformance; nonconformance) Subject: EXPOSED INTERIOR BRICKWORK: WAREHOUSE AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS Issue: •Exposed interior brickwork is a popular treatment in rehabilitation projects, but has only limited suitability for historic structures. There are historic buildings, such as warehouses, where brick walls are not traditionally finished but rather were left exposed or merely painted. These walls were usually left unfinished for utilitarian reasons (considering the function of the building) and also were a way to limit initial construction costs. In some cases, exposed brick walls on the interior of a warehouse may represent a significant architectural feature contributing to the historic character of the building. In most masonry structures, however, interior walls were traditionally finished with plaster, wainscoting or both; exposing the brick walls to create a new interior environment could change the historic character of the building. In removing wall finishes from masonry walls in most houses and commercial buildings, not only is there a loss of historic finish, but also raw, unfinished walls are exposed, giving the interior an appearance it never had. The brick thus exposed is usually a poor quality common brick and the mortar joints are wide and badly struck. (In some cases physical problems result: removal of plasterwork causes interior brick to "powder," and methods to seal the exposed brick frequently result in changing the color and surface of the brick.) If such brick walls are exposed in a widespread manner throughout a building or in the principal spaces, a significant change in the.historic character would result, and the project usually would fail to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Application: An 1890's warehouse located in a historic district was rehabilitated for use by an accounting firm. With the exception of a small area on the first floor, the interior surfaces of the load-bearing walls were exposed brick. The walls had never been plastered. The large, unobstructed warehouse spaces gave the architect flexibility in adaptively using the space by installing free-standing partitions and carrels (see illus. 1). The brick walls were retained and needed only to be cleaned with water, a mild detergent, and a natural bristle brush. A minimal amount of repointing was carried out using a mortar similar in composition to the original. The project resulted in certification. A second project, an 1890's commercial structure, also in a historic district, was rehabilitated to house a building construction firm. Unlike the warehouse, which served as strictly a storage facility, the commercial structure housed a retail concern, therefore necessitating the finishing and trimming out of the 81-013 interior walls. The application stated that all plaster was removed to expose the brick. The photographs clearly show entire walls in highly visible areas where the plaster had been stripped away (see illus. 2). In reviewing the overall project, it was noted that most preservation treatments were handled in a very sensitive manner. However, because such a large amount of historic fabric was lost and a new appearance created, the project was denied certification. Specifically, the treatment violated number 2 of the Standards. Prepard by: Rudy Massengill, Southeast Region, NPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 81-013 1. Commonly, warehouse spaces were simple and open, exhibiting brick walls that were never plastered. - ,. h. . _.,- I III I ,� �. _ 2. Brick walls were rarely left ," {: i ��+r Y exposed in commercial buildings. �°"- This contemporary treatment cre- ___ ated a change in the historic try .. f' character of the interior and7 ,z resulted in denial of certifi- s t ,-. cation for tax purposes. '' � ..- 1. . 1 • - ■■ r`SAL - YY" Se c . „ 1 *. '. . ' - - ISMiga-ao...- .-lf.1 ' . \--• • WIN s j t _p•♦�g ��(fY' 'jg�i _? +.' # V n ,a- • 1.• ... r -w J -'', ar; t ., 0 A' ys r " i.: �y�y.� 1 , .1Q T f it ►� R .,�$ ^O`` 41, • r 4"urK _ 9'"• *.._ Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service I the Secretary of the Interior's U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. [Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 81-014 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: INSTALLATION OF THROUGH-THE-WALL AIR CONDITIONERS Issue: Rehabilitation of historic buildings often includes installation of modern heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment. In planning for installation of new mechanical systems in historic buildings, owners and architects should carefully consider the effect of these systems on the historic and architectural character of the building. An effort should be made to install modern mechanical systems in the least intrusive manner, causing the least amount of damage to historic fabric with minimal visual impact. Insensitive installations of mechanical systems can result in denial of certification. Application: A three-story frame Italianate house proposed for individual listing in the National Register was rehabilitated to create a 25-room guest house. Although the owner repaired and repainted the existing wood shingle siding and bracketed cornice, selection of an air conditioning system was less sensitive to the historic character of the building. Installation of through-the-wall air conditioning units on the upper floors destroyed historic fabric and created visual intrusions on primary elevations of the historic building (see illus.). NPS denied certification, based on violation of Standards 2, 5, and 9. While recognizing the need to air-condition guest rooms on the upper floors in orders to meet contemporary standards for comfort, NPS determined that alternate systems could have been selected that would not have compromised the visual character of the exterior. A system utilizing a central chilling plant and piped chilled water to individual fan coil units was a recommended alternative that would have avoided alteration to the exterior of the building and would not have caused undue damage or loss of historic fabric on the interior. The owner had considered this option, but selected instead the least expensive solution for air conditioning. Prepared by: Floy A. Brown, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 81-014 1 r; ..,...„...:::.:., -tt.. .'''i. t .03::,e -, —�_ ` 111 _---E--,v. - . --sik . -i 1 --- ;illiilllmii II ,f i, 1, i"I h; ` K tt/r77-7 _ Air conditioning units have pierced the walls of this Italianate structure in a random pattern, destroying historic fabric and altering the appearance of the primary elevations. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service the Secretary of the Interior's U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. [Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 81-015 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: INAPPROPRIATE ALTERATIONS TO WINDOWS AND DOORS Issue: The rehabilitation and adaptive use of a historic building should preserve its distinguishing qualities or character, as stated in number 2 of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The placement, design, and materials for doors and windows often are significant elements in the architectural character of a building. Changes to door and window size and configuration, especially on primary facades, ostensibly to accommodate building codes or to accomplish energy conservation, should be avoided when such changes would dramatically alter the character of a building. Rehabilitation should retain original fabric wherever possible. Replacement doors and windows should either match the historic in size, configuration, and materials, or substitute new materials and a design sympathetic to the original. Application: Rehabilitation of a 1926 one-story, brick automobile showroom located in a historic district was denied certification for tax purposes following conversion to a restaurant. Denial of certification by NPS was based on Standards 2 and 6 (alteration of distinctive features; repairing rather than replacing deteriorated features). The replacement of the automobile showroom windows and doors with bricked-in panels and residential-type windows caused an unfortunate and irreversible change in the historic character of the utilitarian commercial building. Originally constructed for car sales and repairs, the one-story brick building was defined by the large show windows and multi-paned wood/glass doors (see illus. 1). The rehabilitation work blocked in most of the openings with brick and replaced commercial showroom windows with those inappropriate in scale and design (see illus. 2). The overall effect was a drastic alteration to the character of the building. Prepared by: Floy A. Brown, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. E1-015 ; I so MI .74,..w...17,z„.: \ ,. .,, ,_ .,.. ,v-, :_ . . ,...- l#_� • s_ i, &" 'J!! iI _ Ii'1 t ; r+ '....?a..-. Bey: rtf 'fi. .. ...(7/4'e_.Y : '-. 1. The 1926 automobile showroom with its original storefronts, garage doors, and industrial metal windows intact. 2. The opposite elevation post-rehabilitation; some openings have been bricked up and others have had new residential-type windows inserted. The dramatic changes to the appearance of this automobile showroom resulted in denial of rehabilitation certification for tax purposes. "L ` -r•t, ` -� '▪ ` :-mod--t"-"--�""N 111111 H.• -. - _ ▪ - i t .%ice . Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service the Secretary of the Interior's U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 81-016 Applicable Standard: 4. Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: REMOVAL OF SIGNIFICANT LATER ADDITIONS Issue: In urban areas where land values and zoning often encourage higher-density construction, historic buildings undergoing rehabilitation may be threatened by the demolition of significant later additions. In an effort to create space for a new addition or parking on site, property owners and architects may overlook the significance of later additions to historic buildings or historic outbuildings located on the same lot. Demolition of later additions that are evidence of the history and development of a historic building and that have acquired significance in their own right violates Standard 4 and results in denial of certification for the overall rehabilitation project. Application: An 1840s brick house in Greek Revival style within a small historic district was rehabilitated to house a restaurant and bar in a downtown urban area. In an effort to capitalize fully on the limited land area, the owner demolished an 1890s ell attached to the rear of the house and a late 19th-century brick barn with a fish-scale shingled gable end (see illus. 1). The owner, however, also restored the classical porch and street facade of the house. The State Historic Preservation Officer recommended that the rehabilitation work be denied certification based, in part, on demolition of the ell and barn. Gutting of the interior also was cited in the recommendation for denial of certification. NPS supported the recommendation from the State, emphasizing that the rehabilitation project had resulted in the demolition or alteration of a substantial portion of the architectural and historical features of the property (see illus. 2). The brick, gable-roofed barn and the two-story ell attached to the rear of the main house both had acquired significance over time. Other rehabilitation treatments that were not consistent with the Standards included removal of the existing wrought iron fence on the front of the property, removal of interior detailing, and construction of a clapboard wall along the north elevation of the house. Prepared by: Floy A. Brown, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. tt .. 4:... :. /':-.•- • - —751 .—•...`,...„ 7 ti . • 1 - . --.\41 .11 r 1. This 1890s rear ell and barn were demolished as part of the rehabilitation. NP5 determined that the structures had acquired significance in their own right and should have been preserved. --....." ...m. 2. In its conversion to a restaurant,this Greek Revival house underwent major changes;although the main facade was left intact, the rear ell and adjacent barn were demolished and replaced with a one-story brick pavilion surrounded by a two-story L-shaped structure faced with shingles recalling the original ell. ---,-.. • 11 :""11 , . , - , ,,...,. ..,..-..---:„.......btr,--4v.A..;-!:-AiN:1 7,—..E.:3::: LI ... i t. .,„, _ ...... ., _ ,....... ....,... .. ....... , ....:,....„:„.. ....,. . ...... ,. ,,,...., .., ...., , .. • .,,..... t.... L 11 it li -— ....t.•-•?1•'s ....S..: ••..... '...- :......:1, .—:": -. . ...._, • I 'll...... • j .I J ,'r j. , t; V Jrfy 1 ' 4� • 1 .� • - =rr J � • � r ' .✓. ' .,T I, ' ;? •I f•...$ - — ', ., +�� Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 81-017 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (conformance) Subject: REMOVAL OF SIGNIFICANT INTERIOR WOODWORK Issue: In rehabilitating multi-family residential structures, developers often want maximum flexibility in working with interior spaces to comply with local and state building codes as well as State housing authority and HUD minimum property standards. In some cases this means gutting--the complete removal of interior features and detailing. Many historic residential structures, however, contain interior woodwork such as window and door trim, cornices, wainscoting, chair rails, built-in cabinets, and ornamental stairways, which add to the buildings' architectural character. As a result, a developer's desire to gut a building's interior and "start with a clean slate" may be in conflict with retention of significant woodwork in accordance with Standards 2 and 5, which call for the preservation of distinctive architectural features and examples of skilled craftsmanship. Application: The developer of eight turn-of-the-century apartment buildings submitted his request for rehabilitation certification to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) when project plans were being formulated. Although almost total interior gutting of the building was called for in the rehabilitation, the SHPO felt that the developer's plans were satisfactory and forwarded the application to NPS with a recommendation for approval. Because most of the woodwork in both the public spaces (foyers, stairways, halls) and the apartment units was machine-planed and relatively simple, and because similar woodwork was very common in other buildings in the historic district and around the State, the SHPO believed that it was not significant and its removal would not violate the Standards. Upon reviewing the application, NPS agreed with the SHPO that much of the work met the Standards, but determined that the woodwork--especially that located in foyers and stairways--was significant, and that a sufficient amount of it should be retained to preserve the architectural character of the spaces (see illus. 1 and 2). The total gutting and modernizing of interior spaces, NPS felt, would destroy the turn-of-the- century character of the public areas, thus violating Standards 2 and 5. With this view in mind, NPS began negotiating with the developer in an effort to save as much woodwork as possible. The buildings were to be converted to HUD section 8 housing for elderly and low-income persons. After initial consultations with his HUD area office, the developer anticipated that numerous changes in stairways would have to be made in order to accommodate new elevators. By changing the proposed locations of elevators in order to lessen the need for stairway demolition, however, 81-017 the owner agreed to retain most of the woodwork that NPS had determined was significant. A letter of preliminary approval containing as a condition the retention of these elements was subsequently sent to the owner. Prepared by: William G. MacRostie,TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. +`.1 81-017 i ,•••"11, 0 1 . 41 ... glur 74". ' 4pir 0 .x. A a.1 1- `4jil 4 VW _ t • ie- ;12 l' 1 �,s . r i 1. The stairway of the above build- IIIIing is shown at right. The handrail, balusters, newel posts, chair rails and window trim are being retained, _ although initial plans called for their removal. , „ I11d �1 IHill 1 /.: f • _ • .. _` • •( ir - ih-,-.- i L : r ir_fc. ..4.6e.ier..4 , _-;. . :-. . . ., , rip------ I . . . . . , ...,____ ... . . . r % . . j j. • am It 11110: • tli 1111- se . • r` i ` Jy • \ t . I k 2. The main stairway in the building at left. The handrails, balusters, newel posts, window trim, marble treads and risers, characteristic of this style and period of architecture, are being retained in the rehabilitation. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. 20240 for �el ICUJ��t�t�on rStandards Number: 81-018 Applicable Standard: 4. Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: REMOVING SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONS Issue: Many historic buildings have had additions over the years, with new ornamental detail, storefronts, porches, windows, wings, stories or lean-tos modifying a structure's original appearance. These modifications often mark a change in building ownership, a change in an owner's stylistic preferences or, in the case of a new story, wing or lean- to, an owner's need for additional floor space accompanied by an improvement in his or her economic circumstances. Changes of this sort may therefore help convey the history of the building's occupants as well as the area in which it is located. For these reasons, Standard 4 states that changes to a structure over time "may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected" during rehabilitation. Application: A frame farmhouse individually listed in the National Register was constructed in 1860 by joining two older structures. When constructed, the front of the house apparently had a small covered porch at its center, but sometime before 1893 (judging from a historic photograph of that vintage) the porch was enlarged to the full length of the facade. Ornamental scrollwork, appearing with the enlarged porch in the 1893 photograph, was apparently added at the same time (see illus. 1 and 2). The current owner, wanting to restore the building to its 1860 appearance, removed the later portions of the porch during his rehabilitation of the building. Three small additions at the rear and on one side wall were also demolished (see illus. 3, 4a and 4b). The owner submitted his request for rehabilitation certification after the work was completed. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) recommended denial of certification for the project based on the existence of flush siding across the front of the building at the first floor level—a local practice often used in conjunction with porches. The SHPO's recommendation for denial was also based on the belief that the three additions removed in the rehabilitation possibly had acquired significance over time. NPS requested further information from the owner regarding his decision for altering the porch, and learned of structural evidence suggesting the presence of an earlier, smaller porch. The significance acquired by the existing, full-length porch, however, became the key issue in the NPS review. NPS determined that regardless of the varying evidence relating to the original size and evolution of the porch, its appearance at the time of rehabilitation was significant to the character of the building. In its letter of denial to the owner, NPS included the following comments: We understand that the demolished portions of the front porch were probably added after the house was assembled on its present site. However, the dominance on the main elevation of this full-length porch with its Victorian brackets and decorative detailing leads us to the 81-018 conclusion that the front porch in its entirety had acquired significance over the course of time. Removal of the outer portions, therefore, violates Standard 4. Our determination was also influenced by the demolition of additions on the south and west sides, all of which we feel may have acquired significance over the history of the house. The SHPO had a further concern regarding an inconsistency in the rehabilitation, in that the current owner's reduction of the front porch should have been accompanied by a replacement of the flush weatherboarding with whatever was "original." The SHPO also felt that there was no consideration given to the damage now possible to the house because of the exposed flush weatherboards. During the course of the owner's appeal it was learned that all of the rehabilitation work in question had been executed in 1976 and early 1977. Although agreeing with the SHPO and NPS that the project did not meet the Secretary's Standards, the hearing officer overturned the denial of certification, citing the fact that the work was performed prior to issuance of the Standards by the Department of the Interior (they were published in the Federal Register in March, 1977) as the mitigating factor. Prepared by: William G. MacRostie, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. i i 81-018 anztaar . , . . r j . 1 I fir; - --1 1-1;7 r-: i ilivo.i._ 1,, e •:. .- .iii__ . --- , :IL _ ., • 1. The farmhouse with its full-length front porch _ T$IT :iiIlf- -before rehabilitation. The portion marked(A)is ■what the owner maintained was original. Portions - r marked(B)were added to the building at a later ^�!•' ,: .- . date and removed during rehabilitation. s q r_..j� Jy -. 2. A detail photo of the front porch. According to the r — owner,the portion of the porch illustrated here was its _`,� approximate original width. MT ` a — j 3. The south side of the building, showing - !- e . the historic additions. The front of the �_ _ 1_ ` ��r-- • building is at the right in the photo, the ' 1.051 sessa �asaar rear at left. 4a.and 4b. After lir rehabilitation,showing altered rear additions (left)and size of ` front porch(right). �i-•• III I 0 M la � -- •4 Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rstandards for Rehabilitation Number: 81-019 Applicable Standard: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) Subject: ALTERATIONS TO SIGNIFICANT INTERIOR SPACES Issue: Historic buildings often contain opens multi-storied spaces that are architecturally significant but that, from a real estate developer's standpoint, may represent potential rentable floor area being wasted. Standard 2 states that "the distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed." Therefore, interior spaces such as church sanctuaries, theater auditoriums, and hotel lobbies and ballrooms normally should be retained intact in a rehabilitation project if they are significant either for their ornamental detail or for their relation to the building's original character and use. While some rehabilitations that call for inserting inobtrusive balconies and partition walls have been approved in the past, certification for projects that completely obscure or destroy the sense of significant interior space and details have been denied. Application: The rehabilitation of a 1909 neo-classical stock exchange building individually listed in the National Register included plans for the insertion of a new floor within the two-story trading room space. Originally, two mezzanine-level galleries on either side of the trading room looked down on a horseshoe-shaped counter and trading desk on the floor below (see illus. la and lb). The proposed additional floor was to span the open space at the mezzanine level between the galleries, with the horseshoe counter and trading desk relocated to another room in the building. The trading room floor, as well as the newly created floor, were to be converted to reception areas and open office space (see illus. 2). NPS determined that the two-story trading room was the primary interior space in the structure, was significant to the exchange building throughout its history, and helped to distinguish the building from others of the same period and style. NPS stated that the proposed changes would dramatically alter the character of this space and would therefore violate Standard 2. The owner did not appeal the denial of certification. Prepared by: William G. MacRostie, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 81-019 1 1. • ilr y r il 0 I f .,:i' !..,„:„. I w •Ti--e. ��;11 , _ � ill t �t ill will I .' f ;J la. and lb. The trading room in its original condition. Project plans called for flooring over the entire mezzanine level, creating additional rentable floor space. • '. sue— 'y , � ' ' jt.-. ..gi - •••••\:4%. :ig,..3 --'gr".':7. 1 'Nit =s ` "'III e 'Allitu,sw i ---1 __ ,_ r•— ii IN.%\ •-•,.......4..• ....." I. f " ., • 1 . s t'_ .-.: 1 f 2. This rendering illustrates what was planned for the trading room floor. The new second story above this room would have received a similar treatment. NPS denied the owner certification, citing the major alteration to the primary space that would result. • Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 81-020 Applicable Standards: 1. Compatible New Use (conformance; nonconformance) 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural • Character (conformance; nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (conformance; nonconformance) Subject: INTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE NEW FUNCTIONS Issue: Rehabilitating historic buildings for a new use often requires the owner to make changes to the existing floor plan. If distinguishing original qualities or the character of the building are lost or if significant details or features are removed in the process of the rehabilitation, the new plan or layout may be in violation of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (particularly Standards 1, 2 and 5). A loss of character of the interior may result from changes such as when a distinct plan arrangement is substantially altered by permanent partitions, distinctive trim is removed or when the orientation of the building is changed by the introduction of new entrances. In looking for potential new uses for an historic property, an owner must consider how to integrate the new function into the existing historic resource without destroying its character. Each new use will have its own set of requirements, and some of these requirements may not be compatible with the existing character of the building. Application: Following are two examples of historic residences that were altered to accommodate new office functions. The first example failed to meet the Secretary's Standards and was denied certification even though the exterior was carefully restored to its Greek Revival period. The modifications to the interior radically altered the symmetrical, formal plan and the loss of the interior trim further added to the loss of character. The owner of the second project, however, sensitively reused the existing plan and highlighted the period ornamentation of the interior features. The first building is an early 19th-century two and a half story house with a formal center hall plan. It was extensively remodeled early in its history, both inside and outside, using the then-popular Greek Revival Style. The continuity of detailing on the interior and exterior, added during ther mid-19th-century remodelling, contributed to the architectural significance of this building and was compatible with its historical significance as an early courthouse. The property was individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Even though the property had a number of uses during the course of its history, the original plan was never seriously altered (see illus. 1). The property had been vacant for a number of years when it was purchased for rehabilitation. The new owners investigated numerous alternative uses for the 81-020 building and determined that the only feasible use, at that time, was for doctors' offices. Unfortunately, this initial decision concerning a new use was not for a compatible use (Standard 1), because the doctors' offices required numerous small rooms (examining rooms, dressing rooms, storage areas), and the plan of this house was an arrangement of formal rooms off of a central hall (see illus. 2). In addition to the change of plan, the owners wanted to insulate the exterior frame walls in a manner that required the removal of the inside plaster and trim. The modest budget for the rehabilitation did not allow for the replacement of the decorative window trim, baseboards, etc. While the trim was not original to the house, these Greek Revival features had gained significance over time and enhanced the character of the interior (Standards 2 and 5). Not only was the trim removed from the inside face of the exterior walls, but all the remaining trim, doors, mantels and brick fireplaces were removed as part of the repair and repartitioning of the interior (see illus. 3 and 4). Also, the original open stair was replaced with an enclosed fire rated stair. While it is often difficult to obtain a fire rating on an open stair, some jurisdictions will provide variances for historic properties if the open stairs are properly sprinkled or if a second fire rated exit is provided. The combination of the change of plan, loss of original details and the overall loss of character of the interior spaces resulted in the denial of certification for tax benefits for this property. The second example of an interior remodeling to incorporate professional offices is that of a late 19th-century Richardsonian Romanesque mansion located within a historic district (see illus. 5). In this case, only a few of the secondary rooms were subdivided and all of the major spaces were retained. This included the retention of the large entrance hall and the open panelled staircase, which became an attactive receptionist's area (see illus. 6 and 7). All interior trim, fireplaces, mantels, and chandeliers, were restored and added greatly to the character of this rehabilitated property; the project was certified as meeting the Standards. Prepared by: Sharon C. Park, AIA, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 81-020 pi J) 911. r #3 j)K #44 #5 vii - #2 =a LL1 11.1 Room#1 #4 Room#1 1...1..r2-4"...mi(Ir #7 J 4 LiLN4_ 1 Entrance Entrance 1 M r 11 1. Before Plan. The original plan was of 2. After Plan. The interior plan was a central hall with large rooms located drastically altered during the reha- symmetrically on each side. Each room bilitation to accommodate numerous had a fireplace with a mantel and deco- small offices and examining rooms. rative trim in the Greek Revival Style. In addition, the open stair was replaced with a boxed-in stair and the original trim and fireplaces were removed. 81-020 1 ; 1/4 •�' �'.1 .Y •Y�� I �ii� �j --•---- c r, Ti V f i-- -- • L1 • 3. Exterior of carefully restored - 3' Greek Revival style house used for -f'- `• doctors' offices. Even the exterior chimney caps were rebuilt after re- 4. Interior of the same house, which was moval of the interior fireplaces. subsequently stripped of all the trim, moldings, doors, mantels and fireplaces, resulting in denial of certification. a�", :F '..�:.- —'mac' la.z p. ' \-),,- .,i.E.P I - _ -tr_.--:::::::._ ••,.,:\CA.4.1 ,, =. \\�\ • E: ' 'C-- \ -.. WrAll Dir...R. 4, ....*, .„ /s . = ,...4:1... .___, „ ii, , ...._,L --7.1.nr-.....-- _J.: e97,.!.. ."-.7.11s*".1.1, ' ..... l' .ice c ,i'• ',: , .. � � �. 5. Exterior of carefully restored Richardsonian Romanesque mansion. 81-020 I • •ti i , . ; II, it 33 -- i . ' I ; i i - N., mg :.1 a en Anti I . I lit 1 , Kri `- 6. Receptionist's Area. The main stair and the entrance hall were retained as a receptionist's area in the approved rehabilitation project. Many jurisdictions will allow the stairs to remain open in historic properties if an approved sprinkler system is installed to provide the necessary fire protection. N.; +., . a s• i .. I A tttttttttttt11 is! . I F, , -i. _" 0. • it 1p. --414111t - r Ti/ ==''' ici, 7. Interior Office. The fireplace, mantel and wooden window trim and baseboards were retained as decorative features in the approved rehabilitation. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 81-021 Applicable Standard: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) Subject: WINDOW REPAIR vs. WINDOW REPLACEMENT Issue: The decision to repair or replace windows is an issue that can pose considerable problems in the rehabilitation of a major historic commercial structure. If a small number of undistinctive windows on secondary elevations are deteriorated, then total replacement of these windows may be appropriate. Stock windows are often chosen as adequate replacements due to their availability, low cost, and energy efficiency. Certain historic structures may contain highly distinctive windows that are a major component of the overall exterior design. Standard 2 states that such distinguishing original features shall not be destroyed. In this case, careful repair of the deteriorated features in order to retain the architectural character of the structure is the preferred approach. In the event that repair is not technically or economically feasible, new windows that match the original in material, size, general muntin and mullion configuration, and reflective qualities of the glass may be substituted for missing or irreparable windows. Application: NPS was asked to review the window replacement proposals for a theater that exhibited highly detailed facades punctuated by a considerable number of windows on each floor level (see illus. 1). The large window openings and slender sash members provided an interesting juxtaposition of architectural treatments with the heavily adorned masonry surfaces. The window sash and frames had deteriorated over the years and consequently the decision was made to return the windows to a serviceable condition. The window repalcement would be done concurrently with other Historic Preservation Fund grant-assisted work but would not receive a grant-in- aid itself. Three proposals were submitted by the architectural firm as bid alternatives. The first alternative included repairing or replacing the deteriorated existing wood sash with wood members that duplicated the existing configurations (see illus. 2). The architectural firm indicated that the existing sash were original to the theater. The second alternative proposed replacing the existing wood sash with aluminum fixed sash (see illus. 3). The third alternative was to replace the existing wood sash with wooden double-hung sash clad with aluminum (see illus. 4). NPS determined that the first alternative was acceptable in all respects. The second alternative was also determined acceptable with one exception: the proposed windows for the second and third floor levels were not appropriate replacements due to the different sized panes, which deviated in scale and design from the original windows. The overall proportion of these proposed windows would have altered the exterior appearance of the building. Finally, the third alternative was not acceptable in any 81-021 respect since the replacement windows on all floor levels differed severely from the originals and would have resulted in a totally altered exterior appearance. NPS commented that alternatives two and three would be acceptable only if the replacement sash were specially fabricated to duplicate the equal-sized, one-over-one sash configurations of the original windows. The architectural firm indicated that the bid for alternative one was considerably more than alternative three. The firm stated that alternative two could be specially fabricated, but the cost would be similar to alternative one. They indicated that alternative three would fit the window openings, but since the aluminum dad wooden windows were stock items they could not be fabricated to match the original sash configurations. This was also the least expensive alternative and was subsequently chosen by the architectural firm as their recommended proposal. After further negotiations with the architectural firm, NPS ultimately recommended repairing and replacing as many windows as possible within the allotted budget using new wood sash as proposed in alternative one. The remaining windows could be secured and weatherproofed in order to seal the building from adverse climatic conditions. These windows could then be restored in a future phase. The architectural firm eventually recommended that the project sponsors select alternative one; repairing the existing wood sash, where necessary, with new wood members that duplicated the original designs. However, due to overriding project budget constraints, a decision was made to limit work to scraping and repainting the existing window sash rather than to install replacement sash. Prepared by: Christopher A. Sowick, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 81-021 __ .:'s.r' '': . � �' �'1 � • 'yam ,,� \ .'� \ 1 r. .., y ../ \ • y4 . "%,.J 0.1- X. \a v r'j',1•, . . '` . ,• ` \; 0 L., ., 0 i ,...:..-: 1 ,...--.,v.,it-;.,,.. , . ;,:_, % .--'.`...rt 14'. 1' : . I , ,:..', • L ' . h •;:�": I ! ,.-� !dry; - lif �• ! � \ �, • 1 It pi, p_ �l l t�Nd 114'41. 1 L.6 II '.' . ri ' Ii! I: ',;','' 1,g 4'' - ..-.:1 11 ',it - "- El , . I 11 6141411 a 1 is li ' 1: '- - ;.,..,4••0a ii4r4-7 IuW i �� III s, _ r. _ : J%) zLT0 - ea_ .7--. 1--- I Am-1.. 1 I.ill . H I ".ri . E ; _--4..-rr.ii \ NI.. cry_ _ .C=1 �� f.Y'LLS: iç —:I_..'"g _• _ -++ 1. Exterior of theater. ,M - -0 4:ta y 4L," was y y 4-,"= ,. t 1 i I i . i v_tstl r. i. T .___ 1✓tE7-Z 'FL047t2 si=-0t.rp .4 THLR-t, FaLrRTN F1A02 V INDOw ' FLOOQ •WINDOWS wINDow- 2. Alternative One. Existing sash to be repaired/replaced with new matching wood members. This approach was fully consistent with the Secretary's Standards and was approved by NPS. I 4 L 7 H i 510 Xa I I — r---, —r I o i; !- I ! j0.A 1J fecal TLano► 1 N x IrI t I \ ,i �i a I —s,—-1 _ T_ r: , f 4'TM Ft-ooQ - VItN(20w MPaS FOUR-TH �t.oOfz P. H. W INDO VAS y 4 1M 5-.0j a L 41 7" = " - es + G i d F-- J\ / _ 1I— _ I s : TLANJeH ..1 i IJT7 ► y k i /s >‹, 1 .44 Qs t 1 :,•1 \// - , t. .,INI, l tj,/ 1 Z.uv* 5" FLOOR. WINDOW T�PE.� _.�ecol.tD aR TNIR.D FLOorz, v.H. WINDOW4i J- 4'"7r I oli " 1 4"1° f— Sie ems" l I`� � i t\j a ,,01 li; SO / ��1 v141 Ij�1 T ] T - -- ----- l.ittzz_. Vt.002_ v.i1NiPow TYPES A/lt..zz�.n1IMa PLoot3.. p.l-}, y�, /J [7awh 3. Alternative Two. Proposed replacements using 4. Alternative Three. Proposed replacements using aluminum fixed sash. The designs for the second and wooden double hung sash clad with aluminum. These third floor windows were found to be inappropriate by designs radically altered the appearance of the NPS because the meeting rail did not bisect the sash. windows and were determined unacceptable by NPS. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 81-022 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: APPROPRIATE SCALE OF GREENHOUSE ADDITIONS Issue: Greenhouse additions to historic building are sometimes used by developers to obtain additional floor space or for passive solar heat collection. NPS does not discourage new additions to historic buildings under certain conditions. A number of projects that include contemporary greenhouse additions have been certified for tax purposes where they have been proposed for non-significant elevations and have been compatible in size and scale with the existing structure. In addition, their construction should not involve demolition of significant historic fabric or obscure significant architectural detail or features. Greenhouse proposals that do not meet these criteria may jeopardize certification of the project work. Application: The proposed rehabilitation of a four-story Federal style structure included plans for a wrap-around greenhouse to be built on two of the building's three elevations. At the end of a long row of wharf buildings, this structure projected prominently into a square near the center of a downtown historic district (see illus. 1). NPS determined that all three of the building's elevations were equally significant, and therefore it would be especially important that the size and scale of any addition be sensitive to the existing structure. The developer of the building planned to convert the first two floors to a restaurant, and several hundred square feet of additional floor space would be provided by the greenhouse (he sought no solar energy benefits from the addition). The initial proposal submitted to NPS called for a two-story, lean-to greenhouse whose roof would connect to the building just below the third floor window sills (see illus. 2). NPS determined that the two-story height of the greenhouse would dominate the four-story facades for which it was proposed, thus violating Standards 2 and 9. NPS suggested that if additional space was required, a one-story greenhouse would be more compatible with the scale of the building. A one-story addition would obscure only the ground floor of the building (comprised of storefronts that had been altered several times in the building's history) and would leave the upper three stories unimpaired. Such an addition, however, would not be a recommended rehabilitation approach. The developer responded by presenting a slightly scaled-down greenhouse design, with the sidewalk depth reduced and the height lowered from the third-story window sill line to the second-story lintel line. By reducing the size of the greenhouse in this way, the developer gave up some seating space in a second floor balcony which had been included in the original design (see illus. 3 and 4). In arguing for their revised two- story design, the developer and his architect maintained that all of the greenhouse 81-022 would be glazed and that only very light framing would be required to carry the sloped roof, allowing a person on the sidewalk adjacent to the greenhouse to look up through the glass and readily observe the historic brick wall above. They argued that a one-story greenhouse would require an almost flat roof because of the relationship of its height to its depth. In order to carry the weight of the glass roof, therefore, the framing would have to be heavier and would, they maintained, obscure the view up through the glass. NPS did not agree with this assessment of the addition's impact, and in its letter of denial to the owner, stated: the scale of a two-story greenhouse would dominate the facades for which it is proposed. A one-story (design) would not have the same overwhelming effect—from either a close-up or distant perspective--on the existing structure. In appealing this NPS decision, the developer wrote: ...we believe the sloped roof of the greenhouse reflects the line of the existing roof of the (building) as the one-story design would not....The configuration of the two-story) canopy, combined with sensitive lighting will high-light the components of the historic (facade); a one- story addition would intrude upon and obscure the significant features of the (facade)....The dramatic alteration caused by the proposed greenhouse addition will have a positive effect on the...building. At night, "suitably illuminated," the greenhouse becomes invisible from any sight line, and the facades of the...building are dramatically revealed. After reviewing the facts of the case,the hearing officer sustained NPS's denial of certification and, in his letter to the owner, wrote: I agree that with illumination of the facades of the...building the greenhouse would be nearly transparent at night, and that the facades would therefore "read" through the glass much as your elevation drawings depict. I would hasten to point out, however, that the drawings overlook the reflective quality that glass possesses during daylight hours. As a result of this quality, I believe that glass in a greenhouse is not a neutral material, "virtually invisible," as you maintain. It is a dynamic material with bold visual qualities very different from the red brick of the...facades. (These) visual characteristics...would make a two-story greenhouse less an invisible addition and more one which would stand alone as an architectural statement, competing with and altering the historic character of the building. The hearing officer reiterated to the developer that a one-story greenhouse likely would receive certification. In a resubmitted application, however, the developer 81-022 eliminated the greenhouse entirely, proposing instead outdoor seating on the sidewalk during the summer months only. Upon receipt of this new plan, a preliminary approval of the developer's proposed work was issued. Prepared by: William G. MacRostie, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. . � 1 81-022 . lii441„-.-- .--_,.., . 4 l f'''' / II ,► r 1. Corner of the Federal Style build- ..I l i�� - I ) 1i.. ' u. 1' ing for which a two-story greenhouse 1' ' i f.i I J ' ' • ' t was proposed. The greenhouse would .':if • 111 i ` I ! I- I I I 11 have run half the length of the facade �_ rig;.:..:., at right and the entire length of the '", I,� '! II p a •`�, facade at left. 1. • t I r `'- , 2. Initial design proposal. NPS deter- ]_ , 1 --7=1 mined that this two-story addition would I � � a j1 1 = dominate the two facades and overwhelm �. • --_- the building. •�1 ' n m Y .M • 1...: II U +n - :• 3. The developer's second design pro- _! = posal reduced the height of the green- - _ house to the level of the second story II. window lintels. NPS continued to with- _d._. r � hold approval for the project. :,.. _ •:. : • '" °_ I: "` "' 4. NPS suggested a one-story green- • — — — — house, similar to this, which would • .., in ,,,an Ninot have the same overwhelming effect j,EMEE'EE��_LI�somm on the building as the proposed two- ■■-.11_ !=I 1 story addition. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 81-023 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) Subject: USE OF UREA-FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION IN WOOD FRAMED BUILDINGS Issue: Insulating the walls of an existing wood framed building is a common energy conservation retrofitting measure. Some types of insulation are installed by removing the inside or outside building materials, a process that is time-consuming, expensive and which can result in the loss of important intact historic fabric. A recent alternative method of insulating frame walls is to inject foam insulation directly into the framing cavity through holes selectively drilled through the exterior siding. This insulation is known as urea-formaldehyde foam and is usually referred to as u-f foam. NPS has determined that u-f foam is not an appropriate material for retrofitting historic buildings. It causes immediate as well as long-term damage to adjacent building materials. Use of u-f foam cannot be considered a good preservation practice and violates number 2 of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, which deals with the alteration of historic materials. The alteration and subsequent deterioration of the historic matrial comes about as part of the curing process of the urea-formaldehyde foam (see illus.). Moisture is one of the worst problems for an old building, and u-f foam is injected wet into the frame structure. U-f foam is the consistency of shaving cream, and as it dries or "cures" as many as five quarts of water for each stud cavity of approximately 2' X 8' are released and must be absorbed by adjacent materials. This excess moisture can result in rotting of wood members, the formation of fungus within the walls, damp plaster, and blistering and peeling paint. In some cases it can also result in the rusting of metal elements within the wall including nails, metal lath, electrical fittings, and anchorage devices. The rapid release of moisture during the curing process can also result in standing water accumulating on the structural wood sills creating conditions for potentially severe damage. Long term damage may result from condensation that forms within the cavity walls once u-f foam has cured. The curing process, which can take many years, results in the foam shrinking as the moisture within the insulation dissipates. Tests conducted by the National Bureau of Standards have proven that after approximately 2 years, u-f foam will have shrunk at least 7 percent. This shrinkage will reduce the effectiveness of the insulation by at least 15 percent. As the foam shrinks away from the studs, sheathing and lath, a gap of about 1/8 th inch will form on either side of the foam. As humidity within the house from cooking, bathing and laundering migrates through the wall to the cooler outside, moisture can condense within the gaps formed by the u-f foam. This trapped moisture can further damage the historic materials of the building. In addition to the instability of the material within the wall, there is also the 81-023 chance for the installer to mix the ingredients improperly, resulting in foam that will not properly set and that subsequently must be removed by tearing out one surface of the wall. Although not of concern to the deterioration of the building materials within a house, another important concern is the possible danger to humans from the vapors released by the formaldehyde gas within the u-f foam. After investigating numerous cases of illness, nausea and dizziness reported by inhabitants of houses insulated with u-f foam, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has determined that u-f foam can present serious health hazards to occupants. Consequently, the commission banned u-f foam in residential buildings and schools. Application: U-f foam was injected into the walls of a ca. 1869 wood framed building in New England during the summer of 1979. No initial moisture damage or paint blistering was observed, and no such moisture damage was apparent when NPS reviewed the project. The injection of the foam and some minor cosmetic repainting of the building were the only items of work identified on the Part 2 application for rehabilitation certification. The Mid-Atlantic Regional Office, NPS, after consulting with the Washington office, denied certification to the owner, based on the high probability that moisture damage had occurred (although hidden from view) and the likelihood that damage would occur in the future from condensation forming within the wall cavity. Both the regional office and the Washington office felt that the use of u-f foam is not, under any condition, a sound preservation practice for the reasons cited above and illustrated in the sketch below. Prepared by: Baird M. Smith, AIA, and Sharon C. Park, AIA, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 81-023 ''•�` ,':' U-f foam releases approximately Paint can peel and blister ,� i`.:.� •, • i : PP y on the exterior surface of kb•?R • 5• quarts vity s of of water for 2 X Seach as part moist wood siding. N its,,.. ,,. ,.`R of the curing process. U-f foam shrinks as it cures by at least 7%, thereby reducing �1 *tee.: •; Metal, including metal lath, the effectiveness of the \ ! ;, • i�: anchors and electrical fittings, insulation and causing gaps �� ..�,.•`,+ within the cavity wall can rust for condensation to settle. lL .....A._....._• •�• ; ` from the moisture released by u-f •,, 4.. i o ir�•,sOr �c, foam or from condensation. Fungal growth and wood rot ^ i►'•+" ••`• i:,. can develop on moist wood r1 s•••...-.� •,••'� Plaster walls can become damp and 0.`«;•> paint can peel as a result. sheathing. �- ct - i,,•„ •., ✓' Vertical wood studs supported „f. " U-f foam gives off formaldehyde �• .•'••' � . as it which is believed by wood sills can absorb standing J1 �„��•,�� ., gascures, moisture through capillary 0� -P•..•`•; to be harmful to humans. action resulting in possible _`�4,. , severe structural damage. '0 t«.i• � Excess moisture from curing and :• t. condensation formed in the walls . S, lea Li 0 on the surface of the shrunken /� �. � ' •'� insusillslationand can settle on the wood lye create a situation where r F��a ..� «4 »`, rot and fungal growth can set in. --DOILL Exterior Iu' _7101.5T Interior Detailed wall section showing injected u-f foam Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 82-024 Applicable Standards: 3. Recognition of Historic Period (conformance) Subject: CREATING EARLIER/LATER INTERIORS WHERE NO SIGNIFICANT SPACES, FEATURES, OR FINISHES EXIST Issue: Property owners or developers may sometimes "create" interiors that are inappropriate to the style or period of historic buildings because they feel certain styles are more "fashionable" in the business community. The Standards are intended to encourage treatments that respect the character of historic buildings; thus, Standard 3 states "All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations which have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged." This Standard assumes that the distinguishing interior spaces, features, and finishes are substantially intact and would be lost or damaged by inappropriate alterations, i.e., creating styles that are either earlier or, by inference, later than the historic building, or an eclectic combination of styles that reflect no particular period. In certain very limited situations, however, creating a non-historic appearance may be acceptable in a rehabilitation project if: 1. The existing interior retains no significant spaces or features or finishes and, thus, conveys no sense of historic character; 2. There is minimal destruction of historic fabric; and 3. All other aspects of the rehabilitation clearly meet the standards. All three criteria must be met before interior spaces can, in effect, be re-designed to suit re-use needs. Where historic documentation (old photographs, drawings, etc.) exists, owners should strongly be encouraged to undertake a "reconstruction" based on such evidence but, under the tax benefits legislation, cannot be required to do so. Application: An 1840s tavern in a historic district in the Midwest was being rehabilitated for use as an antique and gift shop. The approach to the exterior work was generally "restorative" in the removal of a historically inappropriate bay window and door pediments, all of which had been added in the 1970s. This part of the project was determined clearly to meet the Standards (see illus. 1). On the other hand, the regional office questioned the appropriateness of the interior work, even though the interior had been totally modernized and, thus, conveyed no sense of historic character (see illus. 2). In order to better market his products in the antique and gift shop, the owner felt it was important to create an interior decor that was "appropriate to provincial Britain and Eastern Europe" (see illus. 3). The regional office denied certification of the project based on nonconformance to Standard 3, asserting that the interior had no place in this mid-19th century American building. When the owner appealed, the hearing officer overturned the regional office's decision because the past modernization of the interior resulted in the total loss of significant spaces, features, and finishes. Because there were no preservation issues involved, the owner had the option of creating an interior style--either earlier or later than the historic building--to suit his needs. The hearing officer would have preferred that the owner create an interior that was historically appropriate to the building, but the Standards for Rehabilitation do not require reconstruction of historic features. 82-024 A similar decision was reached in an appeal involving a 1903 bank building proposed for individual listing in the National Register. Although the original main banking room with its neo-classical detailing (see illus. 4) had been modernized in the 1950s so that the historic character had been destroyed (see illus. 5), the owner's rehabilitation was denied certification because it was felt than an earlier, Victorian appearance had been created by the work (see illus. 6). In the appeal, the denial decision was overturned on grounds that the 1950s interior alteration had essentially destroyed all significant spaces, features, and finishes so that there was, in effect, no historic character to preserve when the later rehabilitation work was undertaken. It should be noted that in many of the other rooms in the bank, the original plaster walls and wood trim were still intact and were saved in the rehabilitation project. In summary, the hearing officer stated: "For this reason, I have determined that, should the building be listed in the National Register of Historic Places (and thereby becomes 'a certified historic structure'), the rehabilitation work undertaken will not preclude certification of rehabilitation for the project." Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks, and William G. MacRostie, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. --t 82-024 1,/ "P4e1A,:;-.•-• . i �f� 1. Exterior of the 1840s tavern. 4 —='� r:. _. b:.� --- y.t 4 This project was submitted for ` I r� certification of rehabilitation. [} Standard 3,which deals with f.� alterations that seek to create I� - earlier appearances,was at issue. 71- The exterior work fully met 1 _ the Secretary of the Interior's , —•,n _,.....,.., } Standards for Rehabilitation, but 1.5s Lk ..-r../ L. ,..j - / ‘ ...-• t . .',, ate. 2. Interior of the tavern prior to ith the rehabilitation. This interior was a result of a 1970s remodeling. f All visible historic fabric, including ( FJ r , ,fz_: '` the floors, walls and ceiling, were ' ! I , J �. '=,t_ �,,, removed and replaced with modern • i '•! .1' i ' ( I + l' - materials. It was determined by NPS r I ' I i ' that there was no historic character _ I . Tj.. to this space. € 4 r 0. h� a, t - `t .. _` , 0 Le• 1 - 3. Interior of the tavern after '' the rehabilitation. (The same view J °` as that of the above photograph). This interior reflects a style and {_ `.i • period that is inappropriate for an , + t 1840s tavern. However,because the ''= '' existing interior had been determined 1.F. .• - ~ to have no historic character and ?`• because the project fully met all z three criteria outlined in the text, the project was certified. NIIIIIIII d --'..47 F' Y 82-024 - fa IL*ii tri -` T. s a111Pe- 1. ' r-r •.H. . i 4q4: , ._ . , • p .:.� - 4. This historic photograph documents / '^PM •a t 5 yliGP I I' 1 i , iti' the original 1903 Neo-classical into- =i PM .,-- '� - rior of the banking room. ' AK._ '•b.' • !' :'k * Y, • _ - Y xrr. ,a.S MS' ". . fir(' " 't .?, 1 f h 7 • i r a V '- h} kv f,r ya y 1 ' _ *. •- yy. 5. Interior of the banking room J• 'q Via- ' .;, 4 . -.--Mg ; prior to Thisphotograph,latsrehabilitation. l : =: w d .-..., - the same view as -r «; • sr '* the photograph above,documents the 4 .- ! .. interior of the banking room after h•�-"- '-� j- - ns� the 1950s remodeling that removed '' ` "s nC all significant historic fabric. 'g � L s r A +'} am- ''.•'L RY „�,�'"V�;i +tit T -._ \. " 1 _-..` .- --;. T 1 , • 1 6, Interior of the banking room , Ill umw• after the most recent rehabilitation. o� This view is of the banking room after . the rehabilitation in which a Victorian - 1 i = ,t . style interior was installed. Because 'e ',.,. :'. - .. - • the interior prior to the rehabilitation \ had been determined to have no historic ;:.;;i - •I INti::4 . character,and because this projecta • fully met all three criteria outlined in `f` ' ;!.. the text,it was certified. I - -- `- _ y+ -. i _ 0 F Technical Preservation Services I Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service I the Secretary of the Interior's U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. [Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 82-025 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 4. Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions (conformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (conformance) Subject: ENTRYWAY ALTERATIONS IN CARRIAGE HOUSE CONVERSIONS Issue: The rehabilitation of historic carriage houses into usable living spaces often poses difficulties for owners undertaking such conversions. These structures are often more modest in detail than the main house they serve, and generally lack architectural features such as window and door surrounds, elaborate cornices, and high quality brick-work. Nonetheless it is important that their essential form and integrity be preserved during the course of rehabilitation. Doors and openings are frequently the most distinguishing features of carriage houses. Owners, however, often find it necessary to modify these features for the following reasons: to allow for privacy, for adequate light and air, and for more efficient access into the interior living spaces. Owners should be concerned about the possibility of violating Standards 2, 4, and 5 by damaging historic fabric or severely altering the integrity of the structure through the use of inappropriate infill designs. Additionally, where original or historically significant doors have survived, they should be retained rather than removed, and the sense of opening should be preserved. Projects that fail to retain their "carriage house" character can result in denial of certification. The following project provides an example of the mitigating circumstances that existed to enable the approval of a particular infill design. Application: The owner of an 1840 carriage house in a historic'district rehabilitated the structure for use as rental units and upon completion of the project requested that the work be designated a "certified rehabilitation." The two-story brick building had been constructed with a balcony across the second floor and two arched doorways that opened into the interior carriage spaces on the first floor. In 1934 the structure was converted into apartments, and wooden doors were installed in the arched entryways. These doors were not original elements of the structure nor were they significant to the character of the carriage house. The rehabilitation work performed by the present owner, according to the certification application, included refinishing the interior woodwork; repairing existing wood sash, doors, and shutters on the balcony level; paving the existing gravel courtyard with exposed aggregate concrete; repairing the balcony elements; and replacing the wooden carriage doors with fanlights, sidelights, and French doors. 82-025 The regional office determined that the project did not meet Standards 2, 4, and 5, primarily due to the infill designs for the elliptical-arched doorways. The denial letter stated: Our office would have suggested, had the application been submitted before work was begun, an alternative design solution which would have incorporated a simple, contemporary entry into the large garage doors to 'scale down' the openings. The regional office also expressed reservations over the apparent replacement of the balcony balusters and the extensive amount of paving that occurred within the courtyard. The owner subsequently appealed the decision. After hearing the appeal, the decision was made to designate the work as a "certified rehabilitation." Although additional balusters were apparently installed on the balcony, the hearing officer determined that the replacement features maintained the simplicity in design and austere detailing that existed prior to rehabilitation. Regarding the courtyard space, the new paving covered the existing gravel surface, but its appearance as an informal courtyard and not a formal garden or patio was retained, preserving its historical and architectural integrity. The major source of concern was the infill design for the carriage house doors. The hearing officer agreed with the regional office that installation of fanlights, sidelights, and French doors was an extremely formal solution for adaptively reusing the existing doorways. A more appropriate approach would have been to design a doorway that incorporated as much of the character of the existing fabric so that the doors are able to maintain their original definition and historic character. Nevertheless, because the need for light and air in the first floor spaces was dearly established and no historic fabric was destroyed, the architectural elaboration of the doorways was approved—although not recommended--as an acceptable treatment for this particular structure. Prepared by: Christopher A. Sowick, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-025 T+ a . --- 4 A.... . ._... ' _ r i . 3 ` t____:0 t t .�i1 ..t ��,-# ,.i I . .....,. i• .r✓ .'.. } - wX ' L1,..„. ...1,... . . y A . ms y ` `- -F. f e ,.; 1. Carriage house prior to recent 2. Completed rehabilitation 47 rehabilitation. This view incorporates showing formal infill design, repaired 1934 changes, including interior balcony railing, and paved courtyard. alterations and wooden entrance doors This work was found to meet the Standards. in archway. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 82-026 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 10. Reversibility of new Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: NEW ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS Issue: When rehabilitating historic buildings for tax benefits, the construction of new additions to the original building often occurs. Such additions are usually necessary to increase the available square footage and make the rehabilitation commercially successful. To meet Standard 2, such additions should not significantly alter the original distinguishing qualities of the building including its form, materials, fenestration and stylistic elements. New construction should also be clearly distinguishable from the original building and, as stated in Standard 3, should not give the property an earlier appearance without historical basis. Additionally, it should be compatible in size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment, according to Standard 9. Finally, additions or alterations to historic buildings should result in minimum damage to historic building fabric to meet Standard 10. Application: An 1840s Classical Revival home, individually listed on the National Register, was rehabilitated into five rental apartments (see illus. 1). The original brick building had a projecting wing and stair tower on the rear of the building and a roof configuration which reflected these projections. The projecting wing and stair tower gave the building a distinctive F-shaped form visible from the east (side) and rear of the building. A two-story frame addition was constructed on the rear in 1931. The rehabilitation called for the demolition of the non-significant frame addition and the construction of a large, two-story brick addition on the rear of the building. While the 1930s frame addition had to some extent altered the shape of the building, the original form was still discernible due to the small scale of the frame addition, its separate roof, and its use of different fenestration and materials from the original brick building. In the project work, the new brick addition transformed the irregular shaped plan of the building into that of a rectangular plan and a substantial portion of the external walls of the historic building became internal walls (see illus. 2). The new addition also was constructed so that it appeared to be an integral part of the original building. On the east facade, the new addition was constructed flush with the original wall; the brick keyed into the original; and the addition painted the same color as the rest of the building (see illus. 3). The cornice and beltcourse on this facade were repeated on the addition, and the windows were duplicated in size, pane configuration and lintel shape (see illus. 4). Two original windows on this east facade were enlarged to complete the consistent appearance. On the west facade, two windows were removed so that window placement would be more similar between the 82-026 original and new portions of the building. Further, where roofs of varying height and shapes previously covered each projection, the original building and the new addition were unified under a new symmetrical hip roof. For these reasons, the Southeast Regional Office determined that the addition did not meet Standards 2 and 10 and denied certification for the project. The owner appealed the denial on the basis that enough difference existed between the new and historic brickwork, cornice detailing and window placement for the building to appear as if it had been constructed at different times. Also, a contemporary addition had been originally planned, but the local historic review board required a more traditional design. The decision of the regional office was sustained on appeal. The hearing officer affirmed that approval by local review boards does not ensure certification by NPS, and that the Secretary's Standards take precedence over State and local regulations. The hearing officer did not believe sufficient difference existed between the new and old construction, which also contributed to the denial of certification. However, the strength of the decision rested on the fact that the building's character had been changed by both the overall scale and prominent location of the new addition which substantially altered the historic building form. A new addition of smaller dimensions could have met the Standards by using contemporary, non-Classical Revival details, a setback between the new addition on the east and rear facades, and by retaining varying roof configurations between the original building and the addition. Prepared by: Jean E. Travers, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-026 al 3}sea;• I EM fit! i''4 i7 ylip )1r 1 •• .ili"iiti 4F9.1t1:r t . (.. I.. �S. i ti .j : i i r i 1. Front (south) facade after the rehabili- tation. The front facade was not substantially altered during the rehabilitation. Many of the historic features, such as the lintels over the windows, were highlighted during the rehabili- tation of the front facade. — ---=;---m ‘• *11111*.1140,1116461.1114bZU%iiioN. P`•i�� ` ...1 - New brick addition di : -C i I, -11 L ' i 1 rM'eT P• IF . l' , . . . .............A, - _ 2. Plan after the rehabilitation. The black line indicates the original configuration of the historic building. The new brick addition (indicated with a cross-hatching) replaced, in part, a 1930s wooden addition. 82-026 original construction �k, new construction 3. East facade after the rehabili- '�' - `�' tation. Note that the similarity _ �;4. .; = in windows, beltcourses, flush wall --- -- — — ' construction and the new roof make differentiating the new work from r.., mg - the original work difficult. *-- — • 4. M: - I J . . 41 { .ti47' 1 ` .._ 4:.1sue.- t ti;;A:w .4lga original wall ` new construction r\ 4. Connection detail between old and ' '�"`_ new construction. The new brick wall _,„ " was keyed into the original brick wall . - where the brick courses lined up. - . r r"" - Note the continuation of the projecting "- " beltcourse from the original wall to the - .._�' • : R R : new construction and the similar treat- ' ments of the windows. : , r s is,,,-, - ftS 17 . ,,,„...:,,.,,,,..,..,,,,kt... ....,.......,„....., .....,....:,, ...... „2,.....,., ,.....,,,,, i ........ ...„.......... ..„.„.....,....,....., %AC*. , - v("?s 11 T 4 A Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 82-027 Applicable Standard: 4. Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions (conformance) J Subject: REMOVAL OF SIGNIFICANT EARLIER EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS Issue: Property owners and architects sometimes underestimate the significance of prior alterations and additions when planning rehabilitation work on historic buildings. Motivated by a desire to restore the original appearance of a building, to - create space for a new addition, or to modernize the existing features, the owner or architect may remove non-original elements, such as wings, porches, bays, or storefronts that are evidence of the history and development of the building. These features may have acquired architectural or historic merit in their own right. Removal of significant alterations and additions may violate Standard 4 and result in denial of certification for the overall rehabilitation project. Application: A four-story, brick commercial building in New England dating from 1883 with alterations in the 1920s was proposed for rehabilitation to provide prime office space with a restaurant on the ground floor (see illus. 1). Initial plans for rehabilitation included a new recessed addition and the removal of features added in the 1920s, notably the decorative clad metal projecting bays and the storefronts. The bays were in good physical condition while the storefronts had rusted beyond repair. These 1920s features were to be replaced with new glass and metal bays and new projecting storefronts in a contemporary design reflecting the detailing of the proposed addition (see illus. 2). In reviewing the application, NPS referred to the National Register nomination for this individually listed property, which described the significance of the building in terms of its continued use as a local commercial enterprise and its physical evolution to meet the changing demands of its commercial use. The 1920s additions were therefore, significant to the architectural evolution of the building, and NPS determined that they should be retained. The owner was notified that loss of these features would result in denial of certification. The owner agreed to repair the existing bays, which were in good condition. The owner was also willing to submit revised designs for replacing the storefront which would retain the character of the building as it appeared in the 1920s. When the modified storefront design was submitted (see illus. 3), NPS was able to complete its review. The proposed storefront design, which was of contemporary wood and glass configuration, was determined to be compatible. As part of the overall 82-027 review, the design for the proposed recessed addition was evaluated and also determined to be compatible with the historic building. The project was therefore given preliminary certification. Prepared by: Floy A. Brown and Sharon C. Park, AIA, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable.beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 1. NE corner before rehabilitation. 82-027 This 1883 brick commercial building -> had projecting metal bays and storefronts i. -,..low added in the 1920s. These 1920s features y f " :_`" .i ��_ �= ice: to 4 . were determined to be significant elements . -�:—�;,, _ � _ that reflected the commercial development ` ' i °` I- -i �1�` of this property. As part of the reha- I� '--_ 0 t _t_ bilitation, it was determined by NPS that i �. I i t Lk these features should be retained. -! 111172 . , ...- - -.. ci, • --- I f - J la A • - F 1 • 14 , .-- _ = == - 2. Proposed rehabilitation: east facade. F` `K . , ,„ , 41 in _• _. This first proposal called for the removal of the corner storefronts and the replacement of the side storefront and projecting bays with a projecting storefront and bay combi- - =—_ - -- -- - nation. A small recessed contemporary addition ' . I 1 1 1 I I ; Ik was also proposed to the side and rear of _ 1 the building. This proposal was not approved _ n r__ _ L __ because of the loss of significant features - of the building. ! e. '��` 1 il EL 0 D.(7.....) ] , uuur .4 -1 0 _ t__, lli EI . 1171 ..=_-_.-g 1--=':‘--) 0 1"3"=•t 7 -, ;MI6-, \, i 0 0 G I , J� L_..-.n , uur- --•-.-.• 1 I as N•••1 4/.•L 3. Approved design for rehabilitation. _-. -_- . _ r'_T._ __._-_ ___ _�,�} i_. �_ .__ i' This proposal retained the significant - _ '- .� if- 1 ➢ r: I. : __ t.r features of the building and met the �R , Standards. The bays, which were in l�Il�wllw._I lat,I U1 good condition, were repaired. The .,I'- 'Al i �� - -s �, �I storefronts which were in poor condition, �- a . -• ' Pi I� _ -. l_i were replaced with sympathetic new y ' — _._ infill material and the proposed recessed , i greenhouse addition was approved as being II'' 1 II i compatible with the historic building. mina - The rehabilitation proposal was given ` t�Ital1M. •;1_il.i •- ' `=,I preliminary approval. I 11 i • i�, - _. .. I,I.1 ti I�I� "lip 51 1:41. i 4� hill r .. 1 ` 2-Mumilmit III I .4w +iM+/w1- 4$ A*Tao �' - — '"w w ;•niTu X,�q` 7 Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior s Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 82-028 Applicable Standards: 1. Compatible New Use (nonconformance) 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for new Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: INCOMPATIBLE DESIGN FOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS Issue: Historic buildings can be successfully rehabilitated for new uses--such as restaurants--with the effect of stimulating business in an entire community. A new use that differs dramatically from the original use of a building will usually require some alterations or additions. Standard 9 recognizes this need and states: "Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when...such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment." Therefore, when a rehabilitation project is being planned that involves such broad considerations as installation of kitchen equipment, guest seating, alternative means of egress, and additional mechanical and electrical systems needed to fulfill code requirements for the new use, it is particularly important to work out.a design that does not result in visually obscuring or physically altering the building or the site's distinctive features. Ultimately, adaptive uses requiring new additions or alterations that overpower the scale of the historic building are not considered compatible new uses and will thus fail to meet Standard 1 as well. This Standard states: "Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for the property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment...." Therefore, through careful planning by the owner and architect and submission of the historic preservation certification application before construction gets underway, a design solution for the new use can usually be reached that respects the character of the property, and, at the same time, is sensitive to the owner's economic goals for the rehabilitation project. Application: An 1868 railroad station in a small, northeastern city and individually listed in the National Register was being rehabilitated for use as a restaurant (see illus. 1). Although the railroad station was saved for almost certain demolition and much of the project involved preserving significant architectural features such as the cupola, main stairway, and slate roof, certification was denied because the overall design for the new use introduced numerous additions and alterations that changed the character of the building (see illus. 2). In its comments to the owner, the regional office concluded that the project could not be certified because the scale of the original station and its historic character and setting were changed as a result of several areas of work, including: dosing-in a 1920s baggage platform with solid masonry; creating a large-scale, glass roof enclosed platform adjacent to the 1920s platform; constructing a new enclosed platform on the end of the building opposite the original platform, and adding railroad cars ("rolling stock") to the end platform in a 82-028 manner which had no historical basis. Although certain additions and alterations were essential for the railroad station's new use as a restaurant, the architect's total design resulted in obscuring three of the original facades, when, historically the station had had four highly visible facades. Again, while the selective addition of rolling stock was not opposed by the regional office in principle, that, together with the other new design features, created a cumulative effect that was incompatible with the character and setting of the property. When the owner appealed the regional office's decision, the hearing officer sustained the earlier decision to deny certification; however, the appeal decision was later reversed when new information was presented by the owner showing that "considerable work on the station was underway in the fall of 1977" before issuance of final NPS regulations (see "Review of Historic Preservation Projects" Number 81-03). In the final certification letter to the owner, the hearing officer reiterated: I am...convinced that your basic conceptual plan for rehabilitation could have been achieved in a manner in keeping with the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" by making several reasonable changes. I believe that this office could have offered sound and practical advice drawn upon the experience which we have had with hundreds of preservation projects throughout the nation, including underutilized and abandoned railroad stations. Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-028 III • \ 11 + T J • ;t -- i-�- — ...I r IITii - J J ...t, t I I 1. The historic railroad station, built in 1868, as it appeared prior to the rehabilitation and the construction of major addition. . the historic railroad station (-enclosed platform enclosed platform 1 a`� A .......:„....:.::::::::*:::::i*......::::::::. :,-,, ,.,.::::::•,..:;,:::::,..;:•• ••:: ::::::"...:::g•'.7';';:::::::••;:::-:,:,:::-.:Ir:••.2:'::::.::',-:;::':::::: :::::::::::::::,::::`:::;i:ii.ii.ii:.:iiiiiiiii, 1 ro iin 9 k stoc f► rolling stock f 1 roiling stock 2. The original historic station (dark shading) has been surrounded on three sides with enclosed platforms and permanently affixed rolling stock. All are interconnected with roofs that have added an imposing new scale to the project. This drastic change of scale was in part responsible for the original denial of certification. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Intenor's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number 82-029 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 3. Recognition of Historic Period (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: INAPPROPRIATE EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS: INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS Issue: In converting historic industrial/warehouse buildings into prime office space, owners and developers sometimes fail to pay adequate attention to the goals for rehabilitation and re-use defined in the Secretary's Standards. While alterations must usually be made in conversions to office space in order to accomodate a new clientele (e.g., air conditioning, efficient lighting, code required electrical/mechanical systems, public spaces, etc.), Standard 2 should still be central to all rehabilitation project planning: "The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment should not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible." When a historic industrial/warehouse building is viewed in the planning stage of a rehabilitation project, the structure's distinctive features such as multi-paned windows and unpainted brick are sometimes overlooked. From this erroneous starting point, a series of cosmetic changes may be planned in an effort to "improve" the building's exterior appearance. Unfortunately, the "improved" building often no longer bears a significant relationship to the historic industrial/warehouse building or its historic setting. In some situations, when exterior alterations result in the loss of distinguishing original features or character, the building may not qualify as a "certified historic structure," and, in consequence, will be ineligible for tax benefits. If the building has already been declared a"certified historic structure," the rehabilitation work may be denied certification. Application: A six-story 1913 brick warehouse located in a historic manufacturing district in a large southwestern city (see illus. 1) was rehabilitated for use as an office building. Assessing certain of the building's exterior elements as unattractive or beyond repair, the owner planned and carried out extensive renovations (see illus. 2). In an effort to "reduce energy use and create a comfortable working environment," the original wooden window frames and their six-over-six panes—by far the most distinguishing architectural features of the exterior--were removed and replaced by windows with aluminum frames and single sheets of light bonze, non-reflective glass. The traditionally unpainted brick was painted a reddish brown, and the precast 82-029 concrete lintels and sills were painted a cream color to unify what was considered an uneven appearing facade. Additional work included the introduction of an arch entry with etched glass, a front brick plaza, and carriage lamp and awnings. When the regional office conducted its review of Part I of the application, work had already been completed. The property was determined not to contribute to the district because "the integrity of the original architectural features have been irretrievably lost." Shortly thereafter, Part II of the application was reviewed and the work declared to violate Standards 2, 3, 5, and 6. Removal of the original windows; introduction of carriage lamps, which created an earlier appearance; and painting of the facade for cosmetic purposes were specifically cited. The regional office's denial letter also informed the owner of the right to appeal Part I and Part II simultaneously. When the owner appealed, the hearing officer sustained the region's decision to deny certification of the building as contributing to the historic district. In the letter, he stated: "the recently altered building no longer expresses the architectural character or the sense of time and place which define the district. As a result, the building does not qualify as a 'certified historic structure' for purposes of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, as amended, and is exempt from the historic preservation provisions of the act which apply to 'certified historic structures." Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. - i 82-029 !� _ ._ _ _-- Lai ...101,, ,,,_,511.4.4.,,,4if,;,,,,t;„,:;----. , ...,-._ ,,, 4 it, . "jt i.. — . r �, ` L` iiiiii 4e' ''CF�� ''. �•• ''t �` �l„111 1' ` f t �r f 1 j�'. r.�: " �i a 1 --,r ". ...a:r z•g'''.4.:1..,:,:,--;." - ' .mai-- ;gm---par - .ig 10)..6 4 7 ISA 401.1: I A ' ., C V .. .. ,i if.i• • rt i t _ 1 , s.r r23 �' ■. . mg E, I t • l ill iv/ N 7 . ....i.I.ji.iiiiiiiituulty ,...7 s —AMi�i 11 ., 1 4 X - - — -- 4 s II -a - - `ram _ 1. Before the rehabilitation, this warehouse retained many of the original multi-paned windows and its unpainted red brick exterior walls. • • !.. St t ♦Y` ,4.p'J.M� .- IL r.4 �,-41' Y{ O. ,t4.-.F3 -, / /. \ { • / ' 1 I 1 IP -_� -/ ' --- - _I �� . , I - �" • --1 _I_ '. _. -:. 1'~ • E �.�J as •Tiu= r •�S t -- -• . AIM'.ife II —..— ..�.. �. «�.. rrw 2. As a result of the rehabilitation, which converted the building to office use, the windows were replaced with fixed glass and the exterior was painted. These changes altered the character of the historic building, and the project was denied certification. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service the Department of the Interiorhe Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 82-030 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (conformance) Subject: CREATING RECESSED ARCADES WHERE COMMERCIAL STOREFRONTS FORMERLY EXISTED Issue: When a commercial retail structure with street level storefronts is being rehabilitated for a new commercial use that does not involve retail merchandising, property owners or developers sometimes plan to replace the existing storefronts because those elements are no longer needed and because owners wish to give the building a new image to reflect its change in ownership and use. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards are intended to encourage rehabilitation while respecting the character of historic buildings; thus Standards 2 and 9 state: "The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible"; and "contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, color, material, and character of the property...." The removal of a storefront or storefronts in order to create an arcade at the street level can alter the historic character of a commercial retail structure in two ways: (1) by destroying historic material or distinctive architectural features; and (2) by introducing a void or negative space where there had formerly been enclosed space; thus altering the relationship of the first floor to the streetscape. When exterior alterations result in the loss of a historic building's distinguishing architectural features or character or an incompatible contemporary design solution is introduced, the rehabilitation work will not be in conformance with Standards 2 and 9; in consequence, certification will be denied. Application: An 1883, five-story brick commercial structure in a mid-western city, and individually listed in the National Register (see illus. 1 and 2) was to be rehabilitated as the corporate headquarters of a manufacturer of industrial mixing equipment. The company intentionally chose to rehabilitate an important historic structure in a marginal urban location as a commitment to the revitalization of the decaying urban center. The company also wanted, however, to impress its corporate image on the historic structure so that the revitalized building would be clearly linked with the firm in the eyes of the community. To accomplish this, the rehabilitation proposal called for a new plaza entrance created on the site of two demolished non- historic structures, the erection of a new glass "pyramidal" structure for an entrance 82-030 lobby immediately adjacent to the historic building, and a recessed arcade where the storefronts were located. The owners' stated purposes for the recessed arcade were to show the change in function of the structure and to lead the pedestrians through the arcade to the new plaza entrance. Glass block was to be used in the arcade as well as throughout the interior, reflecting the thematic use of industrial glass as part of a strong design concept. The project had several dynamic qualities; however, the proposal to remove the storefronts and create a glass block wall recessed eight feet behind the front plane of the structure was found to be in violation of Standards 2 and 9 (see illus. 3). The denial letter outlined the reasons for this decision: "The historical photographs of the building show that the ground floor, although altered a number of times throughout its history, was used for commercial purposes up until the present. This commercial character is largely defined by storefronts. We concur with the State Historic Preservation Office that the commercial character of the first floor is an important feature of the building and that the open design of the ground floor is not compatible with the scale and character of the solid, heavier appearing upper stories of the building. We also question whether glass block, a modern material which is to be used extensively in your designs, is an appropriate infill material for the ground floor of this historic building. The proposed arcade design violates Standards 2 and 9 and is inconsistent with the Department of the Interior's guidelines for rehabilitating storefronts..." When the owners appealed the denial of certification, the hearing officer sustained the denial while encouraging the owners and their architects to work with NPS to explore alternative designs that would meet the Standards. The project was subsequently redesigned (see illus. 4) to include a storefront appearance with non-recessed glazed windows, raised sills and transoms. The central doorway, a prominent feature in the original ground floor design, was reestablished in the new proposal. A corridor was permitted behind these glazed"storefronts" because it was determined that there would be no loss of historic material in the creation of this new architectural feature. Prepared by: Gary L. Hume, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. •. - I 82-030 .1,. I 7 - I) • - / p....e...-MI,.__ __ ____ : ._• &- - I „• ', _-----'Rik , I ,.4. .._:- - ; --7--------____!1_. i • -1h1 • ---ilk , _ - .. el„,..j,,.-eiti .•4:. -----,... . :;:-----.:...: • •IPIT"f'it --ariaile. iilA I . ..s • II " ......1...:__,,, (A_ .• , ,.---.7 -- ,., - liri -;---! -14 --- •-__.s--' i -. ' t _ r- . . - - dr Ill ill.1.1 ..2.. La_741-1-_,I. if t- "...--;:-,-_ IIII IIN - fyriAlfil t *4;7. .41.....14‘) *\ `-- "--Ibt- 11 rrj I 1 i. 141 I- • . -- • kkiTE•*-;. - i rig-=,- .......4.-ii i 4i - f irk t 1 . pv I; ii ii i5t i !I ft .1. -- 1-- iS I. 1-11 tid .. • L , • COMMERCIAL COLLEGE ....=1 , Miviriariml 5;0c rn •ps.n.iik Clornlize. •• t, a ,; ..ig- hi. i, . r, ,, 11_ r Trr., r: ___14,. 4 ; 1 . a -.•,.. .: • -. .1j1 '..tifil;,6°1 • ,•..... I: it r 7-• - ---.... ' 1 • '• . , • ,.. ..• .P1 Ili, ,...*.•10-, ...i •• ° - . 0 1 . ti*it t t'-1 . i' "t 4)7e(4.tb-, _ .... .z. ••• _.„4„...60vippoid.._ 6,....iii.t..4 . -_>•-• ...--Li ,. .4'. ler "........'w-4 s• . t-It"4441k-‘ 1. Historic view of the building, ca. 1883. . 1. ___.• , ---- --- 2, L I, _--- .• I - ,-- -4:-. _. ....... 1 ! .t.7,,,,---,..... _ - . ti, - •-;--- .- ..-- _ it. ' • - ..7) il 2 _,,-P --"--------- t, , II - 1iii It .__ , i. - - - • 11 ..._ 1 i, • • 1J. "1 — ,-, , , , -- .---- /.• ..'".N --. -`-- - ' II • ilv ,...-.„ . 7-----..-.\-, - 1...... ._ , ,• .. . , --\ 11 L :"\ - •••••• - ----- . - .,..\ : • • I I 1 I I 1 C :--I illi 111_,,, if --- --:---- JI 11111 ' 1 - - ,.. ; I ' I I ' 11.1.- - -- 716'.Ts 1 i J . 1 , I • t tk .r.,r -• . -_ I _I I IL.1 .7. :11.;j1 i 1 Illi 1 E1 E _ , •___ . 1 ,......-!,- :__ a 0 i Lang: G 11 E E N CO- • , ....% ole I ' _. _ - ;.:I gs.• • i• * g!!!!2 -11-11 SWirairti Irina ', i ,..;•,i; • T, 1 g Ise s3 I ): - - - II % 'I • , I t• - , it••=-:--.- '-'"'.. '.---1-:-.:-.,...- -VmELL-4-; I it 1ff • 1J._ ,• . =,--- — • ,---- ._ - ..—. • __.-- _ ;-- .i, • — --- —_ _ _ 1111 — _ 2. View of the building prior to rehabilitation showing altered storefronts. 82-030 Ali\ •-_-.-----, Illr,1 itti , 1 ii . - .11 ....!! •...0 .."2-Rawn Iii..--..1, ..1 - . , lulu ii . ... - ,..,.. _. - tnik 1 .. I 1 1 .i 1 . . , iiiiii i 1 1 f r .— , , . t- • . ,,.... it ..7.,„ . 1 1- _..-- ••ie ,- ...„. •, _..._. _ , 2....s.„....,, .:,*.si„ .c..-- ,---4..-- ' 14re Ak- 7:711Pic:I^ ...; 1 • •••'1i;,,,A- . r' i 4 4"2'.•' : --:::."------1".' ---- ‘7kN'ss -,,,,, - '‘`:•. ....ii 3. Model showing the proposed first floor recessed arcade. This design was determined not to meet the Standards. 11 MI II. , • i _ FEE EFIE.... E=E_( .11 - 0 .1., -.D. MI II III 111 — — i iiii . III _. t7.111u,iik it ,.,....i.. Ili 111111111 , I II, =, = = i = I = = 1 = = ... 1 II 111:H111 iiia 11 - , ..., L, _... i - _ • 4. The approved design restored the original historic entrance and the store- fronts were glazed. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Intenor's Washington, D.C. rStandards tor Rehabilitation Number: 82-031 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (conformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: INAPPROPRIATE ALTERATIONS TO ROOFS Issue: When working with rehabilitation projects, owners are frequently confronted with the problem of dealing with historic buildings which have undergone substantial changes over the years. While some of these earlier alterations may have been carried out with sensitivity and may even have acquired significance in their own right, other changes may not be sympathetic or appropriate to the original design of the individual building or building complex. Roofs, including features such as dormers, may be highly visible components of historic buildings and may also be integral parts of overall design and architectural style. Because roofs perform the function of keeping buildings weathertight, they are especially subject to change, usually because of necessary repairs and routine maintenance. Therefore, when rehabilitating buildings which have previously undergone inappropriate roof alterations, it is particularly important that the new design respect any remaining original roofing materials and features in order to conform to Standards 2 and 5. Previously altered architectural features should either be retained as they currently exist (they may have acquired significance in their own right); replaced in a manner known to be an accurate duplication of their original appearance; or, where those alternatives are not possible, treated in a contemporary style in accordance with Standards 4, 6, and 9. Application: The owners of two adjacent, mansard-roofed, Italianate rowhouses (part of a row of three) converted these formerly residential buildings into professional offices and submitted a single application describing the completed work. (The third building, House C, although rehabilitated at the same time, was not part of this project.) The buildings were certified as contributing to the significance of the historic district. Prior to rehabilitation, House A, the house on the left end of the row, still retained its original segmental arched dormer with applied decoration, and imbricated slates still covering the roof (see illus. 1). Its companion, House B, had long ago lost its original dormer, as had the third member of the row, House C. The dormer on both B and C had been replaced by a hipped double dormer, and the decorative slate had been replaced with asphalt roofing shingles. 82-031 The rehabilitation included complete remodeling of the interior into first lass office space, and, in addition, much exterior work was done. During rehabilitation, the one remaining original arched dormer was removed from House A, and in its place, two new hipped dormers were constructed, matching the two new dormers which were constructed on each of the other rowhouses (see illus. 2). The design of these new dormers was not based on the previously existing and original segmental arched dormer, but adapted from the dormers on Houses B and C prior to rehabilitation. In addition, the original slate was removed from House A and replaced with asphalt roofing shingles. This was apparently done in an effort to give the roofs of the three buildings a sense of continuity. When the application for the completed project was submitted to NPS, the project was denied on the basis of Standards 2, 5, and 6 in concurrence with the recommendation of the State Historic Preservation Officer. The reasons stated for the denial were: "The segmental dormer with its applied wood detailing was replaced with a pair of hipped dormers rather than being repaired. If the original dormer was in deteriorated condition, its fabric should have been repaired or replaced with like materials in a duplicate design." "The surface of the mansard roof was originally covered with slate cut and laid in a decorative pattern. This roof and its surface were a significant historic feature of the structure. The slate was replaced by asphalt shingles which have diminished the historic character of the structure." The owners appealed the NPS decision, and defended their project by quoting from the Standards. They argued that the hipped dormers previously on Houses B and C should be recognized as changes that had taken place over time, and had assumed their own significance. The owners also stated that replacement of the roof of House A had been necessary due to its deterioration, and that by recovering it with asphalt shingles, like those on Houses B and C, the three houses once again presented a uniform appearance. Upon review of this appeal, the hearing officer at first sustained the initial denial. Several weeks later, however, based on the property owners' follow-up letter, he reconsidered his decision to deny certification for both buildings. At this time he determined that the rehabilitation of one unit of the project, House B, did meet the Secretary's Standards, since that building had neither an original dormer nor an original slate roof immediately prior to rehabilitation, thus, no significant historic fabric had been lost. However, he upheld that part of his original decision denying approval of the second unit, House A, because it had lost significant historic fabric when the original dormer and slate roof were removed during rehabilitation. Prepared by: Anne E. Grimmer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-031 . ; ‘, -... A B C , - ,-• i _-r. ii�ri5 �..... Et • � iq``4,.. 1 v mrn 2 -7-::- ,-: a '-= i. Y 7 _1 uminging- 2 i _ i. :A I'll "°, , i - 1-' iti0i:: _ _- 1,- 1 ,741k1!?,.. ,."--7N '4 .--'''1 r--—--.--- --- -- .-—- --- -----. ---°et-—,,,,,,, :..,...,_.,__;:tfas:r- '16—.14';:' -''' '' ---...k ....14.-s.T ''‘'----!' r;;. v u 1- ._.._ l.4....... - _.-._... .. 1. The houses prior to rehabilitation. House "C" was not part of the project. A B C - ---- n it 1 'y i, . a •' PSWc Pg.. 2" •Y�oar s J 2. The houses following the rehabilitation with identical hipped dormers and asphalt shingled roofs. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior I the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. (-Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 82-032 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: REMOVAL OF ENTRYWAYS ON PRINCIPAL FACADES Issue: The new use of a building sometimes requires changing the main entrance of the building to meet various building codes. In some situations it may be possible to close off the historic entry while retaining the hardware, doors and surrounding trim. However, entryways on principal facades are often important architectural features, with distinguishing stylistic elements and fine craftsmanship. The entryway is usually an integral part of the overall design of the facade and is often a highly ornamented focal point. Altering entryways without respecting this design relationship may result in serious damage to the character and appearance of a historic building, and thereby violate Standards 2 and 5. If the doorways and their surrounding features are deteriorated, they should be repaired rather than removed, according to Standard 6. Violating these Standards can result in denial of certification of project work. • Application: The rehabilitation of a 1909 two-story Classical Revival bank building proposed for listing in the National Register was denied certification by NPS because the project work included the removal of a recessed corner entryway (see illus. 1 and 2). This entryway was an important element in defining the historic character and appearance of the building. The large, pedimented porticos were a distinguishing feature of the building's style. The recessed entrance, positioned at the corner of the building, created a focal point on the otherwise symmetrical facade and thus contributed greatly to the architectural character of the building. When the entryway was eliminated, the pedimented porticos were removed and the doors replaced with windows set flush with the exterior facades. Also, the original first floor windows were replaced. Each window, originally composed of a fixed, single pane sash and a multi-paned transom, was replaced (including the transom), with a fixed, single pane, double glazed window. The project work did, however, include several desirable repairs. The facade of a 1950s addition to the historic building was replaced with one more visually compatible with the materials and detailing of the historic building. Missing cornice and pilaster pieces of the historic building were also replaced (see illus. 3 and 4). However, the positive effect of this work was not sufficient to outweigh the damage done to the historic appearance of the building once the entryway and original first floor windows were removed. 82-032 In his request for an appeal, the owner stated that the pediments were too deteriorated to be repaired, and the corner entryway-presented security and handicapped access problems, which required compliance with various Federal and State building codes. He also stated that the contractor had removed the first floor windows without his approval. Replacement with double glazed windows covered the damage which occurred when the original windows were removed and also met the State's energy conservation code. The hearing officer sustained the original decision on the basis that the project did not meet Standards 2, 5, 6. The irreversible alteration of the first floor window, and, especially, the removal of the porticos and the blocking in of the recessed corner entryway, resulted in a serious loss of significant historic building fabric that substantially altered the historic appearance of the building. Additionally, the contractor's error in removing the first floor windows was unfortunate, but does not waive the requirement that project work must meet the Secretary's Standards for certification. The hearing officer reiterated that the Secretary's Standards take precedence over other building codes for the purposes of certification, and stated that compliance with State and other Federal building codes could have been accomplished without the substantial changes which occurred. The corner entryway could have been securely locked and handicapped access could have been provided through the newly constructed street level entrance on the addition. Prepared By: Jean E. Travers, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-032 __ 'tip ...Z ti__..Y '� sup ...aa.a • l ..a. "lessilliiim. I r i ►' } l sP lj — � _ � Ate.' r. ' • - - - ":R ,t 1:4... . + '' .; - Jy ,i1j i , 1 ' . .1iiS C c tr s _.. S ' 'C. �• is • .,. ':'C t.._: f. .10 1. and 2. Pre-1978 rehabilitation. Note the original recessed corner entrance and the stairway. Also note the original windows with multi-light transoms. The existing side addition was not sympathetic to the historic building. 1' .,. t1 , -I:41 _ 1 ! - 411_ ..1 Q, - 1-- t .. aii 82-032'1 0 " ' � : Y � h 1f M{ � Se6A.,� �� ` '�`a..�".FRS •.M1^��:.. ��r . 'YMM � 1Y1. f.'.,. `'�� t YT 1,,1 t c x # _ a .d,,; . by'tb t = � . ,r.... —• 1 1 '.t A - x •, , - rI ,i 1 ^+. lam - -f. - ! - r , I x , I r 1 L h { a. 3. and 4. After rehabilitation. The recessed corner entrances were removed along with the steps and the overhanging pediments. The corner was infilled with new windows flush with the exterior walls, eliminating all traces of this original corner feature. The first-floor windows were replaced with fixed thermal glass, including the multi-light transoms. Although the addition was sympathetic in scale and materials to the original building, the change3'to the historic structure did not meet the Standards, and the project was denied certification. Lit`` ,j 'tip-..„ !1' a, - .- - w- --) =UMW , -, 4 , ,i, if:" A 4 , t i A.. .... . i "i ; ' N VALLEY BANK( ■ IN-CAR SCRV1CC n„t # . • >r +.• _':r . Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service the Secretary of the Interior's U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 82-033 Applicable Standards: 1. Compatible New Use (nonconformance) 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: INAPPROPRIATE PORCH ENCLOSURE TREATMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT REAR FACADES Issue: As a general rule, the front and street facades of most buildings tend to be more ornamental or of a higher architectural quality than secondary facades. Many secondary facades, however, can be significant in their own right and make an important historical and architectural contribution to a property or district. An open courtyard behind a 19th-century townhouse in New Orleans, a municipal building with an identical appearance on the "front and rear," or a two-story open porch on a side facade of a residence in Charleston, are all examples where "secondary" facades play an important role in defining the character of a historic building. Renovation work that destroys or irreversibly alters the architectural character of important secondary facades fails to meet Standard 2 and will result in denial of rehabilitation. Porches are a very common and often dominant feature on the rear facades of many residential buildings, and owners are encouraged to preserve them in the course of rehabilitation. The historic and architectural significance of traditionally open porches varies from building to building; at the same time porches may also be important as a common or unifying feature within a district or group of buildings. In some historic buildings, the architectural significance of a one-story or two-story porch on a rear facade is great enough to prevent porch enclosure treatments from meeting the Secretary's Standards. In assessing the need to preserve porches on secondary facades, the existing physical condition and general historic integrity must be considered. Insensitive previous alterations to significant porches are considered in the course of review; however, if the porch is in good condition and retains its basic architectural integrity, the historic appearance rather than subsequent changes remains the principal basis for evaluating the effect of the proposed rehabilitation work. • In the two cases discussed below, the owners of the properties substantially altered or destroyed the historic character of rear elevations by enclosing or demolishing original porches. Both projects were determined not to meet the Standards, but in each case NPS established that part of the porches could have been enclosed in a manner that would have preserved the overall character of the facade. 82-033 Application: The first building is located in a historic district in a Southern town and was in deteriorated condition prior to rehabilitation (see illus. la and lb). Photographic documentation indicated that the two-story porch on the ell extension had lost considerable architectural integrity due to numerous inappropriate changes that had occurred over time, as well as from neglect. On the ell porch, both the far right (end) bays had been enclosed along with the lower left bay, and considerable physical deterioration had also occurred. Despite its condition, however, the ell porch remained a significant historic feature of the building and merited a sensitive rehabilitation treatment. NPS established that infill of the bays on the ell porch was approvable in concept for the following reasons: half of the bays had previously been enclosed; the ell porch was considerably deteriorated; the porch was on a secondary facade; and the owner was maintaining the open porch on the rear of the main house. In order to preserve the general historic and architectural character of the building, however, a proposed design would have to maintain the ell porch as a structural entity as well as retain selective visual qualities of the porch design. The owner undertook the enclosure of the porch prior to asking for guidance from the State and selected a treatment that was not in keeping with the Standards. The end of the porch was rebuilt to align with the back wall of the ell, and continuous siding was extended across the now-enlarged rear facade. Thus, from the back of the building, the porch realignment and subsequent work to the porch roof obscurred any visual evidence of the porch's original configuration. Instead of maintaining the three-bay division of the porch, the owner removed the existing columns and balustrades and added windows and siding to create • an entirely new facade treatment (see illus. la-lc). This treatment left no clues as to the original design of this portion of the house. In providing future guidance to the owner, who was developing similar projects in the district, NPS made the following comments: A. The outer plane of many of the porches in the district consists of three delineating features: columns which divide the porch into bays; a roof or soffit overhang which establishes the upper and usually the outer limits of the porch structure (excluding stairs); and balustrades which serve to further define the plane of the bays. The National Park Service recommends that the plane of the new wall be set back to preserve these features when a new outer wall is constructed to enclose a porch. B. Often the most difficult problem to be overcome in enclosing a porch is the loss of the original sense of openness. Porches are frequently an integral part of the architectural style and design of buildings and in many southern climates also serve as connecting passageways between rooms and between entire sections of a building. Because of these important characteristics and functions of porches, the National Park Service strongly encourages property owners to retain the sense of openness, the visual presence of the original exterior wall, and some of the shadow and light characteristics of porches. In some cases, property owners have accomplished this by using large sheets of glass within the bays (see Bulletin 80-001). Where greater privacy is required, porch shutters might be retained or, if suitable, added; in other cases, large roll-up blinds or shades might be 82-033 installed behind the glass to provide greater flexibility in light and privacy control. Solid material, such as wood or stucco, sometimes can be used depending upon the character of the individual building involved. If operable windows are necessary and appropriate, they • should be designed so as to respect the particular character of the porch as well as the general architectural character of the building. The owner was informed that few if any of the special concerns discussed above were carefully addressed, and the rehabilitation failed to meet Standards 2, 5, and 6. In the second case the one-story main residence (ca. 1875) was connected to a two- story rear wing. As with many buildings in this residential district in the southwest, the house was characterized by open porches on both the front and rear elevations, reflecting not only the architectural style of its construction period but also representing very practical climatic considerations. The only apparent previous alteration to these distinctive features of the building was the installation of bathrooms, which had led to the enclosure of a single bay on each of the porches on the main house and on the two-story wing. Plans to demolish the one-story porch and replace it with a larger masonry addition and also to alter the two-story porch substantially by enclosing all the bays precluded the project from meeting the Secretary's Standards (see illus. 2a-e). NPS encouraged the property owner to retain the historic two-story porch in its open state. Previous enclosure of the upper left bay had had only a minimal impact on this important facade; the enclosure of all the remaining open bays, especially as proposed, however, would have a major adverse visual impact. On the other hand, both principal elevations of the one-story rear porch had already been altered in the past by the enclosure of the one end bay. NPS was willing to consider further enclosure of the one-story rear porch if additional space was necessary. A sensitive enclosure treatment using large sheets of glass set behind the balustrades could meet both functional needs while preserving the basic architectural character. The hearing officer in the appeal made an inspection of the property and, with work already underway, sustained the denial of certification of rehabilitation based on the project not meeting Standards 1, 2 and 5. Prepared by: Charles E. Fisher, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. I �y � W- � la -��,_ • , .,I ; r : I . I: , t r r oh� _ , lc i _ r 1 - '';..11 I (.'.1iit- Il� �� +,14��f�: ,,,,_,,.,. y _ , ry,I L,1• n I , l 11 ' 1 ' t ear # 111114r07 , it ..t- ' j .- .... s.„a-,,,,,,,, ....:e--,„. , ` ,_ i " _ .•r. �, • - +-` Ta EfL .r........ ' ' la. and lb. Despite their deteriorated condition, the rear porches • ==�=:_�r ...� 1 , — 3. ts ' remained an important feature of the building. ► • ,1 '" t>- -., .", ■ •,':'1t�1.,� "-K",Rr• *.1t •all .r •,N ' N^, + - � lb 1 i . Q r I Ic = ,�� III ',. Lit _all 1. ,, , ,..., .,. .., . t4i .., r'M�1 _ ;` ; ` lc. This photograph taken after the rehabili- , - r7 tation shows that only one of the rear porches .S , " was preserved while the connecting ell porch iv _.�I •'��' �';•.,, has lost its architectural identity. The bay i► configuration of the ell porch and all historic . i. , 4. ‘'.41. �. a t/ detail has been destroyed as a result of the y •' •• 1' -i ' application of continuous siding across the 'x _., .'i_ .�f! outer face of the bays. The ell porch also has • - �• been made flush with the end of the back wall, li i _ - _ further obscuring its original form. 4c . T..- . - -,,,,,+. k -h 2a 82-033 • ' i�• I. t�. •- 'H li t.:i._ __i:.a .F7- _�mil.- �. ___i--i alrc �" Ii L/ FRo11T Il( f I%R I M 0 `Iv• I ram'c ,11 _rz.--- _r-1.- r s f.leal •,_ ;''J, ' - AFTE Pi _ > 2a. and 2b. The original open porches =•,, -''`�. _"`"=.`I I..-- _ ' - (2a) represented a significant architectural .,.- •-if .b__Jj ` I i' -/-•,-.,,111(�j ;. _:_ - feature of the building (left). In comparing - ,_ -fir the photograph of the historic porches with - = _ s �'.` J� =": = the rehabilitation plan (2b), note that all the . - .L--�} r ' ;.- bays on the two-story porch (shaded) are to be ` - --� a&,?-.�„,,4 '• '- enclosed. BEFORE EXIST.MCTOL¢oop•- -:i _T rcpuT c3yi=[D 57> •= ,� __ iiM��MMCC[[fiR Reaoreo Yc c�� J •� Sr�cOWc� 0 umo .DeNWc-r. - '—CT- - ----- %' 2C .— _ LNEOF c• 1 ? N:.J New I . .4 14,7o�pl, i clwicit N; 1 ,•b - - M.1: CAYDOM V TTel:•1 �, .-'h -F wc i€re4,z Q u W..TL l.' - -" i , F -•, — —.tom Motto DA9E 9T4cco ^DTucco D+se:�. I GK ' (! 4LWADDITIo1] _I 71� O ASI44L-To�,AA1M I. ocicwAL-ALTeg IONS As SHBwIJ _.__ 2c. Only the upper left bay of the two-story porch had previously been enclosed. Plans called for the use of windows and stucco finish to fill in all the bays of the two- story porch. Rehabilitation elevation is shown here. 2d _ '' ¢EMovO E149TIu0, GCI'-K U4UiLo CYIMYLYe �IAYDIM�6L MSN[ET MGTcLF ''' 4e�+ wTFSIMULATe_ca�o cop Pee -STucco(4ewy 11111_i- liii.- i. -A:g4.,r )ti 11 . , 4,, ...,,.. ., • , " ...,..,._.._ r___ ___ _ � 1 • ri ",...,, . . 1F7 a '1 Yew, _ , 41/4`- AopIT1o4 . ... . iy., ,_ik _• . _.--.1 'f 2d, and 2e. The historic one-story porch with one bay • previouslyenclosed (2e) was demolished to • �:� ' •s' '_�`•' , allow construction of a masonry addition (2d) t. I: ;--- 1, - •. • • , , A c:, nearly twice as deep as the original porch. ;^; �� , � Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 82-034 Applicable Standard: 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: ADDING ADDITIONAL FLOORS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS Issue: In some situations, one or more floors are added to the top of a building in the process of rehabilitation in order to increase the usable floor area. Standard 9 of the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation does not discourage such additions if the new floors do not destroy significant historic or architectural fabric and the design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property and neighborhood. Adding one or more floors to a two- or three-story building generally results in denial of certification. Such additions to buildings that are located in a historic district comprised of two- and three-story structures can also have a negative impact on the scale of the district. It is possible in some instances, however, to increase a building's height without a major change in character. Adding one or two floors to a six- or seven-story building, for example, may be appropriate if the new addition does not result in the destruction of significant fabric and the new addition is not visible from the street level. Application: A six-story industrial structure in a commercial historic district was proposed for conversion into office and apartments. Constructed ca. 1864, the structure was considered one of the most important in the district with its five-story cast-iron front largely intact (see illus. 1). The building's sixth story was a severely deteriorated woodframe penthouse added at a later date. The district is largely comprised of 4-6 story brick and stone warehouse structures along two relatively narrow streets. In his rehabilitation proposal, the owner proposed removing the penthouse and replacing it with two new floors set back from the principal (cast iron) facade (see illus. 2). The owner provided a sight line sketch in his application showing that the new addition would not be visible from the street (see illus. 3). The new addition would, however, be visible from the side and rear elevations but by design and material was judged compatible with the district (see illus. 4). The National Park Service concurred with the State's opinion that the penthouse had not acquired significance in its own right and that the new addition "with two additional floors, set back, not to be visible from the street, is a more considerate treatment and will serve to enhance the architectural features of the facade." Rehabilitation work was completed as proposed and the project received certification. Prepared by: H. Ward Jandl, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-034 -., 11P ----;....,..--.. .,:::... ..` ,.z- 1,:.••:'•!:-• jr / g \ , . i,A 0000011141H- - e ./.-- .ti ' i , , I 1 ...-----.• -IV ,- .: .f-, i . .'. ' ,,,,,,. 51 tdi irr• •"-,•-•.:-... „.,,,,,_, , , . :: i v. .„ 1.05-A.A/:. .. ' ..i. ,..v,.., ,,,, i . .... ,. :-..<:..5.,-,/;*•-..• t I i t''• ..-,/. I I 1 / •I\'I,l.i 1 ' - . --4( _. ... i ,.. .4. -. ., . ., , ,ii., „ ,... ., _.:,...4- , 4 %LI -.' ' f I. 4.. ' ,- . I' il ,--...--:L4 I, • /11 .1't,f,?•• , • , r „. --11 . '0 • *-1.,!... 1 1 . -,r, . . 1 1 , 1 IC • . v• --;;;S:.• . >,.. - •,,is 1,-• I ' !...... Igo • _..._,...,, i• , ,_ • ,,,,,,. ..-. I i . . ••"' ,•"'" 1:5iPr I..' ,' • ,..". .C: t ,II • . • , ,' . 41 •-„,:•:,!);--- , ' • ..,' . 1 - 1015000 • .0% , ir ,,, . , ,I . . tH000.73 ,toot. „„.....- .. , ji,..... - .... ' • .•".4 • stl 4 ....." • ,....„,.„.." 1 I I, ! 1 si.I I( , r '. 4 1 11 ; : i , ' ,--1 0.•,..-- - , ,..* i„i i . i ,- , ,• .i. , ,,•,, ., . 0,0,0 - r v - - .. , 1 ; ,1 I I ' ,---;:- .• .. c A 1,,,,,:. • 4 .-. - A ,..C'' .---":•'.. r i I' Aa C . I I a . • 1 ' 001 •. ,: . ,, , . : 1 , „. -•- ..........--.--..... -, ,4!(...,,, •:., ...„ :-....---- ., -, --4- .-- f-6.- -4- •le T - ;• . : le I 1 ; I ' - i . . i,,--N, i.kr, ', ',...,,, ..1' i-r• /1 . 1 . 1 / ' "..r •,. It .; • : It l• ' Ili ' [ --- • ; ,:. • i ...., i ; , 1 1 1 1 - *A, --4-4 ..• :. ! • 1111 ',id .ev. ' - I , :—• : ..1. I I . i .!. it'. ,... -t-IN:10'1447 .4..1 "1- ' - ' 1 I -4. 1 c.1 •, 1 I 140.1.-06,, ,.,....It ,, f : . i II' . tri" a i/ 6. • • 1 11..;. .. t, 41 I i • >>.'..‘../ \...11 fr" 4 . ' ' I i lit I: 1 tilLi --.1.-;; .'"I _.. •r-,4-f- 1.:,..,:-. -1- . • - A ,• ' '-: imo, •.--- , •r ‘,.,.., ._• I ,i • . „......,,. ...- _.-- _ .. ...„,-. • ,..-- • .. ‘. .-(40. tAbs::: 141 .......11., 1 ;j t ..• leirr..-!--- - ;...• .1 : , .1 ii.i , 1 , -- _,....., ., „ -- ,, I iiik_s- -------- : ( — . "; . 1,c' .1,t! 1, ! •i• r.7---01/ ---, - ,2* --r.," ,,_ --- ,11,.,,,..e_.• , :1".791.• /41,,,..›...... .."'. :. 4,•••r ._ I lilt • 01 , -"NJ/pfofi- -..3__—tg—.---,--;-: i-- ‘1. ri--L-- I 1:1-', t ,: k -• ' -•••••---- .-- ..1 '1 4/10. 40‘.,. .--!."------. 1 1 4 ' 1 ' 1.11 - 11-; . • CI __,•10.11 •r„. • , 4, -' •".. • ,,.- ,,, 4„,„::- , ,_1 -- ---L. ---'-' Y ': d • - - ---:-.•‘ .: •- , . 1 • 2 - . t ' • , -- , , iti ... ....--....--, , --- ir t .: lisliti .............. :........--,.. .... ..-.- LI . ,•• ------ _1-- 1' --- -7j :. ' r, ,. . _ _.... -.: ,. • . ,- •-'i 1 :. I ,I I :it, '1, :... '-• , 1 1 , tr •.. ....31, /11,:i . IL .- ... ' --- ...] i NAll- ------ __- f-- "1.------------- r - I. ‘ _II _, --.„...„.... _ ,........ ...,,,,-. .. _ ---- ..--, --- i - -- -I l: ( 7' "---- • _1,1111 ' 1 - -.' -------- (14 — 11111 vi ,‘--.. -- -.! . --.:i : •-••`-t- •• r ,,. , _t_ . . - a •..e• ._-••••- r • . . . . I 1 • r 1 r , , _ ,, , • , . , ,, ,., , ----,i , , . .. ... . ‘ ,. ,... _, ,...,... ..,__ .ilt S'''.2 IT:- . 2 ;(-1•.‘c . .. •: ---..---7-2• )v-1,-,...,-; 1 i ,:. ..., ,...., . 4 . 1 , , , ....,-...,...._______rrit,A4 .c. ,4• ‘'' -*), Iii' iii i Bil01111 l'' .. -.— 1 -- "- " -. 'P. - -7.• i •. '• 1 1. Front elevation of the 1864 cast-iron industrial building before rehabilitation. The sixth-floor wooden penthouse, added at a later date, was in a deteriorated condition. 82-034 1' = = // new 2- i [ i ��story - --- addition -, ,, _ --- -_. _I / o.-c=Ioco00'-oo.=... ...oo- -o181ap{__-, 4 .i-.. 1 t - _. I _ � / 4 I „ -c historic / building — I - —_q; : = _ 1 - IS / ___ - ' CIF" c section front elevation 2. Sight line sketch showing proposed 3. Front elevation showing the two-story addition that replaced the compatibility of design between the new deteriorated penthouse. addition and the historic building. stair and elevator penthouse (7th) extended sixth floor tr7--- 01111_ ir .extended fifth -- 1 t i tg!Altill I 1 I 1 • I rft* ,..- y w .. Yti . 1 . 3 a . , , r, F��rd STD • ' iiPS +j •-{- t. id — -- :.I /_ .1! - -11 -_. ..- `" -__ :. g. 4. Rear and side of the industrial building prior to rehabilitation. The sketch lines indicate the proposed addition for the roof of the building. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 82-035 Applicable Standard: 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: INAPPROPRIATE WINDOW REPLACEMENT Issue: Among the most common and perplexing issues in rehabilitation certification review is that of window replacement. During rehabilitation, developers frequently • replace existing windows with new sash for reasons of energy efficiency, ease of operation and maintenance, or even to give buildings a new, rehabilitated look. In cases where windows are part of a major facade and are significant to the character • of a building, Standard 6 will generally apply. Missing or irreparable windows should be replaced with windows that match the originals in material, size, general mullion and muntin configuration, and reflective quality. Developers who install inappropriate replacement windows risk having certification of their entire project denied. Application: The rehabilitation of a 1929 four-story apartment building (see illus. 1) within a historic district involved replacing all the windows in the structure (see illus. 2). The original windows--intact but severely deteriorated at the time work began— were wood casements, most in a tripartite arrangement with two wide mullions dividing each opening. The owner replaced these casement windows with new side-by- side pairs of double hung windows (see illus. 3) with the result of creating one wide mullion in the center of each opening. Because the new windows had been ordered before the SHPO received the owner's application, neither the SHPO nor the regional office was given an opportunity to comment beforehand on the appropriateness of their design. In denying certification to the project, the regional office emphasized the important contribution made by the casement windows to the building's original character and the change in that character caused by the replacement windows. On appeal, the regional office's decision was sustained. The hearing officer made the following comments in his letter to the owner: "In this particular building, the mullion and pane configuration of the original windows played an important role in defining its character. I agree with the regional office that the replacement windows have changed that character. Had the State Historic Preservation Officer or the regional office been given an opportunity to comment on the window designs before their purchase, I believe a solution more consistent with the design of the original windows could have been reached." Prepared by: William G. MacRostie, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-035 .:,'' " ' • '• fig1•?•+ f;:'` . tG }-.•.- - - • ,a '~ 1 I11 1 • 1 i _Il rar 14 i ,..72L-rii- iingulu ----.""ii ..: it I 1�11�1t: I ...., ■legr__+■ ' �. IIIIIIIIIIIIII J y i�NMI ev` 11111.. MN 1. � �� ; .�....II I '"ems„ • . _____ ,--iroi ........... , .......... t eft NEI ■st•s,' • eft ow ammo si -..--• 111111111111.....• . Hi as• at. 11111.111111, am - �� - s�is�ls� aaisis salsaas �t •�,- .3___:' --ter.► amass • `; ssla—u--- t sa 4 • — _ __asalsas�ssasl� s s_l��=salaaal! se 1. The original three-part casement windows. �� s��' �" �'� asssa■1 N1 P ��1sailalowasls�rsar ass saaalaaalaasas� a .r,�ass isr MIIIIIIIIININIIIMIIIMIIMINIMMIIMPINIMIlt ■MINOss�� MN lira MIMI MMI a-: fl I '_ ill II _= dMINIM • _ Snifa� i� LL '.. fis ..b 1�� I ~t. '• • I=. •r1. t. ..s •F• :r IIIMINN Mill ass •' � �'• 1 _ M` � :--' aaal� asMIMI as - _ ' .• l r' aaaaals — OWN Mlle ION, �li• !�-* ; f e.. ,- moms milli ~ err " � nom aum um � ." '` � �` • gm'''.: '' "a ir'li I 1.e!.....t iiiiliA__:_....:_w,.....4-r„...... _ ..:- -h. !,,,,t,:,.- :,- ,...., i . IIIIIII*es INN F... NM No souil • rail sy 1.. + ,F•tIll =7 a♦s t tea. , iir.et •.n; :• ♦. -ce. . mot 1i a•''5 ��..: '.r'M�"..:-; w. _ :-A ;"_ • Z. F. 3. Original casement windows (top)with .•' `E--+ two wide vertical mullions dividing the t ; In �' pp. . window opening into three distinct parts. ' "e-'• ` '- - 1 i� ''_- New side-by-side pairs of double-hung ,tii • • - windows (bottom) give the effect of one �; ' — _ .G'�,• . ^ - wide mullion in the center of each opening. F ` -. The double-hung sash gives the opening a strong horizontal line at the meeting rail. 2. The new double-hung windows, found not to meet the Standards. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 82-036 Applicable Standard: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) Subject: USING NONHISTORIC FINISHES ON EXTERIOR WOODWORK Issue: One of the major reasons for painting exterior woodwork is to deter the harmful effects of weathering (moisture, ultraviolet rays from the sun, wind, etc.) and thus slow deterioration of a building's exterior wooden cladding and decorative features. Another important purpose for painting exterior woodwork is to define and accent architectural features. Arbitrarily removing paint from historically painted exterior woodwork and applying clear finishes to create a "natural look" alters the character of a historic building and therefore violates Standard 2. Also, ultraviolet rays from the sun tend to cause clear finishes to break down faster than primer and finish coats of paint, which can result in exposing the historic exterior woodwork to the effects of accelerated weathering. Application: A two-story, late Victorian wood structure with cypress shingle siding and decorative bargeboard located in a small, Mid-Atlantic coastal town was being rehabilitated for use as a rental residential property. This building and other wood- framed structures in the historic district had traditionally been painted. Although not yet a"certified historic structure" in the district, the owner submitted Part 2 of the application for review. At that time, work already accomplished on the house included removal of all previous paint layers from the shingles (see illus. 1). The proposed treatment, not yet undertaken, involved the use of a clear wood finish on the stripped shingles (see illus. 2a and 2b) with a contrasting white paint on the window frames. In a letter to the owner—which supported the State's earlier review comments—NPS stated that total removal of the paint as well as the proposed finish on the window trim violated the Standards, and, should the structure be determined contributing to the historic district at a later time, certification of the work would be denied unless the owner agreed to re-coat the wood shingles in a traditional opaque primer and paint in a color appropriate to the historic building and district. Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-036 - • • ,. -. , - "N - • e•,,.411, ' " ' , - . •,-- .....zr, ,-,--,..:, - •1‘ ,, ‘' ,1•',..a167-7 " '..F;i1 4,1.....;.:.\*4-1;":&'...;:_-•-: --,-.!- . . .. -... _ ,... w••,..4-.,.- -. •Ile r ..it.;;:.:".-1..i.-- ' .. ' --- r"...: - • .-,...--:' ;--;.7. - '„'' -. ..`.,. - :-•'•':-..7.1 t,,1 ,''' ,„ :,,I;s:,;.!••i:i -:...I ..€1 - • k ?,:. - r '.... a I x__.. .....g i i ,:... ,4x.,...... -R. •-ka!:. r - .11*IffINVOffi 7 . • --q--. 'LH I ' t ' '' . ., ,. • ' 1,6.6 IL - - „ -.- .: .....,.. ‘ - -'^-4,'-' ''''. - - -- • •-••• 1. Most of the white paint—the historical finish on the exterior woodwork of this house—has already been removed. The owner's new finish proposal involved the use of a dear finish over the exposed woodwork, a treatment that does not meet the Standards_ .,,,, 0 ,k;'14 -• - ''' 0 1:- ., #.,. . . -)4.`"fir . • .:4-,- -,4,' • 71, . . . ...t.-. ,..r-1 '=" . ' • '.' • • t. • -,"'N, . , ' + +Y • 4 . ' • 4 kr il i ;9 ...,..,iv.4 „t„ 111)::244 •fir . . ; -dOt; • ' rl-,-. ,- , ....: Iii P/a, i.. f ,':01.1 .‘'t,“11,...' :;•;' i'.-',.-: -. . ,, : .. • - r. '' 444,ii , . ,,,',..' ,`•-• •. . -- ...s, , • , --4 z. . . . _ . .. .,, .,.., . . ...,..ite - L,40,-.041 , A, •,,A ., . y ecoolteilir' x. - ?., ill" rill' t -vtl.v•-, .'ig-ii" ,'ff:J ,- ..,..1„.: if.,, ,,.,, ..474 ire intit., t,: 4.._ 1 r .0,11 CV 1.5,• •.1*. , 40001,_.,,,,f0i.r.3. -%41:47 r 4- ''', K,,, /.,,,, ,i40....4itie _ .... • ,, . i• f."1" fl, 1 ' :`'' - .1*, 4,•x• . •.1. '-,',...` !pi•-t' 4 t • .' IA-, Li ..,,.----". ,„-,,:r";.....".".•"4 AlArk t. t ,„- i ' - -, ... ,,- ...,, h.„ ,,....: iii,, .li • ----7----- ' ,g 04,i t i,r ,. . ,....... vei,—. r .44 : 2a. and 2b. Details of the cypress shingles (left) and the decorative bargeboard (right) show the paint stripped to the bare wood. 1 Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 82-037 Applicable Standards: 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) 10. Reversibility of New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: EXTERIOR STAIR TOWER ADDITIONS Issue: Creating two separate means of egress from the upper floors of commercial buildings is a fire code requirement that generally must be dealt with in rehabilitating older buildings. Only in a very limited number of cases are variances given for this important life safety feature. In a historic rehabilitation project, this code requirement often makes it necessary to construct a second stair, either within the building or as an exterior addition. When such a new interior or exterior fire stair addition is required to meet code requirements, its construction and detailing must be in conformance with Standards 9 and 10. These Standards address the important issues of retaining historically significant building material during rehabilitation and designing contemporary new additions that are compatible in scale, color, and material with the historic character of the building. Finally, the new additions should be attached in such a way that future removal will not impair the essential integrity and form of the historic structure. If it is determined that locating the new fire stair within the building would result in the destruction of significant interior fabric, the required stair should be redesigned as an exterior addition, preferably on a secondary facade. NPS certification that an exterior fire stair is necessary to avoid loss of significant interior fabric means that the owner's construction costs are eligible for tax benefits under IRS regulations 26 CFR Parts 1 do 7. If, on the other hand, the owner chooses to construct an exterior fire stair rather than an interior fire stair solely to avoid losing valuable interior rental space, the cost of the new construction may not be included in the overall rehabilitation expenses. Application: A 1909 two-story stone building, formerly a town hall and individually listed in the National Register, was being rehabilitated for use as professional offices (see illus. 1). The interior had been altered several times and there was little remaining original fabric. The exterior, however, was almost in its original configuration and the owner was taking great care to dean the stone and replicate any deteriorated features. 82-037 As part of the rehabilitation, the owner was required by the local code to provide two fire rated exits. The building contained one interior stair which could be rated and one exterior fire escape at the rear (see illus. 2). Because the owner wished to provide an elevator and did not want to use interior space to construct a second rated stair, he decided to replace the fire escape with a combination fire stair tower and elevator. However, because the property line was within nine feet of the building, he was unable to accommodate the new addition as a freestanding element. Therefore, it was necessary to attach the new addition to the rear of the building. While the facade chosen was a secondary facade, the addition would be dearly visible from the side street and the adjacent public parking lot. The regional office was concerned with several aspects of this proposed new addition. First, there would be a loss of historic fabric on the rear wall of the building and on a portion of the slate roof where the new addition would be attached (see illus. 3). Second, the use of a gable feature on the new addition imitated the historic gable on the front entrance of the building (see illus. 1), making the addition appear as a modification of an original feature and not as an entirely new element. This gable feature also increased the loss of historic fabric, notably at the roof, and increased the scale of the addition. A third issue, though not as serious as the others, was the selection of a variegated brown brick as the material for the new addition. The historic building was constructed of cobblestones with strong architectural trim features cut from brownstone. The regional office felt that a different material would have been more sympathetic to the lighter color of the historic masonry. The owner was thus requested to resubmit his stair tower design reflecting the above concerns. In the resubmission, the owner was able to address the three concerns of the regional office (see illus. 4). First, the loss of historic material was reduced by eliminating the roof gable from the stair tower addition (this feature was purely ornamental and was not needed to house elevator equipment). Second, the scale of the addition was reduced by eliminating the roof gable. Third, a new material was selected--a buff cementitious coating that was scored at the watertable, beltcourse, and roof line to pick up the proportions of the historic building's features. The regional office was still concerned with the insertion of the addition into a third of the rear wall and the subsequent loss of historic fabric (see illus. 5 and 6); however, upon further investigation, it became evident that there had been some modifications to this area of the rear wall at the time of the fire escape installation. The triple windows and doors did not appear to be original after all. Much of the area impacted by the new addition was therefore not historic, and, in its final review, the regional office determined that the insertion of the exterior fire stair tower was marginally acceptable. In evaluating the overall project, the regional office took into consideration several important factors. The exterior of the building was being carefully restored; the original front entrance was being retained as the main entry; the new addition would not alter the remaining historic windows on the rear facade; the redesign of the 82-037 addition resulted in loss of less historic fabric; and the addition was clearly contemporary in design, and of a scale, color, and material appropriate to the historic structure. Accordingly, the overall project was determined to meet the Secretary's Standards. Prepared by: Sharon C. Park, AIA, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. l v-fI 1 • • % " J ' .'4i r • f+ ,s 'mil r' 1NJ 1, 0?;. r (`j ., + ,� /r 1. Front entrance of the '•, '"— ....:•_. ��~ - • ~,: former Town Hall. The : _, I, I •.�,;•, ' ��.. historic gabled entrance ...�.. '• 1' 1 �.• �,� 111 ,. ... • " '--- ' , was retained as the main -' .I ._ ; `. L, .,; • \ �'~ ' entrance to this building, r � 1 � � =s uss. �1�r 1'i'%, �, •- which was being converted ;',>• J r`:�Ir! j '` i r Y • into private offices. t g�;,,tt, - le • ., rm-1'- ,.. ` 1 tom. C �•-� I'd lln �j , ,h:�1' • _,of .. •741 r. .:t;.E. . , .. _tv., ,...L.,i.t ... ;ids, -1,4 v p i ,y r ' i _ ' _�.1". �- ; 2. The rear of the former Town Hall with fire • c. Z.•t '-'""''�' '' !,i,.,.....,a ? Ir escape. This is the proposed location for the • • ! . • new fire stair and elevator tower. • .— •r 1 I �Y L:e ;+, t• ,, .w.. 1 • , , •,�.-•c�_ � .pViz, nwI ::, ,•' ''. + � ' ' •mo . is: •illi 1 r` 1 1 i I .1:} lb 3 .•�_�1�yr...�•, �, ,! Pt ell 1 }jl ".�.;!r»h 'y '.'• hl .I ii�, •i-• R�AI .��•_�!Tit• ' • ;f Tr,1 �iS1 IUI •� �11n J ._,�, r I L t�hill �•.i (.,.• ': �+ 3. Rejected proposal. This proposal called for a 4. Approved proposal. This revised design eliminated the gabled addition, which cut into the roof and rear wall gabled feature, thereby reducing the scale and the amount of the historic building. The proposed brick was of a of historic fabric to be removed. The material was changed mixed brown color, which would have detracted from the to a buff cementitious coating, which was more sympathetic cobblestone and brownstone trim of the historic building. to the historic materials. 82-037 ,eoP eTr 1-1!'E� ef.Ae a&rrlt� 1 extettrf-. _mii �'E+»Vt I rib_ _ .:k. ..t:1 II..". ill lac iuiiuir,__ _I 1E— ff f°cor wn«trE. 5. Existing plan of the building. 6. Plan of the building with proposed stair tower shaded in. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service the Secretary of the Interior's U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 82-038 Applicable Standard: 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: REPLACEMENT OF DETERIORATED ROOFING MATERIALS Issue: Owners of historic properties are often confronted with the task of repairing deteriorated roofs. This task becomes complicated either when the original roofing materials themselves are highly significant features of the historic property or when they are not original but the overall design of the roof is architecturally distinctive. In the first situation, the owner must decide whether to replace the original roofing materials in kind or use substitute materials that duplicate as closely as possible the appearance of the original. The second situation requires the owner to decide whether to replace the existing non-historic materials with something similar or replace them with materials that would restore the original appearance of the roof. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation state that the removal of historic materials or distinctive architectural features should be avoided if possible, and that any replacement material should match the existing fabric in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. The two examples that follow cite specific projects in which deteriorated roofing materials needed to be replaced and show how the various alternatives for replacement were evaluated using the Secretary's Standards. Application: In the first example, the congregation of a midwestern church, built in 1901 and located within a historic district, requested Historic Preservation Fund grant money to replace portions of the original Spanish tile roof that had deteriorated and were causing water damage to the interior of the structure. The areas to be repaired included two sides of the east-west gable and an unusual conical-shaped roof located at the far western end of the gable (see illus. 1 and 2). The roof, although stylistically distinctive, had not provided effective protection against the weather. The tile had been designed and installed in such a way that water became trapped beneath the courses and leaked into the structure. Repairs had recently been attempted on the cone but proved to be ineffective in protecting the interior from leakage. Repairs had also been performed on other portions of the roof structure. On these areas the contractor installed a replacement tile that came close to matching the original Spanish tile (see illus. 3). These replacement tiles not only resembled the original tile in appearance but corrected the inherent design problems of the original tle and subsequently eliminated any further leakage. The consultant for the project proposed replacing the existing tiles on the east-west gable with this same replacement tile. For the cone, the firm proposed three replacement alternatives: flat tiles; asphalt shingles; or a red cooper standing seam 82-038 roof. The firm believed that the new Spanish replacement tile would not resolve the moisture leakage problems, which were particularly evident at the apex of the cone. Consequently, the firm did not include the new Spanish tile as a bid alternative. The congregation evaluated the proposals and submitted a grant application to install the new Spanish tile on the east-west gable and the flat tile on the cone. NPS reviewed the proposal and concurred with the State Historic Preservation Officer that the installation of the flat tile would not be in conformance with the Secretary's Standards. The original Spanish tile was a highly visible and distinctive feature of the building. Replacing this historic fabric with anything other than materials that duplicate the visual appearance would destroy an architecturally significant feature of the structure (see illus. 4).. NPS encouraged the congregation to consider repairing the underlying wood decking and securely covering the cone with roofing felt in order to use the replacement Spanish tile. The church subsequently chose the least expensive treatment and installed asphalt shingles on the conical-shaped roof (see illus. 5). The State Historic Preservation Officer then withdrew the grant application with the support of NPS. In the second example, the owner of a midwestern Queen Anne style mansion, built in 1892, requested Historic Preservation Fund grant assistance for the preservation and restoration of the dilapidated structure. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places, the single family residence had been neglected over the years and had deteriorated considerably (see illus. 6). The grant application requested funds for work items that were necessary in order to make the building immediately habitable. Among these items were replacing the existing boiler and electrical systems, replacing deteriorated or missing windows, insulating the attic, and installing new asphalt shingles on the highly visible roof in order to provide immediate protection. During the review of the application, NPS questioned why the original materials on the roof were not being restored. The SHPO maintained that while cedar shingles were originally used, certain circumstances precluded the reinstallation of similar materials. First, the structure was in dire need of immediate repair and would continue to need extensive preservation work in future years. Therefore, the asphalt shingles would serve as adequate protection until future circumstances would allow the possible restoration of the cedar roof. Second, the house had had asphalt shingles for the past twenty years. In this case, reinstalling this type of roofing material would not change the existing character of the residence. NPS concurred with the SHPO's argument and decided that the entire project, including the work on the roof, was in conformance with the Secretary's Standards. To summarize: both of these projects dealt with the replacement of materials on highly distinctive roofs. In the church project, NPS determined that restoration of the historic roofing fabric was essential in order to help retain the architectural character of the structure. Since a duplicate material had been used on other areas of the roof, NPS considered it an appropriate replacement alternative. In the Queen Anne mansion project, the owner was faced with an extensive list of necessary preservation and stabilization work. Although the roof was highly significant in design, NPS determined that immediate stabilization of the roof was 82-038 essential and that restoration of an historic appearance could be done in the future. Furthermore, the roof was covered with twenty-year-old asphalt shingles. Therefore replacement of the existing asphalt shingles with new shingles of that type was determined to meet the Secretary's Standards. Prepared by: Christopher A. Sowick, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-038 . I I I t — 8 7 — 1 9 6 - I 1 5 <— NEw ANKH in.& L... . _ ._ _ _ •154 NM •Mlb ••••..m/ ....r2 :..... 3 ‹ New FL&T dfl ut ...,..N 1. Sketch indicating new Spanish tile for sections 2 and 4, and flat tile for section 3. The flat tiles were not considered an appropriate treatment by NPS. • l_—_i. (-L J±ft ,ii ; , "Lj ii t -,,-.....,• _. . • 11 : 011 0 0 n Li : : :, ,4 :.. nAk : - • ' err • 2. View of conical-shaped roof at far western end of east-west gable. The shaped Spanish tiles are a significant design element of the church. 82-038 Sy? cqi: -,1 je • ^ice ,' 3. The dipped corners of the replacement tile helped water r �� pn ,'` to runtrap edo ffu thederneath underside the back overlap n4 - = out to the sloped exterior ;Ai ri_*� "� :' -'' V. . . drainage channels. Drainage channel t t4" A, . • - ; i• e_' A r"ry .,, j'i f i i 4 sa. . tiaer• a0s IIa ifs\1t\�1\\P r•• K'f y(,4,, t, it rr drape,.: a,Al..ir*••i *�2s>>\•\�►� ''"" e i, 14,%fit-0,,ra,I a a ilb ry,t A al t y,; - a* tN.NANNk i'i1 •. 4. View of cone with existing Spanish tile. The texture and character would be lost if flat tiles were used. 82-038 rilil" t% aw. Itt•titit.i..41..,,,,,t, ..1 .r� .♦�►ryJ� t .I�%^�% �.i tVi • :, v"rtitti • 4.4111011. ttit �I y�.am�""..iti� t Ji 5. Cone after installation of asphalt shingles. The architectural significance of the cone had been destroyed due to the inappropriate replacement materials. . .t ;.ter fib. II /' :j` .. - ' ii : I 1 . . 1 •• i ,• . ... . : , i i. 1 . !. , , ...,, , t; .. „ow. ...._ ... " �.-^ .. ► ; • 1 `" 6. Street facade view of midwestern, Queen Anne mansion showing considerable deterioration. Wood shingles originally covered the roof surface but had been replaced with asphalt shingles years ago. Technical Preservation Services interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior tie Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 82-039 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 7. Cleaning with Gentlest Method Possible (nonconformance) Subject: REMOVING PAINT FROM EXTERIOR WOODWORK USING INAPPROPRIATE METHODS Issue: Removing paint from exterior woodwork—with the exception of cleaning, light scraping, and hand sanding as part of routine maintenance—should be avoided unless absolutely essential. Within this maintenance context, deteriorated paint can be scraped and sanded down to the next sound layer, and the surface repainted with a color or colors appropriate to the style and setting of the historic building. If, on the other hand, painted exterior wood surfaces display continuous patterns of deep cracks or if they are blistering and peeling extensively so that bare wood is visible, the old paint should be completely removed before repainting (of course, the cause of paint failure should always be identified and corrected first, particularly if moisture problems are evident). When such total paint removal is required, the gentlest method possible should be selected for the particular wooden element of the historic building (general recommendations include, for example, an electric heat- plate for flat surfaces such as siding, window sills and doors; an electric heat-gun for solid decorative elements; or chemical dip stripping for detachable wooden elements such as shutters, balusters, columns, and doors when other methods are too laborious). Harsh abrasive methods such as rotary sanding discs, rotary wire strippers, and sandblasting should never be used to remove paint from exterior woodwork because they can leave visible circular depressions in the wood; shred the wood; or erode the soft, porous fibers of the wood, leaving a permanently pitted surface. Also, harsh thermal methods such as those involving hand-held propane or butane torches should never be used to remove paint from exterior woodwork because they can easily scorch or ignite the wood. Causing damage to exterior woodwork by using any of these harsh removal methods violates Standard 7 and will usually result in denial of certification. Application: A two-story Victorian, white frame structure, ca. 1894, (see illus. 1) located in a historic district in a small southern town was being rehabilitated for use as a restaurant. When the owner submitted Part 2 of the certification application to the State, several major areas of work had already been completed. Because the existing layers of paint were cracking and peeling to bare wood, the owner elected to remove all of the paint by means of sandblasting, then apply a light colored wood stain. In addition, the deteriorated front terraces were removed (see illus. 2 and 3). In its review recommendations to NPS, the State approved the interior rehabilitation work but cited the exterior work as being in probable violation of the Standards. 82-039 After final review of the project, NPS agreed with the State, giving as its prime reason for denial the sandblasting of the clapboards and stating that "sandblasting...causes irreversible destruction of historic building fabric." This treatment thus violated Standard 7. Other reasons for denial were the removal of the front terraces and the staining of the clapboards, which, according to NIPS, constituted major changes in the character of the building, therefore violating Standard 2. Although NIPS apprised the owner of the appeal process, the denial was not subsequently appealed. Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-039 • t J5 ,. ..j=• ' .r , ti Z "•e- r ...-n ''. T;Y. z+r54 " x_ `sai r -"ae:•.... 41, .,ky,qi r�" -;5,•_-„ • ', `r.Y-fta ,, , 'mar.*t~r!v� ��1 #� air isw , y •' � .• _ ! ' tot.?tr. • litr _2 f:' 44 }'�E Rai? ��l +" Saab . '- _ 'ca �g �,. . llitelliAI •• g :.. -' tt till- 16 t,' , . .lka . - )r r f##ii ems` t ' s • I1ii1ita'9b . ___' _, .: . Y :' ,- - ♦• .J :11 111 ot • f ? ' ♦jt .I :.� -� • f ;,�' .-i • •,_ yam �` r ,. - a. -3i..,...a wr-,•w..-w .>tiM►�-•:J 1. 1894 photograph shows the structure's exterior woodwork painted white. Also, note front terraces and second-story balustrade as part of the overall design. 82-039 41 g. ru .�. • 2. After project work. The front terraces have been removed (second-story balustrade was removed earlier) and the exterior woodwork has been sandblasted and stained. The project was denied certification. . -'-'4,- - -1r4ig . zir, ,.*.il_„i", : -, . .1 't.' illa._ k,• 3 `-tA l.' fat t i ' x I ......1...........4...,,,+:4741.444 or- lz-4.„-1-1.1.-___ 3. The clapboards were permanently pitted as a result of sandblasting. Also, staining the siding changed the building's historic character. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service _it hD gtoD.Cof the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 82-040 Applicable Standard: 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (conformance) Subject: SUBSTITUTE MATERIALS OR SUITABLE REPLACEMENT MATERIALS FOR SANDSTONE Issue: A frequent problem encountered in rehabilitation projects is how to repair deteriorating stone. One of the types of stone most susceptible to decay, and an element common to many historic buildings, is sandstone (often known as brownstone). Sandstone is not a durable stone. It is inherently fragile, a characteristic further accentuated by the fact that it was frequently laid incorrectly during the original construction of the building, exposing bedding planes to accelerated weathering, spalling or delamination. At this time there is still no conservation or preservation treatment that has been successful either in retarding decay or in "cosmetizing" deteriorating standstone. Matching replacement stone is usually not available because most of the original quarries have long since closed, and other sandstones seldom come dose to providing a suitable match. We are generally left therefore, with two somewhat limited options of traditional repair methods for spalling brownstone: 1) to cover it with a cementitious stucco coating, or 2) to find appropriate substitute or replacement materials. Both options, if carefully undertaken, are consistent with the Secretary's Standards. When the repair or replacement of deteriorated historic sandstone is necessary within a rehabilitation project, work must be in conformance with Standard 6. "Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities." Application: The following two projects were submitted to the NPS for review as to their eligibility for tax benefits. Both involved historic sandstone or brownstone buildings in the Northeast. While both buildings suffered equally from severely deteriorating stone, the restoration techniques chosen for the two buildings were entirely different. A. The first building (illus. 1-6) is an 1870 Italianate rowhouse located in a historic district within a heavily populated urban area. The owners planned to use most of the building for rental housing, and a portion of it for their own living quarters. The application was submitted to NPS as an already completed project. In general the work which had been done was very straightforward, and respectful of the basic architectural character and significance of the building. The problem, however, lay in the fact that the facade, covered with a brownstone veneer, was in a very serious state of deterioration. Typical of a great many rowhouses of the mid-nineteenth century in this area, this building was faced with a rather poor quality sandstone. In 82-040 addition, it is likely that the blocks of stone were incorrectly laid. Instead of placing the stones on their natural bedding planes as they lay in the quarry (the correct method), the blocks of stone were "face-bedded," which caused the stones to scale in layers because they were placed on end with their bedding planes parallel to the face of the wall. The owners of the brownstone selected a technique of stone repair that called for the delaminating stone to be scaled back to a sound layer of stone in order to provide a "key" or "bond" for a coat of portland cement stucco. The first coat of stucco applied to the stone substrate was tooled to match, as much as possible, the original shape, design, and profile of the stone trim and moldings, then covered over with a finish coat of stucco, pigmented like brownstone, and finally scored to resemble the original blocks of stone. The resulting work closely matched the original appearance of the brownstone, and approval for the project was given by NPS. The project had also been approved by the local landmark commission and the State Historic Preservation Officer, who noted the following: "The front elevation resurfacing simplified ornamental detail (notably the foliated door brackets and molded window architraves) and gave the building a Neo-Grec flavor somewhat different from its original Italianate form. However, the resurfacing craftsmanship is good, and the original as so deteriorated that the simplification (which was economically dictated) is quite acceptable." (See illus. 3-6 especially.) B. The small Renaissance Revival bank located in a historic district (see illus. 7), was another building with a deteriorating brownstone facade. This badly delaminating sandstone is possibly from the same, or nearby quarry as that on the previously discussed building. The project proposal as submitted to NPS promised to be a sensitive rehabilitation project, or as the project architect stated"an exacting restoration." One rather unusual aspect of the project was the fact that the "adaptive" use chosen for the building fulfilled its original function—that of a bank, and the owner was the same banking firm that constructed the building in 1853. (In recent years prior to the rehabilitation, the former bank had been converted to a district courthouse.) Because the bank was "restoring its former head office as a public gesture towards community rehabilitation efforts," it was willing to spend a considerable sum of money on the building, and an extensive search was begun to find a suitable replacement stone for the exfoliating sandstone of the facade. This investigation explored many possibilities and came up with the following results: 1) It would not be possible to re-open the long-closed quarry that was the source of the original stone, nor was there any other American sandstone that would be suitable (replacement stone was available in neither adequate amounts, sizes nor correct color); 2) EngIish, German and Indian sandstones were investigated, but were also of unsuitable color (too red, while the original was a purple-brown), the pieces of stone were too small, and delivery was too uncertain; and 3) replacement of the decaying sandstone with a granite that would closely match the color of the sandstone, and would be carved locally. The project architect recommended the last-mentioned alternative—replacement of the exfoliating sandstone with matching granite. NPS requested and received samples of 1) the exfoliating sandstone, 2) the foreign sandstone, and 3) the red granite. After careful analysis and comparison of the 82-040 samples, NPS agreed with the architect's recommendation, and the rehabilitation project proposal was approved as being in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Prepared by: Anne E. Grimmer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-040 � — l. Brownstone cowhuusebefoce stucco repair. 2. "Brownstone" after stucco repair. --ft �-- 3, Front door. Foliated brackets of deteriorating brownstone. I r4� tv 4. Repaired "bcownstone" doorway brackets (simplified) ` lir """ * . - :•- . 1.*-.73-7N-7.W.,--•,-7-. ...As t I . 82-040 ..-.. ., , ,,,q - '7‘ c;_ ...?„.. _' .':-...„.'"" ..:t„.,.....-"...-,),-,---.. ft., • ..- ___ '.--o'Z'.......41-... 41:yN,•-••'''..:A-..liki,,it:41-;'-`;!.- ''tt.•i -. i .t.',..'"` '',..,:, '' ....si5,1•;„.; -,,, .k,*..„:t......k.. ,„ ,.,,-.--....:.:.t4,.. . '-' --." -' .-- '4•••• . -, - ! ". --- ONIMMER-N-I-NWr'--- v.r ' I .... ."----•-• ......... r• --...- • •-•!*%-7'..,4".!--.......,., 1 :',-'.- -.-- •1-.- _ araggligttaAW....,,,, -• W,...s. _f_:1'.4,;.---: - '- '' • -.'46t,,j$ :.-•,-•-t'• IF,4_:'••"'. .... .,..- .. .., '''': lei:„,„ ,...., .., -.• r-I''Ve..4.1"0:_,&.":4'..k-Ni.;;;; ..,-...,-,,, " ,- it\: - 41; ...' •"-- ..::.. 4 ',-7 %• sc ',,w•-7,--•:-.. tr-•.,.;44, ' . t _ .,' '.. • '' -•:- •;i• i--,' .r.i.' :C4:'?,,,.....'S.. :- IL.,3. • i =' I 1 ;‘-. '''....2.X4,!-1/2.-4*--- ',-.... - i i t' -.7 1';-_-=.• -. • •-------,,T-y--. .',,t-- "SI 41 '' -'- ' t • s•••-•- ,, 1,,,- 14. -• ;L-., • - = `-'''''' .-*.'"*- . .--.:,,,..,`, :. - _ -.,.•,,-, ,. ! _- ,,.... . - - . . , * - , t. . --- .'f--=.,'";,-:,Ar..-r•-• ... ' -.1 •••.: . --; ..,...7.7:7,•7 -15:$-,.. ' „....• - - • - ..., . .„ _ ."C'....-;:. ''" - . ' - , '''...* "' :"111,1111POINV 'Flell :.- -- •.•'' :"-."•"..,•-• T; -- •. • . . .-AT.!.-„ • '''-"-'-..'•'(kj.- .-'-'--.4r151L11.4591P,4 ..""-' • '''''..,,,.."..c.ve,- , • "'''...-,..- . .. ..''--..- -- - . -.fr..•-•'-',. _ , , , , _ ... . '".• ' .''' - ..... .s..-- .3:•...-......."' -.- . .'• _---.. . .,,.. • . '' 5. Window detail. Deteriorated 6. Window detail. After stucco repair. brownstone before stucco repair. , . . .- 4-- ...-.."a • _ . - .- , . ....L • c• . - • ••• . T'' '..i. ' --_•. ....- - . • - • I- -. . .._ . . .., . .,- , ' ...-ftr•-•.,:iivt I.-A.-t-7---, - ___.:•-• ',,.'-"' -* --'' . ' ;•••", .... - 7-:.--- '.- r-:-. .-I. ,..:. ..i..--- - --- =tire, . -' ---,. .-- • - ..-,..,..,.:, ....,,,A4,..t,,..,. ;,,.,,,rul"-•111,tf?1,11)11.: .1.:,.? ,..,,_.1:.; ._.'......‘''.,;'-':.-'3.--,--,,-..:4 71 „0-7 rf•0.147,-,,tns.- . _. ' ' ' '- I '14'' 111101111111111111. ..:zs... ; .8, ...' .. ' 4'.0 , .......ft.... ... MINN IT H IR D.D4S TR I CT Cr'01./ 'T •..T:.:.-.-I t-:I-. . 1-c •t,-.:--.-, ,.-.- ... ---- • . -- - „ , - ....-n. . . .. .. a, ..W . a*1 • . -. . t 4 i - . , . __ __. ."-":""--- ": '''..,. ; .,; .• ,t 4„le,- _sm.._ . ' • ,... c i: ,,,,41, „........,,• or....1,s,... • 1:,,, :.. t -........a....... ... , -- • •••• ....4.-f IV-"-. ..... ' - - A -..-4- • — • i..- ''''::••• ''-la italiS;;•4!4 • tt-''`' •, • -' ' . - _-_,.1111- •.-.. •_ 4, - i : ' ' -— • •1 ..___ A .. , ,. ---"-4„,.i.,, ill . 1 . . .:,..i.. ,....,.. 111 I ra' . t" f r---. i - • • • i- ''' • BI I lird • -:46 <.)•••••t• • ., . - li . .--..4---• t I .'•-•4 --. ,L--- •-•'.' •--:•• 1 , ... • 1„,a:,..; it . 1,-",sil t .,,,:,.,.....!'illi....,:s.! ;,..;•••:,.:..,:t If;....11,14. 11'1- i•-et. 4 . i I 1 .1/41 ..4 _• _ 4-- —.- I ?••: j-,-k' .-- ; 2 a -.ILI L:_0.• 1 1,1?jii, . -,,,,,,ef , . __I . ;* 0 f; 'IA Nf.i S.Z r .6. 7.., ....."1,. - igimmimi --v;i4in• - ' - -; ' . -I I _ . . — •—— 1...L • li$111; VE . I',:: ..4 .: . 7. Brownstone facade of bank building before replacement with red granite. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's =shington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 82-041 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 4. Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: DEMOLITION AS PART OF REHABILITATION Issue: The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 established significant tax incentives for the rehabilitation of certified historic structures provided that the rehabilitation is generally consistent with the historic character of the building or the district in which it is located. The Act states that only those buildings subject to depreciation that have been substantially rehabilitated and that retain 75 percent or more of the existing exterior walls in the rehabilitation process may qualify for preservation tax incentives. • Due to certain economic constraints, developers of rehabilitation projects sometimes find it necessary to reduce the amount of available floor space in order to meet limited market needs. A typical approach is to demolish portions of the structure for one of two reasons: to eliminate the excess floor space that would otherwise remain vacant; or to create parking facilities to serve the tenants and bring in added revenue. As indicated in Bulletin #81-012, in limited situations, demolition may be approved as part of the overall rehabilitation when: 1) the component to be demolished is a secondary element or feature lacking special historic, engineering, or architectural significance; and 2) the component does not comprise a major portion of the historic site; and 3) persuasive evidence is presented to show that retention of the component is not technically or economically feasible. When historic structures with highly significant components are involved, demolition often conflicts with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." Demolition of significant portions of the historic structure alters the essential character and integrity of the building and the district in which it is located and is contrary to Standards 2 and 4. Application: The owners of a corner bank building located in the commercial district of a northeastern city purchased the adjacent structure with the intention of rehabilitating it for commercial purposes. Both structures are listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places as well as being located in a Registered Historic District. The recently purchased building wrapped around the corner bank and had been constructed in three phases (see illus. 1). The first section was built in 1897, the 82-041 second section in 1899, and the third section in 1906 (see illus. 2 and 3). According to the National Register nomination, the first section: "...was designed in a Romanesque Revival style. The first floor...consists of large plate glass and cast iron storefronts, while the upper stories are faced with buff brick and limestone trim. A deeply projecting modillion cornice over a wide frieze completes the design." The second section is a simpler version of the first, "utilizing the same brick and limestone trim above the plate glass and cast iron storefronts." The third section: "...employs red brick with granite trim rather than buff with limestone. However, this...section relates to the others in scale and decorative motifs of round arched windows in the upper floor and deeply projecting cornice." The owners proposed rehabilitating the original section as well as the corner bank building. The proposal also called for demolishing the two later sections and constructing a parking garage on their sites (see illus. 4). The owner and the State Historic Preservation Officer felt that the later additions "were of little significance and were included in the nomination because they were attached to the first section proper." Additionally, the owners had conducted studies that showed the local market would only support a limited amount of first class office space, and that adjacent parking facilities were necessary in order to market the first class office space at the highest rents possible. The regional office denied the project on the grounds that it violated Standards 2 and 4. The denial letter stated that the regional office: "...did not consider these additions to be minor later alterations lacking significance. Their design features are similar in quality and character to the first section...They were constructed within 10 years of the original block to serve the same purpose. The projecting cornices, upper floor and arched windows, stone lintels and sills, and horizontal belt-courses are similar in scale and design motif to the earlier block. Through design, use, and construction, these additions contribute substantially to the property's significance. The loss of these additions is in violation of Standard No. 4. The removal of these historic buildings, with their distinctive architectural features, violates Standard No. 2." The owners subsequently appealed the decision. The hearing officer determined that the work to be performed on the corner bank building met the Secretary's Standards, while the rehabilitation and demolition proposed for its neighbor did not meet the Standards. The hearing officer agreed with the regional office that through similar design features, scale, and use, the two later additions contributed substantially to the property's significance. This finding was strongly reiterated by the Acting Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore the substantial demolition work would not constitute adequate preservation of the historic resource. The hearing officer also expressed concern that the work might not meet the statutory requirement of retaining 75 percent of the existing exterior walls following rehabilitation. Although the economic necessity for demolishing the two later 82-041 additions in order to construct parking facilities was thoroughly considered, the hearing officer decided that in the final analysis, the retention of the original structure and demolition of the two later additions would not preserve the historic character of the structure or the district in which it is located. Prepared by: Christopher A. Sowick, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-041 di I I. t . - ...l..":-...7-;741...1.0"::::-.03,11\/\12.; \.. Alit y,,,,,..--mub.b, I .--I 1- !) , I j��k k:z." v r/ .. First Section�/ 1!• , ;,. Built in 1897 I1 '' r,! /j • \" I .ir—:: To be rehabilitated I 7 •� �,I __- . ; ,�'_��. - - n7 • I 1 11 I it I ;77.71 I t 1 I V � sn. l t I II ••••••••••••• • --••,•••••,,••••••••. .......''''' ''. ' ........'' - . . I I . \ . I Is I. IT:,�' ( : ird. Section i j SeatiA� 5ect;ixc /- $i.iZt— 3.a 9ob .'Buiiit 3,8 I • ,;, s i'o be c e�iolished€ t.,, O e d i she •. Corner Bank Building__ I ` i! i40TTH1T 1 Built in 1891 I 1 //� / J / I / �, �. • ii ' -- - /f ' l • �..x-1--. --../--,T_.T:Rj --4-..1—.J—.11 i {Haan r....,1....�4--... . ..... .• _ :t— ..g_4. �ff �� 1 — �r 1i I- 1. Site plan showing layout of the project, proposed demolition shaded. , 2. The corner bank building is on the left and "' the first section of the adjacent building m._,__.......................... .....................is%tioir (constructed in 1897) is on the right. Both will be rehabilitated according to the proposal. f i ; I, . 11, ) l•, 1 � JI .-.,.)iom4 mw {'{ 1 1.' S7 p y„= ,v. 1 rs 1 :I i 1 I lik. ,,--- . . .... • .. r i..•, ' -'1 ' ' 9 fi At I'll' ilai iM' 1 ,F. I .;` r, • f a Ita• 'aq x �d"�,.iiil r11 • II •T ' ''.j•--,t', 'L' :•`'.1"' '91', ' --—--- --- - — :- ---:.1 4---1141-1----'11111 i ii— I Et! 1 i, i. - - . J - '� `t ;� gi. n o:l._ . r ' + L '�e-'�f ,.. fi poi ,, ‘ it via it, ii 11... • ,, .. ,.. .„-„,.. ,e I 7.2i. • , 1•1:. ' • ii ' - i..' .- 11 1' • r� r..w...w• • :. �y...•.r",� �l' off r1'-rr !4. = i Irmo .. ..d..,w..+,,..w,,.rrM• R ,. i>A F t f , ^"q 1;4: ,..11c7P..:'..: . . '..k '''''' ' allil' i':::1- "."E.. y, 7 w''.::::1:,,: r' • .t3. r yft ,mow..•• �,,, ....""r.• 00 y Alr• 11 .t r' t sS i 1 h C�y{ 3 82-041 i ;� Q 3. The additions on the left and in the r• middle are to be demolished for the new ,' / parking facility. The building on the 4#.kt far right is the corner bank building •w and will be rehabilitated according to •* the proposal. �s '- ; ,e 1.-., . a ,:j / .. .4T,s.:',,k."'".. , ilk , • iL ' ; 1 v.,, . "ate -� i ,` \ \'\:. •• ' 7 iytyr +tA111111t <t x1x2 1l�` '� i. 'i..--4" :. ter. • 2g r.- 'i,•f_,O tiny`C„SF� ' ? .S i �t •jam: b- ,r '•4i`,• z L. + XJl'�.y: �`. if 1J! T.�.�a��-it .� r �£ \ . �t �✓.,yamir r. $ '::: era :::::47''''4:: a • �N ili:14*.':'47:; ..tf.: a..._ '." I�Cl ....•"i t `_ � re: AS Sr \ I' �•i�:: �. � .,� 1 \111H11171—*...,-g/1 14:4'-.41. 1.111111 r. tt.„-1 ,..., t',' . 1 : ' :.-A- : :11 — ..",......;,,,,,..' --, i tit _ _ :�.� . A _� I:1111111 ; IIhr_rz •_._ 'T. ? illi pci .764 '• ..i } - ' (- [' EEtfi ' f'! _ z yet �_ �' ri .. r^K ram i y iJ YS �Sf j t �,• ` APr L .••.. 7 1 •y,fit' aw'�y' s y 4' i. ` 1 ;,,�,•. I,',. , `A't+y'l ,c= }a'tN'h `4Y u ty„f .' M - r • '' 'r :,'$�'b% ' ,1 ,;ki' ok. l l,,,}.0{;. .lia l,f "f'..'�P�' ,r t S',t''A'F 4I'r 3.i ,�t: • 7 � f? grgip :,a,r• to 'A • �4�" t �rY/1F ef'i' `M`, .y..xY,�.:f�j. •' .; J^ r 1, • r •. " r 4,1,4 M1 ,J."X' tar: ;S ✓•' i 'N'i" � •--- " '`u y.�`-yty.a�'+.C; +-. ..'. �' ti r •.srr•as ..,a•�'.,yyi Y. .�.» 1•-�sj su x 7E.1' a an-, w,V' s, n.. t .iN♦ r YF*. .�.h•1.l 1ti " s¢ i 1 r tiS.jyZ •. 'y,'3Zi �WIYi. ri•T."'''lt�...r.�....�r,.h....� ,,,�, .. 1tr••! - �'� fha -. $i . 41`.• .1 .v1S.�i',.�g3A . 11 3 t�.. M..^r K-:..,v a 4'r* t. ,,, •.t,.. \'• 'AMsL.<..' x"..... � y 'fR-.n ,,, S, . •I w to Keay ♦ • • ' • g. ;;F •••s44, •, • . • t 'r"eit ,n,,fY'• i•:'• • .*V... ♦ .,y • ! L .../'7i F,�y,.•,��r • :w rsa' f t. ♦a " v ,. F• v • -Y , • , ✓? • .,. .t, 4•fi .. + r ' lii ra�� Yse�N sue.t,ry .r'• !t V% t j A. !, . 0.. .,. , , . -- ,, . .i, . . 1 .;, . 4 1 1 4 , ,�a cal • ../IRM► ,�, .iii r 1 fN • tt .._v:;, :.......AM►. .;. a+r.!'!7t�_i.:.7a1'rr�• j41 r 1 . ; C r i .�' ..• 1 ,{ `• _ ^S!. �' } .. ' ,1 • ..41111-11 w, `` _ t ' i F 1! ,l 1 [" ,. Il' '; 1 't; • ;� *,��.. tt .` !kit... Ef; ti [ ii� !fi s' t F •� ,,1) .r- t '.` . ' "0 •• 'it` - � ram' :jR 4 1.i`i w.Y ,` tw ''� �ha .tan•. �s / .1 ,I, , ,. °x'•' S R p;,, P . + S `. 41, '414 , I " ". ► ' • f i • , wt... . • � f"+ yr [[ f . } • s rE � • _lil 11 . • i f��► A AA • ^. .w�4 1 i i � . lia t . •-,....,,-.....,", . 6. Itipatly, . ` ! • '" 1t frix ' '*?`w , ' C.1490" • i';:1.y.. �„0 .4.,„°1R;"' . .n ,, to : >,,rl1l .,i ,1 .. .... .w+ r ti4Y .,s • + �4 �•.G `# GF. • 4. This drawing shows the design of the proposal parking facility. Note the entry features to be retained from the demolished section. o0 N 1 O I- Technical Preservation Services interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Tshington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number 82-042 Applicable Standard: 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (Conformance) Subject: INAPPROPRIATE REPLACEMENT MATERIALS: CHANGES IN COLOR AND TEXTURE Issue: When rehabilitating historic buildings that have architectural elements or materials so deteriorated as to necessitate replacement, owners may make the mistake of choosing inappropriate replacement materials. Although Standard 6 calls for repair of deteriorated features wherever possible, it also acknowledges that replacement may be necessary and states that "the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplication of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures." The choice of an inappropriate replacement for a significant but deteriorated material may result in a change in the historic character of a building and lead to denial of certification of that rehabilitation. In very limited cases, color may be able to help lessen the negative visual impact of the replacement material, although generally it will not be possible to recapture the historic character simply by painting over the problem. Application: A badly deteriorated 1880's New England beach resort hotel located in an historic district (see illus. 1) was being rehabilitated for its original use. All of the windows had to be replaced, but the owners used matching one-over-one wooden sash and repaired the existing frames. Some of the rotten roof decking was replaced and the roof reshingled with asphalt shingles. The deteriorated exterior doors were replaced with reproductions of the originals on the first floor and reconditioned period doors on the basement level. All of the exterior decorative trim was carefully repaired. These repairs and replacements were approved. Much of the original clapboard was missing and the remaining clapboard was badly deteriorated. The owners decided to replace all the clapboard with cedar shingles. The owners and the State Historic Preservation Officer felt that the shingles were not a visually obtrusive change because they were installed in even rows similar to the width of the clapboard they replaced (see illus. 2). The owners stated that an important aspect in their decision to use shingles instead of commercially available clapboard was that modern clapboard was too wide and duplicating the historic clapboard would have required having it specially milled. Having duplicate clapboard 82-042 custom-milled would have been triple the expense of the cedar shingles. Another consideration was ease of maintenance in a harsh, damp climate, so a preservative was applied to the shingles. NPS denied certification because it determined that "replacement of the clapboarding with shingles is a major change in the character of the building" and, therefore, the rehabilitation did not meet Standard 6. However, in denying certification NPS suggested that painting the shingles white to match what appeared to be the original color would lessen the negative visual impact of the change of materials and that this might result in approval of the project as minimally meeting the Standards. The owners appealed the NPS decision with the strong support of the SHPO who stated: "The replacement of the clearly deteriorated clapboard with shingles is not a visually obtrusive change. The shingles are hung in even rows, with exposure similar to that of the clapboards. As they have been treated with a preservative, it is unlikely that the shingles will now accept a white stain, and to paint them would make repainting necessary, given the unusual weather conditions...I should mention, too, that white was not the building's original color." The hearing officer sustained the NPS decision that without painting or using an opaque stain on the shingles to mitigate the significant visual change to the texture and character of the exterior walls, the rehabilitation would not meet the Standards. Additionally, the hearing officer pointed out that even with the application of a preservative, the shingles would still require cyclical maintenance. However, the hearing officer did agree with the SHPO that the shingles did not necessarily have to be painted white, but rather an appropriate opaque color or stain. The owners agreed to apply an opaque yellow stain, which the hearing officer considered "a mitigating treatment sufficient to warrant approval of the project." The owners then consulted with a representative of the manufacturer of the preservative that had been applied to determine how soon the initial application would be weathered enough to permit the opaque yellow stain to adhere to the shingles. After two years sufficient weathering had occurred so that a second application was possible. The owners have now repainted the hotel with an opaque yellow stain containing a preservative. Prepared By: Sara K. Blumenthal, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. • 82-042 ma c. y" -.0' I ,1p t' ,i fit) -- -\ . -. ._ ,ter III,J ..i` ;��_ 4. a `` -�_` _ Il.li1 - . ..-?......-_- ,... i 4,-.--..-. ..._ ..,. _ .......• M 1.:;-a--.., ..---„Te : . v- -. ..-A '� .":'t __ ~ � C 3 rbs.. - ��= - IE h Mr Wit; • - • • 1 . Air _ � --- • 1 •' - _ -.fix- _ ;PICf I Iti m. .A.,4,1 .--......_ tom' /' - U {i ` - ;its .i. a_ • R �J 1. Pre-1977 rehabilitation. .• = ,' + Note badlydeteriorated _ _�'I I 1 1i condition of hotel, 1,' I � 2.71 -r '-. particularly windows and clapboard. ' 2. After rehabilitation. The use of shingles to replace the clapboard has changed the texture and character of the exterior walls, even though the width of the rows is similar to the original clapboard and the decorative trim has been care- fully repaired. The owner agreed after certification was denied upon appeal to apply an opaque yellow stain as a mitigating treatment to qualify the project as minimally meeting the "Standards." Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division U.S.Natel Park Servicetthe Secretary of the Interior's U.S. Department of the Interior —Washington, D.C. (-Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 82-043 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance) 4. Retention of Significant Later ALterations/Additions (conformance) Subject: DEMOLITION AS PART OF CERTIFIED REHABILITATION (INDUSTRIAL/MILL COMPLEXES) Issue: Industrial or mill complexes listed in the National Register often include a number of structures varying in use, age, condition, and significance. Adaptive uses (such as housing, shops, or offices) are frequently chosen for these complexes. While the removal of clearly nonsignificant modern additions is a frequently proposed, integral part of rehabilitation planning, unfortunately such plans often propose the selective demolition of other buildings or additions, or industrial features such as smokestacks, boiler rooms, elevators, and millraces that may play an important role in the complex as a whole. In general, the demolition of structures in a registered industrial or mill complex will violate Standards 2 and 4, and result in denial of project certification. In limited situations, however, demolition of components of a historic complex may be approved as part of the overall rehabilitation when: 1) the component is a secondary structure or feature that lacks special historic, engineering, or architectural significance; and 2) the component does not comprise a major portion of the historic site; and 3) persuasive evidence is presented to show that retention of the component is not technically or economically feasible. Application: A National Register mill complex dating largely from the 1840s and located in a small northeastern town was being converted into housing for the elderly (illus. 1). Overall rehabilitation work proposed was extensive, including structural repairs to the main factory building; roof repairs; reconstruction of the bell tower and cupola based on photographic and physical documentation; installation of replacement windows duplicating the historical six-over-six configuration; and repair of an 1867 elevator tower for use as a community space on the first floor and as living space above. The work proposal also involved demolition of a 1950s concrete block loading dock; an 1850s metal exterior fire escape; and an 1850s boiler room and smokestack (see illus. 2 and 3). (The boiler room addition had been enlarged in 1857 and further expanded ca. 1900.) In a preliminary review of the project, NPS indicated that demolition of the nonsignificant concrete block structure would be acceptable as part of the overall work; similarly, removal of the exterior fire escape would be acceptable because an internal fire stair was being utilized. However, both NPS and the Advisory Council (reviewing the project because HUD money was involved) expressed concern over the proposed demolition of the 1850s boiler room and smokestack. 82-043 In response to these concerns, the architects/engineers provided additional information that satisfied the three-part criteria for demolition of the secondary components. First, although the boiler room and smokestack were integral parts of the historic mill complex, they did not possess any "special" historic, engineering, or architectural significance that, alone, would warrant their retention. Second, compared to the 55,000 sq. feet of the main mill building plus the area of the elevator tower, the boiler room and smokestack comprised only a small portion of the entire complex. Finally, and most important, the engineers presented an analysis of the structural condition of these components, citing the particularly serious deterioration of their exterior walls and roofs. Because such persuasive evidence was presented prior to final project review, NPS agreed that rehabilitation of the secondary components in this case would be technically infeasible; subsequently NPS approved their demolition as part of the overall rehabilitation and certified the project. ("Review of Historic Preservation Projects," No. 81-02, further defines the documentation required in establishing the structural condition of a building for purposes of the Federal Tax Incentives Program.) Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 82-043 --.......___ .... .... -• • . IL ...,,, ...0" 0. - °•fa 'i , . . , kik. .... . t -jv , .... .... . ri,..,.. 0.- .. . ..._ , .... p 11-lt it-%.:-.*-:woos , --10-_ NI '• 10 s ' . •t • .••• I*Pr; it::• s....-Z- ,..11 " 0 . .... 11,., 1,..1-4- ,s rrf .0%... ... -- - • - . -- 1''0-"*.- r,... t4,-.0.A.. .. .. 0 ., ._ ../ ., .'",'Pill.il f ...'s- .30' -.1....- .... _.. •:,:' ..- ..... ..... .;..,i,. f•= 140 ...;r . , 142. •._...1,!..? ..- - . gt. 4' a ' -14 ; , - - I tit ,t.„1:•-•-,f.--.:,...i.c. ii.- ..... 2 je. : ... .- -',1 -7-', ti..-.. .14.;,.11-1 1 ._-.-,--„:771.: r-. .., c,:+-,q...--N:-.... .4::- ' •--•,... 5-- Jo - ;, , 1 ,,. --,;-;,-.1- ,--, 11. -114;,. .-.1,-41'ir.:,'-'s, ..,a3/77,•NI,: ,i0 . igf ,,....--, , ‘ „ — ,107P "-- -. S, I^ I:1;--,...1;.r7:1:-. ,--..,-} 1r7::iit • a , jii -,;*-...-... i-.:.-- '. , • • , , ,,..1 i . _,,,a , g ... ii ,. t 41 , .- 5 ' ‘,...-',-, ' 'ff.'Cr—Z."' - it, p .. _--..i?...j- . ,.• ,-,•- • -.- ----...co i . 1 .. -,-' : - "I /17;,:l:ik'''is_-p t 1--,, --.•-4 ..:. ---- ,• --- ..... , -, -,. . -, - : :‘, _ •-_....._„... • ;:- .. ,s, _ ..., - — - e ''„. - •, ti• i- - 'X.-e. I.--V.1'.I. ......--:---,,.......18 '. 10 . •.......or 1 " ‘,.,. X., w4-..".0. tt. -t?. :e h.:4,rig--^ ..1. .... :y y 11 •. ' 1 11 s- I _ ' I . .' -1 ' '-'''',,.i,t.-'-'4:4gt::f, ';‘1,;6'..V:Al::-., 11;:_4:-;- il -, . 1 --- - 2----.-------.....--'....,;......„1}..S--‘'V: -"1"" -.`, .'. .7.,1"..--.e.7,....)116...,.--.I.:,..s i'4.11.,%O., -- T4--z 4,5#,-; tai - -;,..41/4:- - ----0 ''., . •=:-.:1.----- -43 - _ - --.-'4,.. " '.%:-.---,,,,7*-•.:-" ,,,,,_ "' 1 — ' ''' '' c'- 11;3,111—• 11 - 1'• ......:-..- , imig- 171/182115."1"" a"- . . .- ,„,... -,E, 0.A t*.t- ......-4. .:"•"=" ,Se• -• I 1 , . •.. -,.., , .,._:.€. .-,.... -.__-_-___-, • MX 6 ••-4, G: , •, 4 .i . ,....,... ''.1 F•c. -•- . ... , .* .... -.• --, -,1.4. ...,.1 17.4•,..: ...7.?„ z t• - ; ,.e • am ' 4 ,-- -,r.,•, -..-•-.•:s•L.., 1 .. . . -. * ..,_ ......:"......„,:- Nt4-44•111i4r lea • , ,„/ !,-., -,..7..7i LI-,,,•7. ....1,4--4011 :::!!!", -,t-10.7-•,.. I AM. --it, .,.r.;,...-.7i,. rgr v• viiivA,Vi•: ,.‘-----1-- •••::---e--; JIIIP , , 4, ••6___••,• 4 4*W. ... . '4_,_ ....'•e>,,...." 40111m.O. INN/... •• '" - '''..A.'''''''' •sr....r.AL4'...- ......V.,P. .....0•■■-:- ..„.....--- - - , -- ''..,- .,-, =.. -• .-e-,-4-:,,,,,,-....,...- , t --- - -._- .• • .,..,:,•-•:•-'04-.-"`'-`3 '' ' - ' r'' '.!...i.,:: ';`,".;:::".2.--tk;;.".,./Z.:......:„_.---...-................„........... ----............---- 1. Southeast portion of main mill building, including the later additions: boiler room with smokestack; elevator tower; and 1950's concrete loading dock. 00 ts) 1 a -g- , -.. „77----------„,.. , - •* Ns _.,, -- --____ - • -__ ... ..., ....._ • -------____ -----....._ ; ----...., ---,... ....... -__ ..,,. ....--- ---- - , '- 1 . . . .•iIi 7'_LI.a j.I_ 1l.Ij11i I „....s.. •,•••.•• '''.'. anaca ....0!..!." 1/1!1••••r"• . l „ w ! Li ii 11, 1 . - " II4 ! 111 1 i 0i M 71 ' 1111 9it ! 111 1I i ! ! ! ! . .-•./!..1•• •0 i,•,.i 1 f. 1e1klhIA1 l•.-i.1iAt,. f1,-ifgs'•,i s/r4,I"I•.•1" /t i • •:•.- i-...i ...I . c•i. ,_ ,,,..,---, f„ . _ — , dz. .,. .,-., = .... .z. .... ,..,. •—• P.M ••66. MIN. MO. 16,r.• ',MO 1411.4 9 1.11 or.• e. vea• a 1• • .- I j f!Ir 1 i 1 i] 2 i .1 11. 1 ! 1 . A Ei 1 1 •1 ' •' N• / • •• as 4 4 4 4 4 4 ••• 4 is 14 i., L I. , t 1 , a . • ..... ....,• .....; . , , • r , ,, : ,. I - ;• - :•,.... — i 7"7'... -L--0-, -• ---,--....,_ — ' ' ;vt . .•• -•- ... ... • :••'-' : A '. _ , r, ........• _-:----,,,,.; ; , ....— - — %. .1 ... I-, ,... • --I — N •air......---.- _t i_j f•••• . . ., .. — ., .1.. iiir . 1 . -- —.... a ; 1- 1 a 0.•_ ..,..... ..J ..... ... ,..P,',Intr, IL l°1 ri;PLIPIPI•U.444•444........................ .-'--- ^ -". !"61 : ' ..'...1 "i.,„ 4 4,-..".•:- : •%:.-',,„ ..Z' ''. '-'.7r., ' „ -------- -........-............, ,,,,,'...,-T........". ",......74......-"... "4-.--.... '. • -•• . •'• •" .-- ....'1".7."4.A.P ,,,.‘C ,,-, 4. . .7,:••k 1.tr),..•.. 1:,;.: .--••••••44.6.4.,„.44;i.4.4 6‘'444.6041,..S'•‘. : •64t. • .71,impr....r..„„ ..,.....--- - -,...e r.r.rrOr., r,r..1.1"..:41 r "1. 1;..141417;,..1j144 ilz;: .raratr'r 2. West end, with reconstructed cupola. 1` Yak, �' ; • i yam: 01 i4 tr . {airy t .e.;1 Az.• 40 ........„ i ......, --,' � i �K r 7x Kv r 1 If 'I `4 a'''yr44 ;4, Ifrr an 4i44' i.. y ‘,• �! 0'; j err ,, t .y 4. �d "�a� • .,, z is rR . , . , . 1,-,, •f W. ,,''f,f�° ' x f. i^.• 'r`,. k`o .• v ,rat . e, Te• r �,, t r 1 �' , M I• a, 3 y i ;espy rid dM., s �'l1 .a ' • .„ ,' g•,' �Y , ter + ri,{� �Z r 'ram ......., ! i �� r 11 Y��n Y f S. i { �'S+ NT' N rr' 1i t ',,,rf r +}'4,' • y 'i }. r3`L 'I;" 4 , 11" War :l..i •u. vht" „! "�' ' !'yS 7fI '•'-, 0,- rr - ( 4, ..: itti r , . , • .e. ...,..:G. MO.., "" { • t. 1 i' -a. 4 , f "",;.• . 1 •I 1 Y.a ttl '2.•^ �Ot ,4 ..-.4,- ,:iv4,4 , ` '"'",cdt3.r,:, , tY ..t' ( r • t 4 1,a I ••K k A . r E:alit t ! rl,'Grd• ��{rt ..(, 1 •,.:A.,;,.. Hrr r,,a' ow, , �.4 u��. 1 •!' ' .',L M r. ! ±"yj-f+ X. ( 'lt?,�;. •,'• , r= 5 d' ..... .,.i r' 1 i I • •}... *�. r 4 . Fw I ,. .LuC,.-,.• 7� `d��' .,,1 II , k$ rr t. II r 7,` ii. -d � , p ' i'+A i ;r'_ 17 1 ',.; t �`1 �'' 1 el1 ) I `Ytix `I`.. �illirr..' a• , 1- ; I f7 I 4+s,•� 1 1 !:k. ! r ...r < /bt F5 -h ..fir _.l. Prl (:i +T ' !..,: • �. 4 ., ,lob h I ti4 to , /r4, ,,, r i 4r rs.� R.,1 ' ......�z.' 1.;...;:: .r r,�.�,• .',,. �ry� i; fx Rt pwr'4'Md An.w. ' I •' .,r lyl�. F �1. UM • '"Jbj! k,A .'J LCh f LBti rW .. - .. ,...._,,.r.t•.bko,Arw'r...`.'�Fix1 L.r:aY.4:P!+IIF' :r••. 00 3. South facade and east end, after rehabilitation. Boiler room and o smokestack additions have been removed, but elevator tower was retained. w INDEX Abrasive Cleaning 81-009; 82-039 • Additions to Buildings See Also: Greenhouses Infill Construction Storefronts Additional Floors 82-034 Demolition of Additions 81-016; 81-018 Inappropriate Designs 81-022; 82-026; 82-028; 82-037 Administrative Issues See: Previous Owner Project Work Air Conditioning 81-014 Arcades 82-030 Artificial Siding 80-005; 80-006 Balconies See: Porches, Galleries Brick Mitigating damage of abrasively cleaned masonry 81-009 Painting previously unpainted brick 81-011; 82-029 Removing interior plaster to expose brick 81-013 Brownstone See: Sandstone Building Codes Fire safety 82-037 Handicapped access 82-032 Ceilings See: Interior Spaces, Alterations Cleaning, Damaging Methods See: Abrasive Cleaning Complexes See: Demolition, Buildings within Complexes Demolition See Also: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration Buildings within complexes 81-012; 82-041; 82-043 Demolition/alteration of non-original features that have achieved significance 81-016; 81-018; 82-027; 82-041 Significant fabric and features 82-032; 82-039 Deteriorated Buildings and Features, Repair versus Replacement 82-029; 82-031; 82-038; 82-040; 82-042; 82-043 Doors and Entranceways See Also: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration Replacement, inappropriately designed 80-004; 82-025 New construction on original facades 82-029 Removal or replacement of entrance 81-015; 82-032 Entrances See: Doors and Entranceways Environment/Setting, Alteration of 80-002 Exterior Surfaces See: Artificial Siding Brick Paint, Removal of Replacement Materials Sandstone Wood Fireplaces See: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration Floor Plans, Alterations 81-020 Floors, Addition of New 81-019; 82-034 Galleries See Also: Porches New construction 81-008 Greenhouse Additions 80-007; 81-022 • Historically Inappropriate Alterations and Additions, Construction of See Also: Brick, Removing interior plaster to expose brick 80-004; 80-005; 81-008; 81-018; 82-024; 82-029 Infill Construction 81-010 Insulation, Urea-formaldehyde Foam 81-023 Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration See Also: Brick, Removing interior plaster to expose brick 81-017; 81-019, 81-020; 82-024 New Construction See: Additions to Buildings Environmental/Setting, Alterations Greenhouses Historically Inappropriate Alterations Infill Construction Porches Roof Alterations Storefronts Paint See Also: Abrasive Cleaning Mitigating damage to exterior by painting 81-009; 82-042 Painting previously unpainted surfaces 81-011; 82-029 Retention of unpainted surfaces after paint removal 82-036; 82-039 Plaster, Removal of See Also: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration 81-013 Porches See Also: Galleries Demolition 80-006; 81-018; 82-033; 82-039 Enclosures 80-001; 82-033 Previous Owner, Project Work Undertaken by Previous Owner Which Does Not Meet the Standards 80-001 Regulations, Project Work Undertaken Prior to Issuance of 81-018; 82-028 Replacement Materials See: Artificial Siding Doors Roofing Sandstone, Replacement of Windows Wood Roof Alterations 82-031; 82-038 Sandblasting See: Abrasive Cleaning Sandstone, Replacement 82-040 Setting, Alteration of See: Environment/Setting, Alteration of Siding See: Artificial Siding Wood, Replacing clapboarding with shingles Stairtower, Construction 82-037 Standards for Rehabilitation, Secretary of the Interior's Standard 1 (Compatible New Use) 81-020; 82-028; 82-033 Standard 2 (Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character) 80-001; 80-002; 80-003; 80-006; 81-011; 81-012; 81-013; 81-014; 81-015; 81-017; 81-019; 81-020; 81-021; 81-022; 81-023; 82-025; 82-026; 82-028; 82-029; 82-030; 82-032; 82-033; 82-036; 82-039; 82-041; 82-043 Standard 3 (Recognition of Historic Period) 80-004; 80-005; 80-006; 81-008; 81-010; 82-024; 82-029 Standard 4 (Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions) 81-012; 81-016; 81-018; 82-025; 82-027; 82-031; 82-041; 82-043 Standard 5 (Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship) 81-011; 81-014; 81-017; 81-020; 82-025; 82-029; 82-032; 82-033 Standard 6 (Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence) 81-013; 81-015; 82-029; 82-031; 82-032;82-035; 82-038; 82-040; 82-042 Standard 7 (Cleaning with Gentlest Method Possible) 81-009; 82-039 Standard 8 (Protection/Preservation of Archeological Resources) Standard 9 (Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions) 80-001; 80-003; 80-007; 81-010; 81-014; 81-022; 82-028; 82-030; 82-031; 82-034; 82-037 Standard 10 (Reversibility of New Alterations/Additions) 82-026; 82-037 Storefronts 80-003; 80-004; 82-027; 82-030 • I Stucco 82-040 Timing See: Project Work Undertaken Prior to Issuance of Regulations Vinyl Siding See: Artificial Siding Windows See Also: Storefronts Alteration/Demolition 81-015; 82-031; 82-032; 82-040 Replacement 81-021; 82-029; 82-035 Wood Abrasive cleaning 82-039 Removing interior woodwork 81-017 Removing paint from previously painted wood 82-036; 82-039 Replacing dapboarding with shingles 82-042 .U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1985 483-217/32734 Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior s Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation A Ada V H N h HNf I _ 4 9.1 4 0 4 0 ? c t c rtiu .uii*iEi ill V '°) :ilk11.74001 Ibii U U =�I IIN1=■1■M11! I II.. T T� ism II ; 111 I I 11 I I—I II__ _____eie1N/_J7_@[H r • — -- 6:''''f;11 I'Lgil III ill 1 II f VIZ==Mil=r�r./=MI=L ■EMI■ —fi g ;=' '— nV NM lei NM 1' Volume II Cover Illustration: The Times Building (also known as the Dome Building), Chattanooga, Tennessee. Rehabilitated under the historic preservation tax incentives program. Drawing by Judson McIntire for the Historic American Buildings Survey. 1973. INTRODUCTION "Interpreting the Standards" bulletins were initiated in April 1980 by the Preservation Assistance Division (then Technical Preservation Services Division) to explain rehabilitation project decisions made by the National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior. Rather than describe every aspect of the overall rehabilitations in great detail, the bulletins focus on specific issues—alterations to storefronts, through-the-wall air conditioning, interior alterations--that posed problems in the review process. To this extent, then, the bulletins tend to emphasize limited aspects of a project and de-emphasize other aspects of the.work that posed no special concerns or that were noteworthy or innovative. Issued at intervals to program administrators in National Park Service regional offices and State historic preservation offices, the first 43 "Interpreting the Standards" bulletins were collected in a single volume in 1982. Since then, 32 additional bulletins have been issued. The present compilation includes these bulletins, bringing the total to 75. "Interpreting the Standards" bulletins are designed for use primarily by program administrators at the State and Federal level who make recommendations and decisions on rehabilitation projects. The bulletins are case-specific and are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each case. Many of the bulletins present projects denied certification by National Park Service regional offices that were later appealed to the Chief Appeals Officer. While the final decisions in these cases have been incorporated into the discussions of such projects, appeal decisions are individual and are made on the facts and circumstances specific to the project, including information on aspects of a project that are not treated in the bulletin itself. Consequently, care should be taken not to consider portions of appeal decisions quoted as directly applicable to other projects of a generally similar nature. Appeal decisions do not accumulate as precedent in the legal sense. The procedures for obtaining certifications of rehabilitation are explained in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 67. These regulations control in the event of any inconsistency with these bulletins. The following ten Standards for Rehabilitation are used by the Secretary of the Interior to determine if a rehabilitation project qualifies as "certified rehabilitation" pursuant to sections 48(g), 167(o), and 191 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Standards comprise the sole regulatory basis for determining whether or not a rehabilitation is consistent with the historic character of the structure or the district in which it is located. The applicable Standards as well as project conformance or nonconformance to those Standards are referenced at the top of each bulletin in italics. 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. 3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. 4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, struture, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. 7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project. 9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. 10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Bulletins are arranged in order of issuance. The number assigned to each is composed of the fiscal year in which the bulletin appeared and an overall cumulative number (e.g., 83-046, 85-072). Each bulletin bears the name of the author. The index provided at the end of this volume references all bulletins in the series. It keys the bulletins to particular Standards and to such topics as Abrasive Cleaning, Roof Alterations, and Windows. A looseleaf format has been followed in order to allow for easy removal for xeroxing as well as for easy insertion of future supplements. This material is not copyrighted and can be reproduced without penalty. However, normal procedures for credit to the authors and the National Park Service are appreciated. "Interpreting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation," has been developed under the technical editorship of Lee H. Nelson, FAIA, Chief, Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, P. O. Box 37127, Washington, D.C. 20013-7127. Comments on the usefulness of this information are welcomed. Additional information and guidance on technical preservation and rehabilitation techniques for historic buildings may be found in the Preservation Briefs, Technical Reports, and Preservation Case Studies developed by the Preservation Assistance Division. For a complete list of publications including price and GPO stock number information, write to: The Preservation Assistance Division at the above address. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Assistance Preservation sistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 83-044 Applicable Standard: 2. Preserving the Distinguishing Character of a Building (nonconformance) Subject: PORCH ALTERATIONS Issue: Porches are a very common and often dominant feature on the primary facades of many residential buildings and yet represent that portion of a building which is often subjected to insensitive changes. The size of the porch, its architectural style, the ornateness or simplicity of detailing, the sense of openness, and delineating features such as columns and balustrades, are all important attributes. "Interpreting the Standards" No. 82-033 discusses problems and concerns with enclosing historic porches, a change which is often sought by owners undertaking rehabilitation in order to gain additional year-round living space. Porches may also suffer from owners' attempts to deal with inherent maintenance problems that often stem from the nature of their construction and exposure to the effects of weathering and decay. Encasing a decorative but deteriorated balustrade, removing or simplifying brackets and fretwork, or boxing-in open eaves are all usually inappropriate alterations to an architecturally significant porch. Work that at first glance may be considered only a small physical change to a porch can often have a major impact on the historic or architectural character of the building and be clearly in violation of the Standards as in the case described below. Application: An early twentieth-century frame house was one of many buildings in a historic district undergoing extensive renovation work by a single developer. The house is somewhat unusual in that it was apparently built as a duplex in an area of mostly single family houses. The twin porch design is thus both historically and architecturally significant in its contribution to the character of the building (see illus. 1). In the course of the rehabilitation, the developer connected the two porches with a new eight-foot section, purportedly to shelter the steps from the rain (see illus. 2). Both the State Historic Preservation Officer and the National Park Service considered this treatment as a violation of Standard 2, thus preluding certification of rehabilitation despite the rest of the work being handled in a sensitive manner. In rebuilding the porch to extend across the entire front, the following changes had occurred: 1. The historic twin porch design was lost; 2. A strong horizontal element created by the large continuous porch was created for the first time; 3. The projecting center portion of the duplex was interrupted by the porch, obscuring this original strong architectural feature; and, 4. The historical and architectural character of the building as a duplex was substantially diminished. 83-044 The sole justification for the porch alteration was the need to alleviate water accumulation at the steps. Traditionally, such porch roofs were pitched away from the steps and the building in order to properly shed water; the owner should have thus repaired the porch and added gutters and downspouts, as necessary, to correct the water problem. After considering the tax implications of denial of certification and the cost of undertaking corrective measures, the owner offered to remove the porch linkage and was subsequently advised by the appeal hearing officer that such a measure would bring the project into conformance with the Standards and would lead to certification of rehabilitation. Prepared By: Charles Fisher, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 83-044 ¢ - fr �t . +' ' r _ + i 1 •-:.— E 11 -4.---1----_---... _.' __.: k) ..•• ' ''." . - -•ri ../. E i 1 1FS..,• • ;��+r c..r ♦ Se. {. AtIot ..:✓.!.►• - 'vim.--.jl i� ': .! • 3.•�- +.'. ; (. .1I . - .1- +i0.-r.q.. r iz. 1. Prior to rehabilitation, the historic twin porch design and center projecting bay were strong architectural features. r.' • en "T Orr ,. y;- .� , , - /fir in,,.�i••ok ,1 . 3. f .(��.,�+ (yea �� T*1A�; y . Ill - = ':fla .• .fir ', .V O i -___ IM __._ __ 1.-- ,_ 2. In connecting the two historic porches, the twin porch design was lost; a strong horizontal element was created by the large continuous porch; and the sense of a duplex building was diminished. To obtain certification, the owner agreed to restore the porch. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 83-045 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: REPLACING NONSIGNIFICANT LATER ADDITIONS Issue: One aspect of overall rehabilitation work may involve replacement of a deteriorated nonsignificant later addition with a new addition in order to meet certain functional needs. An example of such work is the replacement of previously existing enclosed vestibules both for convenience to patrons and to highlight business entrances. Whatever the reason for a new addition, all contemporary design must conform to Standards 2 and 9; that is, it must be neither visually intrusive nor physically damaging to historic building material. Application: A nine-story, late Victorian brick and brownstone commercial building located in a historic district within a large northeastern city was being rehabilitated for use as a multi-purpose business and shopping complex (see illus. 1). When the proposal for extensive interior and exterior work was forwarded by the State Historic Preservation Officer to NPS for review, NPS concurred with the State's general assessment of nonconformance with the Secretary's Standards and denied certification, listing violations of Standards 2, 5, 6, and 9. Exterior work cited for nonconformance included window alterations and the design for new glass canopies to cover areaways flanking a main entrance. Nonconforming interior work included demolition of an existing skylight; large cuts in the main floor; introduction of a mezzanine; and construction of two curved staircases linking the interior levels. Rather than appeal the denial, the owner chose to revise the project plans and over a ten-month period worked with NPS staff so that the entire project might be reconsidered. After all major components of the proposed interior work had been satisfactorily resolved, the one exterior item still being negotiated was the design of the two new glass and metal canopies to replace the two deteriorated wooden vestibules (see illus. 2). (The need per se for canopies to replace existing non- significant coverings had never been disputed from either the standpoint of patron convenience or commercial viability.) The architect's initial design for the glass and dark colored anodized aluminum canopies incorporated a standard vault with a flat roof section which NPS felt was a visual intrusion upon the substantially unaltered facade. Although there would be no destruction of historic material, the curved roof line of the proposed canopy extended well above the level of the earlier vestibule and obscured the lower portion of the first floor windows, a distinguishing feature of the building (see illus. 3). For the overall project to meet the Standards, NPS informed the owner that any new canopy would have to be located below the sill of the first floor windows. In response, the architect prepared one alternative design for the canopies which met the height condition, but which—both NPS and the owner agreed—introduced several other design problems (see illus. 4) which might affect pedestrian safety. 83-045 At a later date, citing these problems and increased construction costs, the owner again sought approval of the initial design. NPS continued to maintain its earlier position that the initial design did not meet the Standards but felt that alternative canopy design options still existed that would meet the Standards yet at the same time be practical and esthetically pleasing. At this point, the owner elected to appeal the denial, seeking approval of the overall project including the initial canopy design. Prior to the hearing, however, the architect submitted two new scaled-down alternatives for the glass canopies, both of which were approved by NPS (see illus. 5), thus enabling the entire project to be certified. Following project approval, the Option"A" canopy was actually constructed (see illus. 6). Prepared By: Kay D. Weeks, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. _ 83-045 • • mLLB '�#a....i�,y..- - w=mo t - - - ..._._ „ .,.....-:Fyiturr.,--..-lim-D,,,,,.,- -LI-A_ ----1-- 2.-Atla .:.,x-...S..!._,fl4.:---,,I-P..•,a.-,,.0-,.$,n1:itV4.r.„'w-1[:ea. -.1r.-'/:; 1 :r a , l Imo; Ca11:.:—.x11:I.v:. t_ _ o cat i - - 9 1 .1 1t fir:,- .•-:• .".;).,-11- ' tin v , . 1 !a •i 1 ._ '_.` _ i 4.0_\.,. ,.._ la r. .1111116 E 4 1. r, "' :__s .._-*'''':'C'-'- -1: illimE '7 /:-","•".e,m• :•'" Elie _ , " :., _, A _,.,4 . . si 1 '---4'-'.r-fil •::"11.1 tij- "M; -' t- i - - . el � ,4 -ir yam_- r • 8"J"f I ;7: ------ '177 z;L-----.Ci.:4',1';.--1-------.1w,---#.---::-•_...`.;-1... --., ' _ c ..1 � ' _{ B s ki i. ;-a- a _ \,: s 1 i1 r . �` �' z" `• . a 1• 4 �IS0' � � /�1. East elevation showing wooden • 1. fr ',� .-r �i 'tI�.. Ps.,; "` *IF vestibules flanking main entrance, zv; '1 • ?�,[r % � - i 4; ;-,: added c. 1920. rt i..„; r. • _� •' I�• it,, ,," f � _ ::(1 'f Sa.� "w Yv f ,.... 1�i. � ,. ,th-.` r • 4. ..ay`"r t' • `4 ' • ' re - - • "I"� . t �' 19421.Onia '•* skr 4y P, a 161- WY ' '*isrC. r 4r,p..t ,c '1b' , ./( X il{c f _ :4' ',` .�f,r.i. L14# c i j o-� `!' ' r.* L v.-4.. ; g` yrT' `' •.•e,r -P. '�yr7,Az- A. .,3 D .� `ed` 6.1�1/.•Y'r' ...i �' i f, 999CCC- .;f•�. 7 n+a- .1;w �' i, ic++.-� ;=Y' �3' • ..--_1- jam'+'wit . �„ � .rr ✓, - ,�, `�' .,� -. . !° .- `�� - l i (2. Deteriorated condition of vestibule. t _• ; --: - ..1t.4 • ,y-io•r.,n... fir^' , . f • -.4-7�-z o - , }`c ;`mow yy i�7..�-I' ". f•. 83-045 fell/ /mj ii 1 — O�1 real 001111 1 r,...Co fl'...... ,ar,!t.....:..............o. "'" Val /...aiiiii1001.11.159 - .......--____........,.:,.._r . ........-- -. _ ofirr______00-1. I —_ riot , .: , ...„ i,...., _ . , ,: ,_ _ __. . . . • • , _ i L. . , . _ 111* - .. 3. Initial canopy design was not approved 4. Revised canopy design met the NPS height by NPS because its height obscured the first condition but introduced potential pedestrian floor windows. safety problems. fen I, ...) : /al. . MO ,--- 11111 El •✓ all ell p11110 r t I . : �� 1 I ! i II I l , Option A L, Option B 5. Final canopy designs (Option A and B), both of which NPS approved. The Option A design was ultimately constructed. 83-045 .. ��... • v O. � � F :_ y �r- VI/ . i • -iv I— q .el . ir �y r. fitet -.+w f,T-f'V. ,' �; �..i. ( �LL""°iri11� r tE-• h S.: � "vs_ _` i l��/jai. _... — ) Ir._ =:w �e l -:mow• r t •� .' _ ..• "-w..,.--�..i. __ ..-.?S`r y - .7t.gy7: .-,. �.,.. •-ate.. - .- •.aa. ?'xir a_., • • Iti i • :! -, st > 5' ; t �.. _v "4 4 r][- ..' ANR ,, • 'I� � { ., 8 1 I .-3.r) :A•'1.4 j. r .1 -Zs.: miii -rrt'',t *•: ".. R.t i-'..1 A'-1i7 --*-:.:1-'- F -11 -1111 .14.—.; .l. SK;• •.:,`ice •_ 1I.1 t ':T,1. " � �.t '^.'s+►•_ t.......:_, '' _,; emu...:•._ ; • C -_ - . L. • r:'•-.�-t:i+Y.y-; - j ,�/'/.�J/��+/'��{�'Q��••f,l (primer t 11 • • �'Y i+:.S- — - ...�.. - t. ., r .ant ..r. w.i41 s.,- 3'� �. --x 1 'rye F it),` �.�.+�s •• Rip g;_ yy 1,,..ai- S'-- - Z . : I. : ' i z•, � '�+ YL� -T_ . F t • 6. The Option A entrance canopy in place. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 83-046 Applicable Standards: 3. Recognition of Historic Period (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: WINDOW ALTERATIONS: Inappropriate Contemporary Design Inappropriate Historic Appearance Issue: In rehabilitating historic buildings, property owners may sometimes consider replacing original windows with those of a different design, not only to reduce maintenance and energy costs but to try to "improve" or "enhance" the appearance of the building. For example, some owners believe that next to cleaning or repainting, the easiest way to give an office building a new look is to install a contemporary window and use tinted glass to serve as a sharp contrast between the old and the new. Another unfortunate approach is to remove the original windows and install a window design from a different historic period in an effort to make the building look either older or grander than it actually is. On the other hand, the recommended approach—according to the Standards--is to preserve historic features such as windows, whenever possible. If energy conservation is an integral part of the planning objective in order to make a project economically viable or to meet regulatory requirements, ways of improving the performance of the existing windows should always be explored first. Then, if windows cannot be easily repaired, an evaluation should be made to determine their contribution to the overall architectural character of the building before any replacement proposal is considered. Throughout the planning process, however, changing the historic window design to "improve" or "enhance" the appearance of the building should not be considered. If the windows are a distinguishing feature of the historic building and must be replaced because of their physical condition, they should be duplicated as closely as possible in accordance with Standard 6. Where the windows are not significant in their own right but are located on significant facades, there is more flexibility in the type of replacement windows that can be installed. However, even within this more flexible context, the replacement window units should never give the building a"historic" appearance it never had (Standard 3), nor should a design be selected that is incompatible with the historic character of the building (Standard 9). Application: Inappropriate Contemporary Design Constructed in 1911 with a white glazed brick covering the upper floors, this individually listed National Register property is a visually prominent and architecturally significant building, located in a small southern town (see illus. 1). As the National Register nomination indicated, "at the ends of the building each of the upper floors had three double-hung windows. On the south side each floor had seven pairs of double-hung windows. The windows collectively provided very bright and agreeable work space inside the building." The building has a relatively austere facade 83-046 reflecting its commercial character and results in the simple double-hung windows becoming a significant design feature. In the course of rehabilitating the building for mixed commercial and residential use, the double-hung clear-glazed wooden windows were removed (and stored) and replaced with metal windows with a single vertical division created by a meeting rail. In addition, a dark tinted glass was used in place of the original clear glazing (see illus. 2 and 3). The change in the design and the use of dark tinted glass gave the new windows a strong contemporary look not in keeping with the historic character of the building. Upon submitting a certification application, the owner was advised that the window alterations did not meet numbers 2, 5, 6 and 9 of the Secretary's Standards. The owner was further advised by NPS that the original double-hung wooden windows were typical of the time in terms of technology and design consideration and for the building were a significant feature. As such, the windows should have been repaired and if that was not practical, the replacement units should have matched the configuration of the original double hung sash and the reflective qualities of the glass. Representatives from both the state historic preservation office and the NPS regional office inspected the completed project and observed major changes in the design and the reflective qualities of the windows. With the new dark tinted glass and dark trim finish, the windows now appear as dark voids, contrasting with the white glazed brickwork. The denial of certification by the regional office was sustained on appeal by the owner. Application: Inappropriate Historic Appearance Plans for the rehabilitation of a small late nineteenth century cottage, located in a historic district in the South, were submitted prior to undertaking the work. After the determination was made by NPS that the proposed work met the Standards, the owner elected to revise the plans to include the removal of the two original first floor windows and subsequent replacement with floor-to-ceiling windows (see illus. 4 and 5). Upon completing the work and requesting final certification the owner was advised by NPS that the introduction of the new sash and exterior shutters which extend to the porch floor created a design feature that never existed in this particular structure and gave the building an inappropriate historic appearance. Moreover, NPS indicated to the owner that this particular type of window generally was found in buildings of an earlier period in that area. On appeal the owner provided sufficient evidence to show that such large windows were common in the local historic district but acknowledged that he had removed the original windows in rehabilitating his building. When the appeal hearing officer sustained the decision that the project did not meet Standard 3, the owner offered to reinstall the original sash, which had been restored for use in another building. The corrective work has since been undertaken and the project certified (see illus. 6). Prepared by: Charles E. Fisher, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 83-046 , y/ t� ..-. ,,,,, .., " kiriii. ....,_ __ 4 , ,..ij--,...--- ,,e_.., ,, ..._. ,.,.. ..„..411,,.. , . -. , 1 A. __ II I 1 1 rC - I im-iii. ---------- 1 4..,-5,,, ,-,.- I It II f a I . P.s .'.' . "t-Ho,' --.: ---1 ______ _ iiii 01 I ' - . . ..-14'-',1--- III 4 - „. ,0 ii i _____, , . .. _,„...„ g. , A ., -- , __,,,„-, ON ii li , . . 1 !iv --10,- ; tlt ,., ,, ® ® ( .! r • 11 .1 il r__ -...f.-11.-t _ - t- _____.. .- __=-___:--1Th--- trl. �_ A_ I-- Th_ ..,. '- I I 1 lit:4-* M a I .h .�., /. r..•. T w ' `r�p�� G IP is —the original windows were of clear 2. New windows with dark tinted glass wing and were of a one over one pane and a vertical division on the upper floors configuration. were not in keeping with the character of the building. -- —. - -- � .•- . - : K_.. - - .i �-- - — 1 -- - --- -YC y, , ..."" ^' � �5 3� i - �� - t y fix. -_ �al "� 4 Cam.,... 77•0 �Wlt'3 `_�-. e y } yy ^[5,- Y -. _ OINE y� ' y cam, — t M, ---T-- i r - _ = .. � , �.. -r _ - a '- is _ �'-I ,e . — - - � _ - "fil...„...„....-..., ,,....; „,.. . , .. �.._. , A?" N I • � 4 J�, - 3. Close-up view shows the vertical division used in the new windows. 83-046 / 4\ ., , \ t.,..: i• ' `.M` .ice' .? L •_. - _ r.. -1 oadaIRmc .�""•�� • .tee F ./ +w } 1ftef I, —.--- alidsati .tea,•,+. , .rr• ,, `^ iirK ►1�T.rr•TTI HMI 11' 1iti,,1 ........ma+ 'a'.s. '.+;,ram. •"ter:.•-•.»n•.="`:- '•w --a - t1e:: .;.26: .. .t-;� -• - ..2;. v:, Tom--.: .• ••=�--r+,�r- :v 4. The 1880s cottage was in deteriorated 5. In the course of rehabilitation condition prior to rehabilitation. Ghost the owner elected to remove the original marks of missing porch are evident. The windows and install new ones in a historic original 2 over 2 windows had survived on design which extended to the first floor. the front and were to be repaired according Full-length blinds were also added. to the plans submitted to NPS for prior review. i - :'- - . rt a ram._. '.-.•—....,.:: ",;t:., \ r,�:-..lit ,rfr- .- w _ �' ' . 1 . 4, .. , - i _ . .. ..„ . ... i i 4, : , 1 1. i _. ; ., „,,, ,,, 1, / **it ,. ,, �r i,i. _ ____ 1: i r is .. I ,}_ . . ‘ a p; _ I, ini L 4. ��,i 7. ituffiltilli 1111111111)111 ra it— 14 • 6. After the work was determined not to meet the Standards because of the window alterations, the owner proceeded to reinstall the original ones and thus obtained certification. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Paris Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 83-047 Applicable Standards: 1. Compatible New Use (nonconformance) 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 10. Reversibility of New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: INTRODUCING NEW OPENINGS INTO MAJOR ELEVATIONS Issue: The introduction of new window or door openings to accommodate new functions is a common component of projects submitted for rehabilitation certification. In most cases, a limited number of new openings cut in party walls or other non-significant elevations will not alter the historic character of a building. On the other hand, where such openings are introduced on a principal facade, the loss of significant historic building material, change in rhythm of the bays, or other nonconforming treatments that, together, destroy the historic building's essential form and integrity, will generally result in denial of certification. Application: An abandoned Elks lodge located in a historic district was proposed for reuse as the home office of a life insurance company. Located on a site that slopes steeply down from front to back, the building has two stories on the front facade and three on the rear elevation (see illus. 1 and 2). Since the building occupies the full width of a city block, both the facade and rear elevations front directly on streets. The facade is highly ornamented in the Second Renaissance Revival style, while the rear elevation is less ornately decorated. Because office use would require more parking than was available on the street or in adjacent lots, the developers proposed incorporating a parking facility at the basement level in the rear of the building. The SHPO and the NPS regional office approved the concept of parking in this portion of the basement, a space which had been used as a gym. The location of the driveway entrance to the parking area posed a problem, and became the issue over which the project ultimately was denied certification. The best location would have been on the less ornately decorated rear elevation. The plan originally considered by the developers to locate the entrance at the rear, however, contained a ramp that the city traffic engineer would not approve. As a result, the entrance was proposed for the main elevation (see illus. 3). The regional office felt this design adversely affected not only the facade's character and historic fabric, but also would destroy significant fabric located inside the building in a library (see illus. 4). 83-047 In its letter of denial to the developers, the regional office wrote: The introduction of the garage entrance on the principal facade alters the character of that well-detailed, Second Renaissance Revival-style facade. Not only does it result in the demolition and removal of historic material of significance, but it would would also interrupt the rhythm and balance that is characteristic of this symmetrical facade (Standard 2). In addition, significant architectural features of the library--the bookcases, fireplace mantel, and decorative frieze--would be lost if the garage entrance is constructed as proposed (Standard 5). The Standards recommend a compatible use for a building that requires minimal alteration (Standard 1). Parking which requires a major opening on a principal facade cannot be considered a compatible use requiring minimal alterations. It is irreversible and destroys the form and integrity of that facade. The essential form and integrity of the structure should be unimpaired should alterations be removed in the future (Standard 10). While this office recognizes the arguments presented on the parking issue, the rehabilitation still must be consistent with the historic character of the structure and the Standards. Rather than appeal the regional office's decision, the architect for the developers redesigned the parking space, placing the entrance at the rear of the building. The new design was acceptable to the city traffic engineer. The resubmitted design was approved by the regional office, and construction on the project is going forward. Prepared by: William G. MacRostie, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 83-047 ,t. -. ._. . •, , \ . \ , , '487". • - .1. i, - . 4,-, . • 4- .0. .. ' \I„:" 'e• .e...114.,i4:4,'.. . , ' . 1 .4.t: . . .•0..‘elt•‘.fiiii.:40,. • i , . _,- ',„..- _. - .;..s • .... ‘.. llt.t.e-It : 4;14 ...5.......shume_•' ••I -• „.,. • . . , . T-4-- Tor- ,'• .;". - i s •, . ••• i• ,„ ....CV • . ..•- - • .„. ......,..,v.4:.. ..• ....-. • -''- . • k a aw- -- - ''' . ..--.ufli I. N! !‘,1"•'- - .,//, 1/ /Pi . , ... . . . . . • • V.....•i.i i 't .....%:•-••••• . A • ft.% -'.. . •••••• t'4. • ' 1- * ' . ' ."' •.... - ,- •• -...- - -., , is . .•- .""- •'' • -• s..-- •m, AA% - ''''" ' ..t •••••ftc• ,4 _ b•- . AP.-: , ... -*•:e.,- .• terfit 44.4117 .f.'. "t 4.--A. ' 1, At ‘;':. • .1 - 4 4 AllijojeAktki - 1%*age '14. • 112 • 1 .j•4 VC i `: ..3.0".',,*-444‘..-.-.., .....mom.i,, 4 . 4.,;,..t. i • yr...., Ia- -ry -...,orr hillt i— •:II r- • : , - • -1,.• --• - .--t •11.4••• : ,-,C.:It •-, iil ..,-.. -. . , : .:, f• .,... -•,i, , •• -.;.,- / •.\.. . •...i.. `?, . .::.-4•,iS...2.-*- ••„. - ,,, :. .. .. • (..'1 • ----'::-11 1 ".111tih; -J71411:41111.1 1 ..11 • '1,'-'4, -.....4. • . \ ps 12 -- '` 4 la o . • 1,10r, d % 1:11. t. • • • ‘14*4iii n "r .2...: :17 c: , 1 n tit 1,: ,., 1 itit . ; • -..1 r '‘ .1; % ---+•111111 leAinw..Ih,t...—li.ili...L''- ' . ,.,-11 --- , --- 1. Front Facade •. 1,... III6, .. % -.'. • -........... - - z-,011411, .-.. ...-4%,,,. ft gm.. it-1---;-i*••7.,'Ih'` i . - *di av•• "...;-'-' • • tt -,••. wait:- - - • I *." V.S410.,,, .- - • -% , zt,,Z.:.".r^.. ........ .4 a 1. ver. W.4.111111 '' •••••. VegAlmoi. -- --", 'V - -. 64 lt.M P LE e. . • a • . ., vokiiotelif . . .. t - . • . .. •• / • '4-.::AR '''-'''-4.:- ':::.t•. .4. \ * t • / ....__ ' 1 0 I g g g . • • • • , " fr i • I''• _et, • vl.. / . t .4 447:ti...il 0::•-•.4 .. g-4 • :: ti)';'.*T:4,' .0 ' -r---....tke. . , , • - • . -7,711.V- II- ,--...'‘ -• i . • - . , --_,,,---...-.,•-. - . - ,71-.:. ••• ; - -.,-:-.,%,„ . . . . .„1,".•,--. - : -4,,r . •• 1 " . ., • : ,___,..*- . , ..• .- , " .•*Is-„, . - ; ..i' EN 1 •I• _%-•*•••/:c____/- -'' " ---• '. •- .,' -.- . -,„--.4 Ail I" ) * •I•OW' ••••••-t. . • . • ../- 7..../ , own.; -; _ , -.-•••••-• - ' -• •F•• . • . l'•°- - ••• . . 2. Rear Elevation 83-047 i / 1.14.1.4i� • \ ...,*: ,, - ..........-.,,...,...,...„....3 I, 1 1 I i' ima,.,--:-.... -- • 1 1,14&',110044,11.m, 1r ,t,:i„, 4 ._ . .............., ..,, ,,'ICI' l'',. ., 6._ st61, /. of • � • \—/ � ______ ___ it, - _ _, ..,,_„,_,,,,,,,,,... _,..,..,_.... eh .,...,, ,... p. 'VW . - , 4, . '. 41,.;14--(o.. . / f/e/ 14.11.11 f.1;' ' . ' ill .- 4.7.-,:‘ 1 -:?: jzwu"q.C�-•,•k.-«•ice `,�'--- 3. The original parking entrance proposed for the facade. The balustrade over the entrance was intended to serve as a visual "connector" to similar original features on the facade. The library slated for partial demolition is located behind the proposed entrance. ., r• ii • .. . ki 4. The parking entrance through the library would have necessitated removal of the fireplace and bookshelves. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Intenor s Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 83-048 Applicable Standard: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) 10. Reversibility of New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: INAPPROPRIATE EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS: WAREHOUSE TO APARTMENTS Issue: In order to market abandoned and functionally obsolete historic buildings, owners are often tempted to make major alterations as a statement of the new life and vitality of the area and in order to accommodate the new use of the building. This is particularly true when warehouse buildings are converted to apartments. Not only must these large buildings be modified to meet light and ventilation code requirements for residences, but they must often compete with modern new construction nearby that has highly marketable amenities. Some types of buildings can more easily accommodate new uses and alterations than others. Nineteenth-century warehouses, with thick masonry walls and small window openings, present a particular challenge to owners; depending on the design of the particular warehouse, the alterations that can be made to the building without destroying its historic warehouse character may be limited. The key is identifying the distinguishing architectural features of the building and then planning a rehabilitation that allows for the retention of these features. If the proposed alterations do not conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and as a result, the historic character of the building is destroyed, the project cannot be certified for tax benefits. Application: A circa 1890s six-story brick tobacco warehouse located in a historic waterfront district was purchased for conversion to 204 apartments and first floor commercial space. The building was in good condition, although it had been vacant for many years. The city hoped that the conversion of this warehouse to apartments would be the first step in revitalizing this portion of the waterfront area, particularly since the building was the largest in the primarily residential district and formed the corner of the historic district boundary. A market study was commissioned by the owners to determine what changes would be necessary to make the building marketable. The study recommended that at least 85% of the residential units have a waterfront view, that a portion of the interior of the building be removed to provide necessary light and ventilation to meet code requirements, that some of the windows be widened as well to meet code requirements for light and ventilation, that all units have an exterior balcony and that a seventh floor be added to the structure to increase the number of rentable 83-048 units. This information was then used by the architect to develop the rehabilitation plan. The state historic preservation office had worked closely with the owners in the evolution of the design and strongly recommended certification of the project. The regional office, however, reviewed the project and expressed concern over a number of the proposed changes. The most drastic alteration to the building was the proposal to create an interior court with a waterfront orientation by removing 7 of the 17 bays of one facade. Two other controversial changes proposed were to widen the windows in select vertical bands, and to attach lightweight metal balconies to the exterior. While there was also concern for the cumulative effect of the other proposed changes, these three issues resulted in regional denial of certification for the project based on Standards 2, 5, 9, and 10. These changes would have altered the historic character of the warehouse building by removing historic material, by failing to respect the skilled craftsmanship of the building, and finally, by incorporating incompatible and non-reversible elements of new work. The owner, with the support of the State, appealed the decision of the regional office. In reviewing the proposed changes, the appeals hearing officer determined that the architectural elements that contributed to the historic character of the building should be clearly outlined: e.g. the massiveness of the 200' x 400' structure; the highly articulated facades composed of alternating bands of windows openings and pilasters; and the vertical effect of these bands with a hierarchy of openings from the ground floor to the top floor complemented by the horizontal beltcourses, top floor frieze and corbelled cornice. The brickwork was well executed and even with the substantial detail on the surface of the building, the facade retained a strong sense of flatness as there were no deep surface penetrations (see illus. 1). In summary, the architecture of the warehouse was very sophisticated for this type of construction and was significant both to the building and to the 19th-century district in which it was located. Following an onsite inspection of the warehouse and the district, the hearing officer sustained the denial of the regional office for a number of reasons. He felt that the planar quality of the exterior walls would be drastically altered by the addition of projecting balconies with their inherent shadow lines (see illus. 2). He felt that widening selected bands of windows would interrupt the regular rhythm of the window bays. Widening the upper floor windows would also alter the hierarchy of window openings from large openings on the first floor to the small openings on the top floor. His last major concern was the proposed cut in the building, which not only removed the significant original materials of the facade, but altered the massive quality of the warehouse structure (see illus. 3). While sustaining the decision of the regional office, the hearing officer encouraged the owner to reconsider the proposed changes to the building and resubmit his application with a proposal that would meet the Standards. While the hearing officer felt that the building could not accommodate any external projecting balconies, he felt that an atrium court that did not remove any of the 83-048 facade and a modified scheme for widening the windows that reflected the hierarchy of existing openings could be considered. Prepared by: Sharon C. Park, AIA, TPS • These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. • • �_.,, I_. 't t,,..i . !N a •�y% ' •g ��t et:, per_ ) �y g r I. ... -- _.. °.,..yeiri 7.=ur_-ez' .f..r.,-4 .r . ya ... n '- ..ya.... . i+ ��...,,��_.k. :Y i'j'S �-'.;�Y 1tlarr�l,'- ,-:l j �,ys}� sr _ ..,* � a ?t'r y is-. {=l § r t. . , . . , I ii.:„. ..4 •-i •-.!.1-?. .E1 . ' - 144144 -,,•.,::•q ? i ar •-4j . •'''- t -.i a Lii *..-- A- w )- i , 4_ `#i"ay° Lr C. i aY• Nl. _♦1 �.t1�r�. ':'1/.'Ci%:-K:•fiPrat 1' ; I ii 4.17.1I.;.,4:;,.‘,.•4 •1 4: N. 4'.t ii i. a..i. f.....M..4....:1/J • it: t% + 4 4 b - r 1. The existing south elevation of the 1890s warehouse building with its alternating bands of pilasters and window openings. The size of the openings decreases as the building progresses from the base to the top floor. The brickwork was quite sophisticated for a warehouse structure. 83-048 n. - . -�, .,�,.� '. .,{Tt .= r s '�t 'e ltz.. x-7!{- fi f.ws .-F• ♦ ,...•-- t -.!- - i__ "t Yl r si , R•r!- c 4"d r}.., `r 1•„ t ”- •-7.• �++r_. '�iiJ1•• yrY . . %-..» �' y /.: •y .?f. .": s 4 ,- ".,'';-424 f I_ 11 I �� • i— . i i 1• • • •IIi1Il t - ..g__°kf i 1 fil 6 6 @fI I ' ri PR', 2 tr.! ...J. 11 3 'ti 0 ti D 1 i 0 ..''Li.i.'''''.;::A.1, _,....,L::1 :. �. gr., �, _� limpaiiif r : •..Ls. �: - ►e- trj;. ` yam' r , �_ - ' , • ' .rimp lisrl �..-.. —� ..,ter i. f, , .: l—i — '�• . :. 2. The proposed south elevation with bands of projecting balconies. The window openings would be widened or lengthened in order for each of the 204 apartment units to have one balcony. Not only would the windows be altered in selective bands, but the proposed balconies would create deep shadow lines on the facade. While the owner felt that the balconies were a reversible feature that could be removed in the future, the hearing officer determined that both the visual clutter of the balconies and the change in the hierarchy of the window openings did not meet the Standards. - , ♦ . :..0... E. _ , f r -_..._ • • 11 T __ R !Gl4f �11111, a ' 0 Q Q 0 eta ,� •1 _ � -. .L ,]'-.-,/� • -ilkI - j,1 1111,111. 3. Perspective view of the proposed changes shows the large courtyard and the removal of seven bays of the waterfront facade in order to provide a water view for 85% of the apartment units. The hearing officer determined that the loss of significant original historic material and the drastic change in character created with the new "U" shaped plan did not meet the Standards. The projecting balconies and widened windows were also cited as not meeting the Standards. The setback rooftop addition, however, was not a concern as it would not have been visible from the street level of the historic district. Technical Preservation Services interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the lntenor s Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 83-049 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: INAPPROPRIATE STOREFRONT ALTERATIONS Issue: Storefronts frequently define the historic character of commercial buildings. Entrances and display windows are particularly important features of storefronts; the number of entrances and their placement in relation to windows can create a distinct rhythm on the primary facade that should be retained in the course of a rehabilitation. If new entrances are required because of code requirements or new interior use, their design and placement should not detract from the importance of the storefront to the building. Application: A commercial building, located in a historic district and constructed circa 1880-90, was enlarged from three bays to seven bays sometime around 1900 (see illus. 1 and 2). The added storefront, consisting of double doors flanked by window bays, duplicated the original storefront. The two fronts were separated by a narrower bay containing a single door. In the most recent rehabilitation, which converted the building to office space, the owners replaced the two sets of double doors with windows copied from those existing in other bays of the storefronts. To accommodate ground floor offices, an arched entrance was added to the side elevation (see illus. 3). The design for this doorway echoed an interior doorway and an arched entrance on a neighboring building. The original side entrance was replaced with a window. The regional office denied certification to this project, citing Standards 2, 6, and 9. The State Historic Preservation Office supported this decision. In its evaluation, the region noted that "the new arched entrance is not compatible in character with the exterior of the building as a whole, as the design of the new entrance bears no similarity to the building's other window and door openings." Equally important in the denial were the changes to the storefronts, which were "significantly altered by conversion of two, original entrances to windows and by the consequent removal of the original transoms. Although the removed doors themselves may not have been original, the placement of entrances as they were, with double doors and a transom between the windows, constituted a distinct rhythm to the storefront." The owners appealed, stating that the doors they replaced with windows were not original, and were badly deteriorated. The new windows, on the other hand, matched 83-049 the existing windows, thus "creating an elegant front with distinct 'rhythm."' They also contended that the arched side entrance was consistent with the character of the structure since it was patterned on an existing interior arch and reflected entrances on neighboring buildings. Upon appeal, the decision of the regional office was sustained. The chief appeals officer noted that the "two entrances were an important part of the commercial character and architectural detailing of the storefront facade." Furthermore, the "functional relationship of the storefront facade to the partially blank wall on the ground floor of the /side/ facade also reflected the commercial use within this portion of the building." The new entrance on this facade introduced a major new design element into the "strong rectilinear character of the building." This change further diminished the importance of the storefront to the structure. Prepared by: Michael Auer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 83-049 11 - .'''," ." "1 '. -; T.;". /57,.., ''4•714' 4..;••....v1t'.',' :* .43.k.,..or • -.."7-T,7.70•---:.Fi;TR''•?If:i;t ' wf,;0.- ..-,,,i ,.-,•,,,...- ...•::. .11 -% . :-,- 1.,-;,Iii',i,kiN . ),••.:4'0 ,I.../...41,1..„f,. i'." t Iliti:A:•,,i t I f I 4 ., ..,tv,••••. ,4. -:,• ..,!:,. .,,.4..4.1)4- v •-'4,..*Iv-Iwo; -,-, •4‘ - i iopcVe,-, -,t.'4'•i4),K),,i A' ''? ,-4;(...' 1';'•IS;:i.iii.-k I.4441.0r i:,'42' ,e**°1.,..e.,,„ .1-•r. ti,,,,• ,a ._ '•,::',1i.i",:;;..4...';....h.; ...i •t•i. :.•fil••• .,...,`.:.• '" .D't ' :••-'4" -16.11)-r%'41- -V 4i, I. " '1.*.,%% !. ..;1.%; : • '. f'%.11 -.4 44.111/11'••''S b,1•'1.••"I';'..1 .r •,4.;qiykt.f.''' •,'.4,.:.,•:,.:,,,kolf,,,..?,,,.... , ,1,•, ... , ii,„,,, ,, .. .;:. ,..,!,.?.5ittki.64..A,,„,:. . J,,,,...4,1,, i tx-44,.,,,f,,,i):,.:ia,.....qr.,;:f,,,•, ,,,,•:•ri...,,.; ,.,;•;1,:,-,??1,,,.•-•:1;•„:11,..„1,,,,i ..;,ks, i; •. .-.,.•- i,;,,,y,3,- ,to. , .,,I.,,,. .s. ‘-'4$14*ifiq II%,f•kiii;stoit..4i41,1...s.i •••••,'111,-i.'-f.:-.p,•-yt„,`-,..-3tit:,,--,-\-.,.t,4',._')!..ks- •ti,.. ,•..-_,,T, i 4e.,:`li.2 1{ •t,-,,-)ii$, , 4.4„\A ''44.f!:„!4. :7 j,,j,,,,, ,,.'.. f../^i,,/?.. 'Wt.; It .;.,',' '•n 1•y.:;:!,'If;'4,T h, ,'"•iitr.A 5;IVO..."; '''.. tIlit-'fi •:";.1, 3, '11 .' ••1•4.t.t.tr iftZ1,1 '.e..14e 0.-A3.,./41'.,•-•'• ,: ::,,,,•',,,-- • - ..%-,,. . ••;!--,,-,-t.s= 'it iteti, ,t,A,_ 4i:tikeo"..,...0. ,, , ' AT., itt :.•,::.. ..-,...3.4.11, 31 .. ,...,,. f .,..,, c.v.,.,4 y..:- if,i.,..4.....F.,:1-4.1.4...4.. '..14. ,.•,: i.4T, r,', ic;-,,‘:*f.r.,:r".. '44.;'. . .f,',.. 11 •.., ... i lc,..#4.„,-„/ 3,,, :. /,, „„..•.,i ,‘,,;',.14.44 ,..•. .t.•,..„ I::*--_,....•;!,,.7..,..., ..,49'..(4.1..' ......''':....--. ./.-'it'",•41,07,- .'11'"'.,t4.44,i,t'‘ . 40;114 ''kCj.‘17P.:). ';7...0...,..3.-° •i itt. • '''';... ''''':: ,eigiiiiiiii"e:V4'..P.,1, .:,..•1144111#7- . '' 6:...: °4( : '•1 i V;Rii .,?.,t,A4 rilk. i'44, ,:: !I IA.4' '".l.',-P" .A,itfri.77",:'; 1;t;'..1•-: -/%7,--.. itrif'Pjf•n: 1 Vi(6,. , „,, .., .t %'•^ 7r--b••••1" -- .rsi"-M-1._I-tftplis ....„,, ,-::.ft. -,1,. .7-.-:-.- ..--• .)..z., , • — " •. -1- ,::-, ‘,, '•-;'c---.$` - :',:r" ."---- i-F -ice i., 3:_--4-;&--4.01 I --.za's-;' .4:4•,- 1• 4 , ‘;It-e • v 41:Tki -;144.di :4V,..., •ii.,4 - ,,s.' .:/ft ;?-3,4$ V Vrizz-..."I''..;t"thi . :-7,-._,.:E f.1. -.1':- ,.ox 14..0—ft, o • ., t ,-,A7A• wrrk-..d; ...ftit.• , —, ...1'.- ...c.-:,4,....- 4 -in,.:,,,r,..:-:• , -- - • i:h iii.---tti.,-,,,7,•,....,.F.y,'-„i.,„•iti...4,4RA .,-4.; ;4i ,,,„....,,131,. ..iit ' ..7.,,• .c. . :,.. f . ,•.;,-„- -77. .1-:':s?'Ai. -. -f:' ::.."'1-'-tz' :Li -1-"•11;',...;;;!5;; -0. v -,a, ti _ '-..•.,41 -•:=---i:•L• i 4 ,; r•'.. loV...4:Ar:s ,,:fi:44 , .• t- :, •,.,*- •,to A,e.,e1.._4.-,.. ,f. • •._,!;;;I.,....,..,:r.! *- .=,,.....*--.71.s, i......'"••ff*v, 4.i. : ...!,11 ,.. • 4.1 .,.., k 40,114v, .. 1,....4114, .,e•-•••• •tr,'-I :,..,..,..,....;!:: •. I:- 1,...r.. .......z Is.. :1.... ...--5..-1.-: . F.1',..u.' i I. "•• -',.* ...'5.,ir 7„,....,„..',„-;• la 4 ,.,.ti;r:1,1 •,...,-..: ..2.f.e,‘,..., .., --*...;••,16....7 v .,,r, '3 ,a...t-3r•-,.,1,, :,,,-,. tf.--,-,FN. • i i ,,r1.4.41'4%,•%ic•sk,,,,I.,I-. , -:L ;;;4 ::-..r.7-.-..':,..;- .. ..-bly•:.;:„...L int.., 4.,,,,,,.• .. I!, .... ' -', 44,;.•;‘,...%,. 4 • 4. vi 1: -,...jel., -..;-1„.„-i•-t,7-..f..„1•,i':.•-,?$ • .....• ,..-1,1"-"-' --r-Sz-T•s3 ;:•-.444-..-r..:1--- ....i .1. .1.,4,'i• 4* ,/,...,- ,...?.:rg.,f... .....ile,13.1.„..,...1',' ..,,..... ... •• ^ ,.... , . . ....-...7::.114'..., J., i•Y •• ...'"..... . .: k,.• .: •4.1,•"•.?"44.'. •"i, ',I.;,L,„,..A' .._;:,..,:...0%.11....ter^,7_51i.:i rt..,r.st,4....•.,i'y,f 1,,si, ,, . , ,- , •,, n, 4 4.•.4.. b, .• , j,,,, ., . .1.• , it..,,, 7, ,.1..., ;;,,/,',',-:.y4..-‘;.1,--/,":0-4r....::.".7„-...,•, I , '•'•'I. t.1•11-.....:.:.!'j*c..t ; .4 r • r. At'4.$4, ”tc 4kri ' ' J ' k.,i(4. ' ,,,, :1:f...1'•C4.41,!.itsirr:r70,1:44-0-M.:1'Ijr 4r t. .""... ma ' 1 ,. , ........"-`,.s_e,•:'......1.et,7, ;42'...atv,..5- '.,' :1.4 v'E-f-,'.:.--.1,°,11!,fs:P4t11:::,, ', ,','_.7k,...Sit-,z11; i:,. 1 , MI I .... '. " Ir:',-.1,3-t,..-',-.7-:44ri,:.4•2.... 43 tv.. -gas-,;,„,- Nt',,,-, ' ;i•:".,-1.-at i.-P....ti...r!,';'t 511---..---t ' •; ,.-P-,,I,...A,,.;;'4;1,t_L•-• '----: ""'. s••1-• 4.,,,,-74°!4'.u...?:-PA:3•:;:,;•-•%.- ..sS1 ,.41;•,41,4. „„t.;!.--1,4 exi :,-.4.,,.„;.,,-s.Y.fv.,;.,-.. r - ;.'r1474,7r1•4'.'44./,r:If, - --,7-.1- 'i;•'. " :. • ----'&44.3‘'‘e4--110.1.:.;,e,:,--' rv'Il ,,,!---.4.iiil.:4 'od -n.., i--'I. -•71.4.Cr' 't1:4a ."*.t '' "i46:17/ 41r.': .' e %C. T. '- " ;••. •4e...._e.v.i.tl'%•-,11%:,-- l-4...„,,,irlskin,.....,,•-,.'.4 -..• 1,-* ,•••••..,.1: ' .-. 4,-•••••••....1 it ---,,..-, ',' .: ' • 1..••-....41.-..4... ••••I.- ' . •4-•••,..::.....• f. . .'' . t.:, ..4.'.;14*.i', .--;•-4-•-: --": "":41.-:.tx-14.4..-.. , -1 i "- ii,Zt,;.1--. '..f,,;,••• , L;•15_,..: p •- •---:•_-:, =.:,•:_,17,-.-,:-z-,,•:- vf ;;;-11i..." t:: .1 -47-..,..T:. -;"--i.i-;la--E-j-111- : I.::. ' '.---_ •::-' L.-, .1:.::.." -1." ? ',..'•:-..• ,,. .74..._:•k•.,i''"-;-.-- • 11,. $ 1 '• -2-.4.4-N.;:.•;:t.T.V!:r,,„6 '.":4',."i:11•::.illi,:.-4- E.N/..;;— S.• . .:. cf•,411,...,_41. (I. -4;411. :,;:•.!: '--7:6.,...--•:'•.'1'4.•••••--•** 1.1;,,..t.--;c1;1..i•:--?;vi -17 .•,_.-"-•>4", -N-:- ll.F4q,.--..,=.• 4 .... 0....--_%:/, ' , ;•.-„Ia... I Y $.1 ._.1. 4,41ri,,,..1_::::.-:-.:-;.-•-:••••-•. •-_,Am---flf, !-.....•-f 71A4t1 filsr:.4:;...Zet-r-,cl".... .!... .r.--:-T41 4•tr...4.:7.•‘ ''.. 'It' .".. n piti: , r.r... ; . 4;771" %Iii::,-..:4-_42.-••,. - tire .•,1-.• ,.• 4.-:,,. -....-7:_..: ---- ' ..„:-....- --____....-- i: -- ..: ..'..• ,1 •,: i tit('t, ;11-:-747- we' al 'lc :I/1--,!•'..i•-.."4-i'icr-:* -- ----iy ,.- 1,..1.t--7172 ..-1 .;:':': '... ' . el, . 1!' ' ..,..1,-- -,,It'i4.- .:. 1. 'P'",T.-.• ...:. .--, . .. -... 1.-^ 1 2,1:.,b, '..,'A• _--.1 ""%4F ...' ;,!..14rivi -ii-, it,1 i ."7: 1:' ''' 1",'• • I. ril'At4t'LP'4.' 'r-''';' '-, 4‘''• i • •:•-t ''''•••• ... 4 ,5,,4 A 4, ,t 1 1 , . •'' II. 'PlIm •-...'A'-'4F?Ae..//.1t4i4"...7) 'El_7, t.: i ' *, _-,-- ...fiu.tishr.r.xliti 3..'YI•• •• ,V.I4 i 14 '=*-. •7.,-s; , ' ri, •4.1 - ,..--r,.,-.•4 : ., .• •.„- f, -,a66.4b,• '„‘.. l, 144.•74.....:..-Ii-,Iiit;:;_,.44--1 ..,_ . ''or---. --:::"C . .-rr .2,'. ... .... t•,31., ..titqi,,11-:V .. 127:... '.'1 -'' 1":='1. .-• :- , ...a.r..14' 4A, 3 - - _ •. .... ;r5.. . '. rit, 0 '•,1 , eft,..? • -4,'A-- 1,1-. .. 'sir -.,' - ,•.....W•-•',,_,„;;;;--1 „- , • ,,....A .-r.-:, •e,:„-•".•it,v 21 .0:6,2j1::t., ,,ii,t. T:lor: ,. • :-: t14' .....9,- • • .1.- -AL 1•254.".Mf4. „ -7:ri.,:.--EL:!.Y.:. 5..... . 4.41itilc. la. and lb. Historic photograph (1a) showing original three-bay storefront building (ca.1880-1890). With minor alterations, this storefront survived until most recent rehabilitation. Side door led to second floor apartments. Drawing (1 b) shows the building's main features clearly. / t e' ,61111 II/ ,........ 11_11 I .....„............. ... __, lb. , . . --11. Di EfJ:J=3 83-049 :-_, �.. - Ift eb V",111 WNW r w. , , r2a. a r .irk` � S C,- 3, f- r''",X,. <.s ue_...�'`- "' �..._.�_ . .•ate ' 2b. 2a. and 2b. Building as it looked after ca. 1900 enlargement. Two identical storefronts (double doors flanked by window bays) were separated by a bay containing a single door. 1 �. ,or . _-' all, • iftlii, --..—„ 4 , 1k ` lam f �� L --1121zt• . I 1 r t • .. _ i;, a�1,i 3 r • . - •• 4 4 t .4 ♦ws � "—�—MLR a b.r • ` r : '•tom\ .�. .r...a,r'!"' +._ _-�• 4. --." y- .+ "---' . a..L- �� -'-.—-� �.n` 3b. 3a. and 3b. After rehabilitation. Double doors on the front have been replaced with windows, an arched side entrance has been cut, and the former side entrance has been replaced with a window. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards tor Rehabilitation Number: 83-050 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (Conformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (Conformance) Subject: NEW OPENINGS IN BLANK EXTERIOR WALLS Issue: A change of use of a historic structure may necessitate cutting new openings for windows or doors in blank exterior walls. Usually, such blank walls are secondary elevations, i.e., those exterior walls without special architectural treatment or emphasis such as common or party walls, or the side or rear walls that are not readily visible from the main thoroughfare. However, for some building types, such as ice houses, grain silos, creameries, etc., blank walls are highly significant to a building's character. New openings that would alter this character would not be approved. Therefore, owners contemplating new openings should be careful not to consider a blank wall a "throwaway" feature but should design the new openings to conform with Standards 2 and 9 and to be subsidiary elements in the overall building. If the design for new openings makes such a strong architectural statement as to change the appearance of the building radically or overwhelm the historic facades, certification of the rehabilitation will be denied. Application: An 1880's Romanesque Revival warehouse in a midwestern city was converted into luxury office space. The 5-story brick warehouse was actually two long, narrow buildings divided by a central load-bearing masonry wall. The north (street) wall was the principal facade and contained virtually all of the architectural and stylistic details (ornamental brickwork, windows, storefronts). The west wall was a blank brick wall covered with a sprayed-on stucco-like coating for weather protection and may have been a party wall originally although it has been exposed for some time. The first floor 1960's aluminum and glass storefronts were without intrinsic significance (see illus. 1). The building was individually listed in the National Register as one of the few remaining nineteenth century warehouses in an area that is now almost exclusively new high-rise hotels, offices, a convention center, and vacant lots. In planning for the rehabilitation of this warehouse, the owner determined that the only economically viable use was as luxury office space and that increasing the attractiveness of the space would require introducing windows into the blank west wall. Although the east wall did have some existing windows, the central load-bearing wall precluded "borrowing" natural light from the east across the width of the building. Additionally, the owner discovered that severe water damage had left the northwest corner of the warehouse structurally unsound and that part of the west wall would have to be rebuilt from the ground up. The rehabilitation, developed in close cooperation with the State, incorporates the new window openings into the rebuilt section of the west wall. The new windows are similar in size, shape, and rhythm to the windows on the primary north wall but the brickwork, sash, and glazing are clearly contemporary. The new brickwork is a slightly different color from the original and flush around the new windows rather than projecting; the sash - is aluminum and a different color from the original, and the glazing is single-light. In rehabilitating the north facade, the owner carefully repaired the existing 2-over-2 wooden double-hung sash (see illus. 2). 83-050 The non-significant 1960's storefronts were removed and replacement storefronts were constructed, although the new use of the building might not include retail on the first floor. The replacement storefronts incorporate new matching brick and stone piers and new wooden windows and multi-light transoms. The newly constructed west wall also incorporates two "storefront bays" but uses a less decorative brick pier and plain transoms in order to continue the differentiation between the historic north facade and the contemporary section of the west wall. The entrance was moved from its 1960's location in the center of the north facade to the northwest corner of the building. Access is through open storefront bays from both the north and west which create a recessed entrance at the corner of the building (see illus. 2). In denying certification of the rehabilitation, the regional office stated that: This new facade competes with the original front facade for perception as the dominant design element of the building. There would be acceptable ways of adding windows to a blank and insignificant wall, if the alteration retained the simple and secondary character of the facade. The new wall and windows already installed in this building attract much attention, make a strong architectural statement, and are located on the side of the building most visible from the nearest major intersection. The new design violates Standards 2 and 9. The other reasons for denial of certification related to the recessed entrance, which was determined to be uncharacteristic of the original storefront in violation of Standards 5, 6, and 9. The owner, with the strong support of the State, appealed this decision. During the appeal the owner provided photographs that had been unavailable to the regional office at the time of the initial review. These photographs clearly show the juxtaposition of the new west wall, which reads as a compatible, contemporary design, and the original north facade (see illus. 2). They also demonstrate that from one major intersection, the original north facade is the most visible and that from the other major intersection, the west wall will be almost completely obscured upon completion of a new hotel to be constructed on the adjacent lot. The Chief Appeals Officer overturned the regional office denial and determined that the project met the Standards, providing that a wooden column was installed at the center of the north entrance bay to maintain the rhythm of the storefronts. In certifying the project, the Chief Appeals Officer said of the new openings in the western wall: The resulting new construction, successfully repeating window sizes and shapes from the original facade, reads as a clearly recent and subsidiary statement. This is due to the use of frankly contemporary details: flush brickwork of a slightly different color from the old construction; aluminium windows, again of a different color from the old; and single-light sash. The owner installed the required column and the project was certified. Prepared by: Sara K. Blumenthal, PAD These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U. S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 83-050 ii R • fiu - - Ulm i . PUMPS 7 mom nu • I ) , • I , ./.'4 ' 1 :USTOMER PARKE lam► n L. 1. North and west facades of warehouse. The 1960's storefronts are non-significant. f ' -�,/1�i I g_, / wiii,1 Lit1Jt 2. New windows and entrance on west i 1 facade. Certification t I s :, - L I. was conditional upon owner adding a wooden Li. '► , r column in center of - =• 4r 'westernmost storefront. J __J .! .� t` i ' `e 6,. ii. i: .,.la Technical rese v ti n Preservation ServicesioInterpreting -1 Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 83-051 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance) 9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/Additions (conformance) 10. Reversibility of New Alterations/Additions (conformance) Subject: CONTEMPORARY ADDITIONS Issue: The economic viability of some rehabilitations is dependent on the construction of new space for additional rental income or for the housing of new services which cannot be accommodated in the historic structure. In order to meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation," particularly numbers 2, 9, and 10, it is important that the new addition be designed and constructed so that the character-defining features of the historic building or buildings are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process of rehabilitation. Further, new additions should be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relationship of solids to voids and color; and the size and scale of the addition should be in proportion to the historic building, and attached if possible, to the rear or inconspicuous side. New designs may be contemporary or may be in the "style" of the historic building as long as there is a clear distinction between the two and the new work does not appear to be part of the historic resource. Application: A pair of 4 story brick rowhouses was to be rehabilitated for use as an in- town hotel. The Federal style buildings were constructed in 1809 as part of a row of large residences, but shortly thereafter, they were converted for commercial use. In the 1870's, the two adjacent buildings were modified and connected for use as an inn, and continued in that use until the 1970's. The two buildings, now identified as one structure, were recently listed in the National Register. The new owner wanted to reopen the historic building as a small in-town hotel, but the structure lacked certain features necessary for the successful operation of a modern hotel. The interior needed remodeling along with new elevators, restaurant facilities and additional rental rooms. The new owner proposed three small additions to accommodate these needs: a recessed rooftop shed dormer to house elevator equipment, and two small 4 story additions in the rear. While the rooftop addition would not be visible from the street, one of the rear additions would be highly visible as the property was located on a corner (see illus. 1). The original design proposal submitted to the State historic preservation officer showed the rear additions constructed in brick which replicated the brick details of the historic resource. In addition, the existing hip roof was expanded to cover the new rear additions. As a result, the new construction could not be differentiated from the historic building. 83-051 In reviewing the initial application, the State office made note of several important aspects of the project that would require redesign. As a Federal era design, the pair of town houses was distinguished by narrow, one room deep "T" shaped plans. The state felt that the infilling of this plan should not give the appearance of earlier mid-Georgian plans that were heavier in mass and proportion. As such, the State recommended that the new additions read as separate structures connected to the historic resource, thereby preserving the original sense of the Federal plan. In addition, the new construction should be attached to the historic building with a minimum of damage to historic fabric so that if, in the future, the additions were to be removed, the basic form and integrity of the historic structure would remain. The SHPO suggested that a contemporary design for the additions be considered, that the materials used provide a neutral backdrop for the historic resource, that the roofline of the additions be lowered so as not to damage the ornamental historic cornice, and that care be taken to minimize removal of historic fabric. In essence, the new rear additions should be treated as separate pavilions that would read as new construction in order to preserve the character-defining features of the historic resource. The owner was amenable to these suggestions and resubmitted his design (see illus. 2), which was then forwarded to the regional office with a recommendation for approval. In reviewing the proposal, the regional office agreed with the State on the need to clearly differentiate the new construction from the historic resource through the use of materials and setback connection details, while achieving compatibility in terms of scale, proportion, and location. A modern flush metal panel system was selected for the exterior sheathing of the new construction to act as a neutral backdrop to the carefully restored historic brickwork. The use of glazed panels recessed between the historic masonry and the new addition would allow the distinct feature of the Federal plan to be exposed. In addition, much of the original rear walls of the historic structure would remain exposed with the windows in place as part of the new construction. This would reduce the loss of historic fabric while leaving clear evidence of the connection between the original and new construction (see illus. 3). On the exterior, the new additions would reflect the scale, massing, and proportions of the historic building without replicating the original detailing. The placement of the window and door openings on the exterior of the new pavilions would match the scale and proportion of the historic facade, but the detailing would be executed in a modern fashion. The use of a separate hipped roof for the pavilion additions would maintain the scale of the historic rowhouses and the neighborhood (see illus. 4). The regional office approved the proposed rehabilitation as the existing historic resource was being carefully preserved and the new additions were compatible with the historic character of the property. Prepared by: Sharon C. Park, AIA, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. I40 •— �'r'- 1I 83-051 ) 11 a 4 9 1 , 1.) Ii Illustration #1. Site Plan 4 ill I The proposed two rear additions would I change the plan from a "T" shape to a ,,,,,,_ ,,,404614 deep rectangle. In order to preserve the • " '' �"% characteristic proportions of the Federal .� ,M , Val_ era, circa 1809, plan, it was determined :� 1 that the new additions read as separate 1 -- i . ; structures and not as a continuation of { the historic structure. E • •` ', IRE . '411!••••'• . ' .. ,•.: 4 " u .:,. 1 , I r7/ 1 !I I- i 1 i ,,,' I. �—.. rr ( i M fil ill n ' h ._ �'trs 2 1 OAy .1-,• • . . Pi i rl•+.r 7 ', i 1 ('! V v r �I r f l ( y l_; '` ',. :7, .tl �]^ .'�•` .�5%' Q `'• ' . ns [[ • k`L . _ .+-.1. ,� V , l' .._r,?,, r'• /c Gf+. .•Y \,i�( ~' L �� v., -i.... . 4 -1 ,,yr' ‘,.f.,•.1... ,,,--..-_,1-1-: /-1 . -i•...k.' _. ' • IIy. irk `� 4e.O•'��i� h:,-.r. ��{f/{�� , 72 �k:.r�4 t^'-, • '. r,. ..~ ��f,- X• v jr4iII! �•/'ram \`�. :�.,••� •••�/��I,.-�S, y• r , � :.?'.`„, ,14�'. •'Y. • L•`,.i.^. ,.I f% ."� 1 a.��t� - : . •�` j,, it. • • tl 'r �� i yTk�`V I.' S' '.•-' r v...__� ��-�' 1 • Y+`;�- -a,:i 5:11%. ;,...',f�•.i' i% , i-"l•. �„ 1....• 'y -.. Y.,il 11101 l.,• 1'\ .i.,,i �•)-' G' ^^. Sr! r> • ;IAA 1 ' 4Z �.,•Nct 1, i. - 1 r•..", , Y 11.040., �'; - 1 - - , - - III - '•,i; Ste.; ` -.:- .' . -'' ,�$'' �"� { `' '� it 1 � rl �M` �'� ` - 1 ' ~�t. .;+.. ' lI t' -- I.� 1� .T .4-�-1,-.••1: ":t' :1: -{i•1 •�•5�" ••�• i.rt! • ••^r c 2 ',`..,-+� F . _ ._1.:,7'S.,'.'" b tr � '�• 3 �� ,. ��!► •�� X-.,rp ��' ! .^:( ,rl. :.r`i Z"% ':Cl:• 4,-•i�, : .1' :"..+1'i r n.fir.. --- i i :a. =F4.- .1 .l 11;� N.•ttt ;,^ t'•�. >..S.,�t'• i;3." ! ':�":',Y' .P W'e `:.L,•.1-'`' r• -.4.,' E`.1.:.�'`%;,_ ,al,1-%. .r"...._ 'f�- • cf• ,e_ 'i .: .v-.., -. r _ ./y,JS,, .( 74 ;r.•' ,:t by • L 't' 1� -_ l—: ` i ,t�.ik''.- � �'•;;j i.: r _ i, '�'� '�fVyi v �•.tiyll. .f - :r'.^►l r 1 , a t I T !1�- 1rtL-[1 a �=: F. ' ;' 'i' ��.r�.•. ! - ik ir, II. ' go...::. `+T. : r},^ ( A.' •� 144 .e : . 7' R- Via! P_ _ j'.•-< t..- , _ ' ' Yrf .-- � -• = • .y `J _, 7.f' 1i.F A �Ztp ` • ' : • = . :.sc •_ _ . 4,t_ ,. _ _itm • -1 : • ,4 ..r�'.-; • t . �.+. .e_ C tlf - � t . d 1.6 _ _- -cam— '. ses... y.r - - •- _ - I .: _.t .- -• 1.� 1 , • 1 1 1 • Illustration #2. PERSPECTIVE VIEW. The revised design treated the rear addition as a modern pavilion to clearly differentiate it from the historic structure. 83-051 ,,.:,.:::.w:,,i:i::p:i:K,..;:i,„:K:i::*: ::ii:::•ts P LA FLOOR ti TYPICAL I i ��3 Illustration at on -cam s Anti . . infill plan (shaded) would The proposed -- h :�: Q: historic ma terials by leavingthe F.. the isto c resp ect t _ .,..,.,:. I -�- ;«<>:~:.�.<.. wallsexposed within the new :x.�<.. >:i`�- � • original rear <<-' addition. The existingwindow and door I 7 COS r>..;... ->:.. , ,x ; _ , k' I�p1 4.; openings would be left in place, as much as M.. . �. J / �"— « • > 0 I� : .. -- `"' possible. In addition, recessed panels would 7 be used as a connector infill between the,a I , c T 1 , original building and the additions in order to i`• /it n tp - clearly differentiate the new construction - --�. — from the historic structure. rLH' : * I II — Li \_ ._, _____, • ,. • . :•:. ...,, 771 14 - Illustration #4. ELEVATION .... The new 4 story addition visible from0. the street would be compatible in -* scale and proportion with the historic • ',: • structure. The pattern of window and .. • door openings in the new addition • would reflect the rhythm in the `—— historic facade. The use of a modern panel system, as opposed to detailed —brickwork, would clearly separate the — 7 new construction from the historic - ---- r---- c resource. The use of a separate ._. Il L �_� r-•, hipped roof for the addition would � \ retain the scale of the property and • I �D would eliminate damage to the = ,o historic roof and cornice. • ... E_o_ 1 Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards tor Rehabilitation Number: 83-052 Applicable Standard: 2. Retention of Architectural Character (conformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (conformance) Subject: COMPATIBLE, NON-MATCHING REPLACEMENT WINDOW SASH Issue: Windows in historic buildings— both the openings and the actual sash that fill the openings— can play an important role in defining historic character. Where window openings or window sash are distinguishing features of the historic building (especially on primary facades), building owners should strive to retain and repair them, in accordance with Standard 6. If, after careful investigation, the window frames and sash are found to• be so deteriorated that they must be replaced, then replacement windows should match the historic windows as closely as possible, also in accordance with Standard 6 and the rehabilitation guidelines. Unfortunately, owners often replace historic windows with incompatible windows as part of a rehabilitation project, resulting in denial of certification. In rare cases, non-matching replacement sash may be acceptable where the historic window sash are not considered essential in defining the overall character of the building. This usually occurs on buildings with richly ornamented facades where there are numerous architectural features and details that add a high degree of articulation to the building, and which are the major determinants of its historic character. It should be emphasized, however, that this is the exception, rather than the rule, and that violation of Standard 6 will usually result in certification denial. Application: A 10-story, 1904 classical revival commercial building in a proposed historic district was rehabilitated as housing for the elderly. The primary facade of rusticated concrete and limestone was richly decorated with brackets, cartouches, and pediments. The project work included replacement of all the historic window sash. (Fortunately, no new window openings were made, nor was the proportion or size of the window openings changed.) The original wooden window sash were replaced with double- glazed metal units. The original sash were divided at midpoint by a horizontal meeting rail; this division was repeated with the metal replacement sash, but the meeting rail was thinner, and was placed on the lower third of the sash. On the seventh floor, a pair of tripartite arched windows were further altered by replacement with fixed single pane glazing in the side lights. Although a horizontal division of the sash was maintained, the replacements altered the historic pane configuration and meeting rail dimensions. With the concurrence of the SHPO, the NPS regional office denied certification. This decision was explained in the denial letter to the owner: The result of all these window alterations has had a detrimental effect on the historic appearance of the building. When it is necessary to replace existing historic windows in the course of rehabilitation, the "Standards" for this program require that the replacement windows match the visual qualities of the historic windows. 83-052 In requesting an appeal, the owners contended that the new windows "caused no noticeable change in the building's appearance from any angle or distance." The owners also submitted additional photographs of the primary facade taken before and after the window installation. After inspecting the property and reviewing the additional information submitted by the owner, the appeals officer overruled the original decision. Central to the reversal was the appeals officer's determination that the historic windows were not critical in defining the historic character of this particular building, and the replacement windows were compatible. The appeals officer stated in the notification letter: The historic character of this building is primarily determined by its form and by the richness and scale of the architectural features, including the split pediments, rusticated columns and voussoirs; carved garlands, brackets, sculptured keystones, tabernacle frames and cartouches. I do not consider the windows to be an essential character-giving element in this particular building. Even though the proportions of the pane openings and rail dimensions have been altered, the relationship of solid wall to windows openings was preserved in the rehabilitation process; in this particular case, I feel that the replacement windows minimally meet the Secretary's "Standards for Rehabilitation" and the overall rehabilitation is consistent with the historic character of the building. I would not expect to make this decision where similar window treatments were proposed on a building less ornate than this one. Prepared by: Jean Travers, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. . • .4 - • ..... 0 t 1111 .. • •• • di ..."'........,,,.,_. P4'I P*1 W4 'Fir NI IV' • • --.....,_ .•.___,ilk- • '. ..7.12-104, • ....._L._ .4.i. ... Iiii* i i , 1_ or Ix--III tVeE ler. .IT ,,,• , •. . . , Wi;w4 III ;7-- - nw mat- , oig it ola NC , a' ,Itf•-.. 4 - 'i.•• •• • 4. i 114'14 . ow -•••• 4 1,1• VP-.S. 11 t,; CCP„Uri:.._ /I MIL -- 1r "7 i''----"I• -t--"---.4''''-,kr z . 1 aai I,. : , ....:: r, : iit Ere 111$ • .3 f It, 't14...77 7,1,,.., . • ,. ; •PL I- _ ---zi!, •—...--_0. • ,'1 I ..' .• . - - __ O' 3 14.1 4 i r_r_.: 1_ ' ._ . , i • i •••-;----;•„_-__. • - - — i V II ...: ,Iy i, „ i ._.-,4-a'r'•----._ L2_,1..v..it .... xx e..._,._.V_:.... sivaiili l.p.,4 - I -0 r . . , 4 ..l._ ,-, sg i .. s-_• ..-- .,.4.. . .,, , .A -------, ,,„. , 71 r• . ea, ler r------rr...... p....t,..., ,....-.4.--,:... 11,.1 - J •IT c ,.. ' ' 1 „ ,_ 1. i i ... .... c, .... , 4.1 , 1 .., ..ir, amot, ' ...41,1 .• '''' 4n. roan 4. r of ,& vie • ---4 „-- 11 lim'5 • 1-VaLli r „..., — • • ,,,,,.: . .. 1 1 I i r ,- , ., . .inic , A Rii i S Sitio 1.- r I ' II , untAgi * ' 5 ' : ' '' i ...... LI i-- ,, I .. -..1-' i, I t.,lettoor ‘ I, _,-----r.:-:—;--,-w- -4 --,..--- h.M '4"„i,4-'•-4........kr ,,- it ri 1 ',um. '''. ...t.f,...,,,,tr,.,. C, ,.•1 1 tY f 11"."4 ' 1 "1.10..1. Iiiklir .-.. , — , -...-• 1 0.1 "-Ilr- 01E. lira A .. _.... 41.,,,,,.,, , .,0 ,. .. .,,,„_,, .........et...,,........ 7--7- „..... , ...7., " ""'. •-• - , " -,,.,.... „ • - --5-.0,-....,-..,- x-.444. ._• _ _ AFTER BEFORE Replacement sash now feature a lower meeting rail. The Original double hung window sash featured oo side lights in the arched windows were also replaced with a mid-level, horizontal meeting rail, lz, fixed single pane glazing. The top floor is in a shadow; it was not altered by the project work. IV Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 84-053 Applicable Standards: 1. Compatible New Use (nonconformance) 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance; nonconformance) 4. Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (conformance; nonconformance) Subject: REHABILITATING HISTORIC STOREFRONTS FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE Issue: The historic character of a commercial structure is often jeopardized when a building is rehabilitated for residential or office use. The owner, therefore, must first consider Standard 1 of the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation", which addresses the issue of compatible new use when determining the nature of a rehabilitation project. If a commercial building is to be used for residential purposes, several factors must be considered in order to preserve its historic character. Because the open quality of most storefronts is not always compatible with the greater privacy and security required for new uses, owners often propose designs that involve the alteration or removal of historic materials and features. In storefronts, such features may include large expanses of glass, transom lights, cast iron surrounds, kick plates, elaborate cornices, and special entrance conditions. Collectively, these elements can be important in defining the unique character of a commercial building and should thus be retained in the process of rehabilitation. According to Standard 2 of the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation," "the distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible." In order to comply with the Secretary's Standards, it is necessary to assess the feasibility of residential or office use on the main floor and the need to preserve the historic storefront character of the building. To properly address preservation issues and weigh them against the demands of contemporary re-use, rehabilitation projects require innovative design solutions which are sensitive to historic materials and features. Radical alterations to the storefront of a historic commercial structure will result in diminution of the building's historic character and ultimately in denial of certification for tax benefits. Application: A mid-nineteenth century corner grocery store and residence was converted to a two-unit residential building. Located in a historic district of mixed commercial and residential use, the building exhibited the scale, detail and simple architectural design characteristic of the time period and area in which it was constructed (see illus. 1 and 2). In preserving the existing storefront and diagonal entrance, the owner installed new plate glass in the existing openings and transoms, and replaced the recently constructed brick infill below the plate glass windows with wooden panels (see illus. 3 and 4). The cornice, often a significant architectural element in storefront design, was also repaired and repainted. Important interior features such as a pressed tin ceiling and pine 84-053 fireplace mantel were restored. The completed design maintains the commercial character of the building, yet, with the inserted wood panels at the base and the possible addition of appropriate curtains or shutters behind the plate glass, it does not sacrifice the privacy of the residents. The project is, therefore, in conformance with the Secretary's Standards and was approved as a certified rehabilitation by the National Park Service. A second project involved the conversion of an early nineteenth-century brick Federal style townhouse into law offices. Originally a residential structure, the building had been used for commercial purposes as early as 1902 and had acquired a new entrance and wood and glass storefront on the ground floor (see illus. 5). Because other structures along the street had also been adapted for commercial use at an early date, this was seen as a significant development in the evolution of the district. The area is currently comprised of buildings which are primarily commercial at street level and residential above. Rehabilitating the building, which had been substantially damaged by fire, involved completely removing the existing storefront and entrance and replacing the historic opening with brick infill and residential-scale fenestration which replicated that on the upper floors (see illus. 6). This treatment violates numbers 2, 4 and 5 of the Secretary's Standards. By continuing the facade treatment of the upper floors on the street level, the commercial character of the building was lost and the continuity of the streetscape interrupted. The impact of inserting a building with residential character was dramatic because the structure is one of a continuous row of buildings, which, although not built together, had acquired significance as commercial structures and read as a consistent portion of the district. The project was denied certification on the basis that the changes to the front facade, especially the loss of the building's storefront character, were not in keeping with the Secretary's Standards. In an appeal of this denial new information was presented which indicated that the date of construction of the existing storefront was recent (approximately 1950) and that the storefront had suffered extensive fire damage. While the denial was reversed because of new information and because, in lieu of the damaged storefront, the owners had attempted to return the building to its original residential appearance, the Chief Appeals Officer took this opportunity to express his conviction that the commercial character of this part of the district reflected changes to the area over time and, where possible, should be preserved. A third rehabilitation of a two-story mid-nineteenth century commercial structure in an urban residential neighborhood involved the retention of a corner entrance and projecting display cases. To adapt the building to residential use, wood lattice in a contemporary motif was applied to the inside of the projecting bays (see illus. 7). Although not a Tax Act project, this unique, yet reversible, design solution increases privacy and security from the street while preserving the historic fabric and commercial character of the building. By respecting the building's original appearance, its compatibility with neighboring structures is maintained. Prepared by: Martha L. Werenfels, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. ' �'rt4ie 84-053 • .}Z r .a � ter a ,` a} a . Y { hY,,) 1. y . -' µ, me • t + a ,, ' 3 > _ Example One r. c • : { 1. and 2. Before rehabilitation. The .� corner grocery store had its original • 4,. diagonal entrance and flanking plate ' • ' `-" "- glass windows. Although the storefront • �.� remained intact, the base had been filled � ; • „- •- • .--' with brick and the plate glass boarded :� . _•"4 _ over. r . 1•• ,a • YT t - 7,. % . ii iii .Thn..._ . - r • . • Y t v �R r . .:f. S • r 44,-,-,.. . W 3; �1�,• �� — 84-053 4- t J � —_ 2-------771-:,..- --1------ :-.75:I.- ....,6. ..;.i.- -44717-7:-- r ram♦ r� sr V -- • \ 4.-,.-1`:;_;1-•-•-•:,-41-4'..-t; '-.. II ' ::1 ' .77, _.1-7-'-'; -1-;--- - :--. -, -:;‘,--;i-t---,-,e4-,-- -.. 14 . .,---- :- -. t r t r rr F a �' z"le- . ..'.- -_. ., 1` 1 l � M' /4. r err -...,.-3.'t •. Ede ♦ ��n'!� ,f��_ _ rtj •' fly.s ,--.4.,esi, _ -\: i. .--, I. lin. ,_ r- -.."--..:----...L------` - Example One. 3. and 4. After rehabilitation. In rehabilitating the original storefront, the owner installed plate glass in the large openings and transoms and replaced the brick infill with wooden panels. By retaining significant architectural features, the commercial character of the building was retained. :` , fir , , ;_ j Ic �a r. -1, 3. p rx I= C X a . l` 7 84-053 1 ...._ �... _ Example Two. E _ ... . r 5. Before rehabilitation. - : �- ._ The early 1800's rowhouse, .- although damaged by fire, .- 11 retained its storefront. $ lig Mil ; ,-: I hit '° ' It is seen here as an 4•e iii L• k t- te ..! integral part of a row of rr � nte g l ; FtoR '• z -_ commercial structures. :i 7 ..t 1*.•--" : i„.4-P',' •,- ::: i , isimit f. , 7 7, i! NTIOUES ...,.., .4..::: 7.: ,,,:.i_itt,i,t. 1 arm VIM _ ...... _., ___ _ _ ___ . ____ ..... ,....,____ . ,, ,. s �_ .1_ t t* Example Two. - — 6. After rehabilitation. The - building exhibits residential scale - windows and door openings on the aNamss . • u�� -- - ground floor. This alteration MO • U■ results in a loss of the building's "'`' Waft commercial character and an interrup- •;sus 4�it tion in the commercial row. w • 111111 r n waniamsimf 84-053 .,..,,...14 . ,....1. v" .------ _ ___ _ _ -- ill III 1111-* 11 .--! ! IF: _. ;,,,,, II „.. . Example Three. 7. Wood lattice installed inside the display windows increases privacy from the street without sacrificing the commercial character of the building. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 84-054 Applicable Standards: 2. Preserving the Distinguishing Character of a Building (nonconformance) 3. Recognition of Historic Period (nonconformance) 4. Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 6. Repair/replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: REPLACING REPAIRABLE HISTORIC INTERIOR/EXTERIOR FEATURES AND MATERIAL Issue: "Rehabilitation," as defined in 36 CFR 67.2 assumes that some alteration is necessary to accommodate a new use; at the same time, the definition makes clear the requirement that those portions or features of the property which are "significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values must be preserved." In order to meet this preservation requirement and be certified for tax benefits, features and materials of both the interior and the exterior of a building that are important—or character- defining—should (1)be identified in the planning stage; and (2) be retained and repaired in the work stage so that alterations necessary for the new use do not result in their loss. It is particularly important to note that preserving exterior features does not mean that, as a trade-off, interior material and features can be removed; similarly, repairing and preserving interior features does not mean that exterior materials and features can be removed. When either interior or exterior materials and features that are important in defining the building's historic charcter are removed, the rehabilitation may violate Standard 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 and, in consequence, be denied certification for tax benefits. Application: An 1894 townhouse located in a historic district in the midwest exhibits on the exterior the simple architectural details characteristic of late-nineteenth century townhouses built in the area. The three-story, three-bay residence has modestly detailed brickwork, a recessed entrance with an ionic column supporting a first floor entablature and decorative lintels over second floor windows (see illus. 1). This simple detailing is also present on the interior, where a considerable amount of historic material, including millwork, mantels, doors, and moldings contributes to the character of the building (see illus. 2). The floor plan, with side entrance and stair hall, also has an unusual diagonal arrangement of the mantel and partitions in the parlor (see illus. 3). 84-054 In order to convert the residence into four modern apartment units, both exterior and interior work was necessary. The owner's rehabilitation proposal for the townhouse exterior included cleaning the masonry with low-pressure water; limited tuckpointing; replacing a severely deteriorated cornice with one which would match the existing in material and detailing; replacing a later front door with one milled to the dimensions of the original; and replacing unrepairable window sash with new sash, reusing the historic wood frames. All of this exterior work was considered to be in conformance with the Secretary's Standards. Interior demolition had already begun when the project was reviewed by the National Park Service. This work included removal of historic material and features which the owner assessed as "unusable." The owner's proposed floor plan for the apartments (see illus. 4) required removal of existing partitions; subdivision of the front parlor in order to maximize rentable bedroom space; and relocation of the living area to the former historic entrance and stair hall space. Substantial rearrangement of rooms throughout the building resulted in removal of additional partitions and corner fireplaces. Door and window trim, as well as baseboards and doors, were also removed. The regional office of the National Park Service felt that the interior materials, features, and spaces were important in defining the historic character, and should have been retained and repaired to the greatest extent possible. In consequence, the project was found to be in violation of Standards 2, 5, and 6 and was denied certification for tax benefits. In appealing the denial, the owner stated that some of the historic materials and features had been severely deteriorated and needed to be replaced; and that still others were missing entirely. Based on his assessment, all existing historic materials and features were removed and a contemporary looking interior—considered by the owner to be a more marketable—was constructed. Photographic documentation presented at the appeal, however, indicated that the historic materials and features could have been repaired and only needed to be replaced in part with new material. It was the opinion of the Chief Appeals Officer that, together with the distinguishing spatial arrangement, interior materials and features should have been preserved in the process of rehabilitation. The owner then expressed a willingness to re-install portions of the historic interior material which had not been severely damaged in the removal process and had subsequently been stored; and to reconstruct the interior partitions and missing historic features using all new materials. However, due to the extensive removal of historic materials and features that should have been retained and repaired initially, this proposal was determined to be in violation of Standard 6. Once material is removed under such conditions, the loss is considered irretrievable; it cannot be remedied through reconstruction. The limited re-installation proposed in this case was determined not to constitute adequate preservation of the resource. It should also be noted that acceptable preservation work on the exterior, in conformance with the Standards, was not considered a mitigating factor because all work must be in conformance with the Standards for certification purposes. 84-054 Application: A second rehabilitation in the southeast involved a three-story wood frame house which was built ca. 1830 and displays Federal style features, including fireplaces, trim and doors. Changes had taken place on the exterior of the house ca. 1910, the most major of which was the addition of a large Victorian front porch extending across the front facade and wrapping around two sides (see illus. 5). The porch was characterized by columns resting on brick piers, turned ballusters and a decorative central pediment. At the time of the porch construction a lean-to addition was also built on the rear of the building and a bathroom was installed on the third floor. The intent of the rehabilitation work on the residence was to restore the building to its original 1830s appearance—the rationale for such work being largely predicated on the owner's assessment of the 1910 features. Because the porch was determined by the owner to be severely deteriorated and thus unrepairable, he felt preservation would require a prohibitively expensive dismantling and reconstruction of the piers, as well as total replacement of the roof (see illus. 6). As a result of this assessment, the porch was demolished. New front stairs and a covered stoop were then constructed on the primary facade to its 1830's appearance (see illus. 7). Interior work—including opening up of original fireplaces, removal of later inappropriate panelling, and repairs and repainting of doors and door trim—was also undertaken and completed as part of the project. When the project was reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office, initial concern was expressed over potential violation of Standard 4 in the exterior demolition work, and, in a final review by the region, the work was subsequently denied for violation of Standards 2, 4, 5, and 6. According to a letter from the regional office of the National Park Service, "The Victorian porch was distinctive in terms of its large size and style...and had gained significance in its own right; thus, its removal resulted in the loss of an important feature attesting to both the stylistic and physical evolution of the structure." Finally, the Region agreed with the State in the final review that the porch as it existed at the time of the rehabilitation was deteriorated, but that its condition did not warrant removal. Because it was a character-defining feature that should have been retained and repaired, its removal violated Standards 2, 4, 5, and 6. A secondary issue in the denial was that the design for the new entry was not based on either photographic or physical evidence and was, therefore, conjectural. This treatment violated Standard #3. Because the owner felt that "restoration" to its 1830's appearance was an appropriate treatment for the structure, he appealed the regional decision. In a final letter to the owner that sustained the region's decision, the Acting Appeals Officer wrote: The c. 1910 wrap-around porch, which was removed during the course of rehabilitation, was significant in determining the character of the building...Removal of the porch, with its decorative frieze, classical columns 84-054 and turned ballusters, constitutes a loss of an important character-defining feature...While it is my understanding that work on the interior was well- executed, it cannot compensate for loss of a major character-defining element. Prepared by : Kay D. Weeks and Martha L. Werenfels These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U. S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 84-054 7...-- : ....„, . ..... .4::* • . . . h -----":.-,•:1 SrP' .* • - 0111111111.111111111.1 - Li _....... i 1°!! h 41 - - I mils 1. The townhouse, with its simple detailing, pictured before rehabilitation. The owner's proposal for exterior work was considered to be in conformance with the Secretary's Standards. M r Y .,. I:0,:_eil I . l-t;:-. 1.:- t t• } «2.+Lf.. k"m 0 n �" . is,-w"-c �ywle ,;(0 Ak Yt y=-ZFK •r yn �. 2. Modest interior detailing, such as window and baseboard trim, and diagonally placed mantels contribute to the historic character of the 1894 townhouse and thus should have been preserved to the greatest extent possible. 84-054 i_l_iiiimimminoimmEiamiiiij .X15TiPJG $LOoa PLAN 3. A floor plan with side entrance and stair hall, and front parlor containing diagonally arranged partitions, chimney and mantel were identified as important in defining the historic character. - LII 110 III PROP05ED TL00R PLAN 4. Interior work involved demolition of existing partitions as well as relocation of the living area to the historic entrance and stair hall space (see illus. 3). The rearrangement of rooms led to removal of corner mantels, baseboards, and door and window trim (see illus. 2). Because the character-defining interior spaces, features, and materials were not sufficiently preserved, the entire project failed to meet the Standards, despite qualifying exterior work. 84-054 i �1 ....2.11?,- ; '1 ,•.: i :* 4 --• ., ,.... ,j,. . .... ,.., ,i - .,, re- T : 0._ „ye' • k 1 .• thii'e s., .' '';:kt . .•."--1,,Zr .. :— — j >r.`.^try _ I i .. • ttll" I} YIS r ` L i f 1IC it:. -.' , ,..— • IIS u : ;t:,• -, -i t i �� .. *' . mm. -7:.. .,..t i. "� om' ... ‘e, .• .. 5. An 1830 structure with its large 1910 wrap-around 6. A detail of the 1910 porch shows structural porch characterized by columns resting on brick piers, problems that need to be corrected. The owner a highly decorative central pediment and turned assessed the 1910 front porch as unrepairable, whic' ballusters. The porch was in a deteriorated, but still led to its removal. repairable, condition prior to rehabilitation work. i -- t� � t .t i •i 1. \11 if ,......„,,....;,..,..... "7::::,- ilk" - ---— 7. The replacement front porch—conjectural in design—was constructed after demolition of the historic porch. NPS concluded that because the 1910 porch was an important character-defining feature and was repairable, it should have been retained. The project was denied certification of rehabilitation for tax benefits. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. ( Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 84-055 Applicable Standards: 2. Preserving the Distinguishing Character of a Building (nonconformance) 3. Recognition of Historic Period (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: REPLACING HISTORIC M ATERIALS/FEATURES WITH NEW MATERIAL TO CREATE AN "IMPROVED" APPEARANCE Issue: As stated in 36 CFR 67.2 the treatment "rehabilitation" assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic building will need to take place in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy the materials and features—including their finishes—that are important in defining the building's historic character. In terms of specific project work, preservation of the building and its historic character is based on the assumption that (1) the historic materials and features and their unique craftsmanship are of primary importance and that (2), in consequence, they will be retained, protected, and repaired in the process of rehabilitation to the greatest extent possible, not removed and replaced with materials and features which appear to be historic, but which are— in fact—new. Sometimes an owner or developer will fail to identify character-defining materials or features in the planning stage and, in consequence, will remove or alter them so that the historic character of the building is compromised. More often, however, character-defining materials and features on the exterior or the interior are adequately identified but, in a mistaken effort to make the historic building look like new or to have an improved or uniform appearance, they are removed and replaced with new material. In other words, rather than retaining or repairing the historic material and features, an owner or developer will remove them—perhaps believing they are unrepairable or that repair costs are too high—then use new materials to create "historic appearing " features, or, alternatively, to create a contemporary look. In either case, the justification is often that the new product looks even better than the historic material and will be more visually appealing for re-use purposes. Such removal and replacement of historic materials will violate Standards 2, 3, and 6. A determination to remove and replace character-defining materials and features must be based on severe damage or deterioration, as determined by a structural engineer or other qualified professional. Then, even if well-defined circumstances exist justifying replacement of individual features for visual reasons—or a loadbearing wall for structural reasons—it is critical that so much new material is not introduced that a historic building becomes essentially new construction. 84-055 Application: A ca. 1870 stone Gothic Revival structure (see illus. 1) was being rehabilitated for re-use as an office building. A 1967 "modernization" of the building's facade for retail use had involved installation of a stucco false front on the upper level of the building. When the false front was subsequently removed as part of the new work, the owner found that the castellated stone at the top of the building had been removed; the historic decorative bands had been chipped away to permit installation of the stucco work; the window sills and jambs were damaged; and several holes had been bored into the stone to anchor the false front. Stone on the ground level of the building had been removed as the result of a 1950s installation of an aluminum and glass entry and merchandise and display area (see illus. 2 and 3). Based on his evaluation of the overall damages to the stone as a result of the combined alterations, the owner concluded that the entire facade was essentially beyond repair and that partial replacement of the historic material would not be possible without leaving a splotchy, uneven facade—an appearance he felt was unacceptable. The report specifically cited the unavailability of matching limestone, potential structural consequences of replacing only the damaged stone, and the high cost of repair over replacement. As a result of this assessment, the owners elected to demolish both damaged and intact historic limestone from the primary facade by cutting it back to a depth of 5 inches, then re-build the facade with an all new stone veneer in order to achieve an even, uniform appearance (see illus. 4). When the Part II application was reviewed by the State, concerns were expressed about the removal of what they assessed—as a result of a site inspection—to be a largely intact upper level that could have been repaired; and the subsequent demolition of the entire character-defining facade and reconstruction with all new material. Considered a precedent-setting project by the region, application materials were forwarded to the Associate Director, National Register Programs, for an opinion before a final decision was reached. In a memo to the regional office, the Associate Director stated: It is our understanding that there are no significant features or spaces on the interior and that the facade was the sole "character-defining" feature of the structure. Because so little significant historic material remained, it became all the more important to retain what had survived to the present. While the party and rear walls and floor systems remain intact, retention of these components does not constitute adequate preservation of the resource for Federal tax benefits. The integrity of the individual architectural features and spaces has been irretrievably lost, as a result of other changes over the years and, finally, as a result of this most recent rehabilitation. Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U. S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 84-055 i :�,,:'+ ..�':, `_!'' r A N A A ^ A < .. .siz -. ',rm...., :._ ........._____ f _ ,,_ _1,. .....,,,. .-7. .. 11: 17 1::--11:.1..4',:7.::--1Z'''-or:-i'l t:1,..::.", ,troltknn, --------;w" .-...-4..:::i;.....--: t!-Illar "..,_OEN + . . A • .4 li, \. I I[ <::. '/ • \'' '"' \ L DRUGS -, " 1 ...,. . : • . ..' •1',,..t•:---.•t:-.,_4 a4. I. lam. I '-^-:1 }_ .'i-: J r 1. This historic photograph shows the 1870s building 2. A 1967 storefront alteration involved installation of with intact limestone and distinguishing Gothic a stucco false front on the upper levels; stone at the Revival detailing. ground level had been removed as the result of the installation of an aluminum and glass entry in the 1950s. 84-055 , �1 • t : f 3 i mi;s.,7,1 V -ice • "_- - J~ , ' -t , .. JI`" a, �i .:.sis.r. r im\ ,I, ) -, . .. 1 _ 4 li i , r 7 _ FRANK `rias�••.II 4.41� ege _� +. a"„=Y ' ~f .i S fr , * - RGS 'S n..1 ,. _ f l �:=swi-.- s _ y i-4 Ate. • t. ;ri-- - v 3. When the 1967 storefront was removed, the owner 4. This photograph shows a totally reconstructed assessed overall damages to the upper and lower levels facade using all new material. NPS recommended and felt total replacement of the limestone facade was denial of the project for tax benefits because it was necessary to restore the historic appearance. determined that the damaged upper level could have been repaired. An unacceptable loss of historic material on a significant facade was specifically cited in the denial letter. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 84-056 Applicable Standards: 2. Preserving the distinguishing character of a building (conformance) 3. Recognition of Historic Period (conformance) 6. Repair/replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Features based on Historical Evidence (conformance) Subject: REPLACING SEVERELY DETERIORATED HISTORIC MATERIALS Issue: Although maximum retention of historic material is always the primary goal in rehabilitation projects, building features may be so severely deteriorated that replacement with new material is required, either for visual or for structural reasons— or both. Such replacement may be limited to several bricks, wood window sash, or brackets of a cornice; or may involve an entire loadbearing wall or walls. In the latter situation, when extensive replacement of historic material has been recommended by a structural engineer or other qualified professional—even if it is to be replaced with matching new material—it is important that so much new material is not introduced that a formerly historic building becomes essentially new construction. In this regard, replacing a structurally unsound wall on a side or rear elevation is usually less critical than replacing deteriorated features on a primary elevation; similarly, replacing extensively damaged interior material and features on upper floors may be less critical than removing and replacing significant material and features in highly visible first-floor spaces. It should be remembered, however, that even when features and material which are secondary in defining the character of the building are extensively replaced, the cumulative effect may involve such a high degree of loss that, in consequence, the project will violate Standards 2 and 3. When extensive loss of historic material occurs—even if severe deterioration or damage is present and seems to warrant extensive replacement—a project can be denied certification because the"historic resource" is no longer historic. Application: An 1860s rusticated ashlar brownstone commercial building, altered in 1880 with the addition of a flush ashlar brownstone facade on the west, was purchased for rehabilitation, for office use (see illus. 1). The building had been derelict and vandalized for several years—in addition to the total lack of maintenance—and, as a result, was severely damaged and deteriorated. Within the three exterior walls (south, west, and north), which consist of 14-inch thick loadbearing masonry of two wythes of brick faced with brownstone, the mortar was failing between the brick and the stone. The brownstone was spalling on both the north and south walls, with the condition much worse on the north (see illus. 2 and 3). The building had been painted in the past, possibly in an effort to stop water penetration. On the interior, the majority of the distinguishing architectural detailing had been removed as a result of deterioration, 84-056 vandalism, and inappropriate earlier work. A cast iron and marble stairway between the first and second floors and two cast-iron columns with ornate capitals on the first floor were still in place. The floor structure and flooring were intact, but damaged, and historic window trim and some sash remained. An initial structural assessment led to a proposal to rebuild the north and south walls. The structural engineer felt that the original construction technique—tying the interior brick to the facing brownstone with iron strap anchors—was inadequate. Further, the deficiency of the walls had been aggravated by water penetration into the cavity between the brick and the stone, which had caused the iron anchors to rust. The recommendation to rebuild both walls was based primarly on a few test holes bored in the walls for investigation of the condition of the materials, particularly the metal anchors; and on the fact that both walls were out-of-plumb by about two inches. However, because this proposal—along with planned interior alterations for modern office use—involved such a substantial loss of historic material, the National Park Service determined that if the project proceeded as proposed, the resulting building would be substantially new construction. Therefore, despite the seriously deteriorated condition of the materials, NPS found that the work, as proposed, would violate Standards 2, 3, and 6. Subsequently, two structural engineers sought ways to preserve more of the historic material. It was confirmed that the north and south walls were out-of-plumb. To ascertain the reason for the apparent structural problems, more holes were bored so that the condition of the walls could be thoroughly investigated. The findings were that the north wall had lost its loadbearing capacity because of the advanced deterioration of the stone, brick, and iron anchors; however, the engineers' solution was to rebuild the wall only from the second floor up rather than the entire wall as initially proposed. Since the materials were not salvageable, the replacement wall would be all new materials. Cast-stone over concrete block was selected as a compatible substitute material with the facing cast-stone to simulate the historic brownstone. The re-evaluation of the structural and preservation problems of the building led to the conclusion by the architect and engineer that the south wall could be retained in place with the use of stainless-steel pins tying cementitious patches to the sound brownstone beneath. The bulk of the patching would be at the beveled edges of the ashlar blocks where the worst erosion had occurred, leaving the majority of the historic material intact and visible. As opposed to the initial approach, this proposal was found to preserve considerably more historic material and was thus given preliminary approval; however, in approving the rehabilitation proposal for Federal tax incentives, the National Park Service expressed "serious concerns about the severe deterioration of the building." The certification letter further stated that the positive determination was based on the assessment "that the wooden floor and ceiling framing, the window trim on the exterior walls, and some window sash on the west wall...as well as the first floor columns and stair can be saved. It is possible that unforeseen problems, including additional loss of historic fabric, may jeopardize certification." During the rehabilitation, the building was sold. The new owner wanted to rebuild both the south wall (facing the main street) as well as the north wall (facing a side street) in order to avert the possibility of future structural problems and to achieve a 84-056 uniform appearance. When asked about amending the certification application to include this new work, the National Park Service referred to its earlier approval letter, stating that any further loss of historic material would result in denial of certification for the entire project. The owner consequently proceeded with the project as initially approved. Prepared by: Susan Dynes and Kay D. Weeks These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U. S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 84-056 - 1. This photograph of the west elevation shows the 1880 addition of flush ashlar brownstone above the rough-cut brownstone of the first floor. Because the historic brownstone on this wall was basically sound. t .!' -! - only repainting was required. 41114Ati: ./' 7.- "V" /' r 1: . :::: • • ,-,, --.... P . i ..... ; . r . $ • I i i :il - rr•' I � ( w s- • - , . JtV' .- - #;. - - 4 i :1 • a_,may ti a.. .% -_.: ' • •%. •'",•-.41-.- .. 1 )Giti: vet • . 2. The brownstone of the south wall was not as f .x 1 ' - -er."� . t •+safrOli . deteriorated and could be retained in place and i' - ' structurally strengthened by stainless steel pins , •� ^r ,.y _ tying cementitous patches to the sound stone .i, db 41.1) - beneath. Limiting the patching to the beveled ,,., - -•y f;� '1 edges of the stone blocks where the greatest �• ` 1 amount of deterioration had occurred was '� . 1 •k. Pi'UM ri considered a sensitive preservation solution r� ,�Y '. ;�,` : M because it left the historic material both intact a _-_4 { �g1• 3 and visible. r n `T rS _ i F� ! \i •.,. • "• _; 3. Badly spalling brownstone on the north, and less t .; a . �,.,. . _ visible, wall was for the most part unsalvageable. �; ��+ ;� Replacement walls were constructed from the second:' ^,� a I� story up, a solution that assured maximum retention of er A• .. .• ; �. historic material while making the building �'"''�'""m= . structurally sound for the new use. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number:84-057 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: INAPPROPRIATE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS Issue: A highly decorative window with an unusual shape, or glazing pattern, or color is most likely to be immediately identified as a character-defining feature of the historic building. It is far more difficult, however, to assess the importance of repeated windows on a facade, particularly if they are individually simple in design and material, such as the single light, double-hung sash commonly found in many vernacular late 19th and early 20th century buildings. Because rehabilitation projects frequently include proposals to upgrade or replace window sash or even replace entire windows, it is essential that both their contribution to the historic character and their physical condition be evaluated before specific repair or replacement work is undertaken. In the latter half of the 19th century, the use of standard size sheets of clear glass; the equal division of lights on both the top and bottom of double-hung windows; and the lack of muntins represented a window evolution that stemmed from an interaction of style changes and technological developments. In consequence, such simple double- hung (1/1) windows are often a distinguishing architectural feature of the building that should be identified, retained, and preserved in the process of upgrading or repairs within an overall rehabilitation project. A successful preservation solution, however, is contingent upon recognizing the design role of the windows in determining the historic character; then prescribing sensitive repair and upgrading techniques. If the historic windows are determined to be unrepairable, replacement windows need to be chosen with great care. Again, it is crucial that the role of the windows in determining the historic character be identified first--in other words, the relative importance of the size, shape, color, and detailing of the windows to the overall appearance of the building. After this initial assessment is made, various replacement units available from manufacturers can be evaluated to assure an acceptable replacement solution. Unfortunately, all too often an inappropriate approach is taken, that is, simple double-hung (1/1) windows are replaced with aluminum units without matching the trim detail, the width of the frames and sash, the location of the meeting rail, the reveal or setback of the window from the wall plane, the separate planes of the two sash, or the color or reflective qualities of the glass. In particular, the installation of inappropriately designed replacement windows in a relatively unornamented building can dramatically change the historic appearance of such a building and, as a result, violate Standards 2 and 6. 84-057 Application: A six-story residential/office building located in a historic district in a large northeastern city was recently rehabilitated. The work consisted of substantial alterations to the interior in its conversion to modern apartments; restoration of the front entrance; and the installation of replacement windows. Because there apparently were few remaining historic features on the interior, the historic character was primarly determined by its exterior—the materials, features, and finishes. For this reason, it was particularly important to preserve the historic appearance of the exterior to the maximum extent possible. Due to its prominent location at the end of a row of 19th century structures, this simple, but distinctively-detailed early 20th century building, had three highly visible facades. On each of these facades, the traditional equally-sized double-hung sash were important features, comprising almost half of the total wall area. Their windows' color, proportions, spacing, and frame details also helped to relate the building to the adjacent older properties (see illus. 1). Because the windows were determined by the owner to be unrepairable, they were removed and replacement units were selected and installed. The replacement windows had flat frames devoid of molding detail, a bronze-anodized finish, and a fixed upper and operable lower sash. Further, the location of the meeting rail was lowered—for ease of operation of the large sash--so that the lower sash was only 1/3 rather than 1/2 the size of the historic window (see illus. 2). The owner also chose tinted glass which she felt was justified in order to lessen the visual impact of an adjacent elevated highway. When the regional office reviewed the work, they determined it violated Standards 2 and 6. The denial letter stated: ...The historic windows, with clear planes in a 1/1 configuration contributed to the restrained character of the building. "Before" photographs show all of the 1/1 windows in place, and no documentation was provided with the Part 2 application to show that the exiting units could not have been repaired and retained. Had replacement proven necessary, the appropriate treatment would have been to use new units which matched the configuration, color, and other visual qualities of the historic windows. Instead, the replacement windows selected employ a lowered meeting rail (in a 2/3 to 1/3 configuration) and tinted glass. As a result, the replacement windows are incompatible with and detract from the historic character (see illus. 3). The owner appealed the region's decision on the basis that the replacement windows were necessary and the design did not detract from the historic character of the building. After careful consideration, the region's decision was sustained by the Chief Appeals Officer. In sustaining that decision, he added: Your major rehabilitation work on the facades of the building consisted of restoring the front entrance, and the window changes which are at issue. The lower floor with its different masonry treatment and decorative entrance certainly is more detailed than those above. Yet on the three intermediate floors- -which constitute the majority of the facade--the windows predominate, and they have now been changed through the 84-057 introduction of new metal frames and sash. Even on the top floor, the windows are an important feature even though the masonry has more decorative detail. You sought to justify the change in the appearance of the windows based on the desirability of tinted glass from an interior perspective and the wish for an easy-to-operate sash. While I would agree with you that the smaller sash may require less effort to operate, you could have found commercially available windows that would have matched the appearance of the historic sash, as required by Standard 6, and that would have been easy to operate. Prepared by : Charles E. Fisher and Kay D. Weeks, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. • , =jam'' 84-057 ' - # -- , ' .4 �. •- N-- r` r 'C uret -tt•; • t�/ y�e i r, _ ,. 1 "�t Ma 4y",4._ `Lom a, ` i e •....r3T �i , „of ow [�a .s ' �;" i '� may, 1! . 6016.. 1. .' ,, it ,, F U.--'? I I 1 Ili 11 • .0 1. This 20th century building served as a anchor at the end of the small historic district and had three highly visible facades. Note how the location, design, and even the color of the wooden sash and frames matched that of the adjacent older properties. ...3 1 V_I , ..,.•-ten- 11 - i 1: M _; �_ SIR If / T I 'f ` 1 ` ty yy'�, �T T ', • 2. This is a close-up view of the contemporary window units which were installed. They had flat framing detail, bronze-anodized finish, tinted glass, and a lowered meeting rail. 3. Below is a comparison view of "before" and "after" rehabilitation which 84-057 shows the impact of the window changes. While relocation of the meeting rail was the most pronounced alteration, the tinted glass, lack of trim around the frames, increased width of the anodized aluminum frames, and loss of other detail were cited in denial of the project for preservation tax benefits. t • loilri - fir,.�''"i sr L.11 . f.,. ASS yC i.� {2 Ir -p �•Y' l z s � - • +e I.' ma• .- r �x - t`- ' • � 1L ✓- - • �p ;•'c,,, ?. -" .a.', ,a,.,": t«' ">— 7� am ,, .y iii f 1 i-4-�/ yI. Af12111:1 _�'�"'1e k., . F.......,,,,..r..,:.:3. -____...,t., . .. _ -,...._.. ....„. „1.1...e.....,z_., __ _ .„,,I....4.._..,..„,c,„:::::7.,:,zz-.-..- tiM1 -`•� ..E pap T i . ,,,, ..Y 'laE' +.Y _ RN `y .4 z. •'''� i.ti 3 •eel.... ,'s",s€ ♦ .J t .7.y i s 1 , f t 4 Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service the Secretary of the Interior's U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 84-058 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: INAPPROPRIATE SIZE AND SCALE OF NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS: LOSS OF HISTORIC CHARACTER Issue: In the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation," the Department of the Interior acknowledges that a new exterior addition to a historic building (such as a fire stair, service wing, or additional story) may be essential to return the property to a state of utility for an efficient contemporary use; however, at the same time, the cumulative effect of the design and installation process of a new addition must not radically change, damage, destroy, or obscure those "portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, or cultural values." (36 CFR 67.2). Therefore, in evaluating the appropriateness of a new addition, it is critical that the important character-defining materials, form, features, and detailing of the historic building be properly identified so that they may be protected and preserved. This identification process will also make clear those "portions and features" of the historic property that are not important in defining the historic character and may thus be reasonably altered or added to in the course of rehabilitating for the new use. Because of the difficulty in designing sensitive new additions and to clarify what constitutes a compatible new addition, the NPS has expanded its guidance in this area (see pp. 56-57, "New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings" in the Revised Guidelines to the Standards for Rehabilitation (1983). The advice listed first in the guidelines is to avoid constructing a new exterior addition altogether because of the potential for altering and expanding the historic form and thereby diminishing the historic character. Rather, it is recommended that services and functions required by the new use be located in non-character-defining interior spaces. Only after it is determined that interior spaces cannot be utilized, should a new exterior addition be considered at all. Then, the new addition should be designed so that its size and scale are limited in proportion in relationship to the historic building--and located on an inconspicuous side of a historic building to further assure that there will be no radical changes to the historic form and appearance. The failure to recognize those qualities that comprise a building's historic character (its materials, form, features, and detailing as well as relationship to the site and the district) prior to designing and attaching a new exterior addition can result in overall changes that are inconsistent with the historic character. In consequence, Standard 2, 5, or 9 may be violated, thus jeopardizing project certification. 84-058 Application: A small late 1920s Mission Revival building of brick construction with stucco finish is primarily distinguished on the main facade by a waved parapet cap and symmetrically placed openings (see illus. 1). In rehabilitating the building for use as law offices, interior and exterior work was undertaken, including replacement of damaged plastered walls, re-stuccoing of the brick, cleaning and painting of windows, and the construction of two new exterior additions. The first new addition consisted of enclosing existing stairs at one end of the facade for the clients' main entrance, as well as serving as handicapped access to a ground floor elevator. The second new addition was a non-functional matching wing wall at the other end of the facade which the developer felt would preserve the sense of symmetry which was so strong in the historic building (see illus. 2 and 3). After reviewing the Part II application, the State office recommended denial of the project, citing violation of Standards 5 and 9; the regional office, completing its review, concurred with the State's assessment. In a denial letter to the owner, the regional office stated: The new additions, consisting of the exterior stairs enclosure at one end of the facade and the wing wall at the other end, increase the length of the facade by at least one-third, thereby altering significantly its overall mass, scale, and proportional relationships. Further, these additions extend and expand on the symmetrical historic design of the facade in a way that lends to it a degree of expansiveness...not present in the simple design character of the structure's original design features. It is apparent that the attempt to match the color, texture, and detail of the original design and to continue its symmetry by extending the facade wall was motivated by a desire to preserve the historic character of the building. In effect, however, this matching new design is incompatible: it compounds the additions' negative visual impacts on the original design by making contemporary and historic portions of the building indistinguishable from one another. When the project was subsequently appealed, the Chief Appeals Officer sustained the regional office's decision that the new additions violated Standards 5 and 9, adding that "they also give the building a monumentality that, historically, it never possessed, thus changing its historic character." In consequence, the project also failed to conform to Standard 2. As part of the appeals process, the architect forwarded three drawings (schemes A, B, and C; see illus. 4, 5, and 6) for possible changes to the new additions to bring the project into conformance with the Standards and thus qualify for Federal historic preservation tax incentives. After reviewing all of the drawings, the Chief Ap- peals Officer concluded in his final letter to the owner: The only remedial action that can now be taken...would be to follow scheme "C": insert a wide expansion joint between the historic building facade and the new stair enclosure, demolish the new wing wall, lower the parapet on the stair tower by at least one foot, and paint the new addition a different color than the original facade. These actions would make the distinction between the old 84-058 and new construction clear; and would restore to the buildng its aspect of a modest, simplified Spanish Colonial Revival commercial structure. Demolition of the wing wall would allow one to view the continuous wavy cornice as it carries around the corner. If the final revised project fails to meet any of the above conditions, it will not meet the Standards and cannot be certified. Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U. S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 84-058 p' -_-,-------,----,-,________,.. --......... " —�' . J 1 1.1- 1 t....f. , /17. 1 t Ns 1. This drawing points out the historic form of a small-scale Spanish Colonial Revival building with a waved parapet cap and symmetrical window and door openings. 84-058 6AUNOYI�Z .ewe.- t st*S II 1 3k .11 n 11- 2. This view of the southeast corner of the primary elevation shows the new addition that enclosed an existing stair. The addition extends from the termination of the historic building, which is defined by the waved parapet cap. i 1 4�. iiNI I o MEI A, y - 3. This view of the northeast corner of the primary elevation shows the added wing wall that was built to visually balance the new addition on the southeast corner. Again, the addition extends from the end of the historic building, as defined by the waved parapet cap. Both additions increased the total length of the historic building by one-third and made indistinguishable what was historic and what was new construction. 4 Ekto. egi64.i" r- FE d T �� i� i M ,. MB MIS mow ts 0 ,a �1 i E lUI 4. Scheme "A" was proposed by the developer to make the project meet the Standards. This change in the design would simply have provided expansion joints to show the difference between the historic buildng and the new additions. The proposal was rejected. f g Eg _. 'Ll .' il t-1 I -� rr.� :fffli LI in ____ ___. __II I 5. Scheme "B" was also offered by the developer as a means of making the project meet the Standards. Part of this design change was acceptable--the lowered parapet on the stair enclosure. The total scheme was rejected, however, because the nonfunctional northeast wing wall, even though differentiated in height, still unnecessarily expanded the historic form of the building. It also created a symmetry at a scale that never existed historically. '_ f r_:- ff.' . ,___\_± p ..... .-. VH n i 2 . - -7c--- ( . ' .l • 4 . _.í i Ir .I _ tl ;I 6. Scheme "C" represents those changes to the design that would have to be made to bring the project into conformance with the Standards. The Chief Appeals Officer specifically listed as requirements for certification a widened expansion joint; demolition of the northeast corner wing wall; lowering the parapet on the stair tower; and further distinguishing the new addition from the historic facade by use of a different paint color. Technical n Assistance Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division U.S. DelService. the Secretary of the Interior's U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 84-059 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: REPLACING A SIGNIFICANT INTERIOR FEATURE TO MEET HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE REQUIREMENTS Issue: To comply with health and safety codes in rehabilitation projects, the Revised Guidelines to the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation" first recommendation to owners and developers is to work with local code officials to investigate variances available under some codes or to devise creative and safe alternatives so that alterations and additions to historic buildings can be avoided completely, if possible. Because such variances or alternatives may not always be feasible, owners and developers are next advised to identify significant spaces, features, and finishes, so that they can be preserved in the process of successfully meeting code requirements (such as providing barrier-free access, upgrading historic stairways or elevators, or installing fire suppression systems). While it is understood that owners must often undertake work necessary to meet health and safety code, the Department of the Interior--by law—cannot approve rehabilitation projects if significant interior spaces, features, or finishes are lost as a result of such code-required work and, in consequence, the rehabilitation is not consistent with the historic character of the building. In reviewing an overall project, it is thus critical that administrators evaluate work proposals to assure that significant interior features are properly identified so that they may be protected and preserved in the process of meeting health and safety code requirements. Where a conflict exists between code requirements and the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation", it should be noted that "...The Secretary of the Interior's Standards take precedence over other regulations and codes in determining whether the historic character of the building is preserved in the process of rehabilitation and should be certified." 36 CFR 67.7(d). Application: An early 20th century commercial building was being rehabilitated for use as medical offices (see illus. 1) As the result of an inspection by a structural engineer to assure compliance with State health and safety codes, proposed rehabilitation work involved removal of a historic ornamental iron cage-type elevator that was manually operated (see illus. 2) and replacement with a modern elevator (see illus. 3) featuring automatic pushbutton operation. (The ANSI building code specifically requires an enclosed cab and hollow metal shaft doors.) Additional proposed work included removal of the ground floor elevator doors; removal of one set of the existing west-side elevator doors on floors #3 through #7; and the subsequent blocking of access to the elevator on that side due to limited passenger use after rehabilitation (see illus. 4 and 5). 84-059 When the project was initially reviewed by the S.H.P.O, recommendation for certification was made because it was felt that loss of the elevator--although unfortunate—did not constitute a radical change to the building's interior. However, when the National Park Service evaluated the proposed work that principally involved removal of the historic elevator and replacement with a modern elevator to meet code, a final determination was made that such removal of a significant interior feature violated Standards 2, 5, and 6. The denial letter to the owner stated: The elevator with its highly elaborate iron grillwork and the decoratively molded elevator doors in the lobby is a significant historic feature which contributes to the historic character of this early twentieth century commercial building. The features of the elevator, particularly the decorative cab and the lobby doors are historically significant elements which should be preserved. Your rehabilitation...will lead to the loss of a significant feature of the building, in violation of the Standards for Rehabilitation, and the rehabilitation will not be consistent with the historic character of the building. For purposes of the historic preservation tax incentives, the Standards for Rehabilitation take precedence over other regulations and codes in determining whether the historic character of the building is preserved in the process of rehabilitation and should be certified (36 CFR 67.7(d). The denial was subsequently appealed and, in spite of the owner's referral to ANSI codes requiring enclosure of the elevator, the NPS decision was sustained by the Chief Appeals Officer, who reiterated in the letter to the owner, "...since a rehabilitation must preserve the historic character of a property to be certified, I have determined that this project is not consistent with the historic character of the building and does not meet the "Standards for Rehabilitation." In the same letter—in order to achieve a certifiable project—the owner was encouraged to pursue alternative means of preserving the elevator by enclosing the cab itself with fire-rated glass or by constructing a fire-rated enclosure for the elevator shaft. Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U. S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 84-059 .N.1.141\\ �.. , i i �st. .. ,. -, . ,,,, ,5 A VII - $ __, . y ,, gggt ,-,, lb ,ii ow 011 I. i . . i- . I r *l ~ '� • -,,, 2 ems a all' : re ow I / 1 7 : a��' it " R t�i i_j_,Li# . i■ L _ _. .5. gE, , ANV — I y r, ,�. lIG B � I a pis ,, JI -,p.. -_'` • i�Isig S.1Pharmacgi ' .:, r, ::i'vc:‘.�i ^.1-` i. lac . 1 `' Cat `` ..O ��`� t� I� U •t 1. Rehabilitation project work on an early 20th century building focused upon meeting health and safety code requirements for the new use. 84-059 F . ^ - i `. _ =,�. ; __ -.;.7:1-i-..i...'may .`y';....` \ \\y r N" 42 ). •...1. `--^'a '; �:'� • 2. This shows a detail of the open dome, /lf -t.' .....tr.. ..„,,..:.,.....n-�- '•a'"s'i ',k�\r_.o) f manually-operated elevator with its highly 1 . 1 .; ..;w; F. . , T ., : . decorative iron grill work. Because an _ ; • enclosed cab was required by State law, the f r s: historic elevator was found to be in violation f . �._, �i;, __ 4;" k of ANSI building code standards. The '_ �` .jt4 �� `� consulting engineer thus recommended its fa F t I, t: P.E4}'' � i? removal and replacement with a modern e.Et,I; t,t. - ., 4 elevator. Two =g r , 4it 1 'All ....-1•1:....\ 't 1 • i 3. The replacement cab featured an enclosed cab and hollow metal shaft doors, in accordance with health and safety codes. • Removal of the 1916 elevator eventually led 1 . to project denial because the historic elevator was deemed a significant interior feature and, thus, its retention and preservation were necessary to meet minimum preservation requirements. • f • • • I 84-059 ,ti • 1 --r� .• R i � ', _. 1 i' ,' ! -.fir ..+.'r ! :, ..-_-,4:0 :,-...:46-.:(4,04-..;*.4 ''. ..', • - ' 1 • . . . :, ! . .,.--.:„,..-:,-2.2,-,;:..(.1-it i p-ilif- : i:111..x.i. ! ,,liff,• • (4011 • 4'4 it,:-,......„: . . . , . ,.., . . i ! 1'"'":-.i 11 l' O g.- r: ' ' :: .: ' -,-..=t.-:- !!'.-''. . . ':-.:i . #::!..'--- _ f TT Cam• .r. r ;.¢ -.- I. x.,j • i A • X: It �; �: •ty ,� `TJ o;. t,.�~` ter' • r I . t.:, a : :, ,,,. ... ,,,,,,... : . , ,-,.. ,..,_ , . . r--. 4 and 5. The decoratively detailed elevator doors in the lobby (left) were to be removed as part of the code-required elevator replacement as well as the simpler, panelled doors on floors 3-7 on the west side (right). Technical Preservation Services tion Assistance v Pres Interpreting Preservation Division National ParkService. U.S. Department of Ithe Secretary of the Interior's U.S. fthe interior Washington, D.C. rStandards tor Rehabilitation Number: 84-060 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Design for New Additions (nonconformance) Subject: ROOFTOP ADDITIONS TO SMALL SCALE BUILDINGS Issue: Rooftop additions are sometimes seen as a way of increasing the usable floor area of historic buildings located in urban areas. When this type of new addition is being considered, it must be designed in such a way that it is as inconspicuous as possible when viewed from the street. Keeping a new rooftop addition inconspicuous may be difficult on a small building of only two or three stories. Even if the new addition is set back from the plane of the facade and screened with an existing roof parapet, it is difficult to minimize the visual impact of an entire new floor on a relatively low building. On buildings with a relatively small existing floor plan, the recommended setback may not permit the creation of sufficient new space. This need to gain valuable floor space has often led to the practice of bringing the rooftop addition out flush with the historic facade. The National Park Service recognizes that some alterations and additions may be necessary to adapt the historic building to an efficient contemporary use. If a new rooftop addition to a small scale building, however, radically changes the historic appearance of the building so that the historic character is lost, the project will violate Standards 2 and 9. Application: A deteriorated three-story commercial building in a National Register Historic District noted for late 19th century commercial buildings was rehabilitated into mixed retail/residential use. Prominently located on a corner site flanked by two-story structures, the building was built in 1884 as a two-story brick commercial structure. In the 1890s a one-story addition was placed on the roof of the building flush with the exterior walls, the exterior was stuccoed and a bracketed cornice was added. Numerous other buildings within the historic district received similar additional floors as the commercial district prospered during the first three decades of the 20th century. These additions were flush with the facades and ornamented with brackets and other victorian motifs popular in the district. The building was severely deteriorated, had lost its ornamental projecting cornice in the mid-twentieth century, and had suffered serious fire damage on the third floor prior to the rehabilitation (see illus. 1). The overall rehabilitation project included a one and a half story addition to add eight loft bedroom apartment units over the retail and office space (see illus. 2). 84-060 As the building was relatively small ( 45')(65') and as a previous addition had been flush with the exterior, the new addition was designed to continue the vertical expansion of the building flush with the existing facades in order to maximize new floor space (see illus. 2). To further blend the addition into the historic district, the owner determined that a cornice using brackets similar to the lost cornice should be installed on the new parapet. The spacing of the brackets, however, was modified to accommodate small modern windows. Dates were added to the facade to differentiate the two major periods of construction, 1890 and 1980 (see illus. 3). The owner submitted his request for certification after the rehabilitation was complete. The state recommended certification of the rehabilitation because it was consistent with the historic character of the district. The regional office denied certification because the addition was not consistent with the historic character of the building itself. Prior to the addition, the building had a simple horizontal character. After the height of the building had been increased by almost one-third, the new vertical emphasis gave the building an appearance that it never had historically. Furthermore, the historicizing of the details of the addition, including the jack-arch windows, corbelled beltcourse, pilasters, brackets and wrought iron cresting, eliminated any visual distinction between the new addition and the historic building. The use of datestones as a device was not sufficient distinction to clarify the periods of construction nor to preserve the historic character of the building. The owner appealed the decision, stating that the addition was contemporary in design and that it "did not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural materials and is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, and environment." The Chief Appeals Officer sustained the denial of certification, supporting the regional office's determination that the size and location of the addition were responsible for "altering significantly its (the building's) overall mass, scale, and proportional relationships." While the imitative nature of the design of the addition had confused the historic character of the building by giving the building an appearance it never had, even if the design had been purely modern in execution, the project could not have been certified as meeting the "Standards." He concluded that while the building still contributed in a general way to the overall historic character of the District, that the rehabilitation of the building was not consistent with the historic character of the individual resource as a result of the rooftop addition and therefore, could not be certified. Prepared by: Sharon C. Park, AIA, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 84-060 ei 4jI11i : . it , . I GARDEN ,. xE ,'` & PET STORE - g 4T i.,4 !I ...i .,.,2 bi ', i .` d iE�+ )tea• IL- llfllUflems _. GOSPEL niiSSIOn, InUU57R%E5 �"; -- • •. „., ,-..i ..*4-,11,-- . — : .1.- --.: C.; ' — — 44: 1 ' - 14 �: _ _ - �' , ••' d . 1-1 1. The building prior to rehabilitation was a three-story structure prominently located on a corner site in a National Register district noted for late 19th century commercial structures. Originally built in 1884 as a two-story brick building, a third floor was added in 1890, the building was stuccoed and an elaborate projecting cornice was applied. The cornice was lost in the mid-twentieth century and the building suffered a serious fire on the third floor prior to the rehabilitation. 84-060 2. The historic building received a one ;• , . and a half story addition to accommodate '. eight loft bedroom apartments over the . ' •,': i retail and office space. Note the change �, , in scale and the dramatic vertical emphasis - as a result of the new rooftop addition. As the overall mass, scale andproportional 10 relationships of the buildingwere si nif i - _- # cantly altered, the project was denied ki.p t..�_ � t % asf f/KaM •certification. . ,; ' , 7 : . : a ter• i.R. :5 1 1.1 r-t S.µ "'BTI--� -3Z! 'i e i - ' 1, t. il'r'k '-Eft,,.• +at •'t-' cx -tr: ''ap,: b r ai � ..% 1980 -, .ss.? ,z Pd R U li g H_�ea.11 AM 11----..U L.-.some IL_—._H._ ___fJ um L 11�_ll-� N . ■ _ r ._ r ra-- i'..t, .*4^-' an rii, ,. - . , ,,..., : .. .$,.-$_„ ett . , ' -_ 1 8 9 0 j,', .r • ` y ,,. �+:4lrsu,...."-. •.sc-a. ,a.,a.'e 8 awaw... . - N.aa j c-: • ,. '�' , ' [ I r....j •* �_. �< .. 3. The new rooftop addition is not differentiated from the historic resource except by the use of applied dates. The addition is flush with the exterior walls and has adopted historicized features including wrought iron cresting, bracketed cornice, jack-arch windows, pilasters and beitcourses. In this case, however, the addition so altered the scale and massing of the building, that even if the addition had been contemporary in design, it could not have been certified. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 84-061 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 3. Recognition of Historic Period (nonconformance) 4. Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: ALTERATIONS TO NON-ORIGINAL 20TH CENTURY STOREFRONTS Issue: Storefronts on many 19th and early 20th century buildings were changed in the 1920s and 1930s, incorporating new materials and designs popular at that time and introducing trademarks of the increasing number of commercial chains. Some of these later storefronts today have no intrinsic value while others merit preservation as part of the historic structure. As guidance in evaluating non-original storefronts, those that meet one or more of the following categories usually are worthy of retention: 1. Exhibit high quality workmanship; 2. Show evidence of being architect-designed; 3. Incorporate materials not commonly used today but are characteristic of a particular period (e.g., curved glass, Carrara glass, bronze frames); 4. Are representative of a particular architectural style; 5. Are compatible with the rest of the building in terms of design and scale and date to a historically significant period of the building and/or district. Application: A two-story commercial building located in a historic district in the Southwest was operated until recently as part of the S. H. Kress Company store chain (see illus. 1). While the building dates to the early teens, the storefront had been altered in the late 1930s, incorporating a distinctive design which was a trademark of many Kress Company buildings. The band of transom windows recessed entries, metal framing and large glass display windows sections created the visual image characteristic of, and historically associated with, the Kress Company chain and its buildings constructed or renovated in the 1920s and 1930s (see illus. 2 and 3). Thus, while the 50-year age criteria of the National Register was minimally met, greater significance was attached to the storefront because it was part of the nationwide Kress Company effort in storefront design. While the new owners of the building originally had intended to maintain the existing storefront, breakage of one of the 84-061 large curved glass sections posed an unforseen rehabilitation problem since such glass was not readily available locally in the required safety glass. With the overall rehabilitation progressing quickly, the decision was made to replace the entire storefront with a composite design referencing features from other buildings in the historic district (see illus. 4). Regretfully, little physical or pictorial evidence of the original appearance of the building had survived. The completed rehabilitation was denied certification and the decision sustained on appeal primarily because of the loss of the intact 1930s storefront (Standard 4), but also because the new storefront was a conjectural historic design and contained inappropriate detailing (Standards 2,3, and 6). Regarding the problem of availability of materials--curved glass sections-cost was not the major factor but rather time. Given time, companies could have been located which make such custom shapes in safety glass. Unfortunately, expediency and perhaps only mild appreciation of the historic importance of the 1930s storefront did not facilitate the careful investigation of such alternatives. Prepared by: Charles E. Fisher, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. — ‘,..cf., „..... pow .., ... ._ y. . ,,,,, 74,-., " .tit s kE„b;*t."-_----..-_FI,i...:.4it-3.:.-,.,4-...;4-1,-1;.L.-•1-."7„----:.,r.ie--z'r,=.--.1....-I1ie l f -—_t,r z-C.- 1,s'' '-''11. 0w.-. ,. ., . ... .. t s :ry Fp 33: f-y�` _ - 1.. 7 R g.4 Y t t. fi t s -'n, t :Pi 1.1 I1_ s � err "hiii1k, ,. . II t • r ,• � . a 1 3' i 13 1....4*- �.«l+'iMIftttl si73T?3%t1y� 1+ #fUtfBl4tlMiiiltlw+t" f - '' Q .`•� ' f 9 t�..V, • a— _1 ilia - ,, ,y:. 4 ^ -'� : Iz 4 �*- _ „', 1 — ��4•` ,! ..,;d. _ �I - — ;' :4 c ..- 1,..:.- ar e ;. 1. Prior to rehabilitation, the 1930s Kress 2. Very little change to the 1930s storefrr Company storefront had survived in place with had occurred prior to rehabilitation as evi_ nice curved entrances although the transoms by this historic photograph. had been covered over. tit R�1 �.. , '� • t .,.., 84-061 .4,7 :,....,.. ! , 1..4: 7 -17,'','•••f,,,:tk:: i ?,, - '':. ' . -. a a : - 'c !} E • yam• at ... ti/ '- .:: :-!....". a ,y { 1pp�t xF Lt✓ E° ;4 :3 3 : f ti - ,yy.��, lb. ..+•....erg' oa'�.:El `"' } 3. The entire storefront was replaced following breakage, during rehabilitation of one of the curved sheets of glass. Expediency and difficulty in locating a manufacturers of curved glass were cited by the owner as reasons for the change. 1. � fi- e rr ;;;;• �— r- -.I ', ,....4,.... .......;, ~ � . lc: • r i ...11_,_ :......: • ,_____.:_l___:-'' .. .,,..„=„4.,_ .,______ . ..._ ____..,..,..,__.7.— --oc-,., r — _` # d r ...vIi y..t •LC. l4. CAS w0- r 1 t 4. • '''.. - 4 ,1- i ill 4 i i . IR.. .,. ,, . . ....._ rr , . , .., . , _ I _ --, .,,,, - , , ., • . .,. . . ..,......, . _ , .... .;,„.., , _. -_, 1 . 4. View of storefront after rehabilitation showing conjectural appearance of the original storefront — note inappropriate detailing of the transoms and small size of the doors. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Paris Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation • Number: 84-062 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance) 4. Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions (conformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (conformance) Subject: REPLACING ALTERED FEATURES OF A HISTORIC STOREFRONT: COMPATIBLE CONTEMPORARY DESIGN Issue: Standards 2, 4, and 5 call for the retention of distinctive architectural features--whether original or changes that reflect the history and development of the building or the craftsmanship of its builders—and Standard 6 states that such distinctive features should be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. However, there may be cases where, over time, there has been a cumulative loss of historic material comprising these features and introduction of new material that neither exhibits a distinctive style nor special craftsmanship. (Examples of material loss may include decorative portions of a building such as a storefront cornice; more functional portions, such as its display windows, entrance doors, metal kick plates, or transoms; larger portions that combine structural and design roles within the overall storefront such as masonry, wood, or cast-iron pilasters between bays; or even the individual storefront bays themselves.) If individual features of a storefront have been altered and the alterations are not "changes that have acquired significance in their own right," then the preservation and repair requirements of Standard 6 do not apply. In these cases, the nonsignificant later features may be removed and compatible replacement features designed and installed as long as the new work preserves any remaining historic material, the storefront character is preserved, and the overall rehabilitation is consistent with the historic character of the building. The option of replacing features, such as storefront doors or windows would, however, never extend to later, distinctive features that help define the storefront character. In summary, it is cautioned that a thorough professional evaluation be made prior to removal to ascertain both the significance of individual storefront features as well as their potential for repair. Demolition of distinctive architectural features and craftsmanship can be the basis for denying an entire rehabilitation project. Application A 6-story brownstone and terra-cotta structure built in the 1890s and located in a historic district in a southeastern city was being rehabilitated for retail and office use. Proposed exterior work included removal of nonoriginal 20th century storefront inf ill features—transoms, double doors, glass display windows, and concrete block kick panels (see illus. 1, 2). A contemporary replacement storefront would then be installed within the original cast-iron columns, pilasters, and framing, thus retaining the three-bay division of the historic storefront. The owner's primary reason 84-062 for removing much of the later storefront--those nonoriginal portions--was to integrate an additional code-required fire exit into an overall design scheme that he felt would successfully reflect the building's new use as an art gallery. In its initial review, the SHPO recommended approval of the project work, but expressed concern over whether or not the 20th storefront infill features had acquired significance over time. In the regional review, the project was denied certification. In a letter to the owner, the reasons for denial were explained: We have reviewed your proposal to replace the existing storefront with a new entrance of contemporary design that would meet the code requirement of providing a second fire exit. Though not original to the building, the storefront appears to be of sufficient age and design quality to have gained significance in its own right; we feel that its removal would violate Standards 4 and 5. Although we recognize the need to install a fire exit through one of the side display windows, alternative methods were suggested to the architect by this office that would avoid damaging the significant portions of the storefront (i.e., the gridded transom windows and double doors) and which would not require replacement of the entire storefront...In the absence of documentation demonstrating that the existing storefront is not significant in terms of its age, period, style, materials, or condition, we cannot approve its removal for the purpose of installing a modern entrance to the building. Because the owner felt that the existing storefront needed to be altered to accommodate code; that the altered portions were not important historically; and that the contemporary storefront met Standard 9, the region's decision was appealed. Prior to appeal, the SHPO offered a final recommendation on the storefront replacement issue in a letter to the Chief Appeals Officer, supporting the owner's contention that new evidence seemed to indicate that most of the later alterations to the storefront had post- dated the 1930s: In our initial review of the project, much discussion occurred concerning the significance of the existing storefront. While the existing storefront, which is obviously not original, is of nice design, it is not of sufficient quality to say that the storefront has acquired special significance in its own right or that it is important to retain the storefront to show the evolution of the building through history. In addition, I have personally inspected the building and believe that the storefront is not representative of any particular stylistic period and is not an example of skilled craftsmanship or a good example of design and use of material. On appeal, the regional decision was overturned and the project subsequently certified for preservation tax benefits. In a final letter to the owner, the Chief Appeals Officer stated: After carefully considering information submitted by your architect concerning the construction detail and dating of the existing storefront and comments provided by the State Historic Preservation Officer, I have determined that the proposed project meets the Secretary's Standards. I share, however, some of the concerns of the regional office regarding proposed storefront design. While I have concluded that the existing storefront has not acquired special significance over time nor exhibits significant stylistic features or craftsmanship, I would encourage you to consider a contemporary design that provides greater visual distinction between the transom and the display windows. I would also encourage you to revise your design to provide for solid base panels beneath the windows and doors. These alterations would, I feel, be more in keeping with the historic character of the building and district yet would clearly "read" as new construction. After removal of the altered, nonhistoric portions of the storefront, the compatible new inf ill was installed, thus retaining and preserving those original portions identified as historically significant (see illus. 3,4). Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks and Charles E. Fisher, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 11.11"".— IT• . • 7 —� r r I, ! N Va. 1 ,.„...4.4.- .., . ' " IdOMiniUms ill, • foR siktr 2: , u.i. . , , , ,, a 4 rir'Ma .., F.....ww.410.""."."N . a, , , , t 7 rr , , i I •- -- , .� d- -.._� , , ELM & HELMf Zo.6. I, ,: � 4 t� =°. Realtors 4911203ow ; NE ~ .1,A r •r •!iJ L. ` .•�1,. 'd'i`i ? 'p� �' —La t t w::.,..•,�1::r•-•-• _ •� ;IL ' .._— q.� FI r 1+IL'� a . -.. '',11 ,„., L , !_v,- .. •i �t . i.''''—i * a •.--° Ate Z. • • s ,�_ 17.• e i ( 1 . '1,u�rr ,s FOR I E ti . �,(. .. ,ah ,.a 4 :r� •. ' w: 1�11 :pi .%� '11k"+'Y gr►sr...n.KY � 4 :.C*�' r_'aw # „�h.7:: , ,,Jr-i1Gaw t. 1. Overall view of the 1890s building and ca. 2. The owner removed the nonoriginal elements of the storefront, including plain 1930-1940 alterations to the original concrete block kick panels beneath the display windows, standard non-decorative storefront. While the twentieth century woodwork and glazing in the transoms and display window sash, and the unadorned storefront alterations were considered to be of double doors. Although the proposal was denied by the region, it was ultimately "nice design," they were not significant overturned on appeal. The Chief Appeals Officer concluded that the later storefront stylistically or in material and craftsmanship. elements did not display any special significance, and could thus be removed. The original portions of the storefront--the distinctive cast-iron columns, pilasters, and cornice--were retained, preserved, and integrated into a compatible, contemporary storefront design. III "Ift,., 111. 1? kitli: 1` hi. N' , it :1',.`ii.7›:.,,,,,„...1%,..iAm,i 'l,„ �.w�, S tl r .5 P __, ,... :,.,, , „, /re4-n--.''..`,\,‘, 1111• •• -,. 44. A t . . . I , 'A.,&... l'ff. ') 1 '..°"*.fl. 1 l': r'' r X. . 'i ..,_ ... ''A A.•,, - t:‘,N.' 'i 4 , 1 i i, 0 aa> • 1 1 Y i:; ii .,„..,,_ : ,. 'ilf41:.t.--:'-.. ..ottLj : 4 r".1- .7:-'4!°`-, ?:-,1*'..1.41,4:4--:a—‘Lit''14- _.! : I; I I a. . �J S � r K•TIIUKKM Y�♦\A•O.lt..♦ . } ZOO, ��x ' •,M{.�g.• y - NN' A.;4:1"-iN,' c - r ..il i . 1 - ' \ i 4 44 iNi.'' i . > A !.fir_.;_' .'• . . ! • •.4.,.r;'•.ai 3 and 4. Overall and detail views, after installation of the compatible new storefront features. Note the 1930s-1940s features have been replaced, while the new design successfully retains the 3-bay division defined by the decorative cast-iron columns and cornice. The original cast-iron storefront elements have been painted dark brown as well as upper level window trim and cornice. 00 1 0 m N Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Paris Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 84-063 Applicable Standard: 7. Cleaning with Gentlest Method Possible (nonconformance) Subject: INAPPROPRIATE CHEMICAL CLEANING OF HISTORIC MASONRY BUILDINGS Standard 7 of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation states that "the surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken." While "the gentlest means possible" is usually interpreted to mean chemical cleaning, water, or water with the addition of detergents, it is important to realize that these methods too, can be damaging to historic building fabric. Cleaning techniques involving water or chemicals are not infallible, and must always be tested. If carried out improperly-- for instance, if the chemical mixture is too strong, if chemicals are not adequately rinsed out of the masonry, if wet cleaning methods are undertaken during cold weather or if there is still a possibility of freezing temperatures -- such cleaning methods can physically abrade or otherwise visually damage historic masonry. In short, chemical cleaning may not be "the gentlest means possible." Historic masonry buildings ( and brick buildings in particular) which have been chemically cleaned in a way that has resulted in damage to the visual or aesthetic qualities of the masonry, may be denied certification for tax benefits. Application No. 1: A 1912 bank and office building constructed of brick with stone and terra cotta trim was rehabilitated for contemporary office use after being vacant for several years (see illus. 1). Located at a major downtown intersection, this nine story building is a prominent and highly visible landmark throughout the city, towering as it does above the more modestly scaled two to three story neighboring buildings. The proposed project which was given preliminary approval by the National Park Service, and was carried out in 1982, included refurbishing of office suites on the interior, chemical cleaning of the exterior masonry, and replacement of the later 1940's storefront infill with more appropriately scaled window glass. When the completed project was submitted to the National Park Service for final review, however, it was denied certification on the basis of the cleaning techniques which had resulted in "severe discoloration and splotching of the brick surfaces" (see illus. 2). The region's denial letter went on to say: "The brick was apparently cleaned with an inappropriate chemical cleaner which was not adequately tested before its use, contrary to the recommendations contained in the Secretary's Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Although the physical damage to the brick was not documented, the region felt that the visual change to the brick surface was sufficient to deny the project, citing violation of Standards 7 and 2. 84-063 When the owner appealed the denial he explained that the exterior of the building had actually been cleaned and treated with a water repellent two times. Unsatisfied with the result after the first chemical cleaning, the owner required the cleaning contractor to reclean the building in what turned out to be a futile attempt to improve the appearance of the brick. During the appeal, the owner was unable to identify the type of chemicals or the methods used in the cleaning, nor did he provide any close-up photographs of the discolored brick. Consequently, it remained unknown whether the chemical cleaning had also caused physical damage to the brick. After careful review of the project, the Chief Appeals Officer sustained the region's decision, stating that: "I concur with the regional office's finding that this treatment (cleaning of the exterior brickwork) 'has so altered the appearance of the building as to detract from its historic character.' Standard 7 permits only the gentlest means of surface cleaning... Close-up photographs showing the conditions of the brick before and after this process (the second cleaning) were not submitted, nor were technical details of the cleaning methods and substances made available. Nevertheless, it is convincingly evident from the extent and degree of the persistent discoloration that the brickwork was subjected to unacceptably harsh cleaning. Accordingly, I find a violation of Standard 7." Application No. 2: In a second case, a mid-nineteenth century brick rowhouse was rehabilitated for rental residential use (see illus. 3). A major aspect of the rehabilitation of the exterior was the removal of paint covering the brick facade. The project application stated that the building was to be chemically cleaned, generally an acceptable paint removal technique in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation," and the proposal was given preliminary approval by the National Park Service. However, when the request for final certification was submitted, photographs showed that the "cleaned" brick appeared to have been damaged by the cleaning method (see illus. 4). When questioned, the owner revealed that the paint had been removed with sodium hydroxide, more commonly called caustic soda or lye. With the knowledge that some types of chemical cleaning may be just as damaging to historic brick as sandblasting, it was decided that an on-site inspection of the property by the National Park Service was necessary in order to determine if, indeed, the brick really had been damaged by this method of paint removal. At the project site, comparison of the cleaned brick with the painted brick of an identical row house on the same block provided evidence (see illus. 4 and 5) that the surface of the rather soft brick had been "etched" by lye. On that basis, the project was denied certification by the National Park Service Regional office. The denial letter sent to the owner stated: "The National Park Service has been cautioning property owners for some time about the dangers of paint removal and cleaning of soft masonry. The (State Historic Preservation Office)has been advising property owners concerning the early practice of painting many...rowhouses for aesthetic reasons and as a protective treatment for inherently poor quality brick. We strongly urge you to be more cautious in future projects when you consider removing paint from historic masonry; we would encourage you not to remove paint where historically such surface treatment has acquired significance over time. Where paint removal is an appropriate treatment, only the gentlest means possible, determined by careful testing, should be used. If no method can be found which does not damage the brick or change its original visual appearance, the paint should not be removed." 84-063 When the owner appealed this decision, the Chief Appeals Officer upheld the denial of the regional office, explaining that "as a result of the cleaning, the surface of the brick has been eroded, exposing additional folds and irregularities in the clay and creating a rougher texture to the brick. These visual and physical changes to the brick have altered the character of the masonry facade." Prepared by: Anne E. Grimmer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 84-063 731--.7 7 idj. — rr f ;.• ,/.y.*.4 ` r 1 •:tom 1 • i t ,"9". "..vi2', .. n+t—iw. Y>..PiT<u•L�4dF.++ u�yF, .µF 4 i.....t4 �d 4� .e bra-+�T-__ el,,,„.. •� f . .. ...,i A, ;,--:..i....*4! I IF(■ it a(� � f r °ice t-. `M�,. k- ? , ji-- ilpg-.` :, ---.-.-TA-a�y Y Y 4.1.9 'Lil _, ,tq. ....1.t.,, nw 7 •,- �44I�- 4,1 '..1,,A: i.., k ..1: . 4 aft e}r 5 f ft i.,; F .1 u'Y, . }?,yam"`''4 S „z ni. i,-, r ' --', • ^ `,.i.,,pc- - I _ t K : ,`0 _ , 4' \ it z , ,� r t ••ry�, 'Or .. it , ='1 Yi.z j s �fi. ° o!' ?~ r, „,„, . . _. ; .-- .,._, : -. "• .,ii i �.,� - "" f- - ~1 _ — 1)c —"'"�lr.�'.wit' .... immir _— 1 ill �� RT t- a � Jip z — `�ai C _ �igi A uf ill n. • t, - ll 11" AOflJ f '. _ - " "'"?•',..#P14' .eKt • qi- • 1. Nine story bank and office building 2. Office building after chemical before rehabilitation. Note uniformity cleaning showing splotchy and discolored of brick color. brick. 84-063 x? -g /�_ •-*r %-.ate ''-s'—' ____ _.„__,,,,..,_:,..,_...„:„... -- . .....--7,, 1,4:.--:.---tszeirmwo- . .�'r {=- AA--�Yam: .e;-. •' i .sit — .� .5/4' • �� 1 7 1,i 1f ■ _ 1 f11111 - - 1 ,;1_ I� t \ L • w- 0 3. Brick rowhouse in center after paint removal using sodium hydroxide stands out conspicuously from its still painted neighbors. 84-063 t �' - �� - .,..,-._ , . . -. --,,.. = ...„...e.:_...e.„. .4,-,.•_,,..,3,1:).: _. ..,,...., • 4.611:,...A___,... „, _ ,c,......, . ... _... . ., . : . ...„.t.:. 4...„...t_....?., - . , .... L.. , . ......., _ ,..,....... ....:„.„.„.„,z....4,,,„ , .._..,,,i...z„,...,..,_ 62. ......ii?'... - r--- - ~ — -' �'�tM' cit . - i•.' r NJ .I _,' y ,,,, ;,•) LY. /-ice ,{ill.., �Mt.'fi.�}R.�7. `" ;: _ r .`.,r� -. r4�.^x '} - ',s�....�,..,.•,, ,�, ,- 3 -f '- i x:- -r {'T"s.• ter• xr a` - "y,,. 'F' i ?' ..ti. .��.opa.. 7ka '-� F i ter! •.*i ..-ri' `� "=.r' i - s 4'Y ,jam" p 440 : `^z z 4. Close-up view of uncleaned partially painted wall with original paint. Note relatively smooth surface of this brick on identical house on same block may.. �-Y.-y/.. (. '� —a _ _ .. K+ �£ pry. 'a../ .'.,�` L ,.. _"�^• • JA.y-:p l,.t�e+ may t U •.`. rt.-1 y 'a[ �4. L . r' - Y4 rk - 4:i-y ,c, "'S-4 "x,%, 1' *fi r fi ;''. • i$n i i,..,, - -.. .- _ ,,,,,,, -., ,1,„-,,— ..,....„,„,"..-• • , ......,--:,,,.;,. -- - -- 1 4• y 5. Close-up view of chemically cleaned brick showing deep ridges and newly abraded texture. Tech Preservation Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 84-064 Standards for Evaluating Significance Within Registered Historic Districts (36 CFR 67.5 (a)(2)) Subject: EXTENSIVE REPLACEMENT OF HISTORIC MATERIALS/FEATURES: LOSS OF INTEGRITY Issue: In'planning any rehabilitation project, it is assumed that some historic materials masonry, wood, and metal) will be deteriorated or damaged and need repair or replacement in preparation for the new use. While a reasonable level of replacement of such deteriorated or damaged exterior and interior material is acceptable, at the same time the preservation requirements outlined in 36 CFR 67 must always be met. To receive Part 1 certification, the building,prior to rehabilitation, must convey historic significance through its intact features, i.e., display integrity of design, materials, and workmanship, location, feeling, and association according to the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Evaluating Historic Significance Within Registered Historic Districts;" and to receive Part 2 certification, the building, after rehabilitation, must retain those portions and features of the building that have been identified as significant prior to work, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." If, after close inspection, it becomes clear that the significant portions and features of the building cannot be retained and preserved because of the extent of physical deterioration or damage, then the building will generally not possess sufficient integrity of design, materials, and workmanship to be designated as a "certified historic structure" and, in consequence, Part 1 certification should be denied. In unusual cases where Part 1 certification has already been issued and, during the course of rehabilitation, it is discovered that the structure does not possess sufficient integrity, the Part 1 certification should be rescinded and the Part 2 application returned to the owner, unprocessed, with a letter explaining the action. Application: A deteriorated, three-story, three-bay wide brick structure built in 1843 was certified in the Part 1 application as contributing to the significance of the registered historic district--a 13 block area of 19th century Federal and Greek Revival structures (see illus. 1,2,3,4). A Part 2 application was submitted at the same time as the Part 1 application, but a determination on Part 2 could not be given due to a lack of information concerning the below-grade storefront which the owner proposed removing as part of the work to return the building to a residential appearance. The letter from NPS, WASO requesting additional information, stated: Although the application material indicates that the structure was originally residential, the photographs suggest that the storefront, including the projecting bay with side entrance door and cornice, may have acquired historic significance over time. For this office to make a Part 2 assessment, however, 84-064 you will have to provide information concerning the building's conversion on the lower floor to commerical use and the approximate date of the existing storefront. Photographs of the storefront showing in more detail what had survived should be submitted. When additional information and photographic documentation is received, a determination can be made as to whether the project meets the Standards for Rehabilitation. In response, the owner submitted the requested information on the storefront in order to process the Part 2 application; this particular work component was reviewed and found to be in conformance with the Standards. The amended application also included new photographic documentation that revealed the severely deteriorated condition of previously blocked-up portions of the rear of the building and the extent of damage and loss of both exterior and interior features. This portion of the building had not been assessed in the initial application, but was assumed to be substantially intact when Part 1 certification was issued. The newly submitted photographic documentation called into question the integrity of design, materials, and workmanship of the building, and it was decided to re-evaluate the Part 1 certification (see illus. 5,6,7). Following re-assessment, a second letter was sent to the owner, explaining the region's findings: Based on the information submitted in the original application, the National Park Service determined that the property contributed to the significance of the registered historic district in which it was located, and thus qualified (for tax benefits) as a "certified historic structure." This certification was based on the assumption that a majority of the structure was still standing and that character-giving features such as interior trim, moldings, and fireplace details would be retained... The new photographic documentation that you submitted shows that barely one-third of the building was standing at the time rehabilitation work commenced. As a result of the building's extremely deteriorated condition, significant architectural features are too deteriorated to be preserved on the remaining portion of the building. In addition, nearly all interior finishes are to be replaced and rebuilt using new materials. As a result of the new information, we have determined that No. 2 of the "Standards for Evaluating Significance Within Registered Historic Districts" has been met (e.g., the structure does not contribute to the significance of the district) and, therefore, the building cannot qualify as a "certfied historic structure." This decision supersedes the earlier decision...Since the building does not qualify as a "certified historic structure," in accordance with Department of Interior regulations, the project is not eligible for certification of rehabilitation. Because the owner felt preservation tax incentives should be made available and the Part 2 processed, the project was appealed. On appeal, the region's denial of Part 1 was affirmed by the Chief Appeals Officer, who reiterated: "Similarly, I have 84-064 determined that it is not a certified historic structure because the integrity of the original design, individual architectural features and spaces have been irretrievably lost through physical deterioration and structural damage..." Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 84-064 tel • Jt L e . 2 .•f` T H • .4,,..i+-.. i C 41 K .c'� � : Imo ; �� I • '- vi st I17' -. 115 ___ i i ..iFX - , , "-,. '-'. L.-. ,.7 , ..7.4,-.1'1. aigoicsi ...rm.. Q h i t n 71 t - = c�.�� +rj•-.t4 Y2 __ . k a+l .h ate• 9 vommi • ..,..ar r _ . . i l,v•` .47 �' .yam• ...:rw:,:r.7"1.':i. wi�e" '. t� iYi is • ..�%..+s «_- ,` C`. it.. . o:.. .l.ti t* ^.rK$d .�afR3.fitc' 1. Although photographic documentation submitted 2. Limited demolition at the rear of with the Part 1 application showed some deterioration the building had already occurred and and loss on the primary elevation, NPS determined protective boards had been applied. that the building exhibited sufficient "integrity" to qualify as a certified historic structure. •. • , f .! 11 .., ,---. 4 ' :051' :I.71;:7,11;:,..•:t'1.-': s...., .. tt - :� 1 tY_ Sf�'� �E • . _ yr • 3, 4. The interior, with intact trim and mantels helped define the character of this simple, mid-19th century structure. 84-064 -`om�ay.. �.,, yy, - SAVED 3 5 `' - --.- - i t.'� , 1 4' K { 0 S i'A. r 1 ' r i i t 'f� __ • " �v ' -r-1 am _ 'a;- 4t' t 1 `4 k;. T+""� �""""-�' 6. The plan indicates the extent { ih;' ^_"' '�� ., '��. of material loss that had occurred prior to rehabilitation, including 5. Crucial to the decertification of the structure exterior and interior features. were additional photographs documenting the condition 7' Tr;..1 of the rear of the building prior to rehabilitation. After removal of the boards, this new information showed that barely 1/3 of the building remained. - ;i‘ II;; -_,.__- ; _ ---------1 -- ‘.:-,-7..- r V- S yd w ili[ _-7,--- '. l.Tt. - .-. - -- -a- 17 7. The rear of the building and major portions of = - the interior required extensive replacement of historic material with new material. ;,,. ' ' `—r Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 85-065 Applicable Standards: 1. Compatible New Use (conformance) 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance, conformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance, conformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Features (conformance) 9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance, conformance) Subject: Alterations to Historic Auditorium Spaces Issue: Changing the use of historic auditorium spaces, such as those in theatres, churches and schools, poses difficult design problems. Some new uses cannot be accommodated in such auditoriums without destroying character-defining spaces or features. Dividing the space, or altering or destroying its features will result in a denial of certification for noncompliance with Standards 2 and 5. However, there are cases where earlier insensitive alteration to, or extensive deterioration of, the materials comprising significant features and spaces has already resulted in loss of the historic character. In such cases, further alterations to accommodate a new use will generally not result in denial of rehabilitation certification. It is particularly important, however, that a careful professional evaluation be made of altered spaces and deteriorated features to assure that repair is, indeed, infeasible. Applications: A small church built in 1875 in the Gothic style and located in a historic district had been purchased by a neighboring church in 1923 for use as an educational facility. During the 1960's it had been used as a theater and recreational center (see illus. 1 and 2). A proposal was made to rehabilitate the structure into residential condominiums (see illus. 3). In order to accomplish this conversion, the owner proposed to subdivide the interior space and to insert three new floor levels into the sanctuary. The regional office denied the project preliminary certification on the basis that the "austere interior is of major importance" in defining the "ecclesiastical character of the structure." It found that inserting seven residential units into the interior would seriously impair that character. While the concept of inserting residences into the church was not ruled out, the plans as submitted were deemed unsatisfactory because they involved the "total loss of the original volume and space of the sanctuary." Upon appeal the owner stressed the alterations made to the interior during the previous 20 years. The "austere" appearance resulted, he stated, from the gutting of the interior to provide a basketball court. The interior did not, therefore, contribute to the overall character of the building. He further stated that "the sense of volume and the ecclesiastical character of the former church will be retained in the individual apartment units. After the rehabilitation, this building will look like a church, as it does now." 85-065 In his decision upholding the denial of certification, the Chief Appeals Officer determined that changes made to the interior over the years had not seriously diminished the historic character of that space. The alterations, he said, "appear to amount to little more than removal of church furnishings." He noted that the church retains such features as the regularly spaced windows, the conspicuous roof structure and exposed scissor trusses, and that the extent and form of the space remain. Overall, he concluded, the interior still conveys a sense of the purpose for which it was designed--assembly. The interior space, therefore, was determined to be integral to the historic character of the building. Because that space would be destroyed by the insertion of apartments as planned, certification was denied. A second case involved an 1890's brownstone, Romanesque Revival church with an octagon plan sanctuary, individually listed in the National Register, and located in a residential section of a major northeastern city. A rehabilitation was proposed to convert the building, which had been empty for fourteen years, to medical offices. The new use necessitated insertion of three floors and office partitions into the sanctuary (see illus. 4). The interior had ornate, clustered, engaged colonettes; acanthus leaf entablatures; a wooden chair rail; four arched tripartite windows; an egg-and-dart ceiling cornice; and a shallow dished ceiling. Plans called for enclosing most of the deteriorated plaster detailing on the walls with furred-out walls, and removal of the lath and plaster of the dished ceiling (see illus. 5). The church had been converted to a synagogue in 1948, at which time the organ; organ chamber; choir, choir gate, and railing; pulpit; stained glass windows; and pendant lighting fixtures had been removed. Shortly afterward (early 1950's), an acoustical tile ceiling and recessed lighting were installed. During fourteen years of disuse, the building's attic and tower had become infested with pigeons, little maintenance had been done, the building was without heat, and had been vandalized. The NPS regional office denied the proposal preliminary certification, citing Standards 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9. The decision was predicated on an evaluation of the sanctuary space and its elaborate ornamentation as essential to the historic character of the building. The region determined that, "although parts of the historic fabric were water-damaged and although alterations had occurred, the sanctuary had not lost its ability to convey historical associations and the damaged features were repairable." The denial letter stated that the installation of new floors and partitions that "leave no area for perception of even part of the original, grand, open plan" violates Standards 1, 2, and 9. The removal of the ceiling, enclosure of decorative detailing, and replacement of (1948) windows violates Standards 2, 5, and 6. In appealing the regional denial, the owners stated that the dished ceiling plaster and lath (as well as the applied acoustical tile) would have to be removed, as they were soaked with water from the numerous roof leaks, and had a thick layer (as much as one foot) of pigeon excrement above. Further, due to water penetration and freeze-thaw cycles, the decorative plaster on the sanctuary walls was severely damaged and so unstable as to be unable to withstand even the slightest impact. At the appeal meeting, close-up photographs of deteriorated plaster details were shown (see illus. 6), and the condition of the plasterwork was fully discussed. The Appeals Officer overturned the regional office denial and determined that the project was consistent with the existing historic character of the church. In certifying the project, he said: 85-065 The information and photographs (as well as the physical evidence) you provided clarified for me the condition of the building...I am convinced that the plasterwork has deteriorated to such an extent that it cannot now be repaired, and that the interior wall and ceiling finishes have lost their physical integrity and their historic character. Church sanctuaries are often character-defining features of historic churches. The importance of these spaces, however, is not dependent on the ornateness of detailing. The first space discussed here was plain; the second was elaborate. In neither case did evaluation of the proposed project depend on the level of ornamentation. Minor changes had been made to the first church interior, but the materials and the sanctuary space had remained intact. In the second case, the sanctuary had lost its character due to extreme deterioration. Regardless of the original level of detail, if a character-defining historic interior remains largely intact, it must be retained in a rehabilitation. Subdivision or .other alteration that destroys the form or features of a significant space will result in denial of certification. Prepared by: Michael Auer and Susan Dynes, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 85-065 • • I - , I (J�1I _ ,,, / -r ri r ) , i 1 and 2. Interior of the church at the time rehabilitation planning commenced. Remaining features include regularly spaced windows, roof structure and exposed scissor trusses, original floor to ceiling height. Only the church furnishings had been removed. • , r; _+ , to __- L 85-065 /) . g url oti• 7 f-AL L 3. Section showing proposed insertion of two floors and a hallway within the sanctuary. ATTIC ..... -- �- ... , Former location of dished ceiling Imo .� '• �� .., ` —'' .. .... ... --------- -1 ar I le lic+ Corridors' THIRD FLOOR Corridor WAITING ROOM . L_ ---., IP SECOND FLOOR Corridor M A 1 I FIRST FLOOR c �r Y1-r----] f+ BASEMENT L r ND 0 A 00 4. Section of Octagon sanctuary space with proposal to add floors and partitions for the new use as offices. Two-story waiting room with reconstructed plaster details on left of sketch. l ' v n x y i re. ,',S "Y�4�wt a `'rL,y •Y ii 'a cP '',1; 7Ci ''�G �S b" '•� .. • I ., ; t •-`,1 - Y, dx , a, „S, � , l 1 i{..4.1,4• 44', tt ' s. aP tiC r ri' C V S� �r r iYt ' tf�fiv y�r>f {.,:, '� ♦ /gyj,•.. ' r s., 4 .'' •l f '! '4.,t 1'•r' T,r • f k v -, ♦ � tl l; . i�. t �y��' H S'.1+�%; z F •. .! • y t , t. r%v .. 5�.v 4 Z „" *-4,!. ^J�+l. '�,y r Y xn Ytp y y 4 + 44 t -ty • F• ! ` ' �.v0 r•f, � r 1A x 'y '. t 1 .,;i.. F'e�'P � tF aZ . ;A �4 '"`S t is ,` rf'rsZ tt'CA.',. P4, •)' ' '1," ' 1 .^x 4 >��x•y a ,. .,t ..f ✓, r',. ••• . �••tin iL °4, ,' Kt'Y O t , • 5. . 4, 1'r ,.;'..4'•f 4 t'''-Ts �. 'C'1, }v.j• F•. ti . ' N,., i to •'ti F rx �• re �'71 t ", fK� s`ti�C i',.r3 11 e , fi .V h ` ..' '7 '�` e' .' Vt,,,, . .-.T.,..!` e•: . ? i4 P✓.Y I� ,.. .S 'u ka 1 . ..i•• 111.ky'.`FP 44eb,,,i r,;,. -7� "'''.1 :4 *A;t N ';ttr .'_ 't{•r"f'�"'l' k8'71, '' : t.7,p* YW f:��},y�t � ..(. { �',.".3' r Jf' .Attk-l+ .. .:. •• ,.. •i tµ a t ,� ` t ,}.:,t'Lt '1• a ,y �,y, ,.♦ .",G r;t!`..t, ;.1'.', Jt. ?tf t•i 'g l O' 4 '4:'•.1'., T•:. ♦ l '','-'• ;.f 4'�hy '1..h•1 t ¢r�qr• " _. r 4 .,p •"Z ) e i�t` ,1•N ,, "i! 9', t t3. . ��t, >t> H.y�' ,1 S '� yr r t71; ,` •'i 4 Lr 1.• J,k, ,e"r •ram a,(t • [ �' s :. t r } . i�•• Y 0 ' '• x•4 •'''+�!'h r, mSj.Y Y" ti J ,y` 1-! 5 X•�,1. l,'^ Y• P '.JG ,•�G :s '4r ,e 'L f•a,/� n, .- , 'eh.• yr l' t >4. •i ' ':" I. + . •t . - .Y § t ,.}1y� {{t.: t r xk �i `�TnT ty,-�.•, k ' ) , • r. ,r y�.y }£ '•','r r 9u` fi, F ,x• ¢1, 3 `'"l J r r, 1 r'ty atiac'e.t`.. t4e!l'4.•'. ipR� t O'.'f,r,tn �L 1 `I r '}t•i ,a;�v ,. r,,42 ,1,:..;.,- 'M•p �y`S !,tom}` ' 4,,, PEA 7,1 ••� '.". w. a£ '.l�tt.Y3 ''.41..7. - ' f,K1. T ''ry ' •'t'i. .'j. r { .?,4 ♦ 'ul3t,.!., ,� . ,jr'ut„ +, ,. .•• r t`1 ' , ...,. } d r�'. �e{` � 3YS bJ}y . 1Ft. �~ a , ... Jy � ",' "v ,t i xi7.'5.-. . .4 tti :"'AVC S X S .41141 O e---': 1 r .'Sy. P �1.'w�4,i ti- K', . I !� �r ''' y i,�l',`('`di'¢ . rC, r.Fh : 3 i � ;.,, • J t �N Gr"M".fr f5tlr�� ry.:s �. µ ^ '' r� /'� a c'�,{�ti x-4~y1415, ^rf riY .Y. e.�^�� F d if y:• . ,.' l'J • .,t Y7'�r . �r w t:,:::,:(,• t , • i ; y Y/`' x 4 Yr ,1 "' t,• to ar7. • ' ,._ < 1t, 1', •.r ,S♦ •► ♦• t ` , • t +N,. t �`. i i-t •+. ♦la -` '41,. • t_- > !{ Z x b " S , ,ref , 4 4a `.,' C f�yyZ i•t'�, rt''t;"►'l'k N V l' s < *.et".,..•:". '+4 a' Y '�1- Wit r 1•h. ' rri Jx } ° , i.;�. „fry* ' 7., f pp+.:N a �• ti.., i► •• ,r. o t d s " d : 'ifi}, dy ,�C`i',''' }f•�t If.. S ..,.re.,, !G irk"4 •tr .r" - t rL _ t ♦� ;1y�r jt i �ry 'l � �1 si' "4. • e d.x - .R y ,rx {! i • _ ` r r ,,>ik Y1 'Z1Ja ••<, d r s' {{, ! .fir n^,� L K • • 4 ti� S ♦ < ♦'p x S" 1;1 t t r r{R a a• ,'T. `� if r i .i c••'.e 'wi,P1 p• • 9 r�J tri447 f+I♦'"t. • t \• ,41 rC• T1..y d , ti>, a,4 7 },1.��L , fit l J j��,ifrC.irlrtz�. lip `t '�� ♦ , • { t t, Yiry �4�d {•y.i . F�t'tfr ,t �p y . ♦ I'r' .L T t r h� y+ .NiV7'�� .t r t�� !r�R`lciT ,F � w. ^, �'' '7 . Y • ,rt' ' t , a ti' • ,,J va.Ni.t• a'•. :1... •er. :,,c4•' J: >•Y;4, v 'ItTt . y.L+10 .�., i 1 e a'.4 ` '' '. n i -.✓' -..,,..:•,-. ...,,,......,,,,,,,. T 'i..v t v7. +�,' •t,•' t• i a � g�Fr . ,„14 .4d�'> aj �,r '''',.• .A., '• ,,•• t - s ,fl' y t ;3' f� . ,.� 1 �r r♦ F, `r ...' , ,r ri V' 6` G}) _4, Vt. 4' t.#,r. • �} �' �'.n ' ', S'.•f .. . a. i.. ,:l yrx, ( r�4 v'�.Jxs t�Y. r •t♦ . :* ii.. � �;. V c . I .t! �� lt F„ ;j .i y! t e1SR V } y! iA ff,- *. s t c .l t i c ,.t': i'f'R£' .- �•F �`. ve} tyl.y't'+4,Y h� ' y,,av • �7n ...J a r. i J '., , ii x ,^h,� a. �'.M a 'r !, ,c W� ..A, , :fg,,,,fP X*, ?.G ♦ e e,!^^;�s ',t ,•i 4'3,Ar. µ•.,. :, 4 %. titri.hh {' .y, .H 7 �; y, �t5.ti * .. ;, '" ,A -•5 .+� r{;r t,n�L w fi'{�!a l„�' �•{j, y�♦ ,.. ! ., :. 7 rr ,r . �{ wi - • R" !Cq , •5: . �:• 1 ,*) f t••Nb( �x .16 4!_,'_ i. .4 �:trf'' �'.... j 1, t� `S "14 �4`a Owl• ttt r �. s " �: 4 ,t a, .. • ; ,.4-* . in J , •'„ .t, _I•�3'�t�r} .. t. Yy• �`��f y s �8 o ry '�t Z �, �P }„�?�f' � 9°1.' '��{r• +��•. • � "r`'s••�,,,.e••.� f ' s F ,I. �"' 4. "�4 r, ,tea t t� G; t , �'P`'�+�fe .,,' t C.-,,R'. 1 J .'4 7•a•e (�`r r- >t4x !P 'y .t t `�. SY d iLLG J•A-�� r.'�.,}.,,t'' .•• ' 1 rlr K�,•' v^} - '' 7# d,1 N. .L14;tt �.. :...,: c' t . r y.'-tr ," ''^�f vFC �,Y3"K�73 "' i + aw •V'- d`!'. vr: i'? wei•tt� 4 4 a, of 4 v pp • AA,. t. 4`c�r4. •3" r'k'`�'�.dkdi9�:,{ .�U}' , wiC`;t�'4•.. tii L'�v.:''t��„: .� r d ��n ...'.n 4in {fiR'`f�,'r , �' . • , ..• . . .,.:.._T' fs i. t1 •' _ ., .-r7777y � 1 00 V1 i 0 Q% Qa 5. Damaged ceiling, due to moisture from roof leaks, buildup of pigeon droppings above, and lack of heat. 85-065 r, .f- ., r. • f �r�- ; .; K+j • . -;4.1 fl>' i 'i :-�`S ' ,r,• ,ram, 4 ;t 0 ' . t:} ' , ' ~K - _� 'r tibr: F i y : ' , .• i t J;Iiik;;_• !; •.. . _r , .. 6 , ' `. lir t4.-i•. ..1. t— r V�. rat., Al- � 6. Detail of sanctuary perimeter wall with engaged colonettes and obvious plaster deterioration. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Paris Service U.S. Department of the Interior I the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 85-066 Applicable Standards: 1. Compatible New Use (Conformance) 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance) 9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/Additions (conformance) 10. Reversibility of New Alterations/Additions (conformance) Subject: INTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO CHURCH STRUCTURES TO ACCOMMODATE NEW FUNCTIONS Issue: Rehabilitation of any historic building should always take into consideration the preservation of significant interior spaces, materials and features. This is particularly important when evaluating churches because the large, open spaces frequently are significant character-defining features. Preservation of the exterior form and shape of a church structure is of obvious importance, but because the exterior is essentially a reflection of this interior space, successful rehabilitation of a church structure ultimately depends on finding a new use that respects this character-defining feature. Generously scaled open space is characteristic of even a simple country church and like other types of auditorium spaces, such an interior does not readily lend itself to very many other uses. Selection of a new use that respects the character of this space and any distinctive architectural details is a critical first step in meeting the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." Once a new use is found, its functional requirements must be adapted to fit into the existing space without damaging or adversely affecting its historic character. Application: A small turn-of-the-century board and batten Gothic Revival church located on a rural wooded site had stood vacant and unused for nearly thirty years (see illus. 1-2). Built on the brick foundation of an earlier church constructed in the 1870's, the church has a nave 5 bays in length covered by a steeply pitched gable roof. The gabled entrance porch on the south side of the nave is distinguished by stickwork detailing outlining the gable. Lancet windows light the nave, and the 2-bay long apse features a tripartite stained glass window opposite a pair of stained glass windows with a stained glass roundel above on the west end of the church. The vestry room, a small gabled section (matching the entrance porch) projects off the north side of the apse. A square bell tower with a shingled spire dominates the north side of the nave opposite the entrance porch. The simple interior is highlighted by exposed oak roof beams, arched trusses, and matchboard ceiling and wainscotting (see ills. 3-4). Individually listed on the National Register, this building had essentially retained most of its original fabric, as well as its form and pristine country setting, all of which contributed to its historic character. The church did not have plumbing, electricity or a modern heating system when the owner purchased it with the intention of converting it into an artist's studio and residence. 85-066 The rehabilitation (already underway when the Part 2 Historic Preservation Certification Application was submitted to the National Park Service), included the installation of mechanical systems, insertion in the nave of 2 small pent-roofed sheds to house a bathroom and storage, construction of a spiral staircase and a mezzanine above the chancel to function as a sleeping loft, conversion of the vestry room into a kitchen, and the cutting of three skylights into the north side of the roof of the nave. When the project was reviewed by the National Park Service, the determination was made that the cumulative effect of the rehabilitation work violated Standards 2, 9, and 10, of the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards." Cited in the denial letter was the installation of the large skylights into a "major roof slope," dramatically altering the exterior appearance of the building and on the interior flooding the dark ceiling with light, not only changing a distinctive and character-defining feature (in violation of Standard 2), but also resulting in loss of historic roof fabric (in violation of Standard 10). The addition of a mezzanine in the chancel and a circular stair in the center of the arch at the chancel entrance were cited as being incompatible with the character of the building (in violation of Standards 2 and 9), as was the insertion of the bathroom and storage sheds in the nave because their construction changed the nave space and its visual relationship with the chancel. The owner appealed the denial, arguing that the skylights were not highly visible on the exterior to passers-by, as that elevation of the church faces onto an abandoned cemetery, not a public-right-of-way. Furthermore, their installation did not result in extensive loss of historic fabric because materials removed were used to patch damaged areas of the roof. The owner also stated that the mezzanine and stairway inserted in the chancel and the bathroom and storage sheds in the nave were sensitively designed and compatible with the historic character of the church (see illus. 5-6). After careful review of the project and newly submitted photographic documentation of the now completed work, the Chief Appeals Officer reversed the denial, and certified the rehabilitation. The Chief Appeals Officer, explaining his decision in a letter to the owner, agreed with the owner that the alterations to the interior were not inconsistent with the historic character of the historic resource. The skylights were introduced directly behind the bell tower in the north slope of the roof which faces away from the principal approach to the building; they are not obtrusive from the exterior, nor are they so numerous as to adversely affect the character of the interior. The mezzanine, circular stair and sheds were introduced to the interior with minimal damage to the historic fabric. While the chancel arch was partially enclosed in inserting the mezzanine, the windows in the east wall remain visible through the glass panels and open circular stair. The pendant sheds constructed in the nave similarly respect the axial lines and tunnel-like view of the church interior from the west end towards the east. In fact the slope of the shed roofs focuses the lines of sight toward the chancel and the windows beyond (see illus. 6). The changes made to the interior of this building are consistent with the historic character of this historic structure, and I find them in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." 85-066 .. ilt, . . :•:!..‘.. ..... . _ • ,..'. li,, • • A C714: 4 q 2 -} I1.3 :s —K F i ram.. iiiki . , I t i. f O '%�st ✓ ' • �r y { r ..� i it e :aFJi ,, 1.: -�a •4, • • r - II �,� 1 (rbf 7 ✓ 4r..4` f,...) n.e1 r f: i . 'r KNit ,,: -.11 " Fes.. 1= 1 4✓1✓ .•y• . ,a �I It.,t:- --- I"'"-.. r,;• , f.,! •I?'c 't'k % 1 . . L• , • rr 7. South elevation of church after rehabilitation. 85-066 • N N. r ?_ 1 1 ! I i f a: t #;IN.,. 111- -1S- • ti, 3. View of nave looking west toward baptistry before rehabilitation. ,.✓q1P• • ' y 4-4 ,�J _. fit YYJi Jk r Y t ; I _St 1M IV - - Y • fil ' 1 L ;•': S I i i iii- , • tt qq tjL�;t' it IL 2 s ter_ 4. View of nave looking east into apse and sanctuary before rehabilitation. ( - —44. ``'•� 'ter='z¢ `�'�n 4�' IAA' _ er v. 4 -i4.;I tom:?'sv L\ ' •• r _ '. . ,41 6..- ♦ i. • ♦tit .M -\ w Y, .: ti is` .X e'- • •is• _ .. _ ':s .p 9 s— cLtT._ s. �`' ' ; `. ice, • , 1 ^-.S' ..e a. • a V- >♦.. suit 1` • I . ' �V._ i S tt�. r • ..'t 1 tt• ::13....-.:�! '.r F -+aJ' + ..a•titi .• n -• 5. North elevation showing new skylights inserted in nave roof after rehabilitation. \\ i- -. d i 0 e/fi#,fa,ig..4.;2• , , • - V.-7. ' 4 k -•;,-- L.► •-.. - rt r;tT •t `Y f� ;' -' o > x 1111111166 14 S S k e 6. View of nave looking east. Note the 2 new sheds in front of and on either side of spiral stairs in center of sanctuary arch leading to mezzanine. 85-066 Finally, the Chief Appeals Officer concluded that his decision to overturn the denial was also, ...based in large part on the sensitivity to the setting of this structure...evident in the decisions you made regarding the use and treatment of this building. The property surrounding it retains its rural character and this setting contributes greatly to its historic character as a country church. Your rehabilitation preserves the setting and appearance of the church exterior. (see illus. 7) Prepared by: Anne Grimmer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 85-066 • .., _ ..... ' . ., -,- - -44,01. '• '0. • ' •..r.' •. - .. ,.;..5..... .. .....7... ;...,•-m. . . - .-., .• I, .... . . , ...- ,...... 14( l • i'''' ,i.... ; -,q,w.'-../ • 4 .41,•, A.,. ofor..• lot ,,,:zik Ilk .1 ,. 11.,,..;. - .,.- r l'‘. ,cri ' .40,1"" ipiww..' : ) . , i, • ., ... & -.4.2- • -4 t_ k tt,*..._ ,aiftie •--- it. :' "", • - IF •.1..,;A: ->: . -.' i k.._ ._„,,,„ ...„.• . ,........ . datt.,,A V.It• • ' - .7ele. • -..**,,..., '.0,-: ;‘.. l'' • ' -..:7:fs:. .,.:;:r . 1•1 ••••Lit ...y.,,.. " :Air j r ,,,,....., , .,......,_ - .• 1 -.-.,- r . ,.• ........,„.. s . . , . "•••• .1404C '''.' "04 . -•, i v—--i-- 1 ..... F;I. -,••• -,_ • l'''4.-!IP:. A.oi..... __ _1._....•- • ' i ..!• ......,.t. ,.e. ..t1'. 7"--'1:•:: i 1 , ....; -.-4-• •,,t IV ii 1, i _ , ..,. ,..„, . ,.. 4 1.1, , •1, ' '....' •- ''Y ,,_...., '17 5 :• .' g Uis .it .15.7 ,-_ 1,••-_ _ - A • ,..,.'• 1) T ' I do:0 1 1'' .1' - . •• -- ......4.i ,.1-,.... -F,:.,,_.., ....,.::-.„- ,.,:i-t.",.t.,...v,7 ......!r•-•.-:.......-,......,7,...7.,..."- ,tiMXP:47- .41 ....••A. s. .4.i,r.A.,..,.... -1-- ,..•>.-:......-r,-..1.17,. : -..„ ---_,zt'":;'-.1 "' ..ra.;._'A-;---.. .. 4.1-44.!-41'i'' ri r,...... .. .....:40.7_,._ ,,,. ,,,,......,..... ..... ....14,._ _____„_,.....4„......,..... ,.... _ ...... ...., . ,..,...4......,..,..„.,,,,,,...,.. ....... ...„,..,___.....„...„:„......,...___,:_:„ ..___.,..... _ .... ...„.._ ...,,...., ..17...,.......,...F,..7:...„....-_, .,.f,...:.._ .„rt., __ •..7..... ..,_„..2y.o,..,. . . _... . .7• ji„, ........,*„.1.,a . —_... . ...",..s. --,....,;,..,%.,..--- ----.--A* •:..---7..;:-1,..' --- . ,-, '7:74ft; ...... , -='!-",-."--. -.-A.- -13.?-.;:"..r.— . ,.. . ... • ....4....- 1. South elevation of church before rehabilitation. ., .724 -->" -. :(% i ,,d 4 lit• ,,agt.„ V i\„:t .1/4:S,,,,,:raaliki;:11111, •1dr ir -.).:- .t•:'4'',.!.." -:-.:L.. PI„. . I , .t. : ',•.‘ki, ,,,,n,,,m,,,.. A._.• , , ;CV-,,O,N.•,?./.4r.F:.14 4 ' '" . \- ., .. -4 - '41''' - -- .1.44 4%. . i -I • .'Fili°e :‘ 461 ' * '-'I.— -:: -;,:r -. IP, ri it I .,.„ . ,,... ....„,:,...: .,..,_ AI • ..., It,i,, ii ....„,..:‘,., •t....,. :„..,...1.4. 41..s..,... .,quia. .1,:•.4 .., . 4 00,7.. iiIiii7 1 Ni i- • ,I ... li'l#'564?.r-4P.S.)la('lir b • ../* 'r 1 ,A4I 410 i1.t144.1..r..`..'•\‘\,T-4..i..''f.'f',A..Yi„''s -47' • i.%f..„..-.. , ',.*..,--. .i-. '' '.-'•.'... ;k6yr,.,Z.-1 4-..-,-'1-:i.."7,:..'Rtk-1...,,t...-e„5.-,..E.,..'.:. , i.lL. ,-....„.... ..... ,.. . If.'.7, '.'- "*". •'..-- --...-0, ' -' - 'r"-- ..".1.'.''''•*:14.4.4,3" 11- :-. - --:..-••••••' . • , . e••....:• '••(..- ef-• - •'-'1" '-". ••••••::::!.•••`t. ,,..,:e , s • • .....:4.••,14..,',.- -• .4 7. 1 • ' •'••••:`•,:•-*:7.•,;...e.t".`1: 4 •^7•411,.:..' ...."'''..V.,...1......7.:- --''s.""--•ri"' -FA•4••*„L••••• ••1•••%.-.-••,.. 4;7.4 - •-...- ^•••:'.......".......7.'• ‘,I - --.".,': .• x'-••Dm:4 .f.-....‘ . •:'4;4,):IT'D,. - .:.t'; --. • . ,..•.--' 4•%,41•''',11m.:;:--7';.•--....,r..K.. .1"-,---- 1 '• ' ---:-- -s-.‘ ''r''-•- .1.41•':•PC:0?t'l.'-;7--''......* •,4....:t:4.,.--"11-to:4c1tri•410:••in:r`-- -'3'sz,_14,111"-•.:•"1Z••••:-•• It-•4::'-'1,-!;',-,'-`••••••-• -- ,k .,..,1....-...--_,-_,-1, ----4‘...x,...--va.,. .cl, „scs., . -.45....,-.---Ao .r 0.Z1:•••,444..'' ...ftbe'' '-4.4'r-1.. "': '',4" -1 ''''''.4 •-..--1...:-- fa:'•••7:-,..,...••••,.....0-5,13., )...; 7.11,....•-i.VI....4.1•%-v•Z..1,3,:fe-x,.• 't.Jo:-.--,....:rs . 4:-7`'.x:.-::4,.., .7...., •-:- • --21.t...ox--:"....tz.--4,:i — •;;;,--,,.....**:.•;-,-...i.kt4i6,.... ,, , , --or.,,-„.-..le''.1,:;.-..zir.:-..1.`.:,..- . . ' '''. " - ,•• .‘ * '-' '4_4," 1..:4'. ,ft-I, 44,...• "r" ; ''''-tv,....V.4-.,N,.*'•*`13n,--4"1- s'-;-?? ...Z.., 2. North elevation of church before rehabilitation. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 85-067 Applicable Standards: 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (conformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (conformance) Subject: OPTIONS FOR REPLACING MISSING HISTORIC FEATURES Issue: When a certified historic structure which otherwise possesses integrity is missing a significant feature of the primary elevation, a particularly important decision has to be made as to how to treat this portion of the building's history that has been lost. If physical evidence and/or pictorial documentation is available and restoration of a missing feature of the facade is desirable, the most traditional and often preferred approach is to accurately recover it in both form and detailing so that the entire facade appears to be "historic." Although the missing feature is actually new material, the historic form is re-established. If the restoration option is chosen, the replacement feature needs to be evaluated on its accuracy of form and detailing, whether the replacement feature is made of matching historic material (wood, masonry, or architectural metal) or a compatible substitute material. In this regard, it should be noted that it is not acceptable to replace a missing historic feature with a feature that conveys a false or confusing sense of history--that glamorizes the missing historic feature; or otherwise gives the building a "historic" appearance that never existed. A second acceptable, but potentially difficult, approach is to replace a missing feature with a compatible new feature. This option can be quite successful within a rehabilitation project because, as opposed to recovering the historic configuration with new materials, it honestly acknowledges loss of the historic feature, then gives the replacement feature—such as a compatible, contemporary storefront--a legitimacy of its own within the rehabilitation. If a compatible contemporary approach to replacement is chosen, a very different process needs to be used to evaluate the project for conformance with the Standards. This process should begin with an assessment of the remaining historic features of the facade. Any new work then has the dual goal of preserving and retaining those significant aspects that have survived; and of suggesting that an important element of the facade was missing but has now been replaced. Such a replacement feature should approximate the form of the missing historic feature, clearly reading as new through avoidance of historicized detailing. Modern materials may assist in conveying a contemporary appearance, but their use is not required. 85-067 It should be recognized that once a significant feature is lost through deterioration, alteration, or vandalism, even a thoroughly documented and carefully crafted replacement feature is no more than an interpretive facsimile. Therefore, whether or not physical evidence and pictorial documentation exist that could be used to restore the missing feature such as a porch or cornice or storefront, a third option—although not widely accepted in a historic preservation context--is to simply acknowledge the loss as part of the evolution of the historic building. In summary, the three options for replacing a missing feature are as follows: 1. Use pictorial documentation and/or physical evidence to re-create the historic feature. 2. Acknowledge loss of the missing feature, then re-evaluate the features of the existing facade to design a compatible new replacement feature that does not alter or damage the remaining character-defining portions that convey historic significance. 3. Accept the loss; do not replace the missing historic feature. Applications: In the first case, a significant storefront of a "contributing" nineteenth- century limestone building had been extensively altered; in addition, a highly decorative and equally significant cornice was missing (see illus. 1). In the rehabilitation project, the owners elected Option 1, above, to restore both altered and missing portions of the building using physical evidence and pictorial documentation (see illus. 2). Overall work included cleaning and repair of the limestone; repair of window sash and frames; replacement of the missing cornice using fiberglass elements and, following removal of the later, altered storefront features, an accurate duplication of the historic design was constructed (see illus. 3). The project has received preliminary certification for the investment tax credit. In the second case, a former theatre building located in a midwest historic district was determined to be a contributing element, in spite of the fact that it had been extensively altered in the 1960s for use as offices. The original glazed wooden double doors, (see illus. 4), had been removed and the openings filled in with glass block as part of the 1960s renovation (see illus. 5). Also, in order to level the sloped theatre entrance floor, concrete had been poured in the front 15 feet of the building to a thickness of 22 inches at the facade. The recent rehabilitation project for which certification was requested included substantial interior office renovation; removal of small areas of the later paint to determine the original brick colors and painting over the gray paint to approximate them; replacement of the deteriorated second-floor casement windows with matching sash; and replacement of the 1960's glass block in the first floor openings with large steel-framed windows and transoms (see illus. 6). The owner felt that the new windows were compatible with the remaining character-defining features of the historic facade, as outlined in Option 2. After review, the regional office denied the project certification based on an assessment that the new first floor windows violated Standards 6 and 9. The denial letter stated: Although there is no question that the block infill...was not significant, the rehabilitation of the building should have either left the existing conditions 85-067 in place, been based on a significant documented period of the building, or reflected a predictable treatment to the age, style, use and detail of the building. The windows installed in place of later inappropriate glass block infill followed none of these approaches. Because the owner felt that the new design was compatible, in accordance with Standard 9, and that the installation of doors was not possible because of the poured concrete and the use of the building, the denial was appealed. After carefully evaluating the facts, the Chief Appeals Officer reversed the regional decision, finding that the overall rehabilitation was consistent with the historic character of the former theatre building. An assessment of the building's facade, without the distinctive wooden double doors, revealed that the historic character of the facade now consisted of the prominent projecting central pavilion, together with the pattern of narrow vertical openings on the second floor, the freestanding piers, and the patterned brick. One option was to accurately restore the form and detailing of the missing doors. But an equally acceptable option was to acknowledge their loss and select a compatible contemporary solution. Since the doors were now gone, retention of the significant openings in the rehabilitation was a key preservation objective. Whether these openings were used as doors or as fixed windows was not an issue in the appeal. However, if the existing openings had been altered, changing the historic proportions, or the piers or patterned brickwork changed, the historic character would clearly have been diminished. This project, however, retained and preserved the remaining character- defining features of the facade. In approving the project, the Chief Appeals Officer held that the owner had met the requirements of Option 2, to design a replacement feature that did not alter or damage the existing masonry openings, or did not have a negative visual impact on the facade. In fact, the new work successfully borrowed elements from the documented historic doors in the compatible contemporary approach, as stated in a final letter reversing the region's denial: The restrained design of the new windows repeats proportions from the original doors, which are known from a historic photograph. The stone panels recall the major horizontal division established by the large kick- plates on the doors, the vertical mullions indicate the original division of each bay into two doors; and the new transom approximates the proportion of the original transom. Replication of the original doors, based on the historic photograph you have, would have been an acceptable preservation treatment as well... Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks and Susan Dynes, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 85-067 ;• �. . '-' 1 1 ri - I i J II , a=� P R 4\ ET = J. 7jr � � t` `�" lc �- i tL i' I er:..i 1 Jir ! . 4, ii --- ( ,_ 'tom��,-.r.='�'.. .{ C -....,,,77....... II it il , II _____," ,.. __Aw. -•.,..,_•,..... , ___ 101 : j t.,-- - - ,..-1„....„ ____„,___ . : -..- .. , - ._-_ •I " nil , A . ,- _____ _ ..., -. .., ir,d404a....4i:4-1.......0k-' • .ex-- 1 I I I 1 Illif- 13: ‘ . 1. At the outset of rehabilitation, an 1866 limestone '�' `1 "'S -ii- t! ri-J''' J-i;:J _- - -tea _- ,o building was missing its ornamental cornice; and the -- `� ground level storefront had been extensively ----�---64) _ altered. �. , ,, 3. In addition to restoration of the T „I,., storefront using matching materials, this sr- ._ r ,�=;, _ photograph of finished work shows an '} ,�_ .. -�` �: �:•z acceptable use of substitute material (in this „�'- 11 w� case, fiberglass) to fabricate the missing 1• ..1 i- _ pressed metal cornice. _; �.1 �+ _ ~� — ~~•�� 11 -" II ' = x .I1H t : - _:, . Ei Eli .11 R g .- G•r CERES DRIIGS pmARNAcy OILS r::a 1.1 r*rf 2. Based on the availability of this and other photographic documentation, the owners were able to accurately restore both the cornice and the storefront to their historic configuration. 85-067 4 .Y � 1'.c ..Y - • � .........-......... ................ ._ ,..Tirlt-1..0. ,,,,.. i7...... . . ..- ..4 ..�.. :'.` 'r QeTr 4• -, tF-�c3'- r,,, jx t� ;[� ♦�.i-„ a. ...:•t�`.. . t A.:. , , ... . - , --.....,.: -... -.I:" • ,. - • =....ate ..s • r •tfi y .! i ! "?,- tic , ; -i, s._ s 1 1 .'-,y;am.: ' s..lic i : g f < s ,f_ . r . �b •.•,,K t • • 4 ten~ . y ...s .t .s. s + ...ice .' . t r -.. _ + ` Ste s«• _ •�.! • a _� , L -K+wltrgr f•�- - ;i�-•+r.........y s, ;;,.....:_,,:.:: • .s , ..gyp - zi f„ J- , �.:� ti.,. .l.... • J,`^�� .` • per,. �.�. � �r .a. lat... _ `� . ff y ,.. .7s , -—Tt •.• .'-. .J 1• , .r1.1?c, 'dL• ` t -, -::-- :'.':,..z".:; •.:*:.-14•t•r L.+- '-1. - -.-.."' T- —.. e" -. . ,max�: r. . 't y. �i .`s 3fX. ,r # l Via).-., •r z .c. -7`lf-:3-''' om.... '•., -• 1!i-r to 77.• 'i _ _ f. ri Y nt :t ii-c :. Mt i 4. Historic photograph of the theatre's facade as it appeared in 1913. Note the glazed wooden double doors, repetitive features that, together with the distinctive rectangular openings themselves and the patterned brickwork, define the architectural character of the building. • 3a. -, j�• Z� • i _Es_ _ . -, . I) tI. I. _ _ - A. #i '4 �t Y. , w..r a - t ! t " �' b « • a.. IITheatre building as it appeared at the commencement of rehabilitation. The wooden doors had been removed in an earlier "renovation" and the openings filled-in with glass block. In addition, the masonry was painted a uniform gray. The stone sills cover a 22-inch-thick concrete floor inside. 6. Rehabilitated facade. After removing the nonsignificant glass block inf ill, the owners elected not to restore the wooden double doors, but instead, to install new, simply detailed steel windows that respect the regularized openings. The brick has been painted to approximate the original colors so that the patterning is again evident. �:A.turR.. , 'r��..r, t►t�►. '�'�'.•. ryery r+. r1'. ) ':.:.z, il - , -�... O� . J Y 4 6� ;;. t ♦t t:J..i' ; . yr r.y `�' ►., .tI ^""_ _ 7M V 3 1"^j to --... 1 "", ""_•; • tA�T t a.' - .w. :.}iM,•N • .., a•a - - — ` fi 04 .yW t:' "' ;,/ b - i ' j -, .- �_ - _ �,I` !'"l` `f. 3 ri t: i A d • ` 11 .ZF a; 1+ • :..wr • '•� �.{ t j ' S om'w.. "'' ', ` , IA • Mwnq r11 MBA y "' • r.P.:.,..t .S S nr r'.t trwrw4. r' t} , ... _ F r__ + ... _ . :- _ I.'~ i •mo )t 5,. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department D.C. of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Wash [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 85-068 Applicable Standard: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Character of Building and Environment (nonconformance) Subject: REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF HISTORIC SITE FEATURES Issue: Standard 2 requires that the original qualities or character of a building and its environment shall not be destroyed. The landscape and landscape features around a building are often important aspects of its character or that of the historic district in which it is located. It is incumbent upon an owner to ascertain the historic significance of all elements of an historic building and its site before making decisions about destroying or altering historic material. Even when development pressures within a neighborhood are intense, site features that help define a building's historic character must be retained as part of a certified rehabilitation. Those elements might include gardens, walls, fountains, pools, paths, site lighting, benches, or grading. Application: An early twentieth-century Mediterranean villa style house, individually listed in the National Register, had a formal garden, apparently conceived as an integral part of the total design (see illus. 1). The house had been vacant for over ten years and although the garden's architectural features were deteriorated and the planted areas were severely overgrown, much of the historic fabric remained. There were terraces at the front and rear of the building. The rear terrace had a simply- detailed pergola and steps down to a small walled garden with a fountain and an ornamental wall topped by an iron fence (see illus. 2). Symmetrical steps led from there to a long, narrow lawn (overgrown at the commencement of rehabilitation), at the base of which was a fountain against a masonry wall. In a recent rehabilitation that involved reuse of the house for rental apartments and development of the site with new low-rise apartment structures, the landscape features, both plant materials and architectural elements, were destroyed. In its denial of the project, the regional office, while commending the owner on his proposal for the rehabilitation of the house, stated: The walled garden, albeit in a neglected condition, was one of only a handful of formally designed gardens in the city that survive to the present day. The neighborhood was, in the last decade of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th, a coherent and contiguous collection of medium to large scale urban mansions on small lots. Typical to these was a small, formally designed, often walled, garden either to the rear or to the side of the house. Today, few have survived. The imperative to save this significant feature was all the more important given this context. 85-068 The owner appealed, citing the following four points: 1) The deteriorated condition of the garden structures and the overgrown site. 2) The fact that the nomination to the National Register for the house did not mention the garden; therefore, it cannot be considered significant. 3) The garden to the rear of the house was never visible from the public way, nor would it be after project completion. 4) Certain elements of the garden — the basic configuration of a portion of the small walled garden, the urns, the balusters and some iron work will be reused. The owner also brought a photograph of the rear of the house after the garden area had been cleared as part of the rehabilitation effort, but before the new construction had begun. It was evident that nothing remained of the rear garden below the terrace; and that, in fact, most of the terrace had been demolished in preparation for construction of the new apartment structures (see illus. 3). The Chief Appeals Officer upheld the region's denial of the project, stating: Although the garden is not described in the documentation that was submitted to justify inclusion of the house in the National Register, as you pointed out during the appeal meeting, it was nonetheless a constituent element of the whole property that was nominated and accepted. The house and garden together constituted the complete resource. Furthermore, it is evident that the garden was conceived as an integral part of the total design for the house and was constructed at the same time as an appropriate setting to complement and enhance the imposing, romantically eclectic building. Although some of the features were deteriorated and the site was overgrown, the integrity of the original garden design had survived intact. The rehabilitation project, already well underway, will destroy all sense of the original garden design. No longer will the long vista exist from the terrace outside the house to the lower end of the site. Nor will one be able to step down through a small, enclosed garden, past a simply- detailed pergola, to a long, open lawn. The scale and design of retaining walls and balustrades, some topped with iron fences, will be lost. Prepared by: Susan Dynes, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 85-068 t • ,,,:-..,-, ,..: ,,..,,,, ,,.... .,-,-..,- -v ,..„,,,,,- , • A,-, i • .,, , -, ,. k , .--", •., ,., VI. • \ 4.,,,,..1„1..„....,....... ... .. .. . ,..., ..k.,:N ,.„:„...„..•.,.. .. _.. - -... -,; . -,./, .,%,...i. i -...:::„. . ...; -- ., ,., jr.,„, r... . .... _. • ,..., . ...., 44/ -4,:;.r6i1.:r, - ,-,A_-,,41,(r " ' -. .\ _.4_.... ,;'',e4--,,'440. ~‘ti, /" Rr1 'y+ ..,,—.....,.. / ram ' ‘f C` • ' i t:V:Phw ,. .r- .— , .. 4 r 5 t._ -'- _ .mac' .. r, r \ y, ''''-''',, - ovr.V? _ i, -'`Z,r•- -lb.. yam•f „.-" `•• - !- = ! S','"' "C4• t • i{ I 4'. i_ 1 i •..�, .•r( 7.j:�u- , t d, 4; 4r ' 4{.•r 1 ;fi. �., AA Ft"-- • _ Tt E • .._ It'.�' a . , ;c ''c, sue,; ; � L - • - . — _,..Rl'r-. .. �..... .._.. ...... . . - -• .fir.-,-"s6-.,llil6—< 1. Side view of the house, showing the retaining wall around the site and the front terrace. .{ , \' t X ` .\ - •• wow i, •►...- •. A- . • • t• M` .- t -, _,Iish — -tom �1. _•� + • f, l#.=- '-711:�1•--- :.. tti . „,\„,..:1-.. -:• t 6••••4%-• ,--- . Ir./.-„ 4 • .. - - Z • ii - -,fib: 1•". k.3,• -...,,,.--, " : e . •••• _,..-.. •-.,:., v. - ♦ �Yryr f t�rF64 ►�rr�1/i3� grit'ja r r . • .+'s. -1: L'1••1►h+E'....'fly I "14 �' N...'.1 aler6:...i`E; !3 � waits . .'_.-• • •---- :.` MX..14 - .. .. • /1,42..s A:I ..;.- . , 2. View of the rear of the house before rehabilitation began. There is a rear terrace with a pergola and a small walled garden with ornamental walls and an iron fence. 85-068 i&lips wf�� ItjIUtL, i — I - i • t - ,x "'.'- r,.:. ter- sc ti..r �.._ 3. Rear of the house after garden was cleared but before construction began. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. 20240 [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 85-069 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance; nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (conformance; nonconformance) Subject: FACTORS TO WEIGH IN EVALUATING DAMAGED/DETERIORATED BUILDINGS Issue: If a historic building is certified as "contributing to the significance of the historic district;' this means that its physical characteristics are still able to convey historic, architectural, or cultural significance prior to rehabilitation and in spite of deterioration, damage, or loss as demonstrated by existing condition photographs. Part 1 certification of significance does not imply that historic building materials will be fully intact at the outset of rehabilitation; in fact, Part 2 work may involve repair or even total replacement of some particularly vulnerable historic material such as roofing, exterior wood cladding, wood window frames and sash, or interior plaster. On the other hand, if historic material that could have been repaired is unnecessarily replaced, Standards 2 and 6 will not be met. An important factor to consider in evaluating the Part 2 work is the significance and integrity of the interior. The preservation of a significant interior that may include historic materials, features, finishes, spaces, or structural framing system may, in limited instances, serve to offset the documented need for extensive replacement of exterior material. In these select cases, the building can still make a positive contribution to the historic significance of the district and be certified for preservation tax incentives. Application: The first case is a two-story frame house with lap siding built ca. 1865- 1870. Photographs of the exterior prior to rehabilitation revealed a combination of damage, deterioration, and previous alterations (see illus. 1). Specifically, lap siding had been inappropriately covered with stucco. A later front porch, nonsignificant front and rear additions, and an exterior metal staircase leading to the second floor had all been removed. Finally, the building's interior had lost the majority of its historic features due to earlier insensitive renovations. In spite of exterior and interior losses and change, the building had been certified as meeting Part 1 integrity requirements because the essential form and detailing was sufficiently intact to convey historic significance within the district. When the Part 2 application was submitted, rehabilitation work had already been completed. Before and after photographs of the exterior were limited to front, side, and rear elevations, with no detailed documentation evidence of deteriorated materials. The application stated that after removal of the nonhistoric stucco, the historic clapboarding was found to be deteriorated beyond repair due to moisture and termites. In consequence, all clapboarding was removed as well as the sheathing underneath. 85-069 At the same time, other historic wood features were removed and replaced, including roofing, window sash, sills, lintels, shutters, and wood trim (see illus. 2,3). Again, justification for replacement was based on extreme deterioration. When the State office reviewed the project, it recommended denial primarily based on undocumented replacement of exterior wood. Also, some of the replacement features were felt to be inappropriate, such as the heavy roof shakes. The region concurred with the State evaluation and the project was subsequently denied for nonconformance with Standards 2 and 6. The denial letter from the Regional Director strongly emphasized the unnecessary introduction of new material: ...replacing all weatherboards, all trim, shutters, all windows, all roofing materials, and adding new framing pieces for doors and windows, new brick stoops, new sills and thresholds, and new hardware have the cumulative effect of making this building appear to be a new house with some Colonial-style details... Because the owner felt that replacement of extensively deteriorated exterior wood cladding was justified, affadavits were submitted as the basis for a Part 2 appeal. These consisted of individual, signed statements from the project architect and a licensed structural engineer attesting to the severely deteriorated condition of the property prior to rehabilitation. No new photographs documenting deterioration were included. After careful review of the new information, the Chief Appeals Officer affirmed the Region's denial: ...the affadavits...contain insufficient evidence to support your contention that the extent of the deterioration caused by moisture trapped behind the stucco and its subsequent removal was so widespread as to require complete replacement of the siding, window sash and frames, and the exterior wood trim... ...I also find that the written record and the documentation clearly demonstrate that (the building) was a certified historic structure prior to rehabilitation. However, in consequence of your rehabilitation, everything now seen on the exterior of the building is new. Because of the inordinate amount of replacement material now visible...the structure has fallen below the acceptable level of integrity of materials and workmanship that were required for it to be designated a certified historic structure for purposes of the Federal tax incentives. Therefore...it is my determination that (the building) is no longer a certified historic structure...and that this decertification is not considered retroactive. In a second case, another "contributing" wood frame building, built ca. 1769, was rehabilitated by the present owner as a single family rental home. The building had been used historically for a variety of purposes, including a warehouse, residence, store, and post office. In the Part 2 application, the owner provided both general elevation photographs as well as detailed photographs of existing conditions, and ongoing and completed work (see illus. 4 , 5). Both exterior and interior work was photographically documented and submitted with a narrative explaining what was original, what was added later, what could reasonably be preserved, and what needed to be replaced. Because the owner's architect believed that exterior wood features were not repairable, extensive replacement of exterior work was already underway as 85-069 part of the rehabilitation. After review of the application, the State recommended approval; the Region, however, disagreed. Reviewing the same photographs of the exterior and interior, the Region felt that the building--although having had a long history of material replacement and alteration— still possessed a number of early features. The significant wood features cited were "rafters, joists, and other structural members, some sash, window and door frames, doors, and much early wall sheathing and clapboarding." In denying the project for nonconformance with Standards 2, 5, and 6, the Region stated: While in some instances replacement of materials may have been warranted due to the degree of deterioration, such wholesale replacement appears unjustifiable on the basis of submitted documentation and constitutes an irretrievable loss of original historic fabric...Photographs submitted indicated that many original features could have been spliced, patched, treated with consolidants, or in other ways retained, thus preserving original and distinguishing features. As the building presently stands, there is almost no historic material in place. The owner felt that his rehabilitation met the Standards and the denial was subsequently appealed. On appeal, the Chief Appeals Officer agreed that there had indeed been extensive loss of exterior wood features in the rehabilitation, but disagreed as to their relative historical significance, particularly when weighed against unusual existing structural components and interior materials and features dating from the early 19th century. This included original ceiling rafters, cupboards, paneling, and fireplaces. Of importance in the appeal were photographs documenting the fact that the highly significant interior was preserved in the rehabilitation (see illus. 6, 7). Most important, although replacement of historic exterior wood was extensive, the clapboarding was found to be machine-sawn from the early 20th century and therefore not as significant as the Region had believed. I agree with the Regional Director's assessment of the historic and architectural significance prior to rehabilitation. Despite its deteriorated and altered condition, its character as an 18th century structure was evident in its location and setting on the Meeting House Green, in its form, and in such particulars as its post-and-beam construction... Careful examination of the photographs of the completed work submitted for this appeal reveals that considerably more of the historic building remains than was thought by the regional office. Virtually all of the 18th century framing that survived the earlier fire has been preserved intact; this framing gives the building its form and is an important component of its architectural significance. Inside the building are exposed posts, joists 85-069 and summer beams, and early 19th century mantels, panelling and cupboards on the chimney walls of four rooms, door and window frames, and several doors that are all original elements or later additions that have acquired significance. The further documentation of the completed work demonstrates high retention of interior features. Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 85-069 �- ;sue % r y,iY .r-d+i . aT ; ail +i� ft; b., 3-r�• ,, t r , • - y ri'`r P...,*:-i. si F +„ ' S 2 • 1 J,. •.7 • ; 6. An early pegged-braced structural system, fireplace with bee-hive oven, and cupboards are shown. If the extant, significant interior had not been factored into the evaluation to offset extensive loss of exterior materials, overall preservation requirements for Part 2 would not have been satisfied. am -21 ,,� 'w.-^sr '��F 4, --r-i4r••: _ F t+ ,, -jam FM+S yam' '4{ - ``"' L~' A{{ 4 4 a' li3�']•t. }mot +%41:4:N}\ r_�� i-.g-it:4-r.k fit;#-;e, 4': t d. r.'iT - f•ly •2 .i), c _ , -Fat r.Lam' i i 'tl".. A,'• .. i ? I- t 7. The same room shown above after completion of the work. On appeal, it was concluded that the building's highly significant interior, including materials, features, spaces, and an early structural system had been identified prior to rehabilitation, then carefully retained and preserved. 85-069 X:\_ _ • 7-1! ., K J • ^• • �'► � . �► 1 .`ilk: "' ; =eye aa ' . - 1. Front and side elevations of a ca. 1865- • �•� i 1870 wood frame building prior to - , �- rehabilitation. Stucco had been applied over -- -• -c"f 1- • ^ '"" - -- the exterior wood at a later date and had -_�--:••;= `- ''=-�• s r,4. �� - caused rotting and termite infestation of r-- " ' :" historic wood. The building was certified as - meeting Part 1 integrity requirements in its ~� deteriorated and damaged condition. j f !I. .'• KA �� :_] Ib-1IT ' *ir_ .MaHoli — LI iiii , 4 --__. ___:-- : / s - 4.,. 0444. „"-' _ - .— 2, 3. The same building shown after rehabilitation is essentially new construction. Rather than targeted replacement of deteriorated materials, the owner replaced all of the siding, roofing, windows, sills, shutters, and trim. Some of the replacement features, such as the use of thick, cedar shakes on the roof and side porch were considered inappropriate. The owner was denied Part 2 certification on appeal. As a result of material loss during rehabilitation and the earlier loss of interior features and spaces, the Part 1 certification was also withdrawn because the building could no longer meet integrity requirements. 85-069 �' : r: • ‘`1�+• q .: lip It R...' 0•_ _...,_ , . .........,. ..__ ._ i __. _. _.__. rirl a _. _ _ . . ... _ _ ____. . . .. .. ... ...... ___ • . ._ _ __ _.,___,:....___ . _ _ awlry,. +�y, ti It ♦'1 1. 3 ..''.L 'TT; = . 1,'yawfc; ice-. t xi 4. A ca. 1769 building was certified in the Part 1 application in its existing condition, which involved extensively deteriorated exterior wood clapboarding, sheathing and window sash. On the interior, some original framing members were intact, while others were repaired or replaced. r - N. • -, , ` t // ,----------- - i 1-1 111 qtrt,,, -_,... l ,-- ; �� i •1 ( .- Pt 5. Completed exterior work shows the extent of replacement of deteriorated exterior wood materials and features. All siding and sheathing was replaced with new wood. Window sash and frames are also new. The applicant documented areas that needed to be replaced because of extensive deterioration as well as those portions, such as the cornice molding, that could be retained and preserved. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. 20240 [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 85-070 Applicable Standards: Standards for Evaluating Significance With Registered Historic Districts (36 CFR 67.5 (2)(e) Subject: REMOVING FALSE FRONTS OR NONHISTORIC SURFACE COVERINGS PRIOR TO REHABILITATION Issue: As part of the 1950's drive to clean-up, or "modernize" shopping and residential areas, metal false fronts were often attached, or nonhistoric surface coverings directly applied to historic building facades. When a Part 1 evaluation of significance is requested prior to rehabilitation and a false front or nonhistoric surface covering is in place, the need for removal will differ depending upon the type and extent of the obscuring covering. Two basic types of covering exist: (1) A false front or screen covers up a historic building's facade, concealing the form, materials, design, workmanship, and historic relationship to other buildings in the district. In past administrative practice, removing a false front was considered to be part of the rehabilitation work itself and thus assessed in the Part 2 evaluation for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation," particularly Standards 2 and 6. Now, in accordance with the revised regulations (36 CFR 67 - March 12, 1984) at least a portion of the false front or screen must be removed prior to rehabilitation in order to evaluate the integrity of the historic building. After the historic integrity is established through evaluation, the false front or screen will generally need to be removed totally in order to receive final Part 1 certification. (2) On the other hand, when a nonhistoric surface covering (such as aluminum or vinyl siding, permastone, or asbestos siding) has been directly applied over historic wall surfaces, removal of that material may not always be necessary for Part 1 evaluation. A nonhistoric surface material, unlike a false front, usually does not totally obscure a building's significant form, features, and detailing. When a building's historical significance is conveyed through other surviving characteristics of the exterior of the building (such as its roof, cornice, unusual windows, chimneys, ornamentation, etc.), then a Part 1 certification of significance may be given with the nonhistoric surface covering left in place. The covering may simply be retained in rehabilitation; alternatively, it may be removed by the owner. In summary, for both types of covering, Part 1 certification will be issued only when enough of the historic building is visible to classify the building as contributing to the historic district even if the proposed rehabilitation were not completed for some reason. Application: Part 1 certification was requested for a two-story masonry building in a historic district. A photograph of the 1908 department store (see illus. 1) was submitted together with photographs of the existing appearance. In its current condition, however, it did not convey historic, architectural, or cultural 85-070 significance because an aluminum false front had been attached in the 1950s, hiding the facade as well as wrapping around both sides of the building. Enamelized metal squares had also been affixed to the side elevations. The rear of the building was both visible and apparently intact, but had no particularly distinguishing features (see illus. 2,3,4) Even though the storefront had been altered in an earlier renovation prior to attachment of the false front, there was some evidence that the second story of the department store remained relatively intact underneath. Because a 16" gap had been left between the metal screen and the store's facade it was possible to look out the original window and see some of the masonry detailing behind the screen. This suggested that the building might retain enough integrity to meet overall requirements for Part 1 certification. Consequently, the owner was notified by the Region that at least a portion of the false front would need to be removed in order to evaluate the historic facade to see if it possessed sufficient integrity for Part 1 certification. In response, the owner informed the Region that the scope of rehabilitation would be limited to interior work, and the building's exterior would remain "as is," in its covered condition. As a result, the building was not issued "certified historic structure" status; however, if ownership were to change, a new owner could reapply for Part 1 certification of significance. In a second case, an owner submitted a Part 1 and Part 2 application with photographs of a 2 1/2 story, hip-roofed, frame and masonry building in a tree-lined district of similarly scaled residences. Photographs and a narrative explained that the building had been covered with a concrete veneered covering, and that the wood window sash and shutters had also been replaced with new aluminum "features" (see illus. 5). It was acknowledged in the application that these changes to the building did not contribute to its overall architectural appearance and historic integrity. Documentation also included several photographs of the interior showing raised paneling, parquet floors, tiled fireplaces, and intricate plaster cornice moldings and, in fact, the application emphasized the interior's significance. In the Part 1 evaluation, the reviewer initially expressed some concern over the concrete veneer covering historic materials, but concluded that other surviving exterior features such as building's form, its roof--roofing materials, dormers, chimneys and cornice--and an elaborately detailed portico satisfactorily conveyed the building's architectural significance in relationship to the district (see illus. 6). Removal of the nonhistoric surface covering was thus not required for Part 1 certification to be issued. This decision would have been made even if interior materials, features, and spaces had not been significant and intact. Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U. S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. _ .. __ 85-070 1"7.4::11:4 )111 "d.' 2�_ • ^ + ' • i1 y. 1. Early 1900s photograph of the Ochs Building shows the . 'P. &-* .i..,,_ storefront in its historic design - , __ �\� prior to a series of renovations, • I - W r 4' ' "' the last of which totall • Y - — --. --- --- a — �.-� ' --•• obscured the facade. r�1 Nr .,,nr ffirr;1! *, f rn. ....................... - ei.fl t " ; k 12 dfli' `[v ��,�1 '�'@'3r c fit'+•' • // , - _ .�: �• --- ff// —r . , __ a. ,, __.' ..... •i� � _r ...... .i m_•-tom L -Y. SOCP f 4' f" T - _R , 1 f r— - a'T. - T` � :, - ,,' 2, 3, 4. The department store shown as submitted for Part 1 evaluation, with a y --- .,._� false front obscuring the primary ■ ...A.- ,,-1. $ `-`_ elevation and enamelized metal squares _ .+R. covering the secondary elevation. A Y ;° photograph of the rear elevation showed AN.. j r,/.. .• ; , , 3 a portion of the building's historic 't R" "mow"``° °— material that had not been obscured. ° r This elevation, however, was not of any u_ � •; . . `• particular architectural or historic significance. 85-070 1. if y • . s . 101" k • 1 Ilk / •-!~ Pitf t • *a`- .. j .... i , m ,,,;/ _. _ . , . 1 ..„.. ,c: ...„..._ g :. ....)..., . g.._ ., ..... ;,,. __ , ..._ . Le ,,... •k• 1.1 5. A photograph of a portion of the _ _ t primary facade reveals a highly decorative porch, but also shows the nonhistoric concrete veneer, and aluminum sash and shutters. • i� V IEn i '1:-.,,,- .rT' -..;..-..:.-''''''ir:r . . ill i `wires Y • .. - I �_ t ++-{ •Y - 6. The building is shown here on the right in relationship to another building in the district. Although the historic wood sheathing has been obscured with formstone that is heavy and gray in appearance, the surviving physical characteristics of the rest of the building were sufficient to convey historic and architectural significance. This includes the roof shape and materials, and a decorative cornice and portico. Part 1 was issued. In the rehabilitation, the concrete veneer was simply patched and retained as part of overall work. Technical Preservation Services interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's i Washington, D.C. 20240 rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 85-071 Applicable Standards 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Design for New Additions (nonconformance) Subject: PROPOSED ROOFTOP ADDITION ON BUILDING WITH A DISTINCTIVE CORNICE Issue: Rooftop additions can meet the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation" if they are inconspicuous within the district or neighborhood and do not alter the historic character of the building. If a building has a distinctive profile against the skyline, a profile created by turrets, ornamental cornices or other character-defining roof features, it may be very difficult to design a rooftop addition without either destroying significant material or radically altering the appearance of the building. Application: A nine-story commercial office structure, built in 1910-11, determined to be eligible for individual listing in the National Register, was to be renovated for continued use as offices and commercial space (see illus. 1 and 2). Situated on a highly visible corner property, the building is distinguished by its U-shaped plan, distinctive storefronts, elegant brick and terra-cotta detailing and most particularly by an elaborate projecting terra-cotta cornice and parapet. The owner's proposal to construct two additional stories atop the building (see illus. 3) was denied certification by the regional office, which cited the "negative impact on the historic character of the building" of such an addition. The design of the rooftop addition, the denial letter further stated, "will compromise the historic character of the building by appearing as a historic component; the building's original scale will be altered, and the prominent cornice will be compromised, all violating Standards 2 and 9." Upon appeal by the owner, the denial was affirmed by the Chief Appeals Officer, who noted that "the two-story addition... would extend to the plane of the wall, thereby drastically reducing and weakening the prominence of the cornice." The "marked appearance of the cornice against the sky," he continued, is "virtually unique" in the city, and is the "overriding character-defining feature of the building." In reaching his decision, the Chief Appeals Officer noted the extensive research into the history of the building undertaken by the owner and presented at the appeal meeting. This information included the original structural steel drawings, which depicted an eleven-story building rather than a nine-story structure. These drawings indicated that the top two floors of the structure would have been constructed out to the facade line, much in the manner of the proposed addition. No elevation drawings were found, but surviving physical evidence, original promotional material, and testimony taken in a lawsuit involving the original owners also supported the claim that the building was originally designed for eleven rather than nine stories. 85-071 The Chief Appeals Officer acknowledged the evidence presented by the owner as satisfactorily establishing "that the original builders contemplated an eleven-story edifice rather than the nine-story building that was constructed and exists essentially unaltered today." He noted further that "the additional two stories, had they been built, would have been constructed above the cornice." He concluded, however, that the information, while very interesting, had "little relevance to the matter under consideration; what concerns us here is that which was built and embodies historic identity.... The fact is that the building was built as it was and its historic character for seventy-five years has been largely determined by the appearance of its cornice unencumbered against the sky." Because the proposed addition would have diminished that appearance, it would not have preserved the historic character of the building, and was consequently denied certification. Prepared by: Sharon C. Park, AIA, and Michael J. Auer, Ph.D. These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 85-071 t. _f ,i 0 j � • . „ tl 1 !AI:• -_, . 0 I i II0 on --;• • L II ,„� n' Iti ' - II - • - A ' Milli! 4; a' • . , .. — ' • • - :••• • 41' • •„.; 1 or 4. !INN ..f• .4 •4 hilt: #• I 4. kik.:1 B2 • . : • Ilit , , , a "I -' NC alas. _ • ` - V S d t I- 4II�`-, 11..,/.;, ' .a _it I t I Ia-4 iE:=1 ts. a .' frtik I• - 1 .''• k r. .-r - f • 1P I - - jjjiji.jI lila., 11011 roi t - .,.00111 III iiet . ___ 4,-: 4'..-7 i I '1 ' ' ', -l litilit-, i lI I� I ,. .;_ 1 •^ f Let- i II II ' ? I i - 'r, 1 �� -If. `fiIIIIIt .tf' L . y 85-071 11.!1,• n n orswe•....A,m triortvorrorr..-,.,nr r,,VA 1V11.4.:.1 IPIWIPIN1011, 11• 1111•i MAI ,• 1.11.!:.veto.r,•1,..1.*:,,,,,,,,•"•.••••ne16•1111•1•••,11,*0.1•*. i s tx .1 ;.V. 1 44*IP 4 - 1 3 -- -_ ‘,...,-- ...._ . __.... ...,.i ...-_,...._..... : 1:3 - ._111-111-' = 11111.1111 , ---- , r , - a ''t• ^ isal l'--•- , ..., I sm NW 1-.11.1 ii 1:1;4111 14:17101 7101. 4 , . 7. 1 1 . ._.. .. 112 i J.4 ii ,412., II •.11.14MI•R.011414114;111P.O111;111:11111147.40114741...!lb',.4 im..;Fr-, .- .. Ir‘ i'v•-'7r-s1.--114"Iff . IN fix*•IVIR Wu Off 1 ,_:; 1._-- -_. - ... . ., _.iff ay*ItaTsit'ff a pit" 1 .4. -,i, .," „,. a ix vim inif!Ian:zi y Mel ik - . . MP OK. 0;.11.11 1 tif ill Win 1 ill'1:t. __..1,1 Il_. i'lli MO a! 111 lit i 0..i.; .,ri ..,,E.-1; Eill ill. =1. TT: ;----- .- ..t rl'bill ! .1[7, 11 I,:ItTI 1-- .---"zr. '-'17----- sow tk--- ril' Ilmii; mi--- lm ili • : irs.! nvi, ,,___,- ) 1,741,_,,, ___ i__.: 'Impqw, t•Lrmi_mi -i.m,, if II . it it i WE , ,' - i Irn . ' .B.' illin nit: ' . - I ...--:-_-- ' -"di'=---' .-----,- '..a_ ' - -, --- 1-........ , ,i.7.= .,_,....., ........_ 1::) .ffii .fiE';'IA'. Eij .1[:11. •."II._._, ,;_;::. ;_____,r, MI .IN ' Ili A.,1 0..0 , or , - 1 : ,. 17, iliai, 01:.0 Mir .1•11P - -=''' '---'i!L ' a 111! RI mum :! • i , _ iff1i11741,! ittil ii--,:-,): -m?PI =. I-4' It:--4 7 -I •T-1 7" . iTZ. iti- 1.1% ii Ted ili_v.1rii -,..., • - : - .. i----,.. , - .1,---i. 4g----- • =- -• r.z- 1 .-.•-1 mi..;1 ol,as _, 1, : .p _AB II. 1 Ili ::., as I if f:It. ;moo. .is,t,it 1 sr a , ) 10 ir:- -7 kl: WI' EA! --_,3 _. ; •,, -, ?..:= .... - .--:: -- - r -.' i---r-= ' 1 - •- 1 .1-_ T N .11riil 01;Igfil; -.."1‘ .: !r ''. . __: IL___-:"2. :: fri (. Fl!1 ITII! t'- ': Oil iiiMI 'NI ilit' ',El 7 . _1,--- 17-1' - NI 111. lir il.r ill 111'.' IR ilt• .OAR 1 .... 7..- --amommopma--.----.-- am -. - "....---5--, 1-faragris4.1 liti', forwamrsr I ...evesr 1 LOT d'uirpor.01 Pi 01, _011.]: Milliri iliTra..ifunk ii.t.. ft a ilw MI,1 111 III, I,- .- _ WI MAI. Wilt w a wm.ft, •Ai ail x 1111 illil .wrappi...:1111.1114011.111111Wili - . arlrilelite. 41.7.,MIPM1111101AAPP. 11.+0.--rune-r=.e.TcelostoTone%011144 1. _... •1•‘• , 4•Z•f•••um 4;le I•••••%••• i 19S7..1 Z' I VW ':' •..4•%.ai, 111VP--.., 7ibt•.-4.' 1 •iv.--1 I.%I. _ _ , • •_c._ - q - 1 - •--- --.7--'' 7.-= --.1*.iiffil -I$:3:._!7101.31.1.,77a.IMI *1401,I.: 'III S: I: -.in 3311'• IIIRAFI: .11.1 Ill! ;! . illioni iiMill; liBMIII: .iNiAIN -;---.:- -- •OliiMM. 111111111• ilifill •11111.).1; 1 , . • I _ _ ! _ _ _: i iraime• : ; . . ja.1 ' . .1 . VIM ill Am: a • i .. • .s 1.015„610.11111IL .11 !. .„..-ulls___. El. ...I ._ .:-_,-j. 1 • 3. The proposed rooftop addition, like other designs submitted, would have obscured the appearance of the character-defining cornice against the sky. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. 20240 [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 85-072 Applicable Standards: 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: PRESERVING DISTINCTIVE SIDE AND REAR ELEVATIONS Issue: Attaching a new exterior addition usually involves some degree of loss to an external wall or walls. For this reason, it is generally recommended that an addition be constructed on a secondary side or rear elevation—as opposed to a primary elevation--where'significant materials and features are less apt to be present. There are cases, however, where side or rear elevations are architecturally detailed; where they display either a distinctive individual plan or a plan characteristic of buildings in the neighborhood; where they were traditionally highly visible within the block; or where they are of special historical significance. In these instances, the distinctive features on a side or rear elevation also need to be retained and preserved in rehabilitation, i.e., not damaged, destroyed, or hidden. If materials or features judged to possess significance are damaged or destroyed in the process of rehabilitation the intent of Standards 6 and 9 will not have been met. Application: A late 19th c. 3-story, 3-bay brick rowhouse was determined to contribute to the historical significance of a small-town-historic district. The building was typical of other Victorian-era brick townhouses in the district with its Italianate doorway, brackets, dentil work, and stone steps. Also characteristic of many buildings in the district, there was a brick two-story kitchen wing with a small second-story porch that featured a decorative balustrade on the rear of the building (see illus. 1, 2). The interior was both significant and intact; photographs documented features such as a mahogany balustrade, marble fireplace, plaster ceiling trim, and original doors and trim. Rehabilitation of the building essentially involved work to convert the residence into a dress shop. The owner felt that the existing interior space was inadequate for the retail operation, and, as a result demolished the historic rear ell and two-story porch preparatory to building a much larger addition in its place (see illus. 3). When the Part 2 application was reviewed by the State, denial was recommended. Several work areas were questioned, but loss of the rear addition and porch in order to construct a new, large scale commercial wing was the primary reason for denial. Standards 2, 9, and 10 were cited. The regional office agreed with the State's assessment, and also cited Standard 6. The denial letter, emphasizing the loss of fabric on a distinctive rear elevation, stated in part: 85-072 ...demolition of the rear wing and second-story porch has resulted in loss of historic fabric. In the case of the porch, there was a loss of skilled craftsmanship as well. In the case of both the porch and wing, the historic rowhouse configuration (designed to supply more light, air, and space than was available from the main block alone) has been destroyed. The replacement design has a non-residential scale and appearance. No evidence of deteriorated conditions has been given to justify the demolition... In the appeal, the owner explained that in order for the residence to function as a shop, certain changes had been necessary. The interior needed to be expanded and, to do so, an extensively deteriorated, and essentially nonsignificant porch had been removed. To substantiate their claim, a letter was submitted by the architect certifying that the rear brick kitchen wing and two-story porch could not be preserved; however, no photographs of deterioration and structural failure were provided. After carefully evaluating the facts of the case, the regional office's denial was sustained by the Chief Appeals Officer. Citing loss of historic material as well as a permanent change to the rear of the building, the decision was further explained in a final letter to the owner: The historic rear wing and second-story porch were demolished due to alleged severe structural deterioration; the extent of deterioration, however, was not substantiated in the course of the meeting. Furthermore, the design of the new rear wing is not compatible with the building or the district. In mass, proportion, and scale it differs drastically from what was there before and stands as an intrusion in the texture of the neighborhood, the character of which can be appreciated from the rear parking lots as well as from the street. The addition of this wing also resulted in significant change in the spatial arrangement of the first floor interiors. Accordingly, despite some exemplary preservation of interior details, I have found that the work does not satisfy the "Standards for Rehabilitation." Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 85-072 . ,\ - 6....'n..-4...'._ Vi, • 1 r) ... ., . ,... . :,, _ :\ -,.4 ,...,z:,.., _ - t.1.-...a ...-: t'' , , . 77 -- ' , ,< • ^" ._. ,^ti ° 1,, 111111 QI ' s : 1:;:r. • ,,,._ 42214111 . " i IR 1 1, 2. The 3-story brick rowhouse, front and rear elevations, prior to conversion into a dress shop. Although many rear elevations are not particularly distinctive, this one featured a second story gallery and brick kitchen wing that were characteristic of the rear elevations of other residences in the district. Demolition of the wing and gallery preceded construction of a massive new addition that interrupted the former visual unity of the neighborhood. —; )-.1 .:::Elit 4.1;:i..-ViElc2,4„,;.--_ :,::::::-1:::::_:_:_-4,,,., ,___ ,,.,,,. ___ . . . lizit, -L _ _ t ;ten } „...,..‘ d, , ,..,.. .., , . — - _ rz _ _.........„.......i.. .... ,„...., 4: ,, ....- ,:, ,,,,,„.,,,:„,„,;;.,..:%-:,---,,,,,.. -,•:;:i::::-.*, ..-:- -..),,,,. optisloP Y � xt :of sy •y�'• l L -. s�.--,.R 4 .rI--....0..."--,- - 995 ice'_ 3. Completed work, rear elevation. The project was denied, largely based on demolition of the rear wing and porch and construction of a large addition that changed both the exterior form and interior plan. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. 20240 rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 85-073 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance) 4. Removal of Later Non-Significant Alterations/Additions (conformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (conformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated, or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (conformance) Subject: ALTERNATIVE REHABILITATION TREATMENTS FOR LATER NON-SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONS Issue: The Standards generally encourage the retention of later additions to historic buildings. Such additions often have acquired significance in their own right because they provide evidence of the historical evolution of the building or because they are important examples of an architectural style. Circumstances under which a later addition may not contribute to the significance of a historic structure include: 1) a later addition that is less than fifty years old; 2) a later addition that is not a fine example of an architectural style, or does not exhibit significant character or fine workmanship; 3) a later addition that does not contribute measurably to the National Register-determined period of significance of the building or district; 4) a later addition that is so badly deteriorated that its replacement would constitute a level of "reconstruction" not required in a rehabilitation; and 5) a later addition that obscures earlier significant features. Additions to historic structures that meet any of these conditions may be treated in a variety of ways. Rehabilitation options include retention of the later addition, removal of the addition to reveal restorable features underneath, replacement with new features of a compatible new design, or, if adequate historical documentation exists, replacement with an accurate duplication of original features. Assessing the significance of later additions requires careful professional review, and must always be done on a case-by-case basis. Removal of significant later features can result in denial of certification of a project. Application No. 1: A six-story structure, individually listed on the National Register as well as in a National Register historic district, and erected in 1906 as a private residence and hotel, was rehabilitated for use as an office building (see illus. 1). The facade, exhibiting stylistic elements derived from the French Renaissance, was faced with a high quality brick veneer trimmed with brownstone, and the building was topped with a graceful "mansard" roof. Over the years, however, the building had undergone some stylistic changes and additions, the most notable being the construction of an Art Moderne carrara glass storefront on the first floor to accommodate a bar, as well as the 85-073 addition of a copper marquee (c. 1928 according to the application) over the hotel entrance, and extensive remodeling of the interior. The rehabilitation proposal called for the removal of the Art Moderne storefront, the bar interior, and the marquee, and reconstruction in their place of the original 1906 first-floor facade (see illus. 2). The regional office of the National Park Service denied certification because the cumulative effect of the proposed work would result in a rehabilitation that did not conform to Standards 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." This decision was based largely on the proposed removal of the bar storefront and its interior which the region judged to date from the 1930's, and removal of the copper marquee (although other issues including interior fabric removal and its reconfiguration were cited in the denial letter). The regional office had assessed all of these additions to be character-defining features of the structure, and as such should be retained in the rehabilitation. Upon appeal, the denial of the regional office was overturned, in part because of the availability of new information at the appeal meeting, including photographs that clearly showed earlier unsympathetic remodelings had destroyed all of the bar interior, documentary evidence that the Art Moderne storefront had been constructed in the 1940's, and assurance that the rehabilitation would retain all historic fabric still extant on the interior. The project, now already in progress, was given preliminary certification, and in a letter explaining his decision, the Chief Appeals Officer emphasized that he strongly concurred with the policy espoused by Standard 4 that encourages retention of those later additions that have acquired significance over time. But in this case, the owner had 2 valid options—either to retain the existing storefront or because of the existence of detailed drawings of the original facade, to restore that facade: ...each instance has to be judged on its own merits, and I find that this Art Moderne storefront is not of exceptional architectural or historical significance; it is less than 50 years old, is not mentioned in the National Register documentation as possessing exceptional importance...and is not architect-designed. Furthermore, because of the existence of the original drawings, restoration of the 1906 facade was also an acceptable approach in accordance with Standard 6. The unusually accurate substantiation of the original design was a major consideration on this point. The fact that nothing remained of the bar interior provided further argument favoring restoration of the original facade. I feel that the copper marquee, like the storefront, is also not of exceptional significance and may be retained or removed at your discretion. Application No. 2: Another project involved rehabilitation of two residential properties for apartment use. Originally constructed in the early part of the nineteenth century as multi-family housing for mill workers, these buildings had been certified as contributing to the significance of the historic district in which they were located. The houses were situated side-by-side, and nearly identical in design 85-073 and floor plan. They were of frame construction, two and a half stories, and six bays wide with a gabled roof (see illus. 3-4). Each house had a later addition of a wooden porch that stretched across the length of its facade. Rehabilitation work on the properties was extensive as the houses had fallen into disrepair through lack of maintenance. Although the State Historic Preservation Office had recommended approval of the rehabilitation project, the regional office of the National Park Service denied certification on the basis that the completed project violated Standards 2, 4, 5 and 6. As in the example discussed above, the region felt this rehabilitation did not conform to the Standards due in part to removal of the later additions — in this case, the porches (see illus. 5-6). The region's denial letter stated "these front porches were significant to each house as a later addition (estimated to be from 1900 or earlier) and were significant collectively as a phenomenon within the district." The owners appealed the regional decision, because they felt the rehabilitation met the Standards. At the appeal meeting the owners defended removal of the porches on the basis that the porches were poorly constructed of inappropriate materials which at the time of the rehabilitation were found to be too deteriorated to repair, and not of sufficient quality or workmanship to retain. Most importantly, however, research had revealed the fact that the porches in question were first depicted on the Sanborn insurance map of 1926, but did not yet appear on the map of 1914. Thus, the maps clearly showed that the porches had been built in the twentieth century, outside the period of significance of the district. After reviewing all the facts of the case, the Chief Appeals Officer agreed with the owners that the rehabilitation met the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards," and overturned the denial issued by the regional office. In doing so, he stated that the primary significance of these properties lay in their exterior form and details, and that these character-defining features had been preserved and restored in the rehabilitation. Had the porches been in a better state of repair, their retention would also have been an option. He further explained his decision to the owner, saying: In its denial letter the regional office stated that removal of the front porches was in violation of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, because these porches had not only acquired significance as later additions but also were significant collectively as a phenomenon within the historic district. However, from information you presented at the appeal meeting, we can now date the porches between 1914 and 1926, a period outside the significance of the historic district as a nineteenth- century mill community. Thus, for both of these projects featuring later additions that did not contribute to the significance of the historic structure or the district, there were the four alternative rehabilitation treatments outlined in the introduction from which to choose. One option, in both cases, might have been to retain the later addition. But 85-073 another option in accordance with the Standards, and the one selected for both projects, was restoration. In the first example, restoration of the 1906 facade was made possible because of the discovery of the existence of the original architect's drawings. In the second project, restoration was made possible because discovery of two Sanborn maps proved that the porches had not been constructed until the twentieth century, and therefore did not contribute to the nineteenth century period of significance of the historic district in which the houses were located, and as such, could be removed. Prepared by: Anne Grimmer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 85-073 SI. `.�` , F- t..� . �;•. ., '� t � y ` .� \ • c1 Q � ---1 , l i 71) 1 �� t T 1 it \.... 5. _14 2?.,L l—..'.lis„h 'Al `lt iE A- 3 1` =` .ram- u ° h ?.'!...---i---—`-"--7....--al a_____,--..... . 1 ........c- f ,•13., 1 -...tri..;.,,, ,T's....,. - '" N 1. ].....„ t pyI 1 ... c.,t:1:, . , 1 j 11 ' 0. f.ii 5, . . :' , , : ,..,.. ,], 4, , I tli ,y <LOA NMI. SEF 1E 10TE:` • pqp 4 �'1 > ' 1 ., li , ' x i ''' 1 0 F.II,q - .„.-.. .7.13/ .1 ,Its;= 1. The 1906 hotel before rehabilitation. d �, i _Y ' Note the Art Moderne facade and copper � i' 1J t. marquee on the first floor. !, „ _ e fr 7 ,0 zT f1 Ifit_i_ll T �; - . , : �- is t icW i r 2. During rehabilitation into an office building the first floor is being recon- structed according to the original architectural drawings. 85-073 ...... , 1.- • • . c, -- z-i..7:i---:,-----:-it-- ---tFf'..'*:.':.- - -- ere — - - - — ,-..-- ...:---f-------- ,...- -- -;---;---- :-:.- ----F--,.7-7-r ----.;.- - - --- '...1.-i' : ;:"..--.i:---. .-:-•••'-. - -'-.-- ,r:;',.::...Z,-; .,..,!:,;.4 ,- - • -..:-....i..,_____.. ==--- IH• — Ill Anlidlik---j="----------7-s-t --, -----, -;,-.,--.27*--..E-.-- -- --- 2--•-- -... _-.-... -_-_:.a. ---,..• , •, _-_ ii I , _,':--,---- ,...:_r:-,-,•-%-"F!':=_:.z.:-.........::-:11:- --;::r-t.--r":2_?2_,--77-i.:,.."..::-__ .--_ '-.-."-:". - ... ' . - ..._______, -,... tir"":1: ...-----.Vis =-1-0.......--rq li-......." 1 rnlit ...,'"".....-.--.."LI•.•..1 ------1--;"..- — . s, r ____ _——__ _ _- ____, _ .1_1: • ....-.1 -,: --- 111..._......_ ... A :,.. Illikascg;1146 , , ' , 1 , I 0 I 3%614 . .=1:"•-. - ;4•Trt • .' I, . ' 1 • — I A• • ,_._ , • - ---r",---7--,..._ -se . - ..-1"'''''''•'-'w•limm/f MilleitS 1 . igarl_Ft7 ',' Ell 111111.1MI librii . - .• •. ,,, -.411111111111:--- ------- ----..--- -- ----;,r••.•-....,.....X.' ' ,. ... -"` ,• "'", Nov, • " ..1 ....o.aaanon•Leri.alailalatiOMF.,. ----.---e:r;"'-'" ; .11,11i..... .411 ..,;..ffli.1411,1,4,-. -- "".4‘‘.'"`. - '' - i ''''' _71 ter Aam--..•- . -- •--.-.•'. •• .7-, ofavmagithiKtOWit"6-4:.-ire -,1-4*- •, . ---- ---.4.,...,e,,,Nyv4,....4 kz......,...4,01,4:0,,,„:.:.:.;:::::1,• ; r regyrfolliii3O o yo,s4V.s tvt '" -MAO I P.M.V.A.,4 I. ......'-.."';...-----,..-..*-' ..--.-: ' 1 Pifirf ligt-eng4 I •Iii.).-444,4AV ill&i., '4,,W.i•e-,.-e.•*.#.53•4t...±;t4*./."V••!**gb.46*,.."CV1-Viv..,... , 1. i', , •'••••411.2 4.• •vp•Ts st• *•4111-.16,$N44.,..".*•., •,) 4 4.1.."<is•le 4.Ve4 it'•"`W(V-Voi'.1.' • .,......„.. - • ,4",,,44.- r . ',V.* t.14$**4t*I kf' 41•4•6-4s' t*.ivAtON--"44 e'.4 ts\ ,V Vit-‘• • • . , .., _:_:.;:___,,,„, . _ •&.4% -rtik. ts.1 t,":*****4,0+1 1 P't't* S"4\* ei\ V . ,. ,V,",t•?,:,;,.." • . ,.,, , =.r r•,‘,/,'4.1•;/' 4'• ••A ;' •`•..,4, ' •',X• '' i •Ai. si . ....;'. i'(.,:',•;\':-..',.Y;'• 4:11.4‘YZ ' .A.U.V1T\tSks ' ; .. '''..eTh••,'• ''''..A ' :.' .••%-•.,' ...e.''' 3-4. The two houses before rehabilitation. Because the porches were added after the historic district's period of significance, their removal was one option. .....- -mar _.....,- • 40.- ... ... •_:.-; - k ----••,,,-,:7-i1-4.?..-_- -;-... • • . - ,----.... -4:-ti1;11.**"74'f''' ,.-- '-:•--r'-••••f-*--:.' .„0„....alerel--,,,‘-'-`",,,t-,:-;-,t4At--•-•,,1,•*;:,.,-- -,,,V4',.:-.. :."-!11-- - ii . _ :-...... . ., , . ''1'..., .."7".., .Iii:, r_,..r.r.re,_,.„....:-",41...7.'1":_4 ....r• ''.. - s -A l'• - _ • • • • _ - ,..:iiii? ..„...„.„••• ... ....,,,,,••-_ 0....--..„. .„..,,,,,•••••„,._ „.....- ..„._ ,..,. .....„,„,,,....„. $ ._..-441.;'" - -.6_, ....X.P.- --0'..,,, "e1:1-.1•` ei, e..,.-.-:-,c- . ... ,. .' 4.,„ 1. •_...-st.„...0-v-,syk.`r.;.. ..„ 4.- ..... ...I. _;;,,, • '''' . • •,,nk.„-.1-- ..Ar s_. 6i-,-f.k...,,..-44''..._,;, ,,IP,-,---‘,:,,,pi•k •••_• ,1,,,,----*•.' 7.:A,••%4,-..,4-"ri:.t•-;;;!, -• " : Ale :-.'..,•I't;'"W -.&:1::;4?„:-.14,-;" 4-7.1‘Z.,:•'4:•,,-;':''',S."- ' --. • _ fir.'"-Some . .. ...., r -..._ . .. - :.•-• 1--.-,.-- .• .-,-• 4, . -/. - - r- t: _,.... • • _. . ,.,............. .„ .„. at& &CV ............. I I i .. ---...• - . . <.4?-_, ",7'',''..'-= ..• -'1-::4 ''"-.. :-14. i? . - -01111:eill2is.... - - - •.--- - •-• .... .....,....ir .......i.M4.+M* 7'... , S is _ __. . --___ ---- 1 . 0' ' - • ,,,,,, 1... , 1 ' ' 53:37‘.' ' ''''' -r ..... . .1 ! _ __ _ . . - tz- , 1-"-'"--- i '- --_-_-_- -- - . 111 _ ----ak • Ililitgi. .-- Z _...--- . .... • ... ------ '-'• -"'"•-•-•''' t---- -4 • _..„„.. - 1-• -.,_ . ._ _ _ . _ ... _ ,.. -- , .. _____ _......_-4k-:•..-- __ " - ,--- --- -— --....-.•-•vvt„-.,......---.-- _ t ,•-••f- -..-..---.-- ---c't---,..... . ••••,-.4,-4-'4*"..-•',--•..z.... ,,,-.7`,*"••,--...,,,.... 4? ---.4...,,.. .,,,,,,,,::,..,..-....... . -... . 85-073 •.� .'L ...a. - ' .a. . . •••7:11 t.. ...„,.;. '-'' 1..] El El r In Y lY'��----- TTt ! ,-F t.. fit ' t-.. Sw+ t 4 Nit*WO 5-6. The two houses after rehabilitation, their porches removed to reveal the original early nineteenth-century character. (Twelve over twelve window replacement was based on remaining original sash still extant in several of the third floor windows.) r__ ,_ —, .--..---_,..... e �,,,,,_ - _.• .- - - , ..: , ,_ ...„_.-r ,... -___ _.__ ....... , . ...... _.:___:„....-___ -- - __ ,. , ..„ , , .„ , , ..,, _ . .� f _ _ ...„.........„.. i -d_ • ..... 1r r -----. iv , _....., 3t� .: ..,ram ! „` z .irW�w.O.Yla6iTW+iv'YfMVY•sr1'4 Y'^ u! •..iwura: _ El . . IF ... "RR ..... •W .+'YM.:xwu-B.IR arPWiM-+M�I'.Iw=�if.J 1 - - �---� .. of � :. 41.0► Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 85-074 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (non-conformance). 9. Compatible Design for New Additions (non-conformance). Subject: ROOFTOP ADDITIONS Issue: Rooftop additions proposed for larger urban buildings raise certain preservation issues. First, there is the concern over material loss -- to what extent significant historic features such as cornices will be altered and how much of the roof system and the building's structural framework will be altered, damaged, or destroyed. A second preservation issue is the visual impact of the addition on the historic character of the building. The size, scale, material, color and detailing of the proposed addition may individually or collectively impact other distinctive historic qualities of the building. Finally, an addition is often designed so as to appear to be an important and integral part of the historic design -- a treatment which can compromise the historic character of the structure and as a result preclude the project from obtaining certification of rehabilitation. Application: A former City Hall was recently rehabilitated for use as private offices (see illus. 1). The building is located in a downtown historic district that includes many financial and institutional buildings of the early 20th century, typically 4 to 10 stories in height. Early in the history of the building, a rooftop addition had been constructed, set off to one side. Though set back from the facade, it was clearly visible diagonally from across the intersection as well as from down the street. The poorer quality workmanship and material and the fact that the electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems were independently designed led to the National Park Service determination to approve its planned removal. The owners proposed construction of a new one-story addition running the full depth of the building yet set back along the side elevations from the historic roof balustrade (see illus. 2). On the front, however, the proposed addition would create a highly visible 3 bay penthouse, set along the same plane as the front of the building and detailed to match. When the plans were reviewed by the National Park Service a determination was made that the addition precluded the project from meeting Standards 2 and 9. Problems with the proposed addition included its prominent location on a major facade and the detailing, which made the addition read as an integral part of the historic structure. The detailing emulated the original and along with its form and location resulted in the addition becoming a strong new design element on a significant facade -- an element which also took on an instant "historic" look. While it was restrained in size and scale in proportion to the historic building, it altered the building's historic character. The building had a distinct form which would be changed by the addition of 85-074 such a prominent penthouse. Furthermore, the historic cornice no longer would be the termination of the historic building in design, now having to share that role with the proposed addition. In the end, the financial infeasibility of any rooftop addition precluded its construction. Prepared by: Charles E. Fisher, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 85-074 s, . • f• '14:1'.7M:. \ p -�� ,.r-r�'" ;'tea �. 1(\gt •1'I•-orr" ‘ ' 1\ ?' ,., :3y fir. {.gam'" j 4 . >g" tw,' '�• �lI !!It`1..... \ 3' a' the ...0, tt ,� i �. \�1 - . :„.. 0- 't", Z $ LJ • Arm ti... �- ----.--- .- ..- All ileill..• - • , --1 tc,.....-,,,\,. ,.1 1/.. _...00,- ) „,,2:1 -;:, , , ,_. 101„...„...,. 1 -. , ,: ,,, , ,..„1., _ ,..,.. ,.... , _ ..0.' ._____. 1 AL . \\ ::::g 5 0 12...., . - IPA.' sue _" P_�- _ r_.., �, — 1 gm.- --gm; —1111V - -- ,_ : . —I: __-_,....,„ _ _ `>_.', tea: _ �' t :1-7-7/:in.0: ., omas t. 1 alitin 1 ��`. '4:.rrr1O..--«r�. °'��'-9. .Yy I '.3 '�O' ,+''W' ,,,,�,^, t-«:. s it acn ,..mot.` ls-_.-.: :* ti 'ac a V 1 -yam f jc.:r;. a: - �. .... � s of .A_'.FM- +..�ay _"{ -rid.- . -v� . - " C-'' / - _ 'x_ `'.� -4--•r✓T am• y.•K Y-w "" 6 •y �' "c 3--1, „__. .e. 3414 " K a r• i •,� - iis. •r 4 .rJ '� +1 4,:•-t- 1. This former City Hall, shown here in a 1925 photograph, has changed little over the years on the exterior with the exception of an old rooftop addition off to the left. The building has a prominent corner location and is highly visible not only at the intersection of two busy thoroughfares but also from down the streets as well. 85-074 II, -.‘ - IiP\II Acer"- 7......4:. ii, ..... 0.1' ......,.• .-..--, ..- ,....1 i;,..._ ...... ...., _ ;,,,!--7--------77 : 7 ' rAl 1, j ji i ii • ..„„,:-,:- r . - 0 11 I Mil . = ' 14 • ' 1 1 .......1: : 4 IN 015•6h---.2 woo 1 . __:,.... . til ' 1 Z. ". 4,... ,, ..,_ • ... "••""'`.. -- ii" 4, I-C. 14 ,.......... MON: r . II , 1 t • i ! I Z 1 t ''. ...., .. r ., :=.....4/ • I ' 1'. ' ' ... ___ ..... .., _..._..„...1 1 1 .1% ,r u., At , L t !..• i ----- 0•000•111 i ' .---------*—wgin;:t:11 i ri I t....&, _ Z 1 I I 1 i ''' •11 ..1 ifti.1-- „, = .---• t t-- ...t '''''' --- ,—, . r . ,. ; ir,-;-,5,.ta ;--lz.., ,:: , — ---"...--- F,..,;,:. Tr--/ ,1 _____ . ..=,.zo..1.1".. i I; - ' .44;."--------;:---"..--.-- I 1 ' " 1 F_i‘': ; ;: 1 1 1 um, - mem 11 . IIME.91,it i Ii :".:4 • ; I 1 rs,-. 1 ...:\- .1..—.•1.; --_1 ,i,ti..i..1e,4•taa-t:li,_s'oM-m,Is a?gV iniimti t umzi-"iii-Ii1rt-iiff-_... :- 1.-. y 4 cr . . ,1 i , i J . ,1' _z.,':" Zz,.i.,me*02 liti nr_ - ? •A•• - 05---A,b, ii'.7. al IlTi-.-11. ii Is i 9 .111 Iii ••• OidIMII441° , 2411rip ''11 llitiieb —WWII". -. ,,,,i',i'i-, ,, t. + 1111rWrAlp•• v--- i 111=reiml 2— .i 3, , tit 11_,..,.....-,g, NW, -,.----_----;----.----7,-- ... ---:-.--_-_ -- • ,1'—... ......20, 1-77-77- 10§1L-- • ,_ , _••.......,,,-...-. --. . .- ,,..,. . , ... _ • 2. The proposed penthouse addition with the three bay portion across the front was determined not to meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. The change in the form of the building; the conscious attempt to tie the addition to the historic building through use of replicative detailing; and the alterations to the historic roof balustrade, were all factors cited by the National Park Service. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service the Secretary of the Interior's U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 85-075 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance). 9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/ Additions (nonconformance). Subject: ELEVATED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AS PART OF A REHABILITATION Issue: Elevated pedestrian bridges have become popular urban features in downtown developments. Networks of pedestrian bridges, often referred to as "skywalks" or "pedways," may be found in numerous cities to protect pedestrians from inclement weather and ease safe movement between buildings. Pedestrian bridges, however, pose particular problems for historic buildings; they are difficult to integrate into a rehabilitation without altering the character of the historic resource. Standards 2 and 9 address the issues of retaining character-defining features and materials as part of an overall rehabilitation. When a primary elevation is partially obscured by a large, horizontal new element that penetrates the historic resource or complex, it is generally the case that the historic character of that resource is severely impacted. In the following two examples denial of certification resulted from the proposal to incorporate a "pedway" into the overall rehabilitation. These elevated bridges had a negative impact on the individual buildings as well as the district in which they were located. Applications : A rehabilitation proposal called for the conversion of a group of eight historic row warehouses into an interconnected mixed-use complex of shops and offices. The buildings are located in a downtown urban area that has experienced substantial demolition and subsequent new office construction. The warehouses comprise the entire historic district located on two blocks and divided by a road (see illus. 1 and 2). Across from the historic district is a modern office complex and public plaza. The road between the two is a major traffic artery and the city has proposed a pedestrian bridge over this road as part of a network of downtown bridges. The developer wished to incorporate this bridge into the new complex to provide a convenient, safe entry for office workers and shoppers. The developer determined that the bridge would help ensure the financial success of this project. This two-block historic district is characterized by large, solid, five-story brick warehouses that follow a major transportation artery. In fact, one of the historic buildings is angled at its midpoint to follow this road, thus creating a vista that is an important aspect of this grouping of buildings. The formation of two distinct block of buildings separated by a road is also a character-defining feature of this unique grouping of row warehouses. The bold scale, the articulated warehouse detailing, and the continuous panoramic vista of the two separate groupings of buildings are all important aspects in establishing the character of this historic district. 85-075 The developer, sensitive to the exterior character of the warehouse buildings, proposed to leave the existing exteriors unaltered except for the replacement of lost features such as storefronts. As such, his proposal for the elevated "pedway" would not penetrate the original warehouses, but would enter the complex through a proposed new infill structure located over the site of the road which divided the district (see illus. 3). The design for the new "pedway" would be a thin steel box- frame truss and open on the sides. The State and the regional office, however, determined that both the pedestrian bridge and the new inf ill construction would so alter the character of the historic resource that the overall project should be denied. On the issue of the proposed "pedway," the region's denial letter stated the following: The proposed changes would impact the character of the row as a series of structures which are significant for their cohesive appearance.... The angle at which the buildings and the street bend midway through the row already serves to distinguish the row into a series of two sequential experiences. Interposing the pedway addition would destroy the way this row of buildings is experienced. The pedway is therefore incompatible with the existing row which violates Standard 9 and it would destroy the distinguishing qualities of the site and the environment in which these buildings are located thus violating Standard 2. The owner appealed the regional decision stating that the bridge was of lightweight construction, that it would not intrude visually, and that the industrial character of the bridge was in keeping with the industrial character of the buildings. The Chief Appeals Officer, however, agreed with the State and the region that the presence of this bridge, or any bridge, along this primary elevation would severely impair the historic character of the buildings and the district. In his letter which sustained the region, the Chief Appeals Officer concluded that: The bridge would bisect the district, and even though the structural members would not be glazed on the sides, this bridge, or any bridge, would be a major intrusion; for it would interfere with the distinguishing character of the cohesive groupings of row warehouses, the significance of which qualified the district for entry in the National Register of Historic Places. In a second case, a 20-story office building, both individually listed in the National Register as well as being within a registered historic district, was scheduled for conversion into shops and 155 apartments. The design of this early 20th century building followed the classic approach of a formal limestone base three stories high, a block or body of brick constructions with regularized window openings for 12 floors and finally a capping of several floors in a lighter brick under an elegant copper dormered "mansard" roof (see illus. 4). Located on a corner across from a large open park, the two street elevations were primary facades of equal detail and articulation. As part of the rehabilitation, the owner wished to provide parking for his tenants. The building had no surface parking on its own site, but the developer owned a new building a block away where secured parking and a health club would be available for use by the tenants. As the neighborhood was still in transition after a period of decline, the 85-075 owner felt that the only way to market his apartment building sucessfully was to guarantee his tenants 24 hour security, not only in the building, but from the parking garage via a pedestrian bridge. As the lower two floors of the building were to house offices and shops, the entrance of the proposed pedestrian bridge at the third floor provided a convenient lobby and entry point for tenants as well as serving as one of several required fire exits from the complex. The owner had made arrangements with the city to lease the airspace on an annual basis. The owner's architect detailed the proposed pedestrian bridge to fit inside the arched fanlight at the third floor in order to reduce the loss of historic materials (see illus. 5). Any sash, framing or transom panels removed would be stored in the building for reinstallation at a later date if the pedestrian bridge were ever removed. The State and regional offices, however, were extremely concerned that the pedestrian bridge, located on a formal elevation of the building and only one bay away from the front entrance would drastically alter the appearance of the historic resource (see illus. 6). The project was denied certification and the owner appealed the decision. The Chief Appeals Officer agreed with the denial, further stating: The proposed pedestrian bridge is an inappropriate and incompatible attachment to the primary facade of this architecturally significant building To interfere with the view of the building and adjacent structures by floating a bridge above other historic buildings and the street and insert it into a nomumentally organized and carefully detailed facade would damage the architectural concept and diminish the historic character of the resource and adjacent buildings. The new feature would be dramatic and conspicuous, not subordinate to the historic structure; and the traditional views of the streetscape and the building would be distorted. Although I appreciate the desire for functional and service amenities for your tenants, I am still unable, in view of the whole, to see this proposed bridge as consistent with the historic character of this important building. Therefore, it is my judgement that the bridge will have to be deleted if the desired certification is to be gained. In each of these cases, the pedestrian bridge was considered by the owners as a critical marketing device. In both cases, however, the pedestrian bridge as a major new design element on a primary facade. Regardless of other issues raised as part of the denial, the "pedway" alone would have resulted in denial of certification. Prepared by: Sharon C. Park, AIA, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 85-075 -----,e,',---- :*-7, -:-, :-1....14-- ----..;,',.„- - . . .,•-..--....- Ilir117„.., 4 - .-te..... .1.,....:_,--v:-.,1- '',:',. .-'r''4,17-.4`k.N. .17"4,....*" "''''':-.'z''241-1-`6:=' ' - s .....%••••• ...-:. -,...._,. • . . . . . -- ..... .4 ------.- , ,-.:-- ..,,,,..-.1.2--y-n--7.---.....--•_ 4.,,:i- '.;,,,„ .• - _. 7".......-..........--.4-....„:1'-"P410141,__2,1- .'• ..: • . i . i 1111 ...1.1.1-9 -7:5• -4- 7.r.,,-,,:r 4 2--10.1:-,..-,:' ,,,,-.PI,, ,, -. --=',„ , ..•.,- -T "I , . . •- 1,f -,::-----i::: -..1?, • _, -* ...7 -.. . •,,. .... ..- .•- ... •,... :,,„, --- -P •11:-•"--;•••,,\'' ;•.' Y.-t". -., .f." . .'...,:"..,, -.2 e,.. .:1:.-r:1.•* ' --'--", . ' 17,,,,4.1r - ' -.,' vst."'. •-:"'"''r^.- , 4 .., . .,.,.-------..._-r,..r ,4, •. . .,..,..s....... • ef,. ?. .- .....z. .'... * P•7. _ ,t,r y.,.. ?- - -10.___ 4. , ...._ , '"' v,..... .; ...so 'its rillo,-7-. ,,, ::-_-...-2,-,---;,,-..,,,i.....,x::•---::.1, ..- i. ...... „.., • i_s_ tic,..,!.% h\ -_,,,,_.-- -_,...;,...--,:-.-: .,,,. ,„...: , /„.,... .. ..„..„-,-,........,7.....,. ..: . _ . ,. " ii.,-.,,,. .. . ..„........,,,, N.,., r7...1. Esau III ii - t,inn., Ared_e••• igi - - - . t„ ," --tt; iisi-, .. •,k. - .t•I -, ,-., --,-..,-.,,,4: •%A I' i 11111;. '41 111 g'tt t‘ ,.. 7-•:-Ic4t.‘i-.-'41:'-i: ma "...:11.4•' ljtitTt r . %Ill 1111 - ,' :-!. • -- t.,,2 --1.-i owl. 2 a ••, ; ; ' t. ....---r---..-, ,. --,---:--, ar _ ,i 1 iiiii ii ti 1 Il ll It ' ' •1,-•••••••• '• t• • ' MI 4,--' ! ' r- — --i - . NW IS it 44i4:-.0.....c.g._ .At 111514:11 • II m i Ina — 1 - 1 • 1 - . t" MI .1 \* i'''' i i - , ...i ,) . - 1 i ., .. - ' 1 v;ii t ..-111 __.1._ i ... .-.-..... -- \,\I: .---r.„, --------t-17 -":"-• 1 t:• —r- _ , . J. . .-,...9. ..•....- ... _ __ ...et-, ..••.7:-....., ... toOPIMr.. 6' r,111.' .... ,•• 1 - --4-lb.•'—•..- ---... I . ., - ----,: & • •---': :t I,-.... 1• • -_-" ,. -.ma AL•:,-. a :....."....'" ___ _____ CLIIIPPOP- -f•--7:: *--';'-'*".:..4:•-•-••" . - ---- ,/ - • - _ ',‘;•-••• :--...."- -*-z.....s_.,:tai'-qr1r-.-:- --- ' - -----'- -• ''' •-......,.;. :-- '' zip+17 "414•4^. • • .. - ., — ::. ..„.,4-,,i,*..--,..-- :.;.-- -_,..-. .t. --;--,„,..-1*,.,,,,,r,-Ct., ......•_-Ns- , . -- .•-- •- • • t '...f. '21---- ' sie.. .i.,,„ ' ' ' ..,----•"'"t. s 4, -, --•"--4 - ,..• ,•••ar."4.7.•••.-‘,.. .•t •- 1`-‘A 4::..--"". -1-0-.` .• ,,--;.••• •• ---...- -' .;',-4: i..) - - --"' 1 ... _ -C..- I.. -...;- '.... ,..., Y -.., • - ,.. - ,,,..-- , 4. •,.....le.4:;4 , • '-....4..". '...".' -r.• ' • ... • ..........6\IIIkeier.1,..:".''... •4.4 Z.'• t..... ••• . •' , -• •• 1. Case No.1: This view is looking south along the major street. Note the bend in the warehouse row as the buildings follow this road. This two block row of eight buildings is the last remaining row of industrial warehouses in the city. r t 1 a:§ • ' {� • ;, ♦► -; x 1 .,. is, , 1lht1'- l� • ` :. �ttt 4 '• '' I r •.J�{ —� .a ii- liitt■■ • Ca 1 :::::::" ' • ttul�lttl :n Al; •- 1 ANY w ' I , ' - , ___ ., f 2 •_' t i!_._70 1• — k. •-- z .. -• Sv 2. This view of a portion of the historic district is looking north. Note the road which divides the district into two blocks. This is the site of the proposed new addition and "pedway." J H • .,.. .1,.....1...... ..., 14 'tr. 'r''' LI It . .- __ -----...-•-•---- ._) 4 ......0.„ . a0 .•. . .,....... __ _ _...,,.... ::... ... . „e _.......,,____.„.,., „ _, _ __,____,..._..., •,.. ... .!" .' ".1 It' Mfg a I , •--_'..r,- r -CY.It is i c 4 a(.7. .V.•r Irrs. uiv� ‘'"s -, .,►.' ' . ., ,.....,..„t,-'-i,... ,.•.%- •mil - W .` ! . . _ ..L.. t ', _ ' - � 1 x -,- ... -. — .�_�... 3. This artist's rendering, looking south, shows the proposed "pedway" connecting a public plaza across the street to the renovated warehouses. This new horizontal element, visually intrudes on the historic panoramic vista of the warehouses and was a cause for denial of certification. The glass enclosure over a historic street was a separate cause for denial. 85-075 • 1. r 1.1 -� �,; .:L. • rair6-311&.'''.' s-s -ii-r-. / "..„..,t ' -7,*'°- /:.;'..,.//.'99:,, 4, ...„ .,, _ . . ,4.,, .............,, ..,.. , , , , , • . ..„. ., ), . , .. . ,0.,., "awl. • { ' 1 _• s. .K'�/i.slks ) `'+�w } J, L. �,.s,1►� _ .tea��' �`L'�l�N I "1 /:-111'- '11.... — ------ a� w'r F tyl:•. 1{ i 4. Case No.2: This 20-story building is individually :R1f ' = .c, 'rr1 'F'T�{{ 4 , „ ' listed as well as being located within a registered , , 1tr l; historic district. The proposed "pedway" would enter . •• , •.1 j ` '; ; ,,i,..1!A. `r lar»' the arched window in the limestone base four bays `' r r ) ,; : 0` ;' s from the corner closest to the park. -', . 1 :- , - y} 1! fr. :i :if. ;' F t I'''.- " llr i..•ifY rt#- 'f�f is v t ly ,.1 , — -—.." 1.-tr, ,.- --f j.:.:-.::, .—T — 1: .:::: a4111,-;:.', ' 1 , : .4.':t.' ,.''!,:.4 --.i _ �J, Wilk:" '_-:., ::fir.Vl , 5. This rendering of the proposed "pedway" shows that the architect took great care to reduce the loss of historic materials. The project, however, was denied certification as a result of the drastic change this elevated bridge would have on the formal facade of this significant architectural resource. 85-075 . . • 1 F. Iiii I • . , c T w w w 0 ' •::,..--'' -'..'111.11k;11 • a a I • : . : '......,•• 1. kt. 1 I • j,;c2,4.:f (4,Nit 41-141 a I NI In SS II i • • . - - ',._-''11 lk, 41 ' - • • :? ''1 4 11 11 1-11111 .. ••••••....,•,---• il ki I, .. . i...,....,:„.„,,,-.4....,....sKA.7,,......,...,..... .....,, , . . ...,•-••••41,:i.- iiittilei swami .C.'' NI - - ir k_..- z.t...-.6•71': .- • • • -iz-•-••. .... -.4,,.•,-- -.,..--:,- -.- :,,,P,it....rt.„,-. ..•--• --:7- .. -- -. • ••'. 'm,41•••:••••,A0--•.: -... .q..-,,,t.4 rs'tete-4.•-----••- - - • •-. --,•,-,._ ---2.-:-:,:•• It sioh‘t - NINIIIII . . ...,.•..,7, „,,".. .,4,7,4,77-........1.......??.-e-7:04.:?:s•-.4"..'"7.'Z ' . • -.±1... 7!..•41-; 14'114 ..'s''r-,,,•'-',.:"..- .:;'•.`,1,•:;':,\....•-4'.., .,.,„;. -it•f:--''-'%-..- . : • ' ' .. . - • ..-..--^-'v.--''...:,:•. i 1 k. i e ri;<4..4"?.'"3-7;iv:V^V45';:--r-3:;''''':1N;i52:-411$•1: ' --':::-"t`---,•;..)./v,-. -,.. :. ‘t.4,i - ,. ,• ..•.ti.e... ....-., 'I,VI 41, osinwir ii„..4.1.1.m,,,,.,:.:„-:,.;:,:,4j,-;.yig-.-•:-.:-:,:,,:-.7..:?.•.; -t...-i-::f.',...- -.1.t4.,41k.A•zp.1.ivi-t'iz,... - , :...,.' -i.,k. ....ri.r. ;:.A:•-11(0,0 -A iit m m ---..--,.t...,-.--:::::-.----,--i,......./1,..7...-f,i,, :;...:,:. .:-.....•:-.,:;,..4--1- 11.-‘;A.3.,,,e,,---•=i1..- •_ ,....,,..„74-tri:_- -----,::2,4" .5 ' N'' iiiiklt II •- ..a.,-..e.,.....-.i..-. •--- .,;;.,...,...i.. ./4-4., .• • • - . ------,,...- .11,4 I Aii in = NE a - . ..•.....-• ,. ...,. - -:.,:.'::.:•.-.'4,. -.- 41 41 :ii ar - . : - - • • 0 I ;... .-. ill N N •-_, ,-.;•;•:•.-•••:.-_„ , r .-;.------il . -- . t .-.-. .. h. iiii AN:. sr•a r -• -,: --..-..:J. , -.7.....:..••.....•-.a••.r i'••i•z•.',•X-'4....::.•....,:(-.44.;.:'_'f.1-/1.,.-,..„e"..:,...1.-1..f..!..:.:•.......„..;:„-.,.-•,:-.'1-.17:.:-/;-4e"'-,'-F-,.:.-.,.-.-P-.e.:' ,•:-,-';...--=:.1.-1,.-..--:..,. -,;:-'/"-3..---.r-,N 7',1••,•••,.=•.4!...-.-_..-';f-fV•"1..`-,,-•,..'..4-.a.,.i:.';!.„/..41...”..,•p?.t,...•.7•--.--=4-•7,V.-.4-r.--P•--,,:--1.".--,,t..'.1'f1,-;,4:‘,4.•*1;..-.---,.1,";'i.s.,..•-.A...-:",....•.-".A-•,;-‘7 *i4.tc•-i t-Wi-;•+4,--- 4---. ay..6 ai T .1.,-..',.,s..•,.,._,,_-:7-.,,y.•.-0-.,---.:5“;......-.;,.- i .... . i• ..._... -- . ,. . • _ _- - .- ..:i: ___ . : .-.i-w ..- , ,%•.,k;.-•z•.--1-.-7-.4,-- -_.-......- -...-....._. _ i: : ! - kr i. .-lx._....,:,.• . - - • .. .._-,,,. ., -.•---- • __•••• -• , . .,. . •. ,_ ..,-..,-,..,41-47.-6,.....4›....1.•_.$7-4-._e;•"-----.,.--; ::-.-•,•-•••• -.4.--,-,5, •:-‘• -- ',.:.-"-• - ' •--..'il___•-•_'. ,. -. - .. :-.. IT tl -' - ''' - •''''- ''''."'- '' '''''• '" •--•:•,';;.: :''.,. . *.'4.-'.-,' ....', ..., .4..-..••. F... ' .- ..'- - -- ' . - -.• 11':-.".,--;:-2:-.1:-..]. - 7. -. ..;...t.:?.:;•;...)-:'"i'Z. :•...;'••••-•'-. --- ..:':'.1 ''...-:-1.•:•.- . '•-,... - -, i ,: ;t.' . .-.'!..'`.:,•.••3'... .•*6;',7t..",••:' '''i"•,''' •-'.: .. ' .• .'--:'-'.-'..,....--•...,.7,•--;;;'.•-..-...;...:ft14-1.%•.:i!r. . •..-',vr..•,,-..:+1....:..v.,,,914.,.,.-r. '::.---.)-'--..;'.-----:--:-.':.1.•••-•. --.....:j.`•-;•.‘4.-f,-...,!• '-:- •..,•:_4_4,t_____-: .•.• ___L --- ..-„: , __- . .., •ti. .,..;•-•..x:-,:...-..:. -.. - . .•. .._ . ______ _ .':----'5-.::-;::':::: " • -'. • ,A,—-74---'"`-•••" •••- --•.,, .•••" ..'" ' '•, ., '4 i j•• 1_14_ti.j),_L,-.1_vi)1 t-ijig_g kiLL.,j, al-• :;,....:•, ..,:-:.:.,....:....:„..,-,-,-,-..;.-:•.;.r......,..:.:,-,:..:,,,,,-.....• .... —=.. -. t —--- --:--- ...fr- - ' - ' ........ ,': -!`.7 ....-".. ..---r---'•'-----... . 0,..!::::....-,,'...,..,,'.-.„-.:.;.•-.7‘.7.:-,i. .---?.'.;:-`.;•.::-.:', r - ...• 1.1 ,• . • tr .• - - . • • - ' - "i-1 1'1 44,Jj_ii „-4 k.-3_ v. .. . k.4 . i!1..-..',-.7.i.--.-1-:-....,--:f,i.,.=- -.:.:-.!..-:............-7.---•.;:-...:'. --. . • -- .- • • - — 4' — .A - '•• -'• : • , -:.:-.-.--,:-'''.. i -.• .• 1 .1 1-i I 1,1 I 111-4 ., 004 f4. ';'.4 :- '....... ..--.•-•.,•?::r:',...v.:,::7----.J.:::;•.! ;:.::,..,',... --,-.... :•-••.•••,..-,,--‘`-1.-,-,--'-- .::,:v."c'.._.• ''.:' -:,.,,. ..-'=,::-. :--'.,'..,.:. L. - -1 ' ''' ' .-:., ' '13A-1111-0Ch7Qina:rial:it's, ---,-...„----.-- -- 4,-,-t--•F`..‘...7.z.:-..-.,:"-4. .":::•-•:,.-..-7-:'.'.::::-.,"..r,, '.`:.••"::-'":' 4_. .--_....1 r, • -- --.. e:t, -' ..-; ,,-:i.:,.';••:..,'.' .--",:.• ....'"-.."-...--.:. - -. tz.,-;'=Ld41--14":11.'“,''''..•"''‘:r':',.i.• 1,-..;t:;,.:;:iI:' -77.'.4--:.• Viar-,10-1ZOIttk •,-; - -, :-..,.•;•,.;.x.:-4-...,'-'.,...••• - '"';',,..:-.:::.: :::'.:;,:'-',•:-.;',';'.'A:4'';..-\''.='' .....-7:SZ .7',.1'.-7,"13.7.x:',.4.7....!,,,,..;.i.:-_-,,,:f.;.......--7-••,....--.0...,..,,,C:e:.;,-,..,.;., ,,...,, ...-...,., ,..,. , .. .. ....:::7,..:: ..:!..f.-. 7:-.*.`,': --..".-P.:,-..-1.':6'-: ',.. CUMULATIVE INDEX Volume 1: 001-043 Volume 2: 044-075 Abrasive Cleaning 009, 039 Additions to Buildings See Also: Greenhouses Storefronts Demolition of Additions 016, 018, 045 New Designs 010, 022, 026, 027, 028, 034, 037, 045, 051, 058, 072, 075 Rooftop Additions 034, 048, 051, 060, 071, 074 Administrative Issues See: Previous Owner Air Conditioning 014 Aluminum Siding See: Artificial Siding Arcades 030 Artificial Siding 005, 006, 070 Atrium 048 Balconies See Also: Porches, Galleries 048 Brick Mitigating damage of abrasively cleaned masonry 009 Painting previously unpainted brick 011, 029 Removing interior plaster to expose brick 013 Brownstone See: Sandstone Building Codes Elevator 059 Fire safety 037 Handicapped access 032 Ceilings See: Interior Spaces, Alterations Chemical Cleaning 063 Cleaning, Damaging Methods See: Abrasive Cleaning Chemical Cleaning Complexes See: Demolition, Buildings within Complexes Courtyards See: Atrium Demolition See Also: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration Buildings within complexes 012, 041, 043 Demolition/alteration of non-original features that have achieved significance 016, 018, 027, 041, 073 Significant fabric and features 032, 039, 048, 072 Deteriorated Buildings, Features and Materials, Repair versus Replacement 029, 031, 038, 040, 042, 043, 054, 055, 056, 064, 067, 069 Doors and Entranceways See Also: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration New openings 029, 047, 049, 050 Removal or replacement of entrance 004, 015, 025, 032, 045, 049, 050, 061, 067 Entrances See: Doors and Entranceways Environment See: Setting Exterior Surfaces See: Artificial Siding Brick Paint, Removal of Replacement Materials Sandstone Wood Fireplaces See: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration Floor Plans, Changes to 019, 020, 026, 051, 054, 065 Galleries See Also: Porches New construction 008 Gardens See: Setting Greenhouse Additions 007, 022, 045 Historically Inappropriate Alterations and Additions, Construction of See Also: Brick, Removing interior plaster to expose brick 004, 005, 008, 018, 024, 029 Insulation, Urea-formaldehyde Foam 023 Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration See Also: Floor Plans 017, 019, 020, 024, 047, 054, 059, 065, 066 Limestone, Replacement 055 New Construction See: Additions to Buildings Environmental/Setting, Alterations Greenhouses Historically Inappropriate Alterations Inf ill Construction Porches Roof Alterations Storefronts Paint See Also: Abrasive Cleaning Mitigating damage to exterior by painting 009, 042 Painting previously unpainted surfaces 011, 029 Retention of unpainted surfaces after paint removal 036, 039 Pedestrian Bridges 075 Plan, changes to See: Floor Plans Plaster, Removal of See Also: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration 013 Porches See Also: Galleries Alteration/Demolition 006, 018, 033, 039, 044, 054, 072, 073 Enclosures 001, 033 Previous Owner, Project Work Undertaken by Previous Owner Which Does Not Meet the Standards 001 Regulations, Project Work Undertaken Prior to Issuance of 018, 028 Replacement Materials See: Artificial Siding Brownstone Doors Limestone Roofing Sandstone, Replacement of Windows Wood Roof Alterations See Also: Additions, Rooftop 031, 038, 051 Sandblasting See: Abrasive Cleaning Sandstone, Replacement 040, 056 Setting 002, 068 Siding See: Artificial Siding Wood, Replacing clapboarding with shingles Site See: Setting Skywalks See: Pedestrian Bridges Stairtower 037 Standards for Evaluating Significance Within Registered Historic Districts 064, 070 Standards for Rehabilitation, Secretary of the Interior's Standard 1 (Compatible New Use) 020, 028, 033, 047, 053, 065, 066 Standard 2 (Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character) 001, 002, 003, 006, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 017, 019, 020, 021, 022, 023, 025, 026, 028, 029, 030, 032, 033, 036, 039, 041, 043, 044, 045, 047, 048, 049, 050, 051, 052, 053, 054, 055, 056, 057, 058, 059, 060, 061, 062, 065, 066, 069, 071, 073, 074, 075 Standard 3 (Recognition of Historic Period) 004, 005, 006, 008, 010, 024, 029, 046, 054, 055 ,056, 061 Standard 4 (Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions) 012, 016, 018, 025, 027, 031, 041, 043, 053, 054, 061, 062, 073 Standard 5 (Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship) 011, 014, 017, 020, 025, 029, 032, 033, 047, 048, 053, 054, 058, 059, 062, 065, 073 Standard 6 (Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence) 013, 015, 029, 031, 032, 035, 038, 040, 042, 046, 049, 052, 054, 055, 056, 057, 059, 061, 065, 067, 069, 072, 073 Standard 7 (Cleaning with Gentlest Method Possible) 009, 039, 063 Standard 8 (Protection/Preservation of Archeological Resources) Standard 9 (Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions) 001, 003, 007, 010, 014, 022, 028, 030, 031, 034, 037, 045, 046, 048, 049, 050, 051, 058, 060, 065, 066, 067, 071, 072, 074, 075 Standard 10 (Reversibility of New Alterations/Additions) 026, 037, 047, 048, 051, 066 Storefronts 003, 004, 027, 030, 049, 050, 053, 061, 062, 067, 070, 073 Streetscape 075 Stucco 040 Surface Material, Nonhistoric 005, 070 Timing See: Project Work Undertaken Prior to Issuance of Regulations Vinyl Siding See: Artificial Siding Windows See Also: Storefronts Alteration/Demolition 015, 031, 032, 046, 048, 075 New Openings 050 Replacement 021, 029, 035, 046, 052, 057 Wood Abrasive cleaning 039 Removing interior woodwork 017 Removing paint from previously painted wood 036, 039 Replacing clapboarding with shingles 042 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1985 486-032/32920 Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation ors•• •t•rrt•ral•troMirtytt•trrrrrpt•t•rriMhrrr rrrrarrMe•aei•111-gt rrrrrr..S il _ g I .-, W iiiiiriblg ..: .1.-a:..,-..:..-..:,j. ... •. ....wIrt.7.7..111,.1.7:4111Wz:7,Z-71111,47.:1/14-411/F7';./111111r17 rain_: _I:4r , N -1, 77"Frifv- I. Lill! 1 •i.iu '_ 1111111 11 Mil ' y - . -- , IN 'I I___- 1 I 1 q..p ' 1. ' : 11 1 1 t illk ''' - 1 i _ IIIIIII lIIIIIIIIIB: IIIIIII ll,i uuin III imi mumu uu a mruuIII' Ill I I W�1m1I l 1 ,: —- _, r Volume III Cover illustration: Yokohama Specie Bank (1908-10), Honolulu, Hawaii. Rehabilitated under the historic preservation tax incentives program. Drawing by Michel A. Van Ackere for the Historic American Buildings Survey. 1987. INTRODUCTION "Interpreting the Standards" ("ITS") bulletins were initiated in 1980 by the Preservation Assistance Division to explain rehabilitation project decisions made by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, in its administration of the historic preservation tax incentives program. Issued at intervals to program administrators in National Park Service regional offices and State historic preservation offices, the first 43 "ITS" bulletins were collected in 1982. Volume II of "Interpreting the Standards" appeared in 1985, and included another 32 bulletins. The present volume adds another 32 bulletins, bringing the total to 107. Designed primarily for State and Federal program administrators, these bulletins have proved useful to architects, developers, historians, and others involved in the rehabilitation of historic buildings. Consequently, with this volume, "ITS" bulletins are offered for sale to the general public for the first time. Decisions presented in these bulletins are specific to the circumstances of the rehabilitations involved. They do not accumulate as precedent in the legal sense. The procedures for obtaining certifications of rehabilitation are explained in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 67. These regulations control in the event of any inconsistency with these bulletins. The following ten Standards for Rehabilitation are used by the Secretary of the Interior to determine if a rehabilitation project qualifies as a "certified rehabilitation" pursuant to relevant sections of the Internal Revenue Code. The Standards comprise the sole regulatory basis for determining whether or not a rehabilitation is consistent with the historic character of the structure and where applicable the district in which it is located. (The Standards for Rehabilitation, first published in 1977, are undergoing revision as this volume goes to press. The revised text, however, will differ in relatively minor aspects only from the Standards that governed review of the projects discussed in this volume. These Standards are given below.) 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. 3. All buildings, structures, and site shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. 4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. 7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project. 9. Contemporary design for alteraions and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. 10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Bulletins appear in order of issuance. The number assigned to each is composed of the fiscal year in which the bulletin appeared and an overall cumulative number. The index at the end of this volume references all bulletins in the series. (Unfortunately Volumes 1 and 2 are no longer in print.) This material is not copyrighted and can be reproduced without penalty. However, normal procedures for credit to the authors and the National Park Service are appreciated. Additional information and guidance on technical preservation and rehabilitation techniques for historic buildings may be found in the Preservation Briefs, Technical Reports and other publications developed by the Preservation Assistance Division. For a complete list of titles including prices and GPO stock numbers, write: Preservation Assistance Division (424), National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, D.C. 20013-7127. • Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards tor Rehabilitation Number: 86-076 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) Subject: ASSESSING "PROBLEM USE" HISTORIC STRUCTURES Issue: While some historic buildings reveal their character immediately through a particular style, through the use of rich materials such as marble and bronze, or through a repetition of ornamental features and decorative detailing, many others do not. The character of utilitarian structures, such as warehouses and jails, may be conveyed through the very simplicity of their form and materials, or through features associated with the historic use of the building. The contemporary uses some utilitarian structures can serve while preserving their historic character are limited. Historic utilitarian structures have been rehabilitated within the framework of the Secretary's Standards, but the potential limitations for adaptive re-use should be recognized early in project planning. It is important to be aware of the functions they have served over time in order to meet the Standards. As a result of an incomplete assessment of the significance of a structure's historic function to its character, an owner may make changes that compromise its identity. Application: A jail built in 1887 was proposed for rehabilitation into residential apartments. Located in a historic district, the structure consisted of a warden's house and a cell block (see illus. 1). The exterior of the four-story, 124' x 44' cell block contrasted sharply with the warden's residence, a three-story, late Victorian structure topped by an elongated arched dome that had long been a landmark in the historic district. The stark interior of the cell block reflected the strictly utilitarian character of the structure. The cells, 5' x 8', were separated by 18" load-bearing masonry walls (see illus. 2 and 3). The internal structural system was therefore independent of the exterior walls. To accommodate the insertion of 32 apartments, plans called for the nearly total demolition of the historic floor plan (see illus. 4). In denying the project certification, the regional office noted that the design proposal would remove: all signs of the historic plan and structural system along with all interior historic fabric, i.e., stairs, balustrade and newel posts, lattice strap cell doors and riveted steel jambs, etc. Consequently, this proposal would erase all evidence of the essential form, integrity and sole intent of the building's historic appearance and purpose. In his appeal, the owner stressed the immense difficulties encountered in converting the building into housing. He stated that only by removing all of the interior fabric could the conversion be accomplished. In the meeting, he also noted that much of this work had already been undertaken, including the removal of the roof (made necessary by the decision to remove the load-bearing cell walls). At the time of the appeal meeting, therefore, the cell block stood roofless with only its perimeter walls in place. 86-076 The Chief Appeals Officer agreed with the determination of the regional office that the rehabilitation destroyed all traces of the jail's character as a jail--and thus in large part its very history. The historic function of the cell block was very specific. "Its sole purpose," he wrote, "was embodied in the interior arrangement of the structure." This arrangement "was more than a mere adjunct to the historic resource. It was the most essential component of it. The interior arrangement largely determined the fundamental historic character of this building... and it had survived into the present essentially unaltered." As a consequence of the work undertaken, however, "practically all internal vestiges of the defining historic character have been obliterated." The rehabilitation, therefore, failed the basic statutory test required of every project undertaken on historic buildings for purposes of the Federal historic preservation tax incentives program--that the rehabilitation work must preserve the essential portions and features of the property significant to its historic, architectural and cultural values. In determining that the rehabilitation did not meet the Standards, the Chief Appeals Officer addressed the underlying question of whether the proposed new use—housing-- violated Standard I (compatible use). In doing so, he rejected the claim that the con- version of this special-use building to apartments entailed removal of all interior fabric: Considering whether this specialized building could be converted to housing, admittedly a difficult question, I have come to the opinion that it could have been reasonably successful with imaginative exploration of alternatives to total clearance of the interior of the cell block. While a design proposal for housing that was more sympathetic to the historic structure would have been approved, the Chief Appeals Officer took the occasion to note that the building would more easily have accommodated other uses, and concluded: It seems unfortunate that a historic public building of such particular character could not have been retained for an appropriate public use, such as library or archives, that could have been fitted into it with minimal disturbance of its historic arrangement. A creative, affirmative search for alternatives to disposal can sometimes lead to the useful retention of a seemingly redundant historic public building. Nevertheless, in this case, the denial resulted from the loss of historic character involved in the specific method of inserting residential units into the building rather than from the choice of housing as the use per se. Prepared by: Michael Auer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. • . , . I ' , •^41. '.:r'. I 1 - . . •. .1... ...p• , • ..40$r II 't:.,:, , I ...... 4.",. ,_ ---.....:. V-:- -,, •- ._. , . ..• ; .1,7,.....- , _ _.- ... _ ,. , . c: . ..74.:.- i- - -.. r- -_ 42z , 1 1 .. -•-- - . - .• `,-• • -1 --.4:- - .. ..;-• "'- , .. iti:111 - -•4 z • ••S . ...••••44, •.4 ....4- ,, ,; 15711r -Ammo;--•!: 4,4 4-* . I • •- , ,. 4.4- -.-- .,'-----4 F......... . 1. -.7-- . - eai, . ____:........,_____ - ....„. • .._.....,,, * . , . .. . „..,._ -- - _ _ _ ... . ..,,s,„ . ,.., ... ' . i,. . .. .,., .„, ._ . f; 4r ._ -• i • • ..I _ • — E --2. r, i — ;'''%',,-1-'..k.!Ih•.s..•".3_,44i.,;4•' - .4,. s. ....., .'44..-' -- -,-.7-4. ••-‘:,- t 6- , - 4 tk:1 • •,. i 10, --- , -"---- ,T •-...ri ,,,.,,, , - • 1 .i.„.., ... . -;- ' . - M-d2 .- -- , . •tj:illi•-•--.,-, t,a.. I.Nir ....e, t‘.... . ' . '11 ,•., , ez-_,..s.tit -4i,tii-*". i ' . __ -:.,.,""--.. ..4 ........ . . ..4 j ih.._ - - -...-.. --. '':• '' ........"''''..• - "'C ,.......-......ii4e ......... •...,........It ... '4. . .i. ,ft...F. 4 4._. "...." r .,... , --v., --• iN , - — , . -. '",...r: ••;dr t...." 4. 4. . 4 ..z..• ..,...A.,,,„c•••• ..... -...,,... , "......,,,,t...,,• ._ .....4. .P4 '•'• -.....:' .. '"'., * '''t_, • ,t....,- , . . 1. The property undergoing rehabilitation consisted of a three-story warden's house (partially visible, left) and a four-story cell block. 1":71- ...--,.to. ,e,-. ..- - -- ••-,-c ........-cv.--...-.7..a.---,n;=.,... --- ,-...,...n.- --7. •-4- -r..,,irk . - - •,- -- 7 4:1$•-•i- ':•: "c:t - _ _. .-kie.4.••_, ,'.-" , 4::-*. • - "" .-,..-..- i.:t,o.,-......'*5...-'r-.-,1-*-7-7-_1::."4..-:..,_.;,;_,r__t_•-^_•_.:...-4--'--'.;•--•••-•::-=.4-4,---' - -...".-,-_-4;--1*%`)x.:4,---1.-:-1,:4!-•,-t,'--,:-•_s it-"'-a'l-t.J.-_"-.-''...,x....,.,v:'.-_•,'-„ r .. • 4 ,,t ' I.,.• -. , ,..T. 2,-........-: 1.---.11 .-.,„ ,... _ .=,..q..7..,s: ,-. 1:-,-, .-1.4.._--,5 .,,, ,,,,....;;;,--,-.‘-, a ii- • ,•.,:•••,.. . •. b • • •• ,... .1 ... •1/4.-..,..,,---4,...„-- •,,,... _•,-,,,,4.- ..... ---,—....- ...• .. .• Ara ...,..e. __.m .. 2 , ,‘ t r ,• 4 ' 1. `,';. .,. ,:'. I 4c.,." 4C,....-* ..4;,-Z.-•"'" '4", -0-1- Z.- ' - '- *x "'" - ".--sa2lar: 7/' " It 1111 wi '''....,.°. 1-' lk 4.. ••••-, 4, -4••••44% W44 --4.4. 4. - -4"- if • I ,--4.-... .1 t it • - -;_. ....-,2).444.sivw------. • yr- r.,,,- ' 1 ---, :4•• ' t....te.* •,: , • -4* IiI -Z •-4..-4,:,-.„.-1 [.14 I e, sttss„ - —- z- -- --- -- -------& ..,,,,, ,s --;. .§.1-e-ir --• R. '-'-'•;:-,a.--,. ;'4.:•014.14,5 • .h_ _ ___ ........,.._.....— 7.4 -afg. -a, •-• • -,, -- I. ,, ., ., -.., •.kf;.. ,i, ir.,,,,,.,_., ,....,... ..„. opt Li- ... 4 J... ' • --—----.....-. - ----, V.' ,, ,•,,fc',";.m..-w-- ': .e "-r, .:*f•' - ...'•"c'''4,;_,, .P....: ; ‘, rr''' 1'. '4 ;•!. -------:- —-77-t:'--t?'ir' t ii • %, 1:;''".: ' -lit: ''- ' -111.1 I -ill_711, ', ,i- 1.4 - .•*:*' 't_',. ...13."9.1/4 t -.'.. 4 .• _4--_- - rt SI • . 4,.. . . - 1 Al...*...; s .'r•V:::......- ,I. .; , . i .,.i.,._, 1.,.....- , i ' ..1. ..1 41- ,,I •,' n. rrrc2.!.-..., .. 4,, . , '..,"..u..11..`" i.; • tarr4 :4;,47:41,..', titre . =., - I , likt•. . . , „ . . 'k".,r• ail.: LI -- , -. 1 441 I tit•, kfFr•;',111-4..,;Z" • "-- - _ -1•714...,, "t s'. sopiplitill I •.•s miii. _ . It • . . b}... / t 1 1 /^..". 8 b 1 • 1 ' ',7- OW. ....i.....i 4a4ft,‘, 4 (14, 1. ;41:1 7:::7 JICILIU131:11111 • g a ..''D-,4-b•-' _ .. ., -•-'-•-V ell:-.V4....,.•-*..1 e .v. •,--- .--, - - 015:111301111.4......,.. -.4* _ ,..t ta..,: 4 Al:iii;tr .''' -- ;''''-'3'1,:c-T711474 ' •.:: ..'t_.;..--r,..-.- ""---, :.„ -• " - •:43,.o'il,:!•‘-' :Z,t;'''tt:4k:"'Sll'-.'i,:: ' -.....6rri,;.*:4 -2:'`,It'-4,---.4-'4 .1.1,r. - ' * Cl :' ' '1'4.7..., ....'.7., 7 7 - :-,--'''' •L:r4.7.--: '".tr-- --,0'. .."‘riik•-• `7.' '''Zre,t-'7: 4_,••,...., --..` r • - ler;.`44.'N-4*.Z' .----4,,-r• '"tik44 `. " --ttc•-"4-7.'--,-1„4...t.4,),44S- 44?-, -.4:t'-:'.-.1.t,..,' ...e. 1••1 .-• .,.- - .i."-l ;: --, ..is,x-..:, -,•.7-2t-C,t","'A's,r-A... ..;, , .-- - 7--- `..,..„ ...- **` 1(1s...., _•-r,..,,f,.: .. •:-At.---- ..1-',4,....-- ''' ."- --- ' 4-9R1------,..' %•-..-..,•-`_ r..,-.a...'--- ''''.1:-•.,-..4'''1'''"`-- l'11-21,-.447 . " .-"•C""- -; ' '-' .:"."-• ---- ... . ...pwas*.-rv"MA.I.!-- , ._ .„,, .i.tit,. ?_..., , -,..`...4 , _LIZ..--,-.. -----z,,,,_ ••t .. -- .;: ,Zii*-5.---, .•- ,r..-..r. j,. - ...,.l'....t..,;;;i,4,..,e.",:4,--..&.:-A"..-17,,,;3---▪ :1--:-.. --:,---.....:-,-4:'',t'..- .,.4.-.A. I." -4'4 .'— _--...., -.-.-er.-_,,,,__,-,• -....-..., gi?,-, ,....-. ..,.., ..„ ;...;4 ----s -4--.:7-\""-.!'f '•• ' ,7•;.v;',...' •- •S.'*'"-'• 40#4.4 "'• ..)„,ji t 4; • . ".. ''A. ... 44 Clittirr.f?...."i-•- 7'4••'741101;.- . 2. Interior of the cell block. Cells were 5' x 8', separated by 18" load-bearing walls. 86-076 -Mni[ —MUJ— L�y CELL BLOCK _= L 1.1 rrrrrrrrr -Trrrrrr MEI 'I,',, 3. Floor plan before rehabilitation. Section at top of page added in the 1950s. n 1 1 1 N owl u *WE 0 ET t t � LI LI •=44 4. Floor plan showing proposed insertion of apartments and removal of nearly all interior fabric. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. _ [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 86-077 Applicable Standards: 1. Compatible New Use (nonconformance) 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) Subject: ASSESSING UTILITARIAN STRUCTURES TO DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RE-USE Issue: While some historic buildings reveal their character immediately through a particular style, a variety of crafted materials, a striking design, or through a repetition of ornamental features and decorative detailing, many others do not. The character of certain utilitarian structures such as warehouses, ice houses, barns, and jails may, rather, be conveyed through a simplicity of materials, form, features, and detailing which reflects a specific historic use. While architecturally simple, these structures may have played vital roles in a town's commercial, social, or cultural history. The contemporary uses that some utilitarian structures can serve while preserving their historic character are limited; thus, the potential limitations of re-use should be recognized early in the planning stage. To meet Standards 1 and 2, it is particularly important to be aware of and respect the building's significance as identified in the National Register nomination, one aspect of which is understanding the historical uses and functions it has served over time. Without a complete assessment of a structure's history and character, an owner may inadvertently make changes that compromise its unique identity. Application: An ice service company determined eligible for National Register listing was being rehabilitated for multi-unit residential use. The property consisted of a one-story rectangular structure built in 1920 that served as offices, an engine room, and coolers; and a 50 foot high windowless, ice storage house added in 1924 (see illus. 1 and 2). The firm manufactured, stored, and supplied "pure" artificial ice made from artesian well water until that service was rendered obsolete by the invention of electric coil refrigeration. The ice storage house had been used since the the 1950s as a lumber warehouse. It is important to note that in spite of changes in use from 1920 to the 1980s the ice storage structure remained "virtually unaltered and stood as rare material evidence of a time in American history when household and commercial operations depended on the delivery of blocks of ice for preservation of foodstuffs." The Part 2 application outlined a series of changes required to provide light and ventilation for the "problem use" structure, and to make the exterior generally more compatible with newly conferred residential zoning. Specifically, windows and doors were to be cut on two side elevations on four levels and balconies added (see illus. 3). Stair towers would also be constructed to meet fire code requirements. When the State reviewed the application, some concern was expressed about the new windows, but it was felt that overall preservation concerns had been met in the rehabilitation of an unusual structure that might otherwise have been demolished by the city. 86-077 Retention of the structural pilasters and interior cork wall sheathing were cited as positive aspects of work, as well as passive energy conservation through solar retrofit. Disagreeing with the State's recommendation for approval, the regional office denied the project, citing violation of Standards 1 and 2. A letter to the owner stated in part: Conversion of an ice-storage building...which will probably be listed in the National Register as a rare example of its type...to use as an apartment building is a drastic change in use and requires too many significant changes to the fabric of the building. The distinguishing character of the main part of the building is inherent in the tall, solid brick walls, unrelieved except by pilasters, without window openings. Cutting window and door openings and adding balconies on four levels on the two long sides of the structure significantly alters the original character...The appended stair towers add to the changes... Because the property had not been formally listed and was therefore ineligible for appeal, the owner requested an administrative review that would provide guidance on possible final certification. In his letter of concurrence with the Region, the Chief of the Technical Preservation Services Division wrote: After carefully reviewing the documentation provided, I concur...that the proposed rehabilitation does not appear to meet the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." The new window openings would dramatically alter the character of this monolothic structure. Furthermore...I have serious reservations about the building's continued eligibility for the National Register if the proposed rehabilitation is carried out. Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 86-077 F , ' - 3 !wt� _ -._ .-may.-.lt F •4r-r r 1'z n rt.: Y �� : t'y• �.-ts<-.e;t4h t•� --girl L- � .a , } yam.. � -1 i = +'e -, is ♦ [ $ _ 'n e .. ,a ......,.- ..� Ix Y ` `fir _ _ _ - — -.e� $pi 4{ _ _. _ : T -.- � r ti.ri gam" �;+-++ ��. .4�.^-" „` .4~•• 1. The historically important 1920s ice company firm consisted of a low rectangular structure together with a 50 foot high, ice storage house. Neither structure may seem to be of particular architectural "attraction." The simplicity of construction and lack of decorative detailing, however, parallel a specific use for that period of our commercial history. . t - 1:4 :,'-'•‘r� tat ��'� g ,• •• xA''"" `.w eye \ s •. \ . , it y f' 4 yli f. fie+i .4.- • , 8 , ,T; s.S ..+.•may .t t • ySY~ .. _ +ne �, -...z,.. .mot.. 0- - -:.a. r -:' 11.3 .:1 i -_•--',I • '' - tilIft.-: c am - - •It __ �.: ... 2. Ice storage house prior to rehabilitation. The massive brick structure was historically designed and constructed to be windowless on all four sides in order to enhance thermal efficiency. (The one opening seen near the top of the building is a small attic vent). 86-077 � a-.•- ;ICI I/I�i�i � . .;IplNi IONSrr ;ICI_ I; 11{I� IIIi�I I' lI III 011116tI ;iII.I! II 1/7 4 / /I , /; //'Ii A ►lllc'!I(C 1l Jsbl I 3. The rehabilitation proposal involved cutting windows on two highly visible side elevations and adding balconies. The National Park Service determined that the degree of change to accommodate this particular re-use proposal was not consistent with the historic character of the building; thus, approval was denied. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's teVashington, D.C. II rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 86-079 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance) 9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/ Additions (nonconformance) 10. Reversibility of New Alterations/Additions (conformance) Subject: COMPATIBILITY VERSUS REVERSIBILITY IN NEW ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS Issue: Standards 2, 9, and 10 of the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation" are used in the evaluation of new additions to historic buildings. It is important that a new addition be designed and constructed so that the character- defining features of the historic building are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process of increasing the building's size. This means that the new addition should be compatible with the historic building in terms of mass, materials, relationship of solids to voids, and color. The size and scale of the addition should also respect the historic building, and be attached if possible to the rear or an inconspicuous side. Further, new additions to structures should be reversible so that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Occasionally architects and owners will propose an addition to a historic building which they argue could be removed at a future date without damaging the basic form and integrity of the structure. Often the materials used in these additions, such as glass, canvas and clear plastic, are cited as proof that the additions are temporary. The issue, however, is not the permanence or impermanence of the materials used to construct the addition. If an addition adversely alters the character of the historic building, regardless of its presumed reversibility or temporary nature, the project will be denied certification. Rehabilitations must meet all applicable Standards to receive certification. Application: A small, circa 1900 railroad depot which is individually listed on the National Register was rehabilitated as a restaurant. The character and picturesque quality of this depot prior to rehabilitation (see illus. 1) was largely defined by the conspicuous, slate-covered, hipped roof that projected broadly beyond the exterior walls to shelter the station's platform. The exterior walls on four sides of the building were decoratively treated with a quarry-faced limestone foundation, smooth red brick, and limestone stringcourses and window moldings. The use of these multi-colored materials and architectural features such as arched windows, leaded glass transoms, and wood brackets on stone corbels served to link the visually rich exterior walls with the prominent roof. 86-079 In order to make the project economically feasible, a new addition to the depot was built to increase the seating capacity of the restaurant. An addition with large plastic windows with striped plastic walls and roof was constructed around almost half of the depot's exterior walls and was attached along the eaves of the building. Awnings were hung from the eaves around the remaining half of the building (see illus. 2). The project was denied certification by the NPS regional office on the basis that the rehabilitation violated Standards 2 and 9. In the letter of denial to the owner, the Regional Director stated that the addition and awnings obscured exterior, decorative architectural features and had altered the building's historic form. The owners appealed the denial, stating that the addition did not destroy nor obscure historic fabric. The owners contended that the architectural features were visible inside the new addition, and that the addition and awnings were carefully designed to result in little or no damage to the historic fabric of the building, therefore meeting Standard 10. The Chief Appeals Officer agreed with the owner that the addition and awnings resulted in no damage to significant historic fabric, and was therefore technically reversible. However, the regional office's denial of certification was affirmed. The Appeals Officer agreed that the rehabilitation did not meet Standard 9, which specifically states that alterations and additions "shall not be discouraged when the design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property . . . ." Although the architectural features and building materials of the wide overhang and the historic exterior walls were visible inside the new addition and behind the awnings, their relationship to the design and form of the overall building had resulted in the loss of the historic character of the exterior of the depot. As the Appeals Officer stated in his letter to the owner: Whether it is a temporary, reversible addition or a more permanent addition to the building, it is fundamentally incompatible in size, form, and detail with historic character of the historic depot. Since the addition obscures and alters such a substantial portion of the historic building's significant exterior, I have to conclude that the rehabilitation is not consistent with the historic character of the building. Prepared by: Jean E. Travers These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 86-079 • N. .,4011111r,A111111m1=00111mon•Mdibmsaget.-e. „arrow. woo. r !FP y 3 e'er fed t 1. Pre-rehabilitation view of building from railroad tracks: Note brackets, stone corbels and stringcourses. These features occur on all sides of the building. _ _ _ s • s_ c+x - _ 111111 "11111111111111111111111111f''"•„111I1I111111IIIIII11111111111111111 ll uutuun .non ______,,- r. 61 E i I ..H4Ililll111llllll1111111IIi1IlIIIG11 r _, -r- r ..-fir• z- 2. Post-rehabilitation view of the new addition and awnings from street. The addition and awnings obscure a substantial portion of the exterior. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's 1Vashington, D.C. II [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 87-080 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) 10. Reversibility of New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: INCOMPATIBLE ALTERATIONS TO HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR SPACES Issue: Historic residential interiors often contain highly decorative architectural features such as mantels, woodwork, ceiling medallions and crown moldings that are readily recognized by owners and architects as significant and therefore worthy of preservation. However, when assessing the historic character of interiors prior to rehabilitation, the spaces themselves are often overlooked. Important spatial qualities can include a room's proportions, defined by ceiling and wall dimensions, the size and number of openings between rooms, and the arrangement of rooms that link spaces on a particular floor. Just as any alteration to a historic interior needs to preserve important architectural features, such an alteration needs to be compatible with significant spatial qualities. Alterations which adversely alter or destroy important interior spaces with new partitions, or floor and ceiling cuts--while perhaps not destroying decorative features such as mantels--may still result in loss of the interior's historic character. Projects in which this occurs will not meet Standards 2, 5, 9, and 10 and may therefore result in denial of rehabilitation certification. Application: A four-story duplex townhouse, originally designed as a single family dwelling, was rehabilitated into five apartments (see illus. 1). This townhouse possessed a high degree of integrity and architectural distinction prior to rehabiliation. Although the building had been used as a roominghouse since 1930, and vacant for four years prior to acquisition by the present owner, the significant interior spaces, finishes and features were remarkably intact. Of particular significance was the second floor with its three parlor rooms which retained crown moldings, pocket doors and mantels. Of equal importance in defining the historic character of the interior were the interior spatial qualities. These three parlor rooms were designed as a sequence of large square rooms divided by pocket doors. The project work on the building's exterior was sensitively done. The exterior of the building was gently cleaned and selectively repointed. The historic windows were repaired. However, several incompatible alterations occurred to the interior of the townhouse to accommodate the five apartments. The basement was subdivided, and the staircase was removed to permit the introduction of two units and the bedroom of 87-080 a third duplex unit, the main living spaces of which are on the second floor. The second floor, the most architecturally significant portion of the interior, sustained substantial amounts of new construction (see illus 2-7). A freestanding closet was installed in the first parlor. A large stair and kitchen were constructed in the center parlor, and a bath, utility and storage room were placed in the rear parlor. Although the third and fourth floor rooms, originally serving as bedrooms, were more simple in their architectural detailing, substantial alterations and removal of historic fabric nevertheless occurred (see illus 8-11). Entrance doors from the hallways to these rooms were removed and new entrances created. The closets and interior walls separating the bedrooms were removed to allow for a new interior plan dividing this space on the third and fourth floors into two, two-story (duplex) apartments. Two new staircases were also constructed in this space. The historic staircase and stairhall were maintained on the third floor, but removed on the fourth to accommodate new bathrooms. In reviewing the rehabilitation application, it was the Regional Director's finding that these interior alterations resulted in substantial loss of historic fabric and incompatible alterations to the building. The project was denied rehabilitation certification on the basis of Standards 2, 5, 9, and 10. The owner appealed the region's decision, emphasizing the retention of significant historic fabric on the exterior and interior. Crown moldings, mantels and pocket doors were repaired and retained. New construction was placed away from historic walls and ceilings in almost all cases so that new partitions would not abut crown moldings and baseboards. The owner insisted that the majority of historic interior walls and spaces had been retained and all distinguishing architectural features preserved to the extent that if the new construction were to be removed in the future, the historic character of the interior would remain. The Chief Appeals Officer agreed with the Regional Office and affirmed the denial of rehabilitation certification. In his letter to the owner, the Chief Appeals Officer described the significant spaces of the interior and how they had been changed by the rehabilitation. Although it is evident that efforts were made in the rehabilitation to avoid destroying ornamental features such as crown moldings and pocket doors, I find that the alterations have in fact damaged the overall historic character of this building's significant spaces. Although historic interior walls remain on the second floor and in the third and fourth floor hallway, large amounts of historic fabric nevertheless were sacrificed to allow for the new room plan on the third and fourth floors and for the intrusion of three new staircases in the building. I find the alterations to the parlor floor the most destructive. The three formal rooms, historically of approximately equal size, have been significantly altered by new construction. The new construction in the center room, effecting the most severe intervention in terms of the amount of new building and loss of historic fabric, has further altered the original spatial qualities of the second floor overall. Although the rear room is still partially visible from the front room, I find the new kitchen wall and stair balustrade in the center room so invasive as to destroy the sequence of space that this series of rooms was consciously designed to envelope. The alteration to the parlor floor is sufficently 87-080 damaging to the character of this building that I would have upheld the regional office on that change alone. Therefore, it is my determination that the rehabilitation is not consistent with the historic character of the building and that it fails to meet Standards 2, 5, 9, 10. Prepared by: Jean Travers, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. ' - 'vit. "":141': -IC-- FBI ,EEC 1111 c' , n1< 'Wag _ Ail .a,.:,. R I O ION - 1111 A r. roll tir `Lit; . 1E1 1�01 II 11 iii nil .j - i _ •t t • • ,;1( 3+• armit 1 , ,.., t, ,e II ' ' s - lig . P • !► tit 3 i } 1, t )S+�" Mi: 11. 1. Building facade: This duplex rowhouse featured a formal series of 3 parlor rooms on the 2nd floor. 87-080 i f �... UTILITY Niri !_, PAPSLOR BEDROoM O O $ATH _ CLo MEMOS KITCHEN — ))I �U C PAPPLOPS PINING h G 00 ��4 vx 1 imom HALL NALLuP D PARLOR LIVI).1 1100t1 FOYEF5 FOYEry 4 i PLAN- eerore REHAt PLAN- AFrE1) REHA' 2. 2nd floor plan: Originally a side hall plan with 3 parlor rooms all of similar dimensions. Note extensive new construction in these rooms, especially stair and kitchen in center parlor room, and new wall for bathroom in rear parlor. 87-080 iiiiiiIIMMIIMIMIK I :` a z. t ti C 4 ...4, moo_ Y ! ,�A� } 'T/- , _ RC ,•. ,8.-.::1 y-'-,-.,,-.4,. +A etc '�.:"R» Wiz. y . 4*-- - r.; x �l • 3.and 4. Pre-rehabilitation: 2nd floor. Note view through 3 parlor rooms divided by pocket doors. Center parlor room below now houses a staircase and kitchen. `+ III II ,4111:1:$1: M _ _b "rlik � 1 �� - _ Sr' Y .. 1 r, g- ,' - 'jam:_ r 4 s- -' 87-080 t 1 jC Lt is /+— z a T v. 4 -y1 w 4r r } i .r '!";&l t s kl; �:,�� tom+^+ Y` Z;: Il --. I �.•.. 4 ,,, _ -- - ,.: :-:-.--i _ i „,..,:k 1.-- �(. .a• 1 .,� .i ,ac. 1+is F f -11 r a F , rt � �r �+.c ss �.�j, ,+v„ �a �.�li -,-� .e_. :.. `-t, _;f• 5. Post-rehabilitation: 2nd floor. Note new staircase and partition in center parlor room, new freestanding partition to the right of parlor - � door in front room. , 41 6. Work in progress: Center parlor. New partition wall for kitchen designed not to abut historic ceiling, yet is centrally located in room* 87-080 1 y1 "' _ s y w t .1 >4- 'Iy,7. , t r� Cc c 4 t y e �xl " ±la.'a"'z1.2' r .a'•� .--• '' ,''. y' J • � a ''j :t •;.,-',-- c " i .sue.: _ `rF z. ki I i t yy . t �f_s t .` tilt, .2 ,..k j!IC I1 I , ; j 1 its , ..y 4" at " } ":: 1 1 1 i `�- 1`'`_ rx••' -,:-.,,,-;',1. Si - • sy u h _ter • 5 @ ;` J ?� F Ate% c \\ - $TS q __ �. a '12 v :+i _ •�„a 7. Post-rehabilitation: Rear parlor room. `V" LL - b New partition divides previously square room. 4 �a c 1 .„. . ,,..,,,,....,,,. h k.... _ .:„,_ . . ,, . , .. __ tkk.-------- , ..„ . . „._ . ...,:._,.....,,.._ „.._,.„.,. ' _ ._ ..._•"4:.....-A-43.1: ' - ...-2-.. '• -34 n" �- 8 and 9. Fourth floor room, -4",1' 7--*'t = '2/ pre-rehabilitation (left) and 3 :, .xd u . _ _ in-progress (above). Note the FTM { .� insertion of the new staircase _ into the original bedroom in -, MKS _ _;-f the post-rehab view. • S - .,• •. wz• r ^ ism... ti fir► --"" - _. 87-080 -=-_ � ,-.....,-.... -,_ , . "-yam.. '�' ,� -'. -,,_ — ... ev.r,1_,, #.-. .. .-4,-, - .. _,,,4, .,.....,.....„... . ,...„( it''. ,i;- ;'-' -v-lk,3-• [1 _.,- C f , #:_ F , s / t- a � psi �� r , —_. i '° f �.. ��v-++.ter. -_. •'' • L' S � Y b f ' - K s i . 11 '- S 10. Work in progress on third floor showing -"Ili:" ; _' ' -- , penetration of wall between historic bedrooms, } ', i �. new staircase inserted in room and view to 14,- i '` 4 • fourth floor above. iY• { _1- .' ,: �� -• . bx - w ' S -_ - `2tn� � '1.1 . "' . ..... I 'in -...;.,., 11. Post-rehabilitation view of original staircase maintained as a part of rehabilitation, but fourt floor is fllored above, preventing access. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 87-081 Applicable Standard: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance) Subject: INTERIOR ALTERATIONS RESULTING IN LOSS OF AIR/LIGHT SHAFT Issue: Standard 2 of the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation" states that "the distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be destroyed." The interior of a historic building contains many different features that may be character-defining, including obviously decorative features or examples of fine craftsmanship such as doors, moldings, stairways, mantles and plasterwork, but equally important to the historic character of a building may be its layout, which includes the floor plans and the way in which rooms and other interior features are arranged. In many cases, it may be as important to preserve the general building layout as it is to preserve the historic shape of the building, including voids or spaces which may contribute to this shape. However, there are some instances when openings (voids or spaces) in historic building may not be character-defining. In such instances, and particularly if these spaces no longer serve the purpose for which they were originally designed, it may sometimes be acceptable and in conformance with the Standards to eliminate them in the rehabilitation. Application: A modest two-story, turn-of-the-century rowhouse which was built in 1902 originally as working-class housing, contained four "railroad" flats, two on each floor separated by a center vestibule and stair, and a lightshaft in the rear (see illus. 1). Rehabilitation plans appropriately called for the retention of the four units. However, although the basic "railroad" plans were retained for each flat (despite some relatively minor changes), rehabilitation did result in the elimination of a narrow (approximately three feet) enclosed light shaft which separated the two sets of flats (see illus. 2). The National Park Service acknowledged that the narrow light shaft had lost its function and did not meet minimum standards for light and air, but noted that this alone did not justify its removal since Department of the Interior regulations state that "the Standards take precedence over other regulations and codes in determining whether the historic character of the building is preserved in the process of rehabilitation. . ." Thus, the necessity of meeting health and safety code requirements is not a factor taken into consideration by the National Park Service in its review of a rehabilitation project. More importantly, the National Park Service determined that obliteration of the lightshaft did not result in significant changes to the floor plan, nor did it alter the character-defining features of the exterior. The "exterior continues to contribute to the significance of the historic district in which it is located, and the interior still preserves its original center-entrance plan." In short, the rehabilitation was determined to be in conformance with the Standards because "those components that are important in defining its character have been retained." 87-081 In a second, very similar project, lightshafts in two identical turn-of-the-century apartment buildings were also determined not to be character-defining (see illus. 3). Although originally utilitarian (primarily as ventilating shafts for the bathrooms), when the buildings were constructed about 1900, these shafts had never been very effective at providing light to the stairs or bathrooms in these three-story buildings because of their narrowness. Over the years the six original apartments had been sub- divided, and the rehabilitation plans called for the creation of additional units which would result in completely eliminating the airshafts. The National Park Service determined that the airshafts or lightwells were not significant character-defining features. "Because the proposed changes in apartment layout eliminated the original need for these lightwells they were rendered useless. Of course, the fact that an existing element of a building is suddenly without purpose is generally not sufficient reason to dispense with it, if it is significant. However, in the case of these buildings, the lightwells were not particularly significant or character-defining features, since they lacked notable distinction in design, workmanship and materials." Prepared by: Anne Grimmer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 87-081 1. Original floor plan showing the two first floor "flats" separated by center staircase and lightshaft. Note that lightshaft was completely enclosed, and not visible from the rear of the building. x _!� _ : _ I 1t it.h., —� , 13e•dreorn /\ w I • II� .I��,�, ta,.. Oath ` 4 { I I > • I 2I li i . Kitchen i4,.. _ . I '• r / i b . rt.. IMmim imilmi 1 . i Living, ! EPEE"' Original Plan New Plan 1st Floor 1st Floor 2. New floor plan after rehabilitation shows that although lightshaft has been eliminated, basic concept of "railroad flat" remains. 87-081 A 111111 1 11 Li fit Niii‘ dim Shaft APT '' 1 APT4`2 L-1 1 If 3. This original floor plan shows the lightshaft (shaded) that was determined not to be a character-defining feature and therefore eliminated in the rehabilitation of these two identical apartment buildings. Technical n Preservation ServicesInterpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 87-082 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Features Subject: ALTERATIONS TO INTERIOR LAYOUTS Issue: Floor plans are often of prime importance in defining the historic character of historic buildings. Indeed, in some cases, the floor plan defines the building type. Such is the case with "shotgun" cottages, marked by the linear arrangement of rooms that gives the form its name. Although alterations to the plan of such structures undergoing rehabilitation are possible within the framework of the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation," the basic interior layouts of these modest structures must be respected, particularly when they have survived intact. Applications: Both projects discussed here are double "shotgun" cottages whose characteristic room arrangement remained intact despite some deterioration of features and finishes (see illus. 1 and 2). The first was built ca. 1900; the second dates from ca. 1890. The original plan of each building is a rectangle having a dividing party wall down the middle with four rooms arranged in linear fashion on each side. Sheds containing bathrooms had been added onto the rear of each building (see illus. 3 and 4). Each building was rehabilitated for continued use as residential apartments. In the first case, the "shotgun" plan was generally retained in the rehabilitation with some modifications (see illus. 5). Kitchens were inserted into the second room of each half of the duplex; a bathroom and laundry were inserted into the third room. The fourth room in each half of the building was enlarged by moving the partition forward a few feet. Despite these alterations, the division of the building into two equal units was respected in the rehabilitation. Within each half of the double cottage, the interior arrangement of small rooms, one behind the other, was also maintained. Thus, on both the exterior and the interior, the building appears as it appeared historically, as a modest double cottage in the "shotgun" style. This plan largely determined its historic character, which remains following the rehabilitaiton. The project meets the "Standards for Rehabilitation." In the second case, radical changes made during the rehabilitation obliterated the characteristic interior plan (see illus. 6). The separation between the two front rooms was destroyed to create one larger room in place of the double parlor arrangement. In 87-082 order to enlarge the apartments, the plan was further altered by incorporating almost the entire rear half of the right unit into the left unit. The floor space lost to the right unit was regained through the addition of a stair to the attic, into which two bedrooms were added. In this project the damage done to the historic character of this modest building is extreme. The units no longer convey a sense of the original "shotgun" plan. Construction of the stair in the right unit has further drastically altered the structure by introducing a vertical element missing from the historic plan. Finally, the division between the halves of the building was effectively destroyed in the rear half of the building. Accordingly, the project fails to meet the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." Prepared by: Michael J. Auer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 87-082 • • ----- , 1 77 ....., . _•.:• ...; • ___ -- •,-• •- • =Ai• . •... ...,. .. . .,--- ...t. . • 4..-.7 • -,... Nik. • •'.41? . •. 4-----------------_________..._____ b.- • . -II, ' • . ‘,..., ... . ,,,..:*'.-"• ..-. .,;;;.-•:.•tk ,,,• ...R_IA,. - ... 4.466.- - 'I i • iti ---',;••• .a,• t-.--- y . - -_•......,.,, -- --- . - . _--- - '-'''''.. •;'•..."'..•.p.,-4,-:-- '. - . 3 11 .-A • 1 _ -_--z-, ,''.•_ ..... ,... j _ . fl i _ 1.• — I IIM. 1., ii. 11:1141.r as: .... .. • 4r: , .......4 4- - --rtrik-..-411 ..---________ ____. --_- _ ---'-'-'--.--..-- . 1'.;.....7.;.... 'MOIWPOPr.""r="arr.-r.e, •-“„..,4, . .„. '---4.' - ----. - . " •-.;,.... - ‘'Ir...."..„:---laa•'...-- - - . .- ........:.-. ',..--:::%.,',".. - .".- t- -,, ,...,,,,,a.."...-- .--...... - • .- - .__.... • a:P,I.',,r--..-''--"--..1:-''-'-- ..:1:7' ,-- -.."`---v"--'•'-'''-t',-;,-;'...,,-- - - - --- „„,,-. •.,•. *'. :•:";:.'"-;'''''',40'::''''arrr-'t.- - ....., -....-'1•0•11."'' -. •..4.... ..,_ , t-.....-. 1 and 2. Circa 1900 double "shotgun" cottage (above) and circa 1890 double "shotgun" cottage. •!. 411 :4-•,.0...t:.........A_r., -^-4, •"- 10 ••••••,. .... r Illy., .,.../..-. . *:_-'`r..-z, _ 4 4 ... " ...2,Y.""&'.;?4.i:_-!"*.,,_, ,..--- r ' --- ' . • ' ...4.14-j7Ki, , ....2.1.s... . - '.•••• .-;.-,.-- .... .5,' -•"' --"4"P.Ock". * 'It •- - .- . . ... ,.• ,"cPr.. • • t1tilk,'' '4;g4t.V.ViN A.:4„"itillab Fr ,• al 4.„ •1, . ti.,,41,„..., .,..„i‘..„_:..,...„.......__I.1,-..,.,.....:.,,... 4 9-•.! ... 1..0.1.1 . PICCOI••• ;;;;;,- --, •' "•' ''".... -.01:4 -Z---:--------_____-' _• ••-;71'z'-'-'' : -,-1 - .s-'. - , 5.,i. • nv.V_-_,,,. -, - 4.:,--.: fz--- '.i.i.-. ,: , ,,,_• , ......;. ---..,...—_- .----- _ —...:.: _:...--.. — •1-1V-3.: : 1 —”--______ :...... ...•.l'-z....._'.....;V:.,:,t---,--'. k.--, / --- ---- •••-, ........ . -,-,. "4-. •.,-frfx--` -, - ' • ...,.._..„ .. , •- ..q--* :,..,-.1..,, ...------i;-1-ifl. - :.-- ,„ .. - . • I.,- . " ---.- ..--....- -. , , et...... ....,,,,:-....:i...j.,64-4,-;, ..: - - ..'7V7''' "::,47:.N.1.474-•' z--::•• 4.1... , ....., .4e-,...-.•..-- ,-..,", , , .. ...-4.,'...,...".-7.,-..,..,..'7.72••-• - ,', S. • / . ,, ''^-' -; ,:- • ... ----....-. 87-082 1 $ATH 9500,TII 4. mi) ll hrzfie.).1. 0 hrici-in,1 AN I15 0N1 4,q lOOM 4, 12) 3 ooM ? YcnM NIE i a [ MCOM 42 -{2)(:),0H ItZ }.... mm A 1 12100M 41 -P oo K41'1 /7, 0M 41 t i ....._. ....._ 1 I 11 it L' 3 and 4. Before rehabilitation floor plans of 1900 building (left) and 1890 building (right). 87-082 I C� L. G:3 r ni pi --bpr_4 W , Q hrcci4E.Isy mos LIV 0.1q L�Vit.L� EtJT 1�E., EMTeAtiJcz. UNrrA MI 5. After rehabilitation floor plan of 1900 building. 87-082 1 ,,Ec.K ,r . DeoRoortA D�CoaML � . ��n +>ord••11S L .• , I I1i 0. 40 2,1�keor.•sr %r. 0 I ....< i " .1 ! 1 ; cr411151" aw...=. &,�.... ' IL.. . -4 1 krj_ -- ' 1, ,;..6 a{i $. o w lose :F — -y ammo +re.wa !S IIr— :: (.4.i. i b.W„ i. u l �� 1 1.0-1.9M- ,b:7/e - --— j { o, inatri " —3 M4 Z4L ii IMMO, , EliG MINIM 11.11111111 Caji JCirG4eI _IOit ` 11 -Cifillir * ATTt . AT71C L I V I N GIN; . !,4 _z' ____ s.. .-us____.,_ -1onjs m er.. h _4,-4 _ .tva , IUNIT A k Ut4tT b DVS s.t )( ira <!.f .,tvtNar� >wiNi AI 0 r 1 . .._....... _ • 1~fy'IKA4NGE, E01•112otNGE UNIT A U1 c 'b (51AAoe0) ViCS1 FLooI ',SEGoi l.0 FL.00e.- UNIT 8 6a and 6b. After rehabilitation floor plan of 1890 building. The unit on the left now extends across the full width of the building in the rear half. To regain the floor space thus lost in the right unit, a stair was added, further altering the plan of this simple structure. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the interior s t —rashington, D.C. II [Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 87-083 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance) 9. Compatible Design for New Additions (conformance) Subject: ROOFTOP ADDITIONS Issue: Rooftop additions are often proposed when there is a need for additional space in a historic building which is located in an urban area where ground floor expansion is not a possibility. There is no specific "formula" for determining when a roof-top addition may be appropriate; because each historic building and its setting/context is unique, each proposal must be reviewed individually. While it is generally true that smaller buildings, three stories or less, are least suitable for new additions, and that taller buildings may be more likely to lend themselves to a new rooftop addition, there are still notable exceptions. And, it is important to realize that some historic buildings cannot accept rooftop additions at all. A building with a very distinctive cornice, for example, even though eight or nine stories tall, may be just as unsuitable as a smaller building for a rooftop addition, if such an addition would be likely to obscure that character-defining feature. Standard 9 does not discourage rooftop additions if they do not destroy significant historic or architectural fabric, and if their design is compatible in size, scale, color, material and character of the property and the neighborhood. The guidelines recommend that all new additions to historic buildings be designed so it is clear what is new and what is historic, and that rooftop additions in particular be as inconspicuous as possible when viewed from the street, and that generally they be set back from the wall plane. Application: A rooftop addition was proposed for a four story apartment building that was being rehabilitated for continued residential use. The building (actually two buildings either built together or designed and built to complement each other) was constructed in 1914 in a rather plain, vaguely classical revival style of brick with a slightly raised limestone base, beltcourses and some decoratively carved keystones on the first floor. It is capped by a simple but fairly prominent dentilled cornice (see illus. 1). This building is one of several larger scale apartment buildings located in a primarily small scale, single family residential neighborhood. The building itself is surrounded on both sides and across the street by two to two and one half story rowhouses, and therefore is highly visible within the district. For this reason alone, it might appear that the addition of any more height to this building would not meet the Standards. 87-083 However, using a setback design concept linked to the cornice by a sharply slanted pent roof, another floor was added that is only minimally visible on the non-significant side elevations, and cannot be seen from the other side of the street directly across from the building (see illus. 1). The new rooftop addition and stairtower (see illus. 2-3) is visible only on the non-significant and non-character-defining north and south elevations of the building. The fact that there are skylights inserted into the new pent roof is also unknown to passersby. From the public wayfare the new addition is visible only on the non-significant side elevations in the new brickwork rising above the original roofline, and the stairtower. This rooftop addition thus preserves the historic character of this building, and is in conformance with the Standards. Prepared by: Anne Grimmer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 87-083 rs • t.7'`�.. `` - ' c t� L 1 •"- • ' .s`mo t s o • . ! 23421 4 - ' r 4. -.b. RE' K- _ � TkG .� « ' i x � , � , " r .•L " •- ' ", `ma . r l .' T. �" r' -,IA - - ♦ '.i[T 7.- . ' -- _ � ,1 � IAliiiit4Ryw A -- ...- r " • s� - :4'- 4 i" F •, -• ••i.. / r- * . �• F Atr: rR—_ 3. es . j ....c...vic:,..... , , . .mt...___:, t.iii ''..:`" ,t- f -._...is.: 43s�. . (. , y. /-r— '(--: i, _ J$!uii�. --'V V \ • .,., •,....,,,,,,,,,v.4., .•rtzi,..0...•s a. .,......__, ____ . ..= ...t •. ,, " astil ir..•. j is -- .+. 4` r�' �� .�. —.."�.`�� 0.2 ... ! _ :ice �� I': } ter- - • • r`. Ad' w > .str's ,i x..a. yjram �.a s ,R rr,_ " Y s '+„s° 'ir'bri , i' -" iL�o ° 'y` - .i r +— .t�r = «.s1 1. This early twentieth century apartment building was actually constructed as two buildings of harmonious but slightly different design. 87-083 t. - �t. __tom _ �C '*' l'� 'n.�. - 'U 7\+(x _ • ira .r.S . ;.f•- ''> a1, ?1•, _ ,- - _ 2�t` +��"rr � „` � Ay` vrl�, r A.s�r = 1 1 • 1,} {Sft...„ X,, S,r .• -`4 �s ' - r ,441,� i}.-7P . +. f 1 r". .y-''To,.+ •-!V_,,z. ♦L -a h s r 0,_. it e )r / 7s .,*a .JI '"--' ., .1 r} M '� 4 Z:-7: ) t+ - • y '* _ — ..' r 'ti-( .I .!t ,,.yfZr.-� .E=-r ! p ,0 trt -N , - r.."Q'r .,�!i�•J ••• .'Kt,.,FK•+� it, 1r i` i x {.:_ .s•- i i „-t�Z. r•r.: .....;.. .1*:14•".` I'f ,�?• 4f,.4=�1=t.m.%. .t^.1 • •'`. S .1 #- s R . '„_'. ' 1!!4 A t. £r7rv.'f-rn 'A 3t- • • 1 `h r ,t."-s-i- i ii%:#'�'+Ii i ! q 1 ♦`� ?,� .1 t y.' • N= -'.rl:`T 2 •s�- 1 Y" �i i it t rlift, -1� •r. .j' r 7% .;ti;, . _ .''. -Yam, lvl -r, -+a„i J,, 4,-.'fi.0 .. . 'ri=.. �� ' .............. . - ..- is 2. New rooftop addition and stairtower visible on the south elevation. r i -. -- j, a Or1 3 v h tt a k" .. fO rS7 A V'r' j.. a-. A "7 a ,.L ! ----""rir -r n .' _ -{ e'i_ sq`�v�a�`rs'�ti` ��ri4r;‘7T'Vg�S , .}• `"y 4-- _ tI •.y f. .r',h.91ryLT'i+7✓.; �`ilt7it „ mi - � t - }} 1. ri i ,i- • m.,.."...4 ~ '. t v {.i�r.t\•.• ..L•r ►'_•; ..• • .. • ,,a.. « ' .�• " t' . ` •'r d ..--r" ^ter.-.-,N.. •` „Y, ..:-.-:,... :�fe• .o.. - --- �- --}}� dam', iti • - . Lam-•'Pl� %o... r't {J �Iti .. - 1 ._. `11 1 or 4 .i` ,' p th,jS3+fe., . t `► ''.11 id,it. all ~ 1 - : qtyl r I _ * 14 A, • III? dlfl� 'u ad5„...! . - a. r /•- • -r ` s : -ram. �- 7�". -4• .� „."o.ifwalica -4 ar. _ ) t . .. 3. New rooftop addition visible on the north elevation. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 87-084 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Features Subject: SUBDIVISION OF SIGNIFICANT SPACES Issue: The imposing lobbies, auditoriums and other grand spaces associated with hotels, churches, theaters and other public buildings are typically character-defining features of such structures. These major spaces, however, are often part of a spatial sequence that has been consciously designed as part of the overall plan of the building. Other, adjacent spaces, either leading up to the building's "centerpiece" or flowing from it, may thus be essential components of the overall character of the structure. Any rehabilitation of such structures must respect the procession of these congruent spaces. Isolating them from their context within the overall organization of the building may cause a project to violate the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." Application: A large building constructed in 1925 as a social and residential club for a fraternal organization, and subsequently converted to a hotel, a drug rehabilitation center and other uses, was rehabilitated as residential apartments. The primary entrance to the building was a three-story lobby that was the most prominent and most highly ornamented interior space (see illus. 1). At one end of the lobby was a monumental split stair leading to a gallery and to two other large public spaces, a lounge area known as the "palm room" and a dining room (see illus. 2, 3 and 4). Photographs of the lobby demonstrate that the palm room was continuous with that space. The palm room was clearly visible through the reredos, and shared the lobby's deeply coffered ceiling. The large pendant light fixture in the lobby was balanced by an identical element in the palm room. The palm room and the lobby, and to a lesser extent the dining room (which opened onto the palm room) were thus perceived as components of one large space. In the rehabilitation, both the palm room and the dining room were subdivided and incorporated into apartments. The palm room was stripped of its decorative features and an additional floor was introduced into the space. In the dining room the ceiling beams and brackets, panelled wall with niche, hooded fireplace, and other features were retained, but incorporated into individual apartments (see illus. 5). To enclose the new apartment spaces, a floor-to-ceiling partition was constructed behind the ornamental screen between the lobby and the palm room (see illus. 6). 87-084 The project was determined not to meet the "Standards for Rehabilitation" on a number of grounds. In the palm room both the decorative finishes and the space itself were destroyed in the process of inserting two levels of residential space. In the dining room, individual features were retained, but in the finished work they appear as individual artifacts only, out of architectural context. The sense of the room as a coherently organized space is lost. These modifications to the two spaces had adverse effects on the historic character of the building, and alone would preclude the project from meeting the Secretary's Standards. When these spaces are viewed in relation to the overall layout of the building, however, the consequences caused by their subdivision appear even more serious. The insertion of a solid partition behind the open screen effectively cut off the lobby from the palm room. The damage wrought by the rehabilitation to the individual spaces thus exceeded the demolition of individual features or their incorporation into smaller rooms. The rehabilitation destroyed the formal organization of the spaces themselves. The progression from the grand, three-story lobby, up the elaborate split stair into the palm room and adjoining dining room was lost, and the historic character of the building irreparably harmed. Prepared by: Michael Auer, TPS These bulletiins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. '7 / 87-084 v0 .46:.,:...;. . 4 i1 , :- ::.v---. T • .p 1� �. _, ".. tllL J • • -mac► 1.1. Fi• . .---1"'4's ; - ___ __,___._ — 1_1_ir Witt! Ilk-' OF i ,,,,l.li , 4.I. mai 01 —t•;-ØV " , , ,'41FIB, 'A - •/ij i _ Aimminnimmiso • t' ,4 —tee 0";;;11.51 ' illIMMI.. .... 2 tgz.....1 ,mi .V M,,.. . \ 4 ... ,- 7.••=.••=11.111.111.111111101W-.le -- ' ki!"-.11":.... .c.....:".44::::- .• %-----.>-- -.'. --.:- - 4 '' \ ,,' ,..... hialliL _ - - - - ---,:i0.?.- i i . �r 14, 1. Lobby before rehabilitation. Ornamental screen at top of stairs leads to two other formal open spaces, the palm room and the dining room. - r- ar • i a) t o s J U i E a •• ro a A II �, i F--- II ff z ' ..-.. --, jo ,��j► � I 2. Plan of lobby (A), adjoining palm room (B) �, z and dining room (C) before rehabilitation. a) a) a) 7isi' .r:1 (aim as 1 - a° 87-084 .:1--". -,.,.fit �_ - z;z.., V ��` • :.:"- �,�i +s 1T • _2-. am• ' /�' 1/\ 1.�. _ __ r lin •' i `/ ►;II.F4110-"„,•!"- .r i 0 ,/ . _ _T. ... . _ ,),..., . 1 .. .. •_ . i_.,1 4-\ _ t . ;. . ,. li ‘ ' —'17' 'I 11) -gr N i i• ' . 1 i 1 . . ! ., ve ..-„,,,. ---, li ; r• ' dlle 4 't. * , •': i....,, 7 • , il ,' 1 i , . ,.' • 1116,'111r1 1i1�c ° 1`11" -y iif 2j.t ' va- d.. 4..tea _ r. .' 1•-, ``' '.ligjeM � ' .•% r et It.V•� _ `1. • $.. •••l fit._,." --�� - ,.< '-X r •a:�, 4%r ..f .".`4"" -$a• • + :; ..•- `+,. 3. Palm court beyond lobby stair. Ornamental screen between the lobby and this room is reflected in mirrored wall at the left of the fireplace. All features were removed from this room in the rehabilitation. Wiz_ .~ i . - li 1 r 'F -,.. k -iv "--N, \:\ 'N\ A ,- -.-, -7 -aim • F 4 ' 4! 1 ir ,i4k, -..,,:: ,,,,i,, ..,-0.. --, _,-. HI p 1 , , J1. 'S �}• / •• ,_ `fir ''' tit Y kio'a •W,y. .S:`�,-1c �'_ 1 ' '�" ` 4 '.`%'• .f .lc ,. .e'.., a tat t. 4. Dining room, before rehabilitation, and adjoining palm room (right). 87-084 p ..---mq! ., 1I i IA W c0 1i ' r -4.J Z I I , ; .� H A711 `-I j"'""'"li 1 U� U o: '...!"---">-.. I 0 « r !)i a w a • - - J aiLl 5. Lobby and adjoining spaces after rehabilitation. The palm room and dining room have been subdivided. A new partition directly behind the decorative screen has destroyed the progression of spaces that marked the original design. 00 'V CD Oo -P, r .--1 T.---- ,-., -;!,--- .4-.1-rtTC-41"k 4titts'k . . ,. (.; \ , ,..A , , -l' 4., ..."4 ..t•idr.... f 1...; .... - .31 0. .•••ofo,!...'...'..:;•'" ,..- ' ... ";"- ..;'.:: 1 1. - • • J.° ' 01.....' frt'•::-' -•.* -.4 • . or ' .._ ,I • • , .. (1 A.• - i••..• -3/440. . ••• .•• .- .••• ,.Avui , A , , ..,,, • ..:-• ,r ei i i il )1,,4, . .(-3...‘ ............ . ., y It 1 r 1 r 1 r lr 1r 1 r I i 1 i '• i t. I I,' '...I i' 54 1 4 ' -'• ',I 4 I I 1/ . 'ti f r I 1 , ; , it . 1 I •'11 , 1 111\ f''' 111 ( 'r• ; f. .1 . .1 if- . . . , ,I. L'A`I .**4 • • 1 Lt ) ,• Is.P,1 r...I je , i if . . 0 b.4 1',`I ', '' I. - 41. ll • • 1 Lc 4 1 II till ill . . --- i .Y i i , r .j i.. 4111' . . 4,..bt ., 4; . ,‹• - t. . ‘ • , • A j • • 4fr,e4 2 ''` ,......4 i . i 4144 • 4 r . -'4".• ....)," .., , , -e4 4,..., ... ...... ........_ , 1 i it --ar • , Ar,..f..'' N• . • _ , -T.:, •. ,-. - - . •-, - .._ , _. - - 4 s' - •L .3.— ''7;1". ' -.Aeldir110. • '- - - i , , •.:,,,:.• 'J.',41 -41Atitt-4/004lett•.4!.‘>.41t1710.1.k , , 6. Lobby after rehabilitation. Partition behind screen closes off palm room and dining room from the lobby. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 87-085 Applicable Standards: 3. Recognition of Historic Period (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for new Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: INCOMPATIBLE NEW ADDITIONS Issue: Entrances and porches are often the focus of historic buildings, particularly if they occur on primary elevations. When rehabilitating historic buildings, if an entrance or porch is not original and has not acquired significance, property owners and architects are free to remove these features and/or replace them. Design and construction of new entrances or porch additions, however, must be compatible in size, scale, color, material, and character with the historic building, neighborhood, or environment. The new construction should not dominate, but be clearly differentiated from, the historic building; and according to Standard 3, it should not seek to create a false historic appearance. Application: An 1880 manufacturing facility at the edge of a registered historic district was rehabilitated into a retail store (see illus. 1). The original brick building was a simply detailed, two-storied, gabled structure, with a large one-story section to the rear. It displayed characteristics typical of its function as an industrial building, with large door openings, numerous windows, and a covered loading dock. The rehabilitation called for the removal of a ca. 1950 corrugated metal roof covering the loading dock, and the construction of a new porch or portico in its place on the south side of the building. While the existing roof was a simple addition to the original building, it was generally consistent with the industrial character of the building, and could have been retained (see illus. 2). However, in the rehabilitation, a decision was made to construct a new porch on this highly visible side elevation, making it the new primary entrance from a parking lot. The new construction was determined not to meet Standards 3 and 9. The new porch, which retained and boxed in the surviving pipe columns from the old roof, is located in the same general location as that roof (see illus. 3). However, it differs from the old in design and scale. It has larger columns and is three feet taller, thereby dominating the south side and front of the building. The new portico fails to meet Standard 9, in that its size and scale are out of proportion to the historic building. The new portico also departs from the industrial character of the building. With its deep entablature and massive formal columns, the new portico creates more monumental, classical architecture than is consistent with the function and historic character of this modest industrial building. The new portico hints of the Greek Revival, an architectural phenomenon much earlier than the date when this building was constructed. 87-085 The rehabilitation could have met the Standards if one of the following options had been chosen: 1) retention of the existing side roof, 2) removal of the roof, leaving the south wall as it was originally, or 3) construction of a simple new roof, following the size and pitch of the old roof. Prepared by: Camille M. Marton, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 2-., A'_• -l 1.I.t ii t !+7 . -._ • �' • 1 2 yti l ...y •, .4 � . ., s � Y MMINOmmilEM _ 1i. } .e • r.-•. _ .ter— . _._�.:.. 1. Front elevation of the 1880 manufacturing facility as it appeared prior to the rehabilitation. 87-085 I _ r5 .: ;. - ' - n ' ;-... i. 1 4. W . ii, a� -• T {ra. , -?"fit`� ' _ ': r - • . .+1" 2. South side elevation of the building with roof-covered loading dock prior to rehabilitation. • i1 ail 74,-, _ . . 6�+�� .•.. a. j I 1 Y xy? T-"`7t. »r ". Y _ « r--t;�i "%,- f ... . * Za =�. fi , a f ----', • sD r xt - A- �`' 4 . .. y,�r;a- •„ ' ,� F f • a Rt. ;' •- i- 7. h. 7 ... _ ter ; ! 7 ,wr 'i1 y„ sj 'F ow•- er 7-- r^m : V sr., , .- 1„t , _ � 3. Photograph of building after rehabilitation with construction of portico. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's —rashington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 87-086 Applicable Standards: 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence Subject: MATCHING THE HISTORIC WINDOW DESIGN AND DETAIL WHEN REPLACEMENT IS NECESSARY Issue: A window survey can be a valuable component of rehabilitation project planning, particularly for buildings of institutional scale. An objective window survey by an experienced person will establish the condition, and repair or replacement needs of the existing windows. A critical aspect of the survey--often overlooked--is using it to help identify the visual role that the historic window design and its detailing or craftsmanship plays in defining the character of the structure. Such an evaluation should include the size and number of historic windows in relationship to the wall surface, the pattern of repetition, overall design and detail, proximity to the ground level and key entrances, and their visibility, particularly on primary elevations--both from a distance and up close. It should also consider whether significant interior spaces exist in which the windows are distinctive features. If extensive deterioration makes it necessary to replace the historic windows--especially those that have distinctive muntin patterns or decorative detailing--the replacement windows should provide a close visual match of the design, detail, and finish. Using the same type of material is.always a preferred preservation recommendation to achieve a visual match particularly when the windows are seen at close range and when they are important in defining the building's historic character. If the replacement windows selected do not adequately match the historic configuration and result in changing the appearance of the resource, Standard 6 will be violated. Application: A school building that remained as a single component of a previous multi-structure complex for the handicapped was being rehabilitated for office use. When viewed from a distance across the former campus (see illus. 1 ), the masonry school building is identified by its twin entrance towers, steeply pitched gable and hip roof, and round-arched entrances on its primary facade. When viewed closer, as one would see the primary south elevation when approaching either of the entrances, the windows become distinctive features of the building because of their size, number, pane configuration, and high visibility in proximity to the walkway and main entrance (see illus. 2 and 3). Finally, from the inside (see illus. 4), the historic windows have distinctive muntin detailing, shadow lines, and finishes. An important aspect of the application was inclusion of a comprehensive window survey. Based on the survey, the applicant contended that total window replacement was necessary. NPS agreed that the windows were deteriorated to the point that total replacement was appropriate. Once that issue was resolved, the main question remaining in review was to determine whether the owner had selected a replacement 87-086 window that was consistent with the building's historic character. The owner's first option was a wood replacement unit, but an aluminum replacement unit with sandwiched muntins was instead selected based on a combination of factors such as faster delivery time, meeting energy code requirements without having to install storm windows or interior energy panels, and the lower cost of the window units themselves. In making an overall decision as to whether the project could be certified, NPS concluded that the design of the replacement units was not consistent with the building's historic character. As part of the denial letter, NPS wrote: Regarding the windows, on the basis of the window survey, I accept that replacement of the twelve-over-one is warranted; however, I find that aluminum replacement windows with sandwiched muntins are quite inconsistent with the character of this structure. The twelve-over-one windows are an integral component of the external architectural design of the building, and preservation of their visual qualities is not dispensable. Although you have attempted to match the pane configuration, the muntins themselves are flat; the change in appearance of the windows as a result of these sandwiched muntins between double glazing fails Standard 6, which requires "in the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities." In rejecting the design of the proposed replacement units, NPS gave the owner an alternate course of action to bring this aspect of the project into conformance with the Standards. This was to select a commercially available wood replacement window that would match the historic design and have true divided single-glazed panes rather than applied exterior muntins. Finally, if an energy panel was desired, this commercially- available feature could be applied inside the sash or, alternatively, a standard interior storm window could be used. Such a window system would preserve the detailing of the historic windows and the historic appearance of the windows would be retained not only from a distance--but equally important in this case--from up close. Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 87-086 46 016 A ,��.,sue F :b// x ' � y�! f *, '"- , , //wi diAt6§1 4-0— - ..,- t, ,, ,, . / I- ''"" - - r 1" ' t. ,4*0 , , '-/- ,- / .^ o ✓II- , .,,„ / r a �S - , _ tq .:, , ,, JO,IN ,ii Y : .t �-sr •\ Ni; t it% , ,/ áIf *: �• fir; � o.4, t ft if& wv.....„,,irpv... , a - /1Z ' 1' y//.,/;,. '✓//lJ/'3'.f%1e0,1//i � ley/ x,'AT: d Wit. ; f r/I , ,,,,,,es u, 'Ay ar , .ssir:z: x.Y.w w �.Y.0', m[,s' s"h*q' ." 1. The former school building is characterized by its distinctive form--massive yet only three stories in height--its twin towers, unusual arch-shaped entrance and series of large- scale, twelve-over one windows that were designed to provide maximum daylight in the classrooms. 87-086 i ; ‘,,\I ,, 41' oi .:::::, . .... ..:,,,,L, \� 7 d . g F�yF t '•r i t ? j e_ p ..--.•4 . ' '':,... ---7,4 ,---••=--,—.:--z••-—_,,,,,, ,:=,r.,,---.-.,' F...---p7---:...-,.---:•-••=----- '''-.,. ---.77-t,'-'---",.-'---7---" ,- ,-''•-•'. .::„ s itoi tar • • t � + �1' � �,.�;• `�aeP� Asia �,,,,\ .mac. �• a—"4^,r-.-. r„,,-,�,�� +1�\� i\ \� \y\\ \ ��'„x. ii, t a V 'ac'-?- A . \. \ "wan a \ .. d • t �\ \, .xwxwaaax awe*.M-.Mc. A \ LIARllA�ClMNA7ClM.R �RXl�.fl .Mepp.WtN�tliGR�!$S.:➢.S""P 4 • �,,,�s .A'C"'M". .,....� ":`�.•'\ @�2.\'0.RRle 1RQNIRA�RCROAF"'.-t, ...-e... 2. and 3. The windows and window openings as one would see them close to the building's walkwa— entrance establish the importance of their design and detail. t 4 ', e,, $It* \\� ,.. .q., ,11,,,e , - &i,t: ,,,t,.4' \ r ,\‘‘. ,,z it,\\ ,,,k, ‘, : , \\ . ,, ,v , ,,,‘, , ts ., \\,,., ,,,, ,‘,.\y , ,,,,, „\\, ...tw , „ , ,,,, ,,,‘ i. ,, \,, , \ ... . ‘ ,\ 1 . ,,,,, . ,„., ;. . ,,, , , , ‘, ,\;i-, % \;•\ •\ $ ' ,4 \., \ � • i as,• :, f .e ,A��v ' . -- 4. From inside as well, the detail, design Ji , features, shadow lines and finishes are .. , \ all part of the character of the window. o i If a historic window is so deteriorated that it needs to be replaced, a matching ' # replacement window is the most \ s= # \ i appropriate choice to meet the ` ,/' Secretary's Standards within a • \ ;_ , r rehabilitation project. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 87-087 Applicable Standard: 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: INAPPROPRIATE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS Issue: Inappropriate replacement windows can easily detract from the historic appearance of an entire building and change its historic character. The National Park Service requires an applicant to show that repair cannot be accomplished and that replacement is necessary due to an extensive level of deterioration. Once this determination has been made through proper planning, any replacement window needs to match the historic sash, the pane size and configuration, the glazing, the muntin detailing and profile, and the historic color and trim. This is true whether the window is a simple one-over-one, double-hung unit, or a double-hung sash with multi-light division. Also, whether the replacement is made of wood or aluminum, special custom work is nearly always required to achieve a satisfactory match. If the principal design features differ from the historic window, it is likely the new windows will violate Standard 6 and, in consequence, project certification will be jeopardized. Application: One of the larger commercial buildings in a district of intact 19th century structures was being rehabilitated for office use. Built in three sections and unified with a handsome Italianate facade in about 1875, the entire structure occupies the intersection of two major streets on the front, and extends the length of one city block at the rear. As part of the application process, a request was made by the owner to install replacement windows because of the deteriorated condition of the original windows. NPS responded affirmatively by letter stating that replacement in kind of the historic sash was acceptable. NPS would further permit the owner to use aluminum window units but, in this case, imposed a set of special conditions that had to be met for approval. The NPS letter to the owner said: ...On any-facade where wholesale replacement is necessary, aluminum double-glazed replacements will be acceptable provided: 1. they are custom built to match the size and shape of the existing window; 2. all glazing is clear; 3. the pane sizes and configuration exactly match the originals; 4. all false muntins are exterior applied and closely match the originals in profile; and 5. all interior and exterior wood window trim is repaired or replaced to match... After work was completed by the owner on the building, the project application was reviewed again by NPS for conformance to the special conditions. NPS denied final certification, in large measure, for the inappropriately designed replacement units installed. The different material (aluminum rather than wood) was not an issue in this particular case. NPS wrote: "After lengthy negotiations over the issue of window 87-087 replacement, we approved the removal of the historic windows and established parameters for the design of the new windows. These parameters were not met, and the new windows detract from the historic character of all three public facades of the structure...This is particularly unfortunate in light of your arguments that they would preserve the historic appearance better than storm sash over the existing units." Before and after photographs revealed several design deficiencies in the new window. Where one over one double-hung windows had existed historically on the building's primary facade, the replacement windows were a "fixed" design with both upper and lower sash on the same plane; the horizontal piece applied as a meeting rail is actually flat, and consequently unable to cast the familiar shadow line of the historic window. Finally, there was a dramatic difference in color, from a light cream color to dark brown (see illus. 1 and 2). On another key facade, where there had been historic four- over-f our double-hung windows, fixed sash were installed, the light divisions were altered, wider muntins were used, and the color of the windows was changed (see illus. 3 ,4 and 5). After NPS denial, the applicant sought to bring the replacement windows into conformance by a series of cosmetic changes, including relocating the horizontal muntin at the top of the four-over-four window, and applying wood trim to the aluminum muntins in an attempt to create a thinner appearance (see illus. 6 and 7). This proposal was also rejected by NPS on appeal. In a final letter to the owner, the Chief Appeals Officer explained: In view of the prominence of these windows, I do not believe that any superficial, cosmetic changes to the muntins--instead of replacing the existing sash and installing accurate replicas of the originals--can be made that would bring the project into compliance. Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. ""� \\: \ i • • iavalaw� V \ \\\j4r ° � «aa- Utr t v\� \ v�AAAvAnAv\�5 ,,,, VA�t !r � r s— A% r ( r ii \Aw,44111111 AA\vv ,-.* I/ I ..., -..... 1 4 , 0. .-- , \\\ \\, \ ti •( e9r. I 0 - 1, , i : -1 fill , \\ \\ \.\ O\ \O \\\-! a / V: v� r \} , v��i \ \, v , ,i j \ \\v\ vvl,0,.., ad v\wy� \1 �I • • ‘, \ \ Y tal\�yv a a, t ffvo' _ w•,,..,, 1. Before rehabilitation, the front elevation of the 1875 commercial building is shown with its distinctive "eyebrow" ornamentation framing the one-over-one, 2. After rehabilitation and installation of the new circle-top, double hung windows. Because the sash and windows, the"eyebrows" seem to float--disconnected-- eyebrows are all painted a light color, they are perceived • historically as a unified design component. above the dark brown fixed sash. v 1 0 00 V -� e li , / � / e ,, �J • d/ / Div , -o, -''' , 4r,/ ,fg0o,,, t „ i /, % / , - /' fi . * / %/ 4 /nrk' / 9/ //,.% /y�/,I .' /"4 x ey..y ,v, ,," fi t $,,-,,,,e,'4,,, //%/, R ,9i Nl 5 atlkrY9E i1Fi' S•% ......':z.lsrr � 1l� #L.rJ. i �S r'yH� twf 5 uf/d'v'iWii d k is g ' H §rs r y/.r/ ' '' "'7'-1 '00-.txp pio.' // rr r l /i/� /////-74///X- /�//'--- i%r.r/ .2iU'//rb""?✓v+ " /'///',e // c;-'" -ice// / j// / //id/� /i/z%i/i'//' I// /, / r /rr 3. Before rehabilitation, the windows on another street elevation were four-over-four units that feature delicate, attenuated muntins. The historic window is a double-hung design; the shadow line that the meeting rail casts at the center of the two-part window is a distinctive quality. Yp"f : ,b :.."5 r r F f1 S10nn/ w / y4:::sr.011.81000,1!. ` r .A iRec 'rk fwri f %r, i slPo 'x&L y� • j E7AOMt�D14fu SE "«aa DeRR C.x$ ... ' 3 '3 Evrarzax K6 SSN rx" r/"J'J'e2b� .SV�Jlal9Ai+r "'x �tE,n:a+awa " 4' jrj >rvrrz.x� ar56. r »• E,7q;gar" Y ✓ % - IE'a�EaS mlvAr#q W / :I°_ �` ri ; 'E - " s:6.9EYa1 7JlA�>f .�o'!: . uatx ive,Cse .,.. q,..A s -- ... ...:,:>..w.,. .. --.,;, 55"44- �t _ah. 3 ..is /may`•'' Aft .Rf Is'. *Os, i rar,-`i k ' EF,4 yw --a""`" ,.;` 3, '.gig'S =s es. ili �'ti r t � .rfnJ}g .E AA `iOIX ?R RYkAi MRM7Mi. . a. 3- gl , , _ _ it' ,, In . _ gs, •wi!.� Y�Si: `_ ,may,�s -Yi.. '�i.� :, ./, }.'Y 7R„'F... E - 9 i} � sp�s w MN Imul j rim ' Aft` Y/' - � / ,., ",4e tw"Ao. k `r -bra id`� 'arvw�� r �"'�""�'' n.�L ,. .ar T"ccar'°';71,,—re-r ,ar.r,'`'•-,•.— o.y. .me-µ. <. - M: �r .` ?� x».�z'�'"' Zf°` ' ;, " .H.; a _ � ;,1 f r t ..5.. M8 *4 E J f" //n✓,a ._ I'm c zo rr�:.w�a � • 4 and 5. After rehabilitation, there is a striking change in the "7 , appearance of the entire facade due to the installation of a inappropriate replacement windows. In addition to the R- .. -- . .., : `� • obvious color disparity, the unit is noticeably on one plane �`,,. h " rather than double-hung. The muntins are also much heavier " .r" and there is no meeting rail. ' ,, a III » :. �y�.�,,_�� ,'....,,I,;--t / . 3'r.^ ,. 87-087 I OWN t L„`. 11111111 ai i R ,%k �/ _ s �..& _ /fG 4%/ i t FF _ D 7 AJ? { !T .‘M T7N6 s / -�FSRIcK1•INE N,2,}{pufZMU. r7)N) r1' N �qus71 i%'' _ � a MUNTIN REIOG,i1C4 EXISTIALE.MUN11N tAl ,; p � ti .MUN71N t.cr�71c 4 • a i i, pp�'3G-p �MEE7INC -' L� iV )) PIbPD�E�1/211(`'j yf r 1 ALUM IMTc�."II'D µ NIM�'cL r I HEAD 1I�a-, iT� 0, �'' i, �_ �Y. I G ` b �L��RT�C n n ,.. x��, e,c,sr.vam�`-1G 11 sr,.4� 3 1-o y /- 7� � Y� , i fma PAI1- 2i - NC3 AWM•FRAME 11:11 r 7 3 :—�..-iI _ •v�,fc/\L Murmrt 6. In an attempt to bring the inappropriate four-over-four replacement units (see 4 and 5.) into conformance with the Standards, two alternatives were proposed. In proposal A, the horizontal muntin at the top would be relocated so that all eight lights would be o equal size like the original. A 3 1/2" wide aluminum strip would be applied in an attempt to recapture some aspects of the meeting rail. Even after these adjustments, however, the upper and lower sash would read as a single, fixed unit; the muntins are also too wide and too flat. 87-087 , , , .4''NEW ewe • ' 44 — Ai, ..11117r..... rurirri 4 of,./.=.s -- di ,% ` Irv. ncrvzcx�tp��aJ Trri-_a • r TLX`Yan , I-- ; ! F �—__ g_rou aboiat ,,./�sr�/r/ INENZall wall �, _ NH-,rarsTIMG A JMI? JM :j oVeccr•L(r o _ - pall f . -1 4 sY fcco"NM '-'EQk.9'r T f__ -Z!Stir= rtur+rtrits so a 1 , VIP i 1•.' MItY 141 TMYt"ru.:.rnD7rr 1 r.crarbrect xr:.Teri)HiXP x+cncrb sb {rrzcrtrrL 1 1Lrwr�ir. r+eTEr7rcrr+s . I V1D rr� raa4oti r+esrMc+roc.a1.Or+it,ea GeCt•te t .L,x.. ,a .1 /iiiir E EV. • I t"' L '44. ?•: • s (I a'Crte h� �—times ii Kd tfik 9FYCJNCe,/V+D t ecTaCHMEr+r W MC'TlL 6c-r7c.3t4 y r } 1 1 -�wtiaD TNM.EC1IC74 //// ' ' f re4Tao /6,//o,,,� �. rreTn.�ecT,Cr► r1 —TT 1 1 ' VCX;11D TINM r:)ETAL -1-r--L-r-i-7-2- 1 ...].- -- r i c-)irtiownse. f441'CO.Ce45 7. In alternative B, proposed changes included installation of a wood brick molding. In an attempt to make the muntin appear thinner and visually recessed, the wide aluminum muntins would be painted a charcoal gray; trapezoidal shaped wood strips would also be applied to the existing flat muntin and painted to match the existing window color. Even making these modifications, the replacement window did not match the detailing of the historic window--the depth of the frame and muntin was still far too shallow, and the muntin profile and width was still inappropriate. This proposal was also rejected. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior s i Washington, D.C. [-Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 87-088 Applicable Standard: 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (conformance) Subject: RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER SMALL-SCALE BUILDINGS - REPLACEMENT WINDOWS Issue: If a determination has been made that the historic windows cannot reasonably be repaired due to an extensive level of deterioration, a replacement window needs to be selected with care in order to preserve the historic character of the building. Any replacement window should match the historic sash, pane size and configuration, glazing, muntin detailing and profile, and historic color and trim. This is particularly important where small, residential buildings are concerned and the windows are highly visible due to their proximity to the sidewalks and streets. Using the same material is always the preferred preservation option to achieve a satisfactory match; and in some cases with small buildings it may be the only possible way. Special custom work is frequently required. If an inappropriate window is selected, it is usually difficult to make post-installation design and detailing adjustments to the new window in an effort to bring the window into conformance with the Standards. Application: Three workers' rowhouses were rehabilitated into subsidized family housing (see illus. 1). The buildings are simple in character and distinguished only by a corbelled cornice on the facades and large wood windows with 2/2 sash on all elevations (see illus. 2). The historic structures are situated in particularly close proximity to the street, and consequently their facades are highly visible. In the course of the rehabilitation, all the historic wood window sash, which were deteriorated and not salvageable, were replaced. The replacement windows installed consisted of a single-hung aluminum window with fixed upper sash and a screen panel placed directly below the upper sash in the same plane, a meeting rail considerably wider than the original, muntins sandwiched between the glass, and a bronze colored finish (see illus. 3). These windows were determined not to meet Standard 6 in that they did not match the existing windows in design, color, profile, and muntin configuration. The 2/2 wood windows, with truly divided window lights, were an integral part of the design of these small and simple buildings. The new aluminum windows fail to respect the character and the visual qualities of the original windows. The screen panel directly below the upper sash altered the double-hung appearance of the original windows, and the stile and rail profiles along with the sandwiched muntins did not adequately duplicate the size and form of the original windows. A new proposal to modify the appearance of the aluminum windows was subsequently submitted in an attempt to more closely approximate the visual qualities of the original windows. A specially shaped exterior frame with a thin muntin would be 87-088 milled of wood and applied over the existing flush metal sections of the new aluminum windows (see illus. 4). However, it was determined that this modification did not capture the historic apearance of the existing wood windows. Wood frames fabricated with central dividing muntins and applied to each window would not faithfully duplicate the configuration of the old windows and would read as a temporary treatment, rather than an integral component of the sash. In view of the proximity and visibility of these windows to the street, any superficial or cosmetic change to the existing replacement sash, regardless of material, would not be consistent with the historic character of this building. To bring this rehabilitation into conformance with the Standards, the owner decided to replace the new aluminum windows, which were clearly visible from the street, with new wood sash duplicating the originals in size, profile, muntin configuration, and composition (see illus. 5 and 6). With the new wooden sash in place, the project was subsequently certified. Prepared by: Camille M. Martone, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particluar case. 87-088 ,., (,....--';:,,,tv ,,,,, •• \ , ,s - , , , � .,� "t,' �'�_•. i ` •,•- -.V ' A £• k:.. 5 L a� 1 I '. H ., II. °• •� Pier. iLase �_ z 1. Pre-rehabilitation photograph of workers' rowhouses (front elevation). , ;'- . : ,„ , \, " ".•:••• " ,. '',i I i,fi rye ♦ i y� it...„-'" x .,$ • W ems,: € 9�/. - ,. 4' .''' ' 4 \ . . '°C'",',;',''z_ f. , 2. abilitation photograph of historic two-over-two ug windows that had ai thin vertical muntin and wooden moldingdo(brickble-hun molding) Pre-reh around the frame. 87-088 07 ' //r/ �/ / // ; 1„ /e 3 / / irA %/ " r / � // l /m ue ��/y / s ar /�/ / i s , s/ ye i z', yy ,,/�yy ///, / ///� j ' • rri / y , li 41' %,x i ;/„/ •,';47 j,e,r,t1 ,.;,-,- - -7.1". t,,,, ;,„', ,„ ',- z'',-4,.t.. .,..,01,- �� s.- �° �-^,y-,d-:tea .. r/ /ir ' /',/j��///4//��/%///�� • i Naomi i�*Wr/ // i % ri g �.. ... a,xwaweerw;'// x "nas� `, .. .:..:'� ,sb+' 3. Post-rehabilitation photograph of 4. Aluminum replacement window with a aluminum replacement window. The vertical wood mock-up of an applied unglazed sash muntin was sandwiched within the insulating frame and muntin placed over the upper glass and the double-hung appearance changed aluminum sash. The applied frame and since the screen panel was ins glass muntin look like temporary add-ons, rather below the fixed upper sash. than matching the historic sash. 87-088 £ rill z » /� 11424t1 4 ,.� ,- 'a Sx � £ j//// ,gyp', Y $' �/`� / / j�j�g G ,e�': t - I '. mow- ' , . gi.,. / NI , Z ft..: , . ,i0g, -,lop , 'ff -^ q TI ! q y , i„ „,,4.ze,,,,: , 1,:orti.,. .",:"1",..---fi. 1..._,,t-'''' ,... r.,,,,,ts....e, /f,,;,0,,,,,, ./ "i // //. Pk 4 j 1 .Y, �./ � : E � �� // 9// .y:SSu�y R. < 4+emn'+a.". xeMw •�!! �� d / yg; . " ate.. - rO,'r // / r /�/ / //.: / / / r,z,/ ''' , ' s j / / / t%�i �/% // /' / j r/ / ///icr.'/ 5. New wood replacement window as 6. Post-rehabilitation photograph of historic approved. If possible further refinement rowhouses with matching wood windows. (although not required in this case) would have been to install the half screen on the inside rather than on the front of the upper and lower sash. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's —Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 87-089 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: INCOMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS: CHANGES IN SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS OF WINDOW SASH AND MUNTINS. Issue: The selection of replacement windows that successfully match the visual qualities of historic windows involves a thorough understanding of the importance of the individual elements of the historic windows themselves. The shape and dimensions of muntins and sash can be particularly important in large, multi-pane sash that are repeated across a simple, architecturally unadorned facade. In many historic industrial, institutional and multi-story commerical buildings, the rhythm created by the rows of windows across the facade becomes a strong design feature and as such, important in defining the historic character of the building. Seemingly small differences between the replacement window and the historic window, such as the muntin shape or size, cumulatively can change the overall appearance of the building, and result in failure of the rehabilitation to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. A late-nineteenth-century mill building located in a registered historic district was distinguished by its strong horizontal form, low gabled roof, and large, multi-pane windows. The historic windows were wood, 16-over-16 double-hung, arch-headed sash, and unfortunately very deteriorated (see illus. 1-2). The repetitive spacing, design and detail of the sash, and planar qualities of the double-hung windows created a strong visual pattern on the otherwise unornamented facade. These windows, therefore, were the dominant architectural feature of the building. As such, preservation of their visual qualities was critical to preserving the historic character of the building. The replacement windows, however, did not adequately duplicate the visual qualities of the historic windows, specifically in appearance, shadow lines, muntin detail and planar qualities. In addition to the change from an arch-headed to a square-headed sash, a number of other distinct changes have occurred to the historic appearance of these windows. The double-hung, historic wood windows have been replaced by fixed metal units with much narrower sash dimensions, noticeably changing the planar relationship of the upper and lower sash. The resultant effect is that at certain angles the replacement windows have the appearance of the upper and lower sash being in the same plane, rather than duplicating the appearance of the historic, double-hung sash (see illus. 3-5). 87-089 The thickness of the meeting rail so evident in the historic sash has been reduced in depth creating a weaker shadow line (see illus. 5). The use of an applied aluminum muntin grid rather than true 16-over-16 wood muntin divisions has caused significant changes to the appearance of the windows (see illus. 6). The muntin grid clearly does not match the original, since the new muntins have a rectangular rather than trapezoidal profile, it has a ribbed surface, and it extends beyond the plane of the rails and stiles. The projecting grid, furthermore, creates additional shadow lines that did not exist on the historic windows. The historic muntins were flush to the surface of the sash, integral to the sash frame construction and trapezoidal in shape after puttying. These numerous deficiencies give an awkward and incompatible appearance to the windows and the overall building that is especially noticeable given the large size and number of the openings. As a result, the window replacements were determined to be inconsistent with the historic character of the building and therefore do not meet Standards 2 and 6. Prepared by: Jean E. Travers, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 87-089 e a 1t3 W, ' E s#,;: r 3ez G 4,:, �Er1 sy� �.,�' ., 7 ;� � ,�"xe i tA ii �t �•r�-Ft - f gsc� k ti r r • .6w w"rti y F y s P . N' ` I-_ ✓ r r�-- of , 4 w 3 I '.. ,-.-. , '�'�--. i4' ' �-- f�3 �PEA E $� � ti/ r. 0 a t .g` ^"' t n �I `lMbl�MyrC ` `.6.^P."""z.�v+•/� ... w♦ 1"�.�i�.�.� 2.25..93 .D �, t� `� 'Y ..r-.• �:<'• 6"e�r. ryJt:�-. K. ` r._Y e i. 1-2. Pre-rehabilitation view of the building showing deteriorated 16-over-16 windows. Note previous owner's effort to duplicate arch-headed sash with sample unit on 2nd floor. In the view below, note how the upper and lower sash are set on different planes, a characteristic feature of double-hung windows. y n// ��G..bxw f � ,, N s , H — p ".,,q7 ' // / .,ti� ��/ s 1 +t j i GCS4 ``i +x _.z b a y £ s s s; y , 2!Z S.8 as'9 / F 87-089 ,w• yv v s • Q ltp Ya ixi 'W' g a`lua a\lse� RY -.•\ v �; ��(((.,.j� am lz8s x a axx�Y Rxcy.vviax '. • ""• \ vvv • 1/1 sxsa 73 -..a_ to • s \c 1 \\ \ ,"` \ C' .... txox, »r a & ._.22k 2300 \,.. wi\\\"\\\\\\\�\\� \ -‘,,,,A\' ^\ \`,\\\\ *\X \ 1 rr —f �\\i➢Pi 11i[l MVk.F R ' >. \t 7 1' 1 i \ 1 Q \i "I 11 a NaA1. x 1 -x a t\\\ a,a. lir J4" \ a ♦�� rj \ _a� d.,� 11 d vAAv a'. ,,,,a.24 o ,:$ v aAvv VA A A` �,. VQ A `iv�ate\ !}�Rf VtKI�V"�`�Re RlRI�� RRRl iFR� �� 'fi!X-VA \ �' �. a a,��r"" - �p 'AlV 11.: s/; -•�0 tVV ayk; a 'i V a \\:\ \ \ \�\ _...\\.N.\CL�a... .„ a aada�5 ai 'a• l�r'\,•,-ell ! .; \ \ \\ -, �jA •�`a v v av t'^•: � • -+ar ' r� vet � ,�� vo�.. ' :. `' '` , _ 'gam, \v� "��e� � \ v �A.'•v* s ; il v- s _\ \ \\•� , a.. rye "3 • ;• 1 Rr !, 'r .t'" '` 4.. s v a ..� "" a ,\s„a v v. `a � � -r ; t. „rt • ^,- ems.. • a • e*ki � $„ �a.'N' ,t vatia '�•e. max.: '1 • � `"� 3. 3-5. Post-rehabilitation view of the building showing replacement windows. In 5, note how the reduction in depth of the meeting rail has produced a flat appearance to the window. The appearance of a historic double-hung window with sash on different planes and a heavy shadow line created by the meeting rail has been lost. \ ;\\ \\\\\\ \\\ \\ \\ \ AAA\ vv ��` A \V`v A�\, \ �� yA v„V��A VA V\ \�A �A \�AAyA\A\AAVv' AVAvv vV vA\\VAA v A v V\�� VAAVA�wA�\VA\vAVvVA •s::+ ;: 9M::: ■ : ::mii _! 'Li ` ::R ■:: ::: ::: JO! 1111 ::r ;' Rii • ::■ ..,.... .,.. ,, ,- \‘‘ a I WEIN NOM • ._r '' \ 7,... :mH7,1 s t ,,-.:-`,____' -,• t ' ! i ..... - 3 .... , y A m a TRIM 311.." = Via• R vM N wNa.♦`•a - \'C\w\ `iF�\F s,• \. -•\ :C- '" - Win .=.r INS .-• .iY11Yr..P n I e . ASTx t" L.A., - u ^ '. ' a \�\\\\\\\\\r �� \\oy y.. \\O�\� �� \\ ,,, \\ 4. .., rrsIIt 111.110111111 87-089 _AT..w- 4-'1 p ,75,:,,, r ^-'n 7777 "" /,I%Sri/� /, Irfinglir allegall / v /7,,/ ,• 1,/ ili‘rIN //vii 101.0111901 / p /�� • ,�/ :�� //,r/// /j4 / TE �u s � 1,,, +:-.y,'',-- mac;'... tl+wh.a-'w--ilit 7 5. Vertical Section of Replacement Window Exterior k' 1 "� I ; Interior Exterior surface 1s�� ——___i_—I of upper frame itiw .�;� Aluminum muntin ► iiii M \\j Fixed upper sash grid frame ,I .r,-" -.---Sealed insulated glass united Aluminum muntin grid applied to outside face l A Wooden muntin grid - applied to interior 6. Shop drawing showing applied muntin grid projecting beyond the exterior surface of the sash. Also note rectangular shape and the two grooves on the interior and exterior muntin grids which produce the ribbed appearance and additional shadow lines that did not exist on the historic windows. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington. D.C. rStandards tor Rehabilitation Number: 87-090 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) S. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historic Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: INCOMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS: CHANGES IN COLOR, SIZE, AND CONFIGURATION OF SASH AND FRAMES Issue: The selection of replacement windows that successfully match the visual qualities of historic windows involves a thorough understanding of the importance of the individual elements of the historic window themselves. Some of the important elements that must be considered are the size and shape of the frames and sash, muntin and mullion profiles and configuration, the configuration of the window itself, the reveal of the window (depth of the window within the opening) and trim detailing around the frames. In some cases, the historic color of the window, if known, can also be important in defining its historic character. Failure to specify and install replacement windows that adequately match the visual qualities of historic windows will result in failure of the overall rehabilitation to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Application: Window replacements were planned as part of the rehabilitation of three revival-style commercial buildings located in a registered historic district and built between 1920 and 1930 (see illus. 1-3). The historic windows above the storefronts were wood, residential in scale, double-hung, multi-pane sash typical of the early- twentieth-century revival styles (see illus. 4-5). The windows were characterized in part by narrow muntins, meeting rails, and sash. The attenuated proportions of the wood members created a delicate appearance of the historic frames and sash that was a character-defining feature of the historic windows and the building. In addition, groupings of double-hung windows were common; heavy mullions separated the window units and featured a raised vertical edge. The frames and sash were painted dark green. Historical photographs of the buildings also indicated the frames and sash were painted a dark color, a traditional color treatment for red brick, Colonial-revival style and stucco, European-revival style buildings. Aluminum, double-hung windows with attached metal grids on the exterior and interior to simulate muntins were chosen to replace the originals (see illus. 6-7). Several of these windows were installed to evaluate their effectiveness in matching the adjacent historic windows. These windows were, however, determined not to adequately duplicate the visual qualities of the historic windows in their color, proportion, size, and installation detail of the originals. A light ivory color was chosen, rather than the dark green of the historic sash, causing the windows to stand out against the facade rather than to recede as the dark-colored historic sash had done (see illus. 8). The new 87-090 sash and frames were not properly sized to custom-fit the openings in the manner of the originals. As a result, the amount of glass area was reduced and the delicately- designed appearance of the historic frames and sash was replaced by a much heavier appearing unit. The meeting rails of the replacement unit were almost twice the thickness of the historic ones, and the grids, although trapezoidal-shaped, were significantly wider than the historic muntins. The blocking of the opening reduced the sash area while significantly increasing the exposure of the frame with its attached aluminum subframe and metal panning. The flat metal panning bore no relationship in size or profile to the historic wood molding detail found around the frames of many of the historic windows in the buildings. It also was proposed that the mullions in the multiple window bays be covered in metal in a manner that would eliminate the decorative edge detailing. Finally, the appropriateness of the metal grids on residential scale windows of this type on low-rise buildings was a questionable treatment. These numerous deficiencies resulted in denial of certification for tax benefits. Although this window unit was manufactured by a company that had produced compatible replacement windows for historic buildings, the company typically designs windows for larger openings. This particular window unit was unsuitable as a replacement for the small-scale, residential style windows of these three buildings. On a larger window opening, the dimensions of the meeting rail and grid might have been acceptable. But no reduction in the dimensions of the members was made when the sash size was reduced to fit these small windows, and the sash were not made to custom-fit each opening or the size of the historic sash. The owner asked if an alternative panning shape more similar to the profile of the historic frame and brick molding would sufficiently replicate the historic appearance of the windows. Close examination of the shop drawings (see illus. 9) identified that the problem could not be rectified by a different panning shape, since the inappropriate color, size and configuration of the members and installation detailing would not be affected. Nothing short of a different window unit, correctly sized and detailed and in an appropriate dark color, would resolve these difficulties and bring the project into conformance with the Secretary's Standards. Prepared by: Jean E. Travers, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 87-090 • y ll 3 ' f x i a n :::-.ie-s..;'2..- :,:;' ,-Ii-::‘,'::-:-'...,P,!,:i :,!';'„f',! :."7!..''-i !, -, ',:st 1 i• : :- i y f E ; 3° ',sr, #1 3 �' -_,--ti!!!" ' -.:,..i:.' :. .,;.''' k.:-,' -.1';:f:::':';'::-.':::;Z.-,-.',,:=.:1;2-j,',.:ii-, : is: '1.,i,:.. 'i':!-Iii?3y;ii:',?. , .3a ' � V'ate-- 2 '\� \ ; :M AR .7, � ,.� 7 k< __,� sue, � AiP .IF .. ^.F , fix • � x '�. 3 ,z t mi A�y7, s,-A,,i` I i'2 4 a' "t �+3 2 Building 1 1-3 Pre-rehabiliation views demonstrate the residential scale of the second and third floor windows. Note how the dark color of the window sash and frames makes the windows less prominent on the upper floors of buildings 2 and 3. 87-090 ..k.-.,.: •,..- - 44 Av vy"\`A sa.¢ •Y \\ `:' +` ! ' q.� � \ t s 3\ \` \\ ea\ a "\ a \ o, \ e --S . vl _ SBANI .- ' Ku yA� y v v °"'�:- \ .a \\a\\\..\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\a\ \ \\\`^\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \,\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ \\ \\\\\\.\ o�\.\\�\ �\\\\ \\ \�\a\ `\\.\.\ \\\\ \\\\\ .+\ \ :.\��\\ \\ \.\\\\\\� \• \,\ \\�a\, , \\\ZC\c a \ \\.'\\ \.k,y .. \ \,\\\��..\_ \ \\\\a6 y,\�\\\�"\\\� \\\\\ �\\ \..\\\\ \\ \\D\�a\\O Building 2 V w+ 4 v. .► 1 "x 8, ^fix^^ - j , "",sf ,1 r .. •, ; " _., s `1 \ ,,,ram \" 1 1f; . t t i 4 Lam. 4:31114 _ yr:.. . w r: v -� - �—. ..�. '"�w � - �••vim' .N. oa i \\� \o \\\ \ .• ` `."_. a_. Building 3 87-090 Cotri,./01,' � $ , r ",- :;::-. sin ; ‘, , -i' .. ,,, ,,,,,,,i, 1 , , „,. „.,... .., .,. . 1, in ...i, ...../ , ,,,..7,. , , , , ,,. . , ...,......,,,,,,,, .: 1 .. .,..... ... ,, , ..„.....„:„ . ,/,... - ' „ . ..°, ' - / / %,1'"IFi I in (g'aa.. .. _ ' 4. , -, , , 1 . 1p ,,(..- ,,,w„. • , wi I , fw,i ,' ..... . 4-5. Pre-rehabilitation views of the deteriorated historic windows. Note beaded mullion above, thin muntins, meeting rails and sash on paired windows and the simple double-hung window below. Milt ,..iimiltisi -111111W Log • Rffaris WM -in ,„ / y id%� ' ,fi.r ,/,,; ,. H, ,, ,. i . ,,,,,/ AM - 87-090 V�vA ,Av * � s A "r*".' • '. ‘.‘\' ; ,,s ' .' \ fa \\ V 14k , , ,I ,,i\ , ... , \*k 1 , ,„ vyv AA T"" y \Vyv v\\vv ` yA \\\`Av� vvv Mill , \ i k a ,,‘„\\„ ,,„„x‘, 6. Proposed replacement window, exterior. Note rectangular panning, extensive subframe 7. Proposed replacement window, interior. creating additional shadow lines. Compare the Note the three layers of metal comprising the meeting rail and muntin dimensions with the subframe, and the decreased size of the sash historic sash in 4-5. and glazed surface within the opening. 4'' ,.. s t '-•,-, , - — i ‘ ' : \ ''4 - , , 0 ..„, ... s ,a w x r - ,. , • thy,_ a t B ., 4 . I , .„..., s 4 met lir54 } a {{ j1,k v�\Av A'Z `+a vvv `.aaV\ wCvvv vAAAOA v �._ ,;a"�°, \\�\\\\ \ m \\\ \\\\\ \v V A\��V AV \yA�AyV, vA`\\\ Vv y v v \v A c..vAva ^�- .,,,,,a,�V\��\a\.Ate\aov�AV\\\4A�oAyS 8. Proposed replacement windows on third floor and original windows below. Note how dark sash and frames are unobtrusive, light sash and frames create a striking pattern on the red brick facade. 87-090 N 5k( +�5. �XTI'S I or) � ��ICK 6XTf:15101�i fAI4 4t PtBS�! 1,1 Lk ' --,- �'M -- .F1*iP�M • on I4I MAL &MICK MOLD T151M 1 VI 0I:iICj INAL EX'T5 '')IOF'S mop /4 IIN 13 ` __ „ ,` DPSIGI NAL -- , oPO4 Iwo. PA1'STING $EAp • 74 a-274-'-''? ,� ' � OF�iIC� INAI... I/ IE t51a i:i yA5 14 • EXI'T1'I t1-.A'i1 = .--- 9. Drawing of proposed window and original window and frame location. Note how new sash and frame are set closer to the exterior and within the window opening. The owner's alternative panning identified above will not correct the deficiencies of the sash. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 87-091 Applicable Standards: 9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/ Additions (nonconformance) Subject: ADDING TO FREESTANDING HISTORIC BUILDINGS Issue: The first consideration in planning a new addition is the potential physical impact on significant historic materials and features. Probably of equal importance, however, is the potential visual impact on the building's historic appearance or "character." Because freestanding historic structures are often visible from all four sides, they tend to be particularly vulnerable to exterior change. For this reason, if the factors of size and high visibility are not carefully weighed prior to construction of the new addition, a distinctive historic form and profile can easily be expanded into a building with a completely different character. When a new addition is simply too large in relationship to the freestanding historic building, then placing it on a secondary elevation, using a reveal, using compatible materials, and making a clear differentiation between old and new may still not offset the addition's impact on the historic character. When it is determined that a new addition violates Standard 9, project certification will be denied. Application: In three rehabilitation projects under review by the National Park Service, the size of the new addition was the major cause for denial. In each case, the historic structure was a freestanding building (a residence, a school, and a bank) with a distinctive form or shape. First, a two-story vernacular brick residence dating from 1915 recently underwent rehabilitation for use as a dormitory. When a new, large-scale addition was attached on a secondary, but highly visible, elevation as part of the project, NPS denied the project for preservation tax incentives. While recognizing the success of the architect in differentiating the new construction from the historic building (including wall reveals, roofing material, face brick with a soldier course, and windows and cornice details), NPS determined "the addition overwhelmed the historic structure in mass and was too prominently sited." Before rehabilitation, the historic building was asymmetrical in shape, consisting of a main block and several subsidiary--but proportionally similar--components and highlighted by a prominent wraparound wooden porch. After rehabilitation, the form was still asymmetrical, but the new brick addition became the most prominent architectural feature of the building from several elevations, its distinctive angular form dwarfing the historic porch in size and scale. In summary, the addition drastically changed the form of a residence that was typical of its time, and, in changing the form, compromised the historic character (see illus. 1 and 2). In the second case, a 1926 classically-styled freestanding bank building with large round-arched window openings was rehabilitated to extend its historic commercial function. When new bank offices were added along one side of the historic building, essentially doubling the size of the historic structure, the project was denied for tax benefits: NPS explained, "The new addition gives the building a radically different 87-091 size, shape, and appearance from what it had been for sixty years since its construction... In effect, it obliterates the character of the structure as a freestanding building, nearly obscuring an entire flank." Before rehabilitation, the building was easily identifiable in the district by its symmetrically rectangular mass and balanced formal windows; after rehabilitation, the form of the building became a decisively asymmetrical wedge shape with a prominent new entrance replacing the historic tripartite windows (see illus. 3, 4, 5). The materials and architectural detailing of the new addition were not issues. Finally, NPS stated in the denial letter that a smaller addition could have been certified. In a third case, a ca. 1839 two story brick structure, three bays wide, with distinctive stepped gables had been expanded in 1912 by a two-story ell when its use as a school for women was changed to use as a private residence. In 1985, the structure was added to again for use as a restaurant, then submitted to NPS for the investment tax credit. Project work included construction of a kitchen and greenhouse addition and construction of a storage building on the site. After review, NPS denied the rehabilitation, primarily citing the impact of the new addition both on the building and the district. In NPS' denial letter, it was stated that "prior to rehabilitation, the structure was a simple, freestanding, L-shaped structure readily identifiable in character." The NPS letter further explained to the owner that after rehabilitation "the historic form of the structure is no longer clearly distinguishable; the kitchen- bakery addition of approximately 2,000 square feet has vastly increased the size of the building, turning the former L-shaped plan into a U-shaped plan and thus obscuring the essential form of the historic structure...the addition overwhelms and competes with the historic structure rather than being subordinate to it." It was noted in the NPS denial letter that making the school into a restaurant would have been a compatible use if the addition had been smaller in relationship to the historic structure; also, the greenhouse addition in itself would not have precluded certification (see illus. 6). Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 87-091 4 g i` . r ....t. • 4 - 2...:'...+.. ___:;._;.:114 .4,4„,...,. - ,,, ,,.. : i*".; .-.: '.,.."-...,'*..?:".. 7:/``'---:------ -.:11 '' g.- • • � „psi , - :\\:i.....?$:" ,. ,t, ..4.4.:i --L.:: . .. '-‘:..:+:.-1:::4;177-1----7-.7:1:0*:'1:77:-1-1::::::1-4-:-I r-irilet:::t::31; .a it .Ii,1,� •. '-u --Ayr^: +. - irr :.. 1. 'Filw. '4..,1171".- '-(..:;01;;i' - - LA':---'1 X K. r kz". 0 1. The c. 1915 freestanding residential structure is visible from all four sides; an unadorned brick side wall is a foil for the most distinguishing feature of the house--the wood wraparound porch. r ......,. :fir " ^/ . . \ • NEW ADnITION .p11221.1\ 1; - r.` 'a;! `.i ' ,,;� DIIII�IIIIII '�iiiilfll 'T` "" _ - .. v_ will •, I IR►t •t a —. 4 b- - r �.�jY .-1,!..... ...,.• -r-7r jT, - ,• a , - .�1-0.- '0;s �• +� ' , ,vim• "`: 'a .s‹..4 i f, •• '. 5-,,, , � ..,..Zr J 2. A new dormitory wing has been constructed on the side elevation shown in illustration 1. Because of its height, degree of projection, distinctive shape, and high visibility, the new addition has become the dominant feature of the house and has changed the historic character. 87-091 _ _ — 3 t�''_�--v' . r —, ` t_ ___ ' ''....---...:illit s 17;;'...:*.- eat . 1 ar i r''';;:: 1 1. III1111fla Ill III, } .1 �' tt - I : it 3. This freestanding bank 1 structure, located at a major �. ( ��l r I:-- — "•-•�`'` i�! - ^— intersection in the district, was' 1 7. ��' L .R' R :{ * readily identifiable before _ '°` ; -.ti' " ,- - - rehabilitation by its simple _ ^ rectangular form and its large, arched openings. _ - ...m.o.lam--..._ .A. ‘tl,t\Z 4. The historic bank and new bank addition are AFT ------- shown in relationship to the surrounding streets in the district. The previously rectangular form of the freestanding bank has been dramatically altered by both the size and shape of the addition. -`..e1l-x+«. .t-.:c....;;;; - _ 1 I1ii,,,,,, %%... .s*.s.' ''.'-..,„_._.____..._--------- ,---1 - . . . � _ _ _/ 0- is - ""'-" ".�," Alp. _ 5. Even with a setback, .x...k: ,<. . - appropriate height, compatible j - - - materials, and clear fir — / -� - differentiation between new and_ i" old, the new work now dominates -' — the resource and the setting. The historic bank can no longer be _ _ , seen from a major side street. 87-091 ,, r a 4ti -'�t .ra 'Yr `,.( erg 1 :-. ')..7.`., .;yam r s: � -.:. HISTORIC SCHOOL �. ...+"'.. U: a.1 Y sue._ __ - ,i;•• - A . Y �:.. 9 ; , ... , 5 A. .tint ,' . s.s r qep ' �' '. tom•' y iYM1 `.c M4 - .5., x Jh 1 4 .! Y.i.t -• Q • •—.• .. . \' - !: A tj , mo. j .c..4- --P1. } i-e�sa li 3�.Y.f r' .,r'tL rev A-/, .4,,-,-, jF 4, 4.r. • �.�,-,v - ,- , �...-<:• 1 4''''t : 3:144 9ra+'+;se .E,x- _f ;,fix• �.. g.",s* "• �e 1 ..... '`}...rt'r 3. is l* X",F e.c. i't 3 7y ' sue ; s r. + • j --s • - g`-,-. ',P..- l. ,� •�4,.. .t a }:• .jr.. . {- sty' 4/4Mr:L.r.�.. 6�'i':!'3'0 u. NEW ADDITIONS _ _ )a - z - 1 6. The side and rear elevation of the 1839 brick school building are shown here on the far right (the later ell is not visible) together with three new components added as part of the rehabilitation project--a greenhouse, a kitchen building with stepped gables matching the historic building, and a storage building. Because the new addition has changed the historic character to a dramatic degree, the project was denied tax incentives. A smaller kitchen wing--planned and sited differently--could have been in conformance with the Standards. The greenhouse itself was not an issue. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number:87-092 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/ Additions (nonconformance) Subject: REHABILITATING HISTORIC VERNACULAR STRUCTURES FOR CONTINUED RESIDENTIAL USE Issue: The most important part of planning an interior rehabilitation is correctly identifying the structure's distinctive materials and its historic spatial character so that they may be satisfactorily preserved within the framework of making changes necessary for either a continued or new use. Vernacular buildings which are characterized by simple rectangular spaces and plain detailing should have their spaces and detailing respected when the overall rehabilitation is being conceived. Some enlargement of rooms laterally by removing partitions could be an acceptable approach if a sense of the historic space, plan, and simplicity of detailing were retained in the process. On the other hand, cutting through floors or ceilings to create dramatic new spaces (and plans) can drastically alter the character of these unadorned vernacular structures. While some loss and change are anticipated in the process of rehabilitation, major modification of character-defining spaces will violate Standards 2 and 9. Application: A row of 19th century industrial housing--considered the most extensive intact examples of this type of housing in the country—was being rehabilitated for continued residential use. Originally, the 3 1/2 story brick units had served as boarding houses for unmarried textile workers; later in the 19th century, the houses were converted for tenement use. During the 130-year history of the structures, their historic character as mill workers' housing remained. Although some interior modification had taken place with attendant destruction of historic fabric and features, the floor plans and historic interior room arrangements had generally survived. The modest rooms, characteristic of the period of their construction and reflecting the functional simplicity of their historic use, were detailed in a uniform manner throughout the buildings. The floor to ceiling height had been similarly uniform. The rehabilitation was determined not to meet the Standards owing to the removal of large portions of the first floor in order to create two-story spaces that would permit additional light to rooms newly inserted in the basement. The change radically altered the historic spatial definition of these rooms as well altering the historic relationship of the first and primary floors to other floors in the buildings. This work was totally incongruous with the simple, but distinct historic character of the 19th century residential structures. In a denial letter to the owner, NPS explained further that the continued residential use of these buildings should not have posed any major problem or need for extensive changes to the building's overall historic design: 87-092 The character of the historic interior spaces appears to have been easily adaptable for modern residential use. Unfortunately, during the course of your rehabilitation work on these units, large portions of the first floors were removed in order to create two-story spaces. The creation of those two-story spaces required the destruction of both historic material and the distinguishing spatial concept of the most significant areas of each house, in violation of Standard 2. Furthermore, the design character of the new space is incompatible with the vernacular character of the building, thus violating Standard 9. An alternative to removing portions of the floor would have been to regrade at the rear to perm it more light to enter the basement through enlarged windows. It was further noted by NPS that the incompatible spatial changes were all the more regrettable because they were not essential to a viable reuse scheme for the buildings or to extending their useful life. Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. ;,,,� , 87-092 x7` . f �_ , of. • j ,-1 ''k„ ," ..... ....,--.1---!:.-.-;=. ' : _ ~:w iii 7r�' S' • L= Hr� F t.. t':C.C• `�• _.-"`Sys fj. r r!_i-..7.----. : .li . :.s. 7::---...::: —...41.‘... ,-,- ..,..,:,,,_ I .;;;•71:t-. i.„. i c-i - "we I i Ix p• ,. ,. .f. „,"?. ..„, „.::7...„ t� f 4r �.�r1 �...r—o: --' ^ fib.. '1 n--+. . .r.�• fE. mob. t y ' ", i. , '-7w- ...•:. -e .-;,it .t , t_. 1. The historic character of the structures as mill workers' housing remained; that character, as NPS noted, was still forcefully conveyed by both the exterior and the interior. MI —HMI' ='!Ti.a.m' 1- - - - - - - n 7.1 4'IIfiiL - - _ d 1 / Pk lilt 2. The plan shows room size and arrangement; units converted to two-story spaces by cutting through the first floor are denoted by shadowing. 87-092 Z 44*'< N • .'K 4 5r y s. I i ' �Yr' 3. A typical room, ::, ,� - �;y �,-•--` prior to a - k. rehabilitation. It is r '` �; * defined by its low e : L �"° � ceiling, rectangular rr.+ k !-• • t - Y Y 1A . k t F }i 4� ;",, 4 . -. space, and ,-. � -.. • simplicity of _ • detailing. H n ' ,pit { jgy X tom?¢ 4 '^�`'i•�� V�-+, t kit ` y_ `':./'�'- `,,.•1..' „ . -- r zT.:,,�k�c'r i3=�T • �� - .4 r e T R. �� cv r♦use. Y !tin. • R r +i .• ) ,. ((�T'' cam' i_• t• • ,• r �" 1• 2. ;yam � ■`_ - a `� . f i °f •a r n _f••t �L `.. If • r-t ,1�. 1 • • ~".J 4. As part of the :,. .. rehabilitation, the `k historic space was r ' � dramatically redefined �' I,"�'','. by removing the first .. r0-- 144P `: ''! story floor, revealing •:. ? ; the basement level. f � Two separate 'r • :,,, v rectangular spaces were �• then made into one �+� :- rehabilitated living unit. This inappropriate =-� treatment violated bothieg • 9tanrlarric anti 9_ Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's r ashington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 87-093 Applicable Standard: 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship(nonconformance) Subject: ALTERATION OF INTERIOR LAYOUTS Issue: Standard 5 of the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation" requires that "distinctive stylistic features" characterizing a building be treated with sensitivity. Such features may include the interior floor plan or arrangement of spaces important in defining the historic character of the building. Radically changing a floor plan may result in a loss of historic character. Application: A three-story, commercial structure built in 1890 was marked by commercial space on the ground floor and office or residential space above (see illus. 1). As a result of many changes over the years, the commercial portion of the building retained little historic fabric; the space behind the storefronts was otherwise undistinguished (see illus. 2). Consequently, the ground floor offered the owner considerable latitude in making changes during the course of the rehabilitation. The upper floors were distinguished by an oversized atrium extending through the second and third stories. Arranged around this atrium were two distinct rings of rooms, the inner ring fitted with windows intended to borrow light from the atrium, and the outside ring lit by exterior windows (see illus. 3, and 4). Over the years many of the window sash facing the atrium had been filled in, although their location was clearly evident from the surrounding trim. The open third floor hallway overlooking the atrium had been enclosed (see illus. 5). Nevertheless, despite these changes and some deterioration of fabric and finishes, the distinctive historic floor plan and the unusual sequence of spaces made up by the atrium and double ring of rooms had largely survived (see illus. 6 and 7). The rehabilitation plans for the upper stories called for retention of the atrium but the removal of all historic fabric behind the perimeter walls of the atrium in order to create open plan offices. In addition the perimeter walls of the atrium would be rebuilt in a different configuration, with doors and windows suggestive of the historic ones, but narrower and arranged in different locations. Despite later alterations, the historic plan and the interior spaces of the building on the upper floors are quite distinctive, even though carried out in relatively simple materials. The arrangement of two rings of rooms around the atrium is unusual for a building of this period and construction and needed to be retained in any project. The proposed rehabilitation would all but obliterate this distinctive configuration, thereby greatly impairing the historic character of the structure, and violating the "Standards for Rehabilitation." Prepared by: Michael Auer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitations, are not necessarily applicable beynd the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 87-093 ,... ---• , .--,-- -jailii --- - . ---- - ' • ,-.es _.4,-,--.K-4,'A---.--',-... .......... 1.--...._ — ...,• _.124,..,., .... . r.111....e I•r.,r..w...r....v....r..vm„;...ir. ...:...........II........................ .... .. v.... ‘..! 1110.... viroporiorit 'A _ L..L. '- - --•-- - ------,, • ------_.7--- --------.A 146 1----- III , silt: _ _ .._ !: r. .411 --.1 ill ilit-iii 111-lie u-- -IL • _7:-., ,.. . , •: NM * •-c•T! :11 : I _ ...._.i•_xil ." -• = —• "r„4,...:i• - ; PrIrt-,‘ —, _.L•— : sosomi- 1 i ... t .. IN* I . 1, I - • 1 if DE 5 r a . .i.... T" 1, , : . g •,:: , t: a t, - : ,.... .. . ._-.* .. -----,:r;----A-3,-- , 1. 1890 commercial building prior to rehabilitation. \ 4 it ..., ... - . i I . : _..f.4 _ I.; i,,____,. _ • . . - . ... ..,-): ,- : .- -------___ .- -2_., --- • i ' fil -=--' s--, • - : -i-,---7.• '-- '- . • • =-s-- _,.•- r • ...A •... --_ ri ,..„; ..._ etw, i . tt. . ....,., ! 'If' -.J. ia .• • - , t I • __ .. i , _ ,. I i \ • ~ '`' ' '•••>. I ki 45 • 4 .* lit .• - '... '-', '- i • 1 :4%;,,,,4c,4,-"-, •"*"--=-2,1". it, , -- 41 •.,.1.---. 1 , .1; • • • r.,..z:::. 1: . '''•,.,s--.:.:.-..._,',-.....::,-;- `-'-.' s-z,:,-,...7-......li_ 7, , e. .-_,te „,'i. . • ..,„,.. :1,,,. ....-'24-....„„...itc....,„_. 4t,n,t,• ..- _-r- F......,........ .. - • . .-.. '•-ilt-k- . :Mr 4r4;t1......„ • s•-N,-.,', , - --As jk.L..t.:.,.........._ 2. Typical ground floor space before rehabilitation. 87-093 \ ,_______ it • . Ly I f. r N f s Y- :44411 € • • ' . A" 3. View of central space showing atrium extending through the second and third floors, with skylight above. The second floor doors shown lead to rooms beyond. Windows have been blocked in, but their configuration is still apparent from the surrounding trim. On the third floor the open hallway had been partitioned. 87-093 •r \ . i - - .) ii .. _ - . A.. i _ t s: t r `!_ i` y Sy F 4.1., �_. Aj • .. I .4 7 : d. 're r ��,III111 t- ,a ', r • C¢W.�' k /� --sa e} #t dr. a 4 1. r�rr Kr • 1. ,fir :. •(Co.-.j7 taw c iI- ie. rso- q Y ._ `F l,. 4. Interior rooms were fitted with windows and �i `' , doors with transoms to borrow light from both the ' exterior window walls and the rooms facing the `' lighted atrium. '=*' jI _. y Ii•., . ' •iir 5. On the third floor, the historic hallway, originally open, had been fitted with a solid partition; the offices behind it, however, were relatively unaltered. 87-093 _ i F r,....._...___,.._. it T... 1 r .tr . 4 , , ... , Fr , I r--——--1 i i I I I - I I I ,� . _'11i,_, I I I II I I BM �.�.�..i IILE ] L- --- I L .--..„. .1 1! Ml 6 and 7. Historic second floor plan of atrium, hallway and inner and outer rings of rooms (left). In the proposed rehabilitation (right), this distinctive arrangement would be destroyed. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's irshington. D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 87-094 Applicable Standard: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) Subject: INCOMPATIBLE ALTERATIONS TO SIGNIFICANT REAR ELEVATIONS Issue: Before initiating a rehabilitation project it is important to first identify those features which are character-defining and which must be preserved. While there may not be much doubt whether the primary or front elevation is significant, it is not always as easy to determine when the sides and rear, or secondary, elevations are also character-defining. However, when a secondary elevation exhibits fine stylistic detailing, shape or form unique to the building type or use, when it is highly visible or of special historical or social significance to the historic district or neighborhood, it is likely to be worthy of preservation. If such a character-defining elevation is not preserved in the rehabilitation, the project will not be in conformance with the Standards and will be denied certification. Application: A vacant and derelict armory building individually listed on the National Register was rehabilitated for use as residential apartments. Built in 1912 of red brick, the armory was designed in an appropriately militaristic style featuring an arched entranceway flanked on either side by a projecting three-sided corbelled bay, and a three-story tower. The armory is comprised of two sections: a two-story, L- shaped, flat-roofed head house provides the primary elevation facing the street, and adjoins a one-and-one-half story, gabled-roof drill shed which spans across the rear of the head house, and extends four bays past the edge of the head house (see illus. 1). The drill shed parallels the river (which the rear of the shed faces) and is visible from the town across the river (see illus. 2-3). Despite several alterations made in the 1950s and some deterioration and vandalism which occurred during the nearly 15 years the buildings had been vacant, the armory had survived in a remarkably intact state prior to rehabilitation. The interior of the head house, including a large entrance hall, company parlor, and numerous small rooms on both floors, easily accommodated the apartment conversion which was accomplished with a minimal loss of historic fabric and character. The interior of the 75 x 300 feet drill shed was a completely open space with exposed steel trusses and a suspended gallery at one end (see illus. 4). During the rehabilitation this large open space was converted into twenty apartments by creating two floor levels. To provide light into these apartments, skylights were added to the rear of the roof of the drill shed, and the rear wall was reconfigured by removing the original paired nine-over- nine wood sash windows along with a substantial amount of brick between the piers (see illus. 5-6). Nine prefabricated, panelled units which incorporated walls, windows and doors were inserted in these newly made openings along the entire length of the rear elevation. Wooden decks with privacy screens and steps to the parking lot were added for the first floor apartments (see illus. 7). If the open space within the drill shed had been a significant, highly detailed space, the insertion of twenty apartments on two levels would very likely have been in 87-094 violation of the Standards. In this particular case, however, while the concept of introducing multiple units into the very plain, open space of the drill shed was in conformance with the Standards, the specific treatment of the rear elevation was not, and the project was denied certification. The drastic changes to the fenestration of the rear elevation were cited as cause for denial. The existing historic window openings could have been altered in a manner that would have provided light and access to the rear apartments while still leaving enough brick to maintain the character of the rear wall. Instead, as the project was carried out, the wholesale removal of the sash and most of the brick between the piers added up to a significant loss of historic fabric. However, it is the change in character of the rear elevation that is most damaging. Installation of the prefabricated panels resulted in unacceptable changes in: color and texture (brick red to stark white, smooth panels); materials (brick and wooden window sash to prefabricated panels and aluminum windows); composition (distinctly vertical to distinctly horizontal); and design (industrial to residential). Addition of the wooden decks further obscured what remained of the brick, and emphasized the incongruous domestic appearance of the rear elevation. Furthermore, the elevation now is highly visible to those entering the apartments from the parking lot, and to neighboring houses. Prepared by: Anne Grimmer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 87-094 i ell -Z ''. - i ir ,,:.": il:"..., i ... 111',,f t -it iii t a 1-f'---- •...t, imm, ....... _., ... ........ J .- .2e� ( 4 err i �. tfT 'S1 IBM: �n �. .v.- • ate-_,, V "' z r - - «fie• �, ..r �. -,• _,tort.? _ P a.w s. '.,�.`L`',—t` +�--' .�,..� ': -r�.. -.r ....Z. yti..+s 1. The facade of the armory before rehabilitation. The gable-roofed drill shed extends four bays beyond the head house with its three-story tower and three-sided corbelled bay. 2. The rear elevation of the drill shed. Note the paired, nine-over-nine wood sash windows and the high sills which provide much of the character. is .2''- *s• ir 1 : .. .._,.. „ , _ ...4„iiiitit . ,....,..., .400 4., •.- ::::,,,101......a,........:• .,:-'= ; , . ?......2.t... � �t� 1; «K� .j '4 b y 3+'• t�.r� -+•fir jly it•- g.,:_ - . j ; , , i, ut. lks .1,01 ' 1 t'1. . 1 .. -"*".1%, ,?-3, •', ; ,,i..4/ ... 7 - '• ,. vi- ,_)1 i ,.,•,.,„ , .7.. ,,-f g..' . , _........e..4 •,....'%4 '.,... Na... ..1 i t...r...... 1(1..,..4.4 ......• ,. IC% ._, _„...-Arm-.-..-ii-____...,` -.-:•-"' II( ...k • t!- 1.7.4.:11.SWI J. 711---'2,,,:,1: t i�j`''?77:1 • �_ �'�s�'`' a : ' sue: „ " S:.• -vim t4X� • �w. ...__.... -, 'r•.„...7-.-..1 " -.7..I..L.'.,..,..,.-.,- d ..s'c 44,3 • ..',«e,t',•+ 9► ...y k�j``-13-.'r-y - •,.- -... r-z-.7+� +'rc z...... ..,,,,,,,,,,...„4,1 ......t.,,,,,e.„... ._,,‘„ 111-„g .air., .,..„..fa•rap.-.41•:;474... tir..▪.; _:-....,r,..4.-.-_,..,••ti..x.,,iit.,;_....-...,„.. --...,,,„,;..„,„.,.,,. ..... . ... ,4 • .....,. .. . .._ .� � _-, -. isrf. �lAirX�/Fya4ila� 87-094 -' 1 C r`$ ff �` , t.i,-:,.._..--------- ice`,.._:. \``\•..._\-�- \ -r . . ii‘doe, :� "'��111 i /�r T .-., ..''lit . R.,�:.^..- � sl >, tie.", ---"=""--"......-yoptit,1 ...er:-!----- i....--...--:.-. ,----• rt.,..5•,•.t.- 4‘4;".. • , • 4,,ift. ' 3. View from the rear of the property behind the drill shed looking through the trees to the town across the river. 4. The interior of the drill shed before rehabilitation, showing the exposed steel trusses and the suspended gallery at one end. V. 'c: x . l •-. '}.. ,:k / ,., ?l •" / e Vim.•[• `' .,ib• .�. • = ilK� ��• 4\�I � � I .,te ,l' voi. f r/ �i ,t _: a \ ,' "r o , -i { . . f fp. m , _ i Y , sC p� , r \ ,,,i,.....,.,-,-,..„1 • • TVHr:"A•7: •',f".,.-..i1:.1t.7u':. .I L-,—i-P-tI-. S�'�aa` ., yc .„ j11 ✓t1'i R AJ(Y� 7 7 .i i 1 i 1�i Nk '' r t- ,14 fit *1 !Y r— , uG:. t i • .j. .Y`v. _' _- Ir.:1'",v.:;, Vh_" ..,..i1/4/,,....,.,c.'',41:',_'4\'.. t� Y - _l[ -.4 -. z-.— .yr' "�:./4.••//.kli i / ... o # [T't:-� J v 87-094 • _ A S: _ -ram . .. '� i N/, .i`• - _ -;r r•, •a te. Y rR r s. Mini r; f rA -, - _. �� - •J. �— r .cr ..•a..--ti f_y irk' /..�. �1 „ - A 16. J.6 sie _„ i c.--4 :I it, [ is ++ rr-fin 4 i 1 + i1iii 9 S - 2,r as 1..- • _ � 5-6. The rear elevation of the drill shed during rehabilitation. Note the extensive loss of brick, and how the character has changed with the removal of the multi-paned wood sash and the creation of large openings. 87-094 ;- 'Q....c..1k vop, --------- ‘-- - ---,.... , , • , Er.2l 1191 I - j�-'- I•o.* li 1 '4. 'ILAi +.a ' - ��g -em I i1. D _ 41 ..�.rr iC..1t'Yt -43 tE,_sJ• z.- lt: i . /� sGt . ''' ' `scY Fes.- '- -. . `•v ~ l'k.yam .-yr. 7. The rear of the drill shed showing the completed rehabilitation with the new skylights in the roof, the prefabricated panels filling the former bricked areas, and the new wood decks and privacy fences facing onto a parking lot at the rear of the property. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service Wthe Secretary of the Interior's S. Department of the Interior ashington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 87-095 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance). 9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/ Additions (nonconformance). Subject: NEW CONSTRUCTION IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS: INCOMPATIBLE ALTERATIONS TO HISTORIC SETTING Issue: The setting of a historic building can be an important element in defining its character. Setting is defined as the relationship of the historic building to adjacent buildings and the surrounding site or environment: it is the arrangment of man-made features, such as buildings and structures and their relationship to each other and to their natural environment, such as open spaces, topographic features, and vegetation. The Secretary's Standards address the importance of preserving the historic setting of a building or district in Standards 2 and 9. Standard 2 emphasizes the need to protect distinguishing original qualities or character of a building or site and its environment. Standard 9 addresses the necessity of designing alterations and additions that are compatible with the character of the property and its environment. The setting of a historic resource is often quite fragile, particularly in rural areas where buildings and structures are surrounded by large expanses of open space, and in industrial complexes where buildings were constructed in specific locations for functional reasons. New construction on, or adjacent to, historic buildings, if not carefully planned and executed, can dramatically alter the historic setting of adjacent buildings or the district. Such work may not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Application: A historic district significant as an early-nineteenth century textile manufacturing center was rehabilitated as a rental housing community. The district was significant in part for its founder's early attempt to group buildings by their functions (such as housing and milling) to take advantage of the natural terrain. Historically, milling functions were placed adjacent to the river where a waterway system was constructed. Buildings for housing and community activities were grouped separately across fields (see illus. 1). Although industrial functions had ceased years before, and the buildings were deteriorated at the time rehabilitation began, the historic setting of the district, in particular the portion of the district where milling functions occurred, remained intact. The industrial portion of the district included a large mill spanning the river, a machine shop, ruins of another associated mill building, an early twentieth century frame structure used as an office, and waterway system linking the buildings to the pond and river. These buildings and structures were situated across a field and visible from the main street running through the district (see illus. 2-3). The rehabilitation included the conversion of several of the historic buildings in the district into apartments. In the area where milling functions occurred, the machine shop and an adjacent frame building were rehabilitated for housing, and a free- 87-095 standing, two-story apartment block was constructed (see illus. 4). (Two additional apartment blocks were constructed outside the district boundaries.) The frame building was substantially altered during rehabilitation and is now linked by a new addition to the machine shop (see illus. 5). Illus. 6 and 7 also show the new apartment building constructed in the field directly in front of the machine shop and frame building. The large addition to the frame building and new construction has produced a more densely developed environment in the area in front of the machine shop than that which existed prior to rehabilitation or historically. It has elim inated the visual separateness of the mill buildings from the historic residential buildings in the district, and obstructs the visibility of the machine shop from the street which is a main vantage point in the district. In addition, the new construction is incompatible in design with the historic buildings. The historic mill buildings, in particular the machine shop, were simple, unadorned elevations with ordered rows of windows on each floor. The new construction, including the alterations and addition to the frame building, are characterized by their asymmetrically massed roof forms, porches, projecting bays, and have prominent features such as window shutters and palladian windows. This new construction is not compatible with the historic setting and design of the mill buildings and is inconsistent with the historic character of the district. The project work, therefore, does not meet Standards 2 and 9. Prepared by: Jean E. Travers, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 87-095 PRE-REHAB SITE PLAN \ .,. ......,,.. Pond 1: 1 % t % /1 I 1 1 ‘ I i 100 i, I ... 40 t 11. .... miff iiik- ..... Frame building # ... .0 ...0. .-----------1 4... "-- if Historic district boundaries Machine shop . ...... Housing, community buildings, min owner's residence 1. Site plan of the district prior to rehabilitation. Note location of the mill and mill- related buildings in the SW corner of the district. 87-095 ,c i, .f..,..,, 1.� �1I•ars 1 it, r ice.: .. 4 .�• .f r y• -A- l: a .!: '.� . . .. • ...„....,.. $..., „,„ 0. ..., 1,,r,. 7 .z.-tf:- ...11.. ' ,p...' .,:-- IN T , it• ..s. • s 2 . MACHINE SHOP {w #*,-, ,t. ;: MILL + {• • ` oar ./ • t . •I: r i t f ., ,/, •��'resit�,r• \. • - . �i y i� :.? II �.3. Apr-,ill „e 4 'r, 7 use , ;.�=_ t ! d ie• 'L. CO' , "b Y ;!� .t...+' r r-r—_ Y J , $brill ,s , ,-4 '- +, rir .l1 sue cr E y;" 'i' t r ;r 1 '.. it8. S. : is ..r t3? ��i.6. _ r�r. 31 w ` � y 14d,i FRAME BUILDING - F...' ,-.- -•—.,"L - , ,, .z-;,. .., j;.;;:. t - ;41;:-- . .. .,*ram. • --- * O yr►:.�r�. -lea+. '� . iCt .,,,,, i�,.''�!r�.1.• .•�H• — >tyy.5' - 2-•, •tl� ' ' '!:�. "�; '� zt""a1",rirTw,. ,7 <,,.t:5 "sS..• ...—.._ �. ,r'- te'i.. i.., ems' ,.., • .'ti. 2• •..r, ,• 2-3. Pre-rehabilitation views of the machine shop, frame building, and the mill. The National Register record states "the mills are set across a wide meadow at the end of a formal system of waterways; their isolation points to the mills as a distinct unit." Note the unadorned, simple quality of these industrial buildings. t Hill . Machine shop Frame building - N . ' q 1. - I.4111111K . -* ` ,.,i%� _..J..,., '� 11 t , '1 *ka_ 6 „; ( I . _ . tom MJ v' — � tiw YI� J./ y ..LA. h f •7.st ` -.f., 7. -1- . C T ,wK .tf .�t 87-095 ...".:,'"":,.. 41:--s ..141KW.I.-f-.r'. "Iii.'34-.19".4.'"s.' .•''''. ,-':‘:"."0'..:--• v.14.---..-t-- -r••"2"-.. tii -y 4 'gip t...k.rti-.,r‘• ;A ifl 1 l-3--•_.i.7-1a%,t1 c'-.0;.o • i ,r %7 *. .ti. ..X.*- --„.. ram, .~ . :: , i,�� ,;*_ Frame building Machine shop 1-=% r I . I # ' ' A ., _ _,....., • .., _ =__ -_-:: ....,....K.2114K___- 7, '. .....-..•---- Aar.-- -- -.0.41.:ff-r.''- 7 7-4_,....: ..--*:::;:-111 Apartment building .. ;,, r.< "'h; .~�,, » rk.. •3 - 4� ue ""a �arm::- a „"' SS ,� � `•;-,.:e.0t,. ,.,4 r> ,.K: cam'...-:,a, • .-X.aslY f.. ;tom - .- �•1. • 4. Post-rehabilitation view of machine shop and frame building. Note alterations to the frame building and new construction in the previous open space. The new construction introduces a variety of architectural forms and features not found on the historic buildings in the district. IC H / t 7+ c fit • _tL •j _ ¢ice '• *�� _ • �i, , . '/ _-fir 4 :, ,„.......„.. ....,,, ,. _ _.,. ...:_ :.„ . . _ VI -,_•., III' a �_ ,art i Yy s .� IR ; tl;ht II' -- ;�■ 11. S ji N W i ..t-� i A.^ . , ,ii , .....:„1,‘,... , z........ " _ ..................._,.......... ..._ 5. Note how close the frame building's new addition is located to the machine shop. A wood deck links the two structures. The new addition has created a more densely developed environment than existed prior to rehabilitation, obstructs the visibility of the machine shop, and has introduced architectural forms and features not found on historic buildings in the district. The new construction, therefore, has changed the visual qualities characteristic of the setting of this district. 87-095 w t 1c i `:,_ r_. Machine shop ' F 4, ' .n 4.! 0...•-,_ �i, f t '/?.r- `' . ;00,,. b•'.•W'� 11 ,_1 � Y. . i AH - 'f wYF .e. �� Febud TM 1 ram in t, :, M , 0 4 Apartment building .' �; i+,, •, ti p _. ,�jkf, _.d. e!X y, �i - �:.� .. . .4 _Li:.._ .11 6. Aerial view of this portion of the district showing the alterations to the frame building, and a portion of the free-standing new construction on the left. The machine shop is in the center right of the picture, and the mill is located in the upper left corner. Note the more densely developed environment immediately in front of the machine shop. ri' 7"`, 1+C+-�..-� 'fi w .. .--. c . i " ' -t s. ��`� ,am. a:rr xip . : \lachine shop . _� Y. is* [� Y'� �+ ,Z .{ A.r -f '' •. a� ORA '-,6'_ "l Frame building w4. •.• -;„ - - -•-' • --.1 -/.-i ,-. . ..,. :•--.4.4* '. ,,4 1 S d , ., - _ -..24 e.e. _-.-_-, _ .' ;,:e-Nita,..,. . 4 3 ' 10.11'tt a ,�. 4. ...:::.1. w }.. ; 7. Aerial view showing blocks of new construction identified as 1, 2, and 3. White line is the approximate boundary of this part of the district. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service 4S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's ashington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 88-096 Applicable Standards: 3. Recognition of Historic Period (nonconformance) 4. Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: UNDOCUMENTED "RESTORATION" OF MISSING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS Issue: When rehabilitating historic buildings, the repair or replacement of missing architectural elements must be based on solid physical or documentary evidence. For example, old photographs of the building may show a missing element clearly enough to replicate it. Original architectural drawings may also provide this information. Sometimes the outline of the missing feature may be clearly discernible on the facade or elevation of the building, or may be revealed after removal of a later covering such as asbestos or aluminum siding. An accurate reconstruction of the feature such as a porch or a rear ell may be based, in part, on excavations made to determine its size and depth by the location of buried footings. Finally, key elements may be found such as balusters or porch railings that were stored in attics or basements when they were removed in an earlier remodeling. Any of these situations can provide useful clues necessary to carry out an accurate reconstruction of the lost element. However, reconstructions that are not based on such physical or documentary evidence, but merely on hearsay or a theoretical design, cannot be verified historically, and generally are not in accordance with the Secretary's Standards. If, during rehabilitation, some indication of a missing feature is encountered, unless adequate documentary evidence exists to guide an accurate reconstruction, it is better not to attempt such a treatment, but instead to design a replacement that is new but also compatible with the historic building. It is also important to remember that later additions or replacements for the earlier feature may have acquired significance over time; if so, they should be retained. Furthermore, if missing architectural elements are restored on a selective basis, the completed building may take on an appearance it never had historically. Application: A circa 1872 Italianate brick house, part of a farm complex individually listed on the National Register, was rehabilitated for use as a bed and breakfast establishment. The impressive, two-story house (see illus. 1), features segmental arched door and window openings, a bracketed wood cornice, a lozenge-patterned colored slate hipped roof and cast iron roof cresting. When first constructed, the house had four porches—on the front, both sides and the rear. Over time, these porches had been removed, and only their "ghost" outlines on the brick walls (and the 88-096 fact that exterior doors remained on the second story that had apparently opened out onto porch roofs) provided clues to the fact that porches had ever existed. Although the original porches were gone, a later, elliptical terrace surrounded by a low, rusticated cast-stone wall, probably constructed around the turn of the century, existed on the primary facade of the house at the start of the rehabilitation. As part of the rehabilitation, the owner removed this elliptical terrace and wall from the front of the house and decided to "reconstruct" the original porches. Instead of using the very distinct "ghost" outlines (which had been removed by the owner during cleaning of the exterior brick), the owner used pieces of wood brackets found on the property as models to construct new porches. These bracket fragments, the owner speculated, came from the "original" porches that had been described by area residents as preceding those porches which had left their physical profile on the brick (see illus. 2-3). The rehabilitation project was determined not to meet the Standards because the design of the new porches was not based on conclusive pictorial or physical evidence. The new designs did not match the outlines on the masonry, nor were they based on historic photographs or architectural drawings of the house. The porches give the house an appearance that is not verifiable, yet appears to be historic. This violates Standard 3. Although the intention of the owner was to restore the house to what he believed to be its original 1872 appearance, in the absence of clear and indisputable documentation as to what this was, two appropriate approaches would have been to have left the porches off the house or to have based the porch reconstruction on the physical evidence (outlines) of the former porches that still remained on the brick when the property was first acquired. The surviving bracket outlines could have provided ample guidance for quite closely replicating these porches. Excavation in front of the doorways might have revealed evidence of the location of footings that supported the porches, to document the depth of the porches. The owner, of course, had the option to retain the elliptical cast-stone wall. Although clearly of a later period, this wall did not detract from the Italianate character of the house. Its retention would have been in accordance with Standard 4, and reconstructed porches based on the "ghost" outline would also have been compatible with the wall. Prepared by: Anne Grimmer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the facts and circumstances of each case. ii;;*'''es . .. ' -• _I. ' ., P•A f ll ,.t�" 88-096 • ._ - '-.2.-- ---- .^..W. .r .,_,.____ ....,..,.,... . ..... ,.. I ilk. .. 4.t. ,, ,.‘: ..-...4'.., $ " •-4_ 41411- . .4.4.... Mai .. 2.: •11 . • .:• ... :4. , a , _..f. , , a i f. . y T. 464 t.. ..I., • . A "N-ES'' 4-',--': -.,..'. r - I 1 1. s ltitir ' • :Y""7- yr _, 0....... T• •� 1. The house as it appeared when acquired by the current owner. Note the "ghost" outline of a porch on the front, the second floor exterior doors, and the elliptical cast stone terrace. �� / _ _• �,� ��•�� • fir _ / �i��:ii•ice•%ii //%//iTT.7% r )': .01111111111.-. * .•°.. V- ..... i• , L- i:� %I%�/� r ♦,t 'i � %iYit�•/,//r/ :i I '�/ice/ t - �i/ 2.� jrr�'9. V•'S%i i^� j/// /r r• L. �1 ('y .... r •/ • I /j/ i-i�ii i :�- �i�'�'�i'i/ r %'�r//��% %/ r '/////� ' �I_'i ��ii��iii i�i_ ii^�� %r�1�I Imo% .. r �, 1 ='� ✓i ri'�/ h ii•�ii ''�i i�ii^�i r;�•%r/.�rl • ' G_•�1- 1F� ." i .... - :ii i�`�i'��i_�i-i ii'�r•~ii '.••r'I j�•jrl omit � ..... ............• ,........,..„.............7-.1-...•,.....„--I;0,- ___ , ••••...•.,......ii -�• " �. 1 r•�•„ice _ 0-ion,. t •+ `..- i.-i• rim+ ` -tL r- rio .' :=� .. �i��--- . �••��•/•ice ` • �. - • .� :�L••-- p - •r�•,. - .. .%! "° -'tea--44; .- :� :-•�'-•��• �5--- Y • `-ar!�r r - �'z-\ -Try) ��''yy 'rw =��. ...,_cam+._ -�inowlew _: �'- rr \•: moo• -.'''i.• ::..:.....=...,..,...:......-...._ • If2:••'I'4 411.1- ,._' - •t.*1.,, !"iii i;----. , t.1 . •••••'•-•••' .00. .....-.0 ,.... .............., 0,••• e.c,till-7._._ : i ---- --.:---': _.t..L; •,'-.i,..--.4! ••• , _____.,7_,_= ., ___ ..... .. :14 . , _-___=-____---_-_-_-_,..,..---.....7.7.......±--:::::........=___-_-.....----....-.:_•---. ---,.......-2...,:.--„,..,-..„--:-.....-__-;; ..........,..... SIN 41.,a mat IS Ma MI 1:17=!-.7:177;....-.1...;H::::::::::::t.''...'LI:L.7::".7:::::::::::....::::""4"11..aa'..":"'....7 rjs'. •'F99 .ram=\��_r�...�\.� r� As tiras�� :::: 1.../c 7 r mot'. '-��`�•'\ ��wi�. .rr `�� . ......... .----z_...._.-- _---.......- ::'.. ': :::_.....--:..........-....---,----T_„___,r7.,_ .- e,:.,,tr,,,.. , -- .-4.-- -- S - ^r-�-_ INES �.� �. rya manuall". WWI .. -'--1'-�-'--." "ti�.`'...��\•::.y•a•2::ems..:.' : rri.sagn r iq�� 2-3. The reconstructed front porch (left) and the side porch (right). Their designs were based on bracket fragments found on the property combined with area residents' descriptions of the porches as they remembered them, but did not match the "ghost" outlines that had existed on the brick prior to cleaning. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 88-097 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: INCOMPATIBLE SITE WORK Issue: Vacant lots adjacent to historic buildings often provide convenient locations for stairtowers, parking lots and other work undertaken as part of an overall rehabilitation project. Department of the Interior regulations state that a rehabilitation undertaken for purposes of the investment tax incentives "encompasses all work on the significant interior and exterior features of the certified historic structure and its setting and environment." Development on adjacent lots may result in denial of certification if the site work radically affects the "historic qualities, integrity or setting of the certified historic structure." (36 CFR 67.6(b)). Application: A four-story, three-bay brick structure built about 1869 and located in a historic district noted for its brick warehouse and commercial structures was rehabilitated for use as residential apartments. The rehabilitation of this structure was undertaken as part of a larger project involving three other buildings (see illus. 1 and 2). In order to provide access to this structure and to the neighboring buildings, an entrance courtyard was created on the vacant lot bordering all four structures (see illus. 3). Principal elements of the new construction included a wall at the property line, an entrance pavilion, a three-story steel exterior stairto.wer, a wall at the mid- point of the lot and a covered "walkway highlighting the entrance to the building at the rear (see illus. 4 and 5). Additionally, the lot was excavated to provide light and access to new below-grade apartments (see illus. 6). The new construction contrasts radically with the historic character of the nineteenth century warehouse, with the other structures it serves, and with the historic district as a whole. The forms and colors of the new work introduce an appearance incompatible with the commercial and industrial texture of the district. The entrance walls and pavilion, constructed at the edge of the property line, are highly visible at street level and do not relate to the scale and texture of the enveloping district. The excavation at the rear of the courtyard introduces a level one story below the street, which adds a further incongruous note. 88-097 In addition, the prominence of the new work serves to diminish the prominence of the principal historic structure to which it is attached. The effect is that the historic building seems an appendage to the new entrance pavilion and stairtower rather than the reverse (see illus. 7). As a result, the project fails to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Prepared by: Michael Auer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the facts and circumstances of each case. - — - j� P.. r f ' , , ,, ..,...„, „..„ ,....., ,.......„ , .... :,....,,,.. __ r. . 7 • -:---t- rifi' .0i. - -- _ --1, 1 , r... r—i c 0,4,„, . -. ., ::, _,,. ..._______ __ , •••••••4. —Mr ........ ! —•••-•• • 4:1,•••-• It— , Sf !/ �, ems':: -- f_ i � � W E I I gip' ' 2 _,• : • -Y r t" t, F ..a--• fit., f' 131. ER r+ ; 'd'a''r6a'� s _ C' NN ■ :• .I_ 1' ? V/ o Q r` r' . ... 1, ` - ' , „,,,_,-...,;:it";t n, O r ,* 3-t h '-i G' k } ".t 'r it S1 I k+ i '`••- T`t4`41 `ytx 'Ltiw t 5�!�V i F, ' ` .�'rric' ' s. - ' Lei ,, • 1 and 2. Four-story commercial structure before rehabilitation. Vacant lot and buildings at the right and to the rear were also part of the overall project. 88-097 r a ya. .td . :-:-.7:7.1-1;'-4::"..i.:"..-': .. .,...... .....-.4%PIP7... n r� ;5 y�r~ i . o r t1 ..� t' �' S T i!u f ice+'+ F �_ , �: - . } ,�" , K , 4 . z' ' ielegit , . 7. _ mo 4.._,. p,: —l ., ___ �p fix ' 4, i t 4> 5 `"S•l... n 3.-- a%�F' `yy., . i ,'.' ,5 t �'"i. 4. Stairtower provides fire exit 3. Entrance pavilion, front wall and stairtower are prominent new site features. from building at left. . • -k f > may ty ,S I tLi. i j ;c Y .. "",;:"..*1.e e../ -- .... ,, /. VMS li ':.F.r. ..-.....4 "at ......- ".,.... r!!':'''. . ,.. t t . .,...... ,l. tii .,: .s2. .at ,j .. ��. .;,,., ., ....,,..........._ _.: ., _,,.., 4 s,' ' a:� t -�' Fes`;V. ,. ,F ts j:i ,+. _ f�•. 5. Covered walkway serves as the principal entrance to all four rehabilitated structures. 88-097 ' =_,..,\ al..., I 1 11111111111 , - 'l/ ' -� '• it / 1:;- i';=';‘• .N, III .... iiri 00: ... I N.f• ,...t 0 la 1►• -w e G `�.~ t1 i' r Lr y nit x ;} .•�,� 6. The covered walkway spans a courtyard excavated for new below-grade apartments. . - 4 . _.., ., - ,..,,,,„„. ..,,,,,,,„__-„ - •t. ,. .; s3 r� • tl ". .. Ir, , -;''..-'r. 41 '','"' A-4.7.7,,,, S ,.Y i,- + -4, i t ; 5► . •- T T �' _ :fit Kam , * y '. .f: L -.c ...,.._......,:z'_-u7k..V_ert_r:_ r d_.,::.........0 r. 7. The new site work subordinates the independent historic building to a larger composition of radically new and incompatible elements. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 88-098 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) Subject: CHANGE TO HISTORIC SETTING Issue: The setting of a historic building can be an important element in defining its historic character. Setting is defined as the relationship of the historic building to adjacent buildings and the surrounding site or environment. Standard 2 of the Standards for Rehabilitation calls for retention of the distinguishing "original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment," while the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings stress the need to retain "the historic relationship between buildings, landscape features, and open space." This relationship between a building and its setting can be altered drastically by moving other buildings onto the site of a historic structure and by the addition of extensive parking lots and other landscape changes. Application: A large, finely detailed Neo-Classical mansion, built in 1900 and representing the wealth of prosperous mill managers and the specific contributions of its locally significant owner to the community, was listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places. Although the large lot on which the building stood had been overgrown in recent years, the character of the house as an imposing suburban residence on a spacious site had survived (see illus. 1). In the process of converting the site into an office condominium complex, another large house, originally located on the adjacent lot with a similar setback and orientation, was moved to what had been the front yard of the individually listed building (see illus. 2, 3 and 4 ). The moved building was turned to face the 1900 structure. A parking lot with much enlarged street access, including the addition of gateposts from the neighboring property, was constructed between the two buildings (see illus. 5). A second and much smaller building was also moved from the adjacent property and sited at the rear of the listed building. Although both of the moved buildings were saved from demolition, their relocation in the manner shown here has nearly obliterated the historic setting of the 1900 building. That building appears as a subordinate element in a new composition bearing little relationship to the historic appearance of the property. The central parking lot, furthermore, has become the dominant feature of the site (see illus. 6). The project does not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. Prepared by: Michael Auer, TPS, and Amy Schlagel, National Register These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the facts and circumstances of each case. 88-098 �T L. ' am...-, ip_ '�' jt, ,� �� `� '' '.has: ! .,.o. -?4"r' ;3r l�- ♦T�k , /4..+ J.'14 1.i . )eft• �titer` j-^'T.- V. x�« ' 0.. .4�• '-+• 'Y y •r ^, yew \—=-t -:'-j t Y..� e d _ i- _-- -ems 0 a..+. .�'`_ .:tr `:L • 6... L 1. Although the site was overgrown, the character of this 1900 house as a large suburban residence had survived. B1 L- °IP ILI.' 11* C )C9 2. Site plan before rehabilitation began. The 1900 house (A) stood alone on its lot. On the adjoining property stood another large house (B1) and a dependent cottage (C1). 88-098 lit ..6,, ' .t• 3.,, , % ' �i�j�4 *�-:A %",..s:::-�RRR'f[�a'v..t".r..r . 1. •� rxtY vy�: r `. ' r-�2-;�kj�yf+�`Kai. I `- •l � • ~t~ /' I 'S �C�a•.1. '`+' . :71-• 4, •}r',a I"-, 7 _ j,: '7" - �, �'oe •�j - VC, .. .]�r` /• , / I'. �. 1 . 1 'ii`J -_` xYYII$$ _ • ,QU D67i i �'•= . � •1�r�.y,�'7w � ..�... .. 4�1 sue, o_� �.�� .�.'r�Y. ^"Q�► t �c4. iiG R "►*'. r�3'y -mot l'• vt� 4 , r '4 y fa •.i: -� "14&•'' _ _„ .? y ,gy„ _.tr G= ,RVS"^�.�Kt_ � .ate. -a� _ Sr._ - Wf. '+�a�Y'� xin+ ��1,Fe,girf.y�iC �'wa►` • .. .•,w�a.�- ` •0i, 2!'.42 ,. -1..77ktr s 'C iF r 3Gi a..et a T -+t?•.aG 1 T , a { s�,z •• + . � , ' " ' T 'i a _^- 2."F'• �y Y.+ F3a _a. ''.iX ^' -i'A. ^`,. ' ,." . . S d " . `. .i`� . r— - .�-* :.:7 ,N..t{ "^ ri t . ,; " 3. The front yard of the mansion has been prepared for the relocation of the neighboring house, seen at right. 7 : CI PARKING A , Y till 1 1 .. Z I i 00. 4. Site plan after relocation of buildings. The neighboring house was moved and turned around (B2) to face the 1900 building (A) across a paved parking lot. The cottage associated with the moved house was relocated (C2) behind the 1900 building. 88-098 -------____-______--------- ---- -‘,. ,:,I ft . •_. b.,..,.- . __ -.....,...7 ri, k .1.Y. As - --' 's•rroibs•-..b ::,.,::: - _ - '• ,..srT4." . ..,- r. •. ,-r-.zi- • „r: -vo.• , ,...,-. _ %,..-. : .t,./. \ • ' • ------ .-i,i•A; ,---'..... r .--. • ..- ...,' .. "-''' ,.. ...:. --- I".VisCASi44-123S'‘.- -. ..kt".%••••• '' .;* . 'ff••.' 1 i1 .... --•,"-: -;.1,.'' . ••- -:• -•••"...... 7 r.7•••••• .4-'•.:------• 4.4.4.".:. 4. If ..i ..;......„...... . .. ,...;., ...4.s. :... al,_ ____:'..: • • :.- 1.:71; -131FQ ! px... .'-'1-1--., ' - - • • _...„,_. - - • . . _ .„,*•t„ .._ gt....,__,, -_ f. S. 1/ If ,1 1 -•".. .. : j - • if,..k. *4 •:,••=4: .-7....C.. _- --4%; 4 `. 7;4'4.: . ,• 44,i' • ‘.4.--, " - it - .. . LE°. • .V 4i1 IT:4 .R 11%' --,- ,..... , ‘ - ' le ' -, •-.....:-..1-, --Li '4 - -:- - — . .' •••'...4" ••," •-; .-74.4 -I---• —""•-..•,•nr,..,--.....-.--:••••••x'-o--.. e.__ ____-8 l': ‘..."'t.' - k's'••4. 1;t: .%% a a — --.Qamow_ r — ' r,,e4. .-.4 . ;:e-•,•-••-•,-,. -,i_ -., __ --•-i*-.„„.-N .- --.:,,,- _ imuir it lst" ')_-. - --"•- •....r.:_nt'..: ,.... •- "--‘" - ,....-----;41.-.1--7----':---- ..7.... -- .------1'!~:. .• c-,•_: Qiitsee••,,-- -,,..*.e'rzr-'..---.. - ''•• -- -• 4. • .... ,,„..., -Ntoialoti, •444" ----,4,. , •,z,-,..•• •••,„ - ' • .ivr,-,..v,•,-,-• 5. Turned 180 degrees, the moved building faces the historic one from a distance of 60 feet. .• •- '.7.--,, - .-..• ., , • . •• ,-.•_.. , r) ....'1rui-s,---.,- k... •Irs ::-.,r.:.....C.....' . . . .4" k ..;..;..,, • ";•`?...f4.4," :7------------____________ _A^.: 4 Eilg 4. '•• 1 kb.#..4114::4•46.:.!. *lc?. '.:./ '^e4A lie 4e:4•• t..it,. :14 .•. V. ''' • .>-,‘ V Zi7 :.•::*`• .. .-•:-.... • 111k! 1 - ''r. ', ' Ntliki. ..iida.D .1 * N-7: 1, 1,, iti,,.,lit • :144. .: .. 'R' ,.fe.,; 10 ,..7 .::.. ,..:..r.‘.,c: ,...A, 'ilia 41a4e . .. • •%''.% .,----FI ' _ "%apt- F.ei ..-- •Ak ,.. .... 44, 4•44•4-•:..., ------- :"t1 ...401111`V 14:1.-....1. la aite ,-.4.-- -----. • •4 ''.a. -:. et: ..".. •::;110P1:'it54 i'''''.1 '.•-•',...--'• .:',....7; Illk '. vos, ,•• :.-.. ,.: , f I „3_ .-- ...ii: trniii, -. . % •t . Hill 1 ', ....,- ••r yr 1 'te ... I I • V• t' I/I ' ••• , ..7....7 " .jr .4:.....A.I; ii/Ei Metal& lhigt AROVAIWAIL"rs.... 111, ..."'• ..... • "tf . ,,viety-,,,,A‘lett..;,,ls, 1 -__-_- _:,_ - ..„.....7.-. ' ,, z.-- ,-......„...,.„,,t , ...... --..---..„..s. ... ..--, „ ... ........ - . ,. - . ..-: .-...,-..ty_.- ....,.........- ...,.._- 7•-:`,.....1,'"4..... .-• ...(.44i7k ....-i,...-.,tc,.‘•.'--.7-7:4 ,- .7: '.-7-,.. -: ..-..-, 04, ., tr. .i,'......... 4'.4. -.•-.. ••- '-'." ,--...'-'' -.. • ''.. -Ai'',-17t.... , '.. .- -- ..7. ..,. . ....2.. .' 1'n .4" ' - ' : - -• -"'",•-• Z.., "...1-...e,!:2.4.4-3....6. The parking lot completes the drastic alteration of the setting. The second relocated structure is seen through the porte-cochere at left Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's —Jashington, D.C. [-Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 88-099 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural character (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historical Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: SELECTIVE RESTORATION IN HISTORIC INTERIORS Issue: When rehabilitating historic buildings, changes that have taken place in the course of the history and development of a building and that have acquired significance should be respected. If, however, an earlier period in the history of the building is clearly identified (in the National Register nomination, for example) as being the primary period of historical significance, property owners have the option to restore the building to that period if the restoration can be substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects defines restoration as "the act or process of accurately recovering the form and details of a property and its setting as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of later work or by the replacement of missing earlier work." Sometimes a decision is made by an owner to restore portions of the building to a particular historical period and to rehabilitate the rest of the structure. As a result, a new appearance may be created that never existed historically and does not accurately reflect the history and evolution of the building. Application: A two-story brick structure, constructed in 1839 as an academy was substantially altered in 1870 and again in 1912 when the building was converted to a residence (see illus. 1). Prior to rehabilitation as a restaurant, the interior of this structure reflected its function as a residence of the early 20th century rather than its original use as a school, with a center stair hall plan, six-panel doors, and bullseye molding around doors and windows. A one-story hipped roof porch supported by cast- iron columns dating from 1870 extended the breadth of the facade, and a two-story brick ell, constructed in 1912 when the academy became a residence, extended from the southeast corner of the main block. The National Register documentation for the historic district in which this building is located cited the academy as being important in the history of education in the town. A decision was made to restore the main block of the building to its appearance as an academy in the 1870's. While this was considered an acceptable approach given the building's significance during that period, the restoration was determined not successful for several reasons. Features in the main block of the building such as partitions, windows, doors, fireplaces and trimwork dating from ca. 1912 were removed and replaced with replications of the ca. 1839-1870 features in their original locations. The twentieth century center stair (see illus. 2), was removed and replaced with a new stair in an attempt to further match the original configuration of the academy floor plan. Also included in this rehabilitation was the replacement of the front door, and the change in location of the front door and windows to reflect the facade as it appeared between 88-099 1839 and 1870. The ca. 1870 porch, however, was retained and preserved, as was the ca. 1912 rear ell addition. Although the new stair was based on scattered ghost marks and fragments of the original stair, there was no evidence of what the original bannister and newel post looked like, and as a result the new appearance is conjectural (see illus. 3). Also conjectural is the design of the new front door which was installed to replace two ca. 1912 doors. The only evidence existing for the front door was three hinges found near the suspected location of the original door. Other interior features in the main block of the building were not returned to the academy period of the structure. A ca. 1912 door with bullseye molding on the first floor and a ca. 1912 arched opening on the second floor, were retained amidst 1839- 1870 details. In addition, all of the 1839 windows were not reinstalled. On the interior, window trim applied over recessed plaster panels was installed in the location of two 1839 windows (one on each floor) to represent their original locations (see illus. 4). Lastly, partitions that had existed on the second floor of the main block from 1839-1912 were not reinstalled, in order to accommodate one large seating area for the restaurant (see illus. 5 & 6). Because only portions of the main block were restored, the work was inconsistent, and the rehabilitation failed to return the signficant main block of the building to its historic appearance as an academy. Selective restoration in this rehabilitation would have been appropriate if the entire 1839-1870 main block of the building, the significant academy structure, had been restored, with the rear ell addition (ca. 1912) being retained and preserved as a representative example of the building's change of use. If evidence did not exist to accurately restore the building to its academy period, retention and preservation of the entire structure as a twentieth century residence would have been acceptable. Prepared by : Camille M. Martone, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. ma's \\ • \ �.; /• 1 /j" 4111110. ..::r... ..ax•,.....,,, na,,k.siY ..'.•x' _,ri.,a ,-.',ieidrlY.sit4;,,,..• ,. \ I 1 lir,• -. -,.._ __ _ .. . .. , , . In ,t. . , . ..,N \ .,.1,i7. ,. ' ' '. . ' '' . \-tilim• 01'1'...e.\:,.:. •': ....,. .,4... ,I l( 1 1.j 4: a 7 ,j t 7 t ...-;/(a ... 1.-1''i/. t • 1 ` ' lam/ ... W?.1,-.,..-;,•.‘•4 �. L•r -.:3• ,Y;Y...�. Y 1►1 {' , 1, ! '.(; ✓'' I 1,\ - fit' '�_ r:7y.wS`-s i .` I'^' . .Tw"wa O ^Yfl4 77??�.a\a^;' =c p Sr i ( •'1�^ F :'# 7 L V..X Y ,t t.1 e ' , [ t. $r . 6.r_ .^'4 t . .1 ,%.1•a..'.. } `\.' Imo' . . il . . , , ,, . . . . • z If , .... f' • i ,I, i'.\ •N‘ t 'fr.i T, • .,,, , • J ... ..: 7 .. . llff• Yid Y' 1. 1i /1 h . I' • ,N.,.t1'.14 —'t.1 'ht+!'.il "4. 1 .1.;• ^j,..',?e .'t i_tt__ 0.4; "� j. R._•,„....-.Y 4 ,. '_. ...-,y4,.,.,.„.•..,.•,-.. ,Y/ 1 j. ,, •*� . t.r(..,.r�p.„:_:z,i J •J+9� L`• 1'i,1+/rr �p y�T t' 1 YRY1 `.`):l.•'. tir�:r!S'J. s zr-.t.• •''';j .•=•r• .+'r•./�..�r\•fl'}�'r� 1 V' 45 . .K•. T-I.8 -. ,..f.:..".-.,..g t1i1/4 z•vk.4;t4 ....':.:•'A.4 t -6...".,.•:-..-.* ♦;i atys , 7 tf r �.[y!; , tw ,. ' ,w 7 <mlr.."�t... .aL.rn... y aispl i it+. •: .,.,. ,..r { •,n. , t ? 1 r. , 4• xpe 'LL r {,•. •.I• ,e ..)t f ':•.�—_... '` ;• !.y 0. $!,•atY. mc t:`!.Lt1. 1,.i?- ..,. ••, •,tS•• +,•_ •+, O s. ....,l.frviN, `Ir.�.A 0�L. .1 " _� ;"41^.4'' .."• '+ ,•l-..i• ..1 ... -. 1.: ' 1. Pre-rehabilitation photograph of academy building (as it functioned as a residence). ,t:P;:•,:;4 1.,r..1i..•' ;ir / r •x i 5 tV .t. � ..•.a ♦, 4 '+ ff a r Y> i l "3yr}ti r<h h•R--wi4 , r t r taw n 'if3'1-f,-'.''1 4t3 a,,i'.?'.e.- I1,•1!')1';‘'AIiI,.:, . • ..%..,;r,i,,,s'''t..'-1,i'i"ii,1';.:1-.,.'','r•"/t1:,, 1..-4..r'iI,.'i/:'.`,.V'/1:1N.;.'/,;'.'r.;.:''1.1,.4..,i•.i.-:'.-:.,'"•....'.'' /'tl i•;'::;''',0i.-'-l',-''.1k.i:.'..''...,''.,".,1.',.,:,5',$,:,..,,.,',,,'/',',,A;',-(',t;/'l';,,e:,': '•:r4* ,:'t'n,i1:,,.1..•'4::l,„.:%ti..n/•.:.'.'2 .1 i;,.l'l'.::-:'.,:/,"•:%;',: ':ir.."..,!-,",',:,;,.,‘-,-'f -:„''a,t,r'-'i.'...S 1•l.., .i,','...',-.':*..X,...;,.4 ..4..r,...,14.„;'t'.';:''1 i :,0'. *:•..:-4:...!—r,.:1 .'*.4C4' 47 �..`Y=d �?kttr+ i c 4,,.r? �.� 1{ l yt`. 'SyYi r :u aK'Y'Pti} j1'♦� �y i-., p {'i { . f . arwa t..1. Z t f p, ,,t $' % ..4:''44.' '�4, ''';' '}: :r,~ y fit , i', '+v",r .n2t ,r . 7 4 '1' /1 i'� ! t f f 5 i..9Qtrre�i'�-•, '!+'; ,,I•,. : ! g � .!tr, 1 . 11��,, r }7 y i ;;FF 1u y 13ydsf er+t t,- r i t Ay % / .t cV 4 Y j°W flfr' srz5 der/ KY n ♦f /3 p# 1� r'a )1t ç ;r.4./..,.$11 fir , ,f ' /, :/• i,. ' ". tO ,.,l' -f '."'-'1 "..!.•.r'.r•'^':— /vs i X r,/�/' ,r tr'a 1 J I:. ,.i : _J yr t0;. y CI / •I;.' ,,T 1+ + �i" ' ,i r/f i4 `Y :wt tkr :n�a e „' ��• fl - - • 1• /f ♦��r ♦� /.., • 4j � .IY ' }: ^. %0 i i "i ;i f i ' r ! MUIR ...,:• 1f ti'i1 j`,,.I ) /t I S•3f rd. lr r 1 ( 1� „II till. `k f ! 4T, P .r'! �,• 1 �^ _ �.iv' j' ,• !., a ��f, f ,' . ✓ `� 1: �.t '44,[ti- 1., . ;. f' •/1 !_ s • Y tt ram, . }p,� .K4J, _ 1 ,•T �l`R{{$$'' ti r i 1 r � ' • U t ! • •' ®. i 1, I r r. -1 • t-... ,of �_ , �' 'j, n •to ,,.. +6 I ®. ` ,•�I .;. /; Y l `'`�} Imo ,. , •a , K - rr�• + ate `. a f 1 i ''/j"Z Tom^ J �l I. s ♦^ 1 �• tt 1 . 'y , 3 t. _ _ .lip......�.. ✓�,�1 /• ; F� 1rl+s".r�r � ,•..i C� I t rlsc ,::c �� G'' i id��1'1( Tr ' j. '2 a, r..r t 'i 1f.O' -, , r IYti�,' + tiyk"n'=,�..�.A"'��''i' ♦ 1, • �r• ,� 3 tit,..i{ �. ayv4M t (y Arkiji {��1 fi,,..y,--r...14zilk: . u .t *R ! " "+ trw.r s: !' •.`" .�iit: 3 I �' 1 ..'t+'.d+ • ,1r f r.,+ri .y Jr, . �.1...... ...!• r u r..,, la tr` • ;f !!�.4.4i+ a>:a•,r 6i k ! t. ` rr ,�fi r' + _ r t f Vµ ♦ a r1.ry� 1 r:--.„ f t' y �, ,•r•.f{., *'�; - 7 y"�t�T +r ! .` r r 4 "`, • ,rsr '�M_YV"'x -I '� ' J~ tdPrt�)'�µ' r y. w 'KA r i-. >iM ' 1 '4^ ^ ry dy, 1P •� .✓y i', , � � }_r ;.+. \ ,,,, Mrc,•.. r r �.`.f'°;G r'}ii>.. * r r'' ,,q :r 114'1"S . ram. y rr"n'm►' .t.. G1 11{4� ,hi"• rc°T}i'it 1'^ • RRpp MM " ` �T'• .. r.. '.7irl .,? 7 `' 4i , f f �,ts r 10 # ( i. tom �r - ,, ,� 1.. I ,-i 1 ty -. > Itt a r• . ,e. 2. Circa 1912 stair prior to rehabilitation. Moldings, floor plan, and other detailing are all 20th century. 88-099 ----- - -7773.- _....- •-.,•-. ,. ,_ -• f.-- ----.A„--..7.--,-- - -,•:.-i-) -_ , ,..'t.;:*•',2 '...1..--?t,'3.7 .1.,..-4.... , ,..-...,---:•„'.•.:c •---.•-•:--- -enr # , , •-'' ",,t- ' '• '''..!'•ii::;,1,•••"*":4„ ,,,1 - I . --,.••..;,'": ...%•-'...%-,<:,1 •4,r-?- 1 i • - '—' ' '. :7.':: -.'r'-'"a *.• •_, . ,'• _ . . ".•,.. -,'...;,..c •,,,:..40., r, ' ..,‘ ` .. -,.,'-• .. ".-7::-`..'e" - - .1 .• . .. • L.,,...:...,..,:,4, t 12 •'-k ' - -'•:„.-'-.•-%:- . l /( ' .. , 1 g WO,,,j14 i . ' i ... '• ' t / i- ..... / .., '.... .." ,. ..?- .... , •.. I ... _ opipp--- .....------ .., - , -- - 1 , --- .• "-4,--t-•-4,,, - __ -- ----- A. ...., ' 1 ' / ...••.,.1.. ..- Mir •,- , . - , i, • - -C .1 . "":7•,..4. ..••••" „4 i C.... : . ' - 1.-......-....,--"•- ,,,, ,_„,.„_.>,....t 44., I. e, , -.- -AC ---• / %,_ 9- 1 11 , . _. . . .. ... ....1.- . -_ ........_ ,- _ • 4 i • ,. r„,..:., ,, , I_, i . - -—- - z--..„.... ..,.., . • - A-4,1F .-.. P :::‘`' ‘•'; `,. _ . 0.„. , --• .: , •*. --\ 46-•-• ,-40•. 0. t • - -s ir, .1-.1a$71.,, • .., R'' wvi,: I " 1, - ... • .*dc •1.,:r.........v. • , — ' f —".'• 'Z.. ,...,-,iftiZ 1 ' ?Y7.... ,;*4- , ,,,jr•. •.,,. ', - . ,50, .. ,,.::."..31, :;..7 --. •''''.-. °*‘1.-..•7 'Cl''..41,k'i • .. 4\ Itzjf : .,: . 1 • i 1 - • , --•, - , . ,-...,• • Nlib. -- 4 i ... .r.. • , 4A- .. At 1 . -. . . Oft . ." OP at -1 ... le, .•••1116. - allib• Adiiii... -, 3. New stair after rehabilitation. Design of stair was not based on historic evidence. • 00 .r •'.• I \ 1 „ •:!,1 i',' t '; ' • •^• i \ , ,.,.•,•..;' r ,,,4.• , ''"1,-Jot -,,••74:!i% . '1. -.9r • ' , r - , It-V: • r.7. ...... •.,;:./.‘4 2 -: -^7. fi '•,,,, j tr)'is:''-.•.;,,,',A1: 1ti''''..),1' Up: 1., • ' ,.../. . t'r. I-Y- .':11--::.71::.:3:,:',7:1:;:::5;:;:.;::),iki::1:;;;I:t••-'1.1):1::---:, .'z,,, ',C,Z.,., ,--"' I-.. k•-•--Pr',""1-"rt'imPr--- .,, • ,..•tl '''g.glirtts! ..4-'0:4$01•1$11.41'•,;,•0,. .f-• , ,. i•,,, ••.•f!'q' ' ', e. 1,1:: :`e^, : I :: ':. ., :, '...1,:Ali e 1 r.511;•‘••4 )1-'4,0' ,-t?..:4!q.'•' t. • -' •' ' 1 - '-. i.. ,- „,,-; ,F...,,,1•;.,ti.z,..‘. t.• -0.-it,11. .,. 'f,,,-.• •;:•,,,,!,,‘;•• ',.,...• •,. . , ,„. r , :4_ , .4',Ar?,•••:', ' A. 14^,V...',-1:1•?..';.'.-X,:..."...,;'• '• ?like , 1,, • ., : ''''"!/.1,rft; $1,111k.C.E0r^?-'' '''.!.i.1.!,-1,?; • ... .• ts • . ti 1 i ,, ‘:.41').‘4,4-:"4 '.0;t1.4.1 '4f,„?4;':•: ‘g;`,11;V tI•ii....• e;. ..,,, ,,,,1',A r"4.,..}.0.*:, ,7,",Mc'p,.....-1.,1,4 t:.,:T"? , .Jr! • , LI, . Ii4i.'Il.1',1,1,i,,•,.' ''',,"-I' $ "I ..si ''rl!; . i 14- '.••• ; ' k4e5".-411'.;•''; :;i:- '"'^' •-• ' • '° • • S ,„,,,,,,., , , ,, . . ,.14-i4.,.„..„,;.,,...t...,:.„.., ,,.... , .,.•. ,. .... .... ...i.; ,,„,,, „,.,,, „ i .nt,;6m,zi,,..3.-..ii. ..:,,,,. ,..„_.4. 4 ......4' •. jig iii iricat rl ;,:.' ' ? , Ehrtl-.1:•:%.P:Sr v,',',".7''1• Ijirl.•IF •i•-i• , ,,.... ,. ,,i,.:,•-.,.....K2,.., ,l.;;,;• -,i,,. .___.. •,. ..— ,,,,,,.• .,1/4 . ,,,,-ivi.,-,k,,t,,,,,,..-..,•.-,,, ., :i.i.,...:riFi• ...., •,....A :!..; IIK. .,,,WIAZ:V4,,: ... ; . .. ,"‘.1 pe't.',,;•-•;•:.-, ' -- — •• 1 • ' ' Ill '' ,. -.,- .: 4‘' !.' 1'1 l !!"" *,rt .. .,..i. iii II • .,. _a. . .g.,,,:,.., -- .,,,..• ow- „44.-- ' P s I ' ' * ..: ' ...:^"r 11,1,11.4111 :3'',1111111, ';',.•.1.: , tlifly.4.,,0.),pr , - , !S•I . 1. 1k\ i Mu" trei41 1 '401 ,110100,1.i• '2,11.^ 01•11-1 i ' ' .' 1- ' r . . . 4.1 1\., . 1.....1 tiiii ... , e * ........ .,..„ , , _I iii 11 - if 4-•'; '1 ;.• " . , , ,......4:.,-- r -....: -' , • •Ail, ' AMIE limi• . 1 r :, ,00, • 1 -.31te" ' • —.: - ViE env . t _ . ...7, 17.,171"7.1\S' 1 I.::),'h,,...• .i.'0111. 'irf, • . .. 1, • . r 11 set 1111 ___ • 5 '•1 1 V.V. •,!' '',,,t, ' • ' I • iq'll'ir'''' ''' 4 • ,, - -•-- 41:: 1 r II if I ••10..',.74,, all ;''..r....'•., -1-'i' VT- ''';'I'..I.r.,,,p. ,•, , . . ... .v. - — - - s.c.,,.: 9 •*,'43.A.,:7e::,.4.. . 41, :.„ • --....i,,e.-;,:tio ,,., ,ta...., 2.14-', . t.4.- • .7'" rummies -4, .,.*,,•,,,44r..;:e.`.!7:", :d. , •,.„.*,.i.,N.6...,..,-.," .'. - 1,1 ::',4,77-4,-,r,*'*,,. ii-Z-man' .,,,,,I, i •*.-*,`47....riot'. '.•'..'f,' • In:- • ,-* • I, "; A‘i- •••-•:."7".t, , : alli.k 4,,,: • .•...4'it:7'" . '.1.4.',,1:2'‘...• :,*,•,16-• ''':`,3r,' (1 ' 4....' •',.':, ., ,tT;4:: ' -R • .0 ,. ,.., .,..- ' . ..,,ek. •r•,-? • ,, ..,ap, ---VI,:-4..".e7v.. .',',S.,..... ,., „ -, , - - --, -,;,4;1-',44: 1 •--.. ••',--, ...• , ' '41,, . • .,4 .• t, • . , .dr rIL . • I.- ..". '` -."' •' 1 . A pp mil .. : ----:-•:- ,,. .• • *ffl: L 4. Main dining room in first floor of restaurant after rehabilitation. Note ca. 1912 door and molding remain, and ca. 1839 window hal not peen reinstalled. 88-099 Ca Noo u�...y �Z 1b" aiNt /7 - a II c.tSao ' IL 01,tL[T... ..tt G4.1890 PMc.. o<.r.e /µw1 4 N.. / • Ca.ttso S1..0? / 97171"-I . 1 A.. MV1 1 /N.T..r J . 1 1wY w !.11 Cp nos ..f .0l1 t.t 11.r 5. Second floor plan prior to rehabilitation. ,,,.t .-Y/",(/,//1.1---emu, �.. I ! /7 ji irib... ..1 O►.1 sroeaC C I .0olt. II _5IeV11J1, 91.1.1rCY 'EY1STiW4� _EXISTl1J(i N f J / II / / / r 6•U.111c, , iorc-N L V ✓ J / oi.% / II 1-1 III / / L� J :NNNN.N., 6. Second floor plan after rehabilitation. Note 1839 partitions and window were not reinstalled. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards tor Rehabilitation Number: 88-100 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) Subject: ALTERATIONS OF FLOOR PLANS AND INTERIOR FEATURES Issue: In an historic interior, the floor plan, the sequence of spaces, features, and finishes can be important in defining the overall historic character of the building. Their identification, retention, and protection should remain a high priority in a rehabilitation project. Radically changing such elements may result in a loss of historic character. Application: A three-story school building, with a four-story central bell tower constructed in 1886 as the main school for the town (see illus.1), was rehabilitated as residential apartments. Around 1938 the building had been converted to pocketbook factory and after 1970 a storage facility. Despite these new uses, the building retained a high degree of integrity, both on the exterior and interior, and was declared a certified historic structure for its contribution to a historic district. The original interior configuration had survived, consisting of a central corridor with a central freestanding stair (see illus. 2), with four classrooms off the hall on each floor. Two end towers also contained stairs and provided separate entrances for boys and girls to the classrooms. Interior trim and detailing that remained intact included beaded board wainscotting in classrooms and halls, and Eastlake-style window and door surrounds. (see illus. 3). In the rehabilitation of the building to accommodate seventeen apartments, the central-hall plan was obliterated; the central staircase was removed and bathrooms and apartment units were inserted in the space (see illus. 4 & 5). A new east-west corridor perpendicular to the original central hall was installed. Further work included subdivision of classrooms with permanent partitions, furring out the interior face of the exterior walls, and the subsequent covering of significant amounts of wainscotting. The existing floor plan of this building was part of the building's character with the primary public access to the building through doors in the central tower into a spacious center hall, which in turn provided direct access to the classrooms. In the completed rehabilitation, circulation through the interior spaces has been drastically changed. While the central entrance remains in the same location, access to the building is now through a narrow corridor rather than a spacious hall. The central stair leading to second and third floor classrooms has been removed, and the original four classrooms on each floor have been subdivided. The sense of time and place associated with the school building and how it functioned historically has been diminished. There is no trace of the distinctive floor plan or spacious hallway that once helped define the function and character of this building type. 88-100 Another distinctive feature that was characteristic to this building type was the panelled wainscotting found throughout the interior. However in the rehabilitation, the interior face of the exterior walls was furred out and significant amounts of wainscotting were subsequently covered (see illus. 6). This treatment has caused the wainscotting to appear fragmented and dis-continuous. The remaining wainscotting appears to be randomly placed, and together with the significant subdivision of the classrooms prevents a clear understanding of the original classrooms' design and space. The rehabilitation could have been successful if the original floor plan had been retained and incorporated into apartments without extensive alterations. This floor plan could have lent itself to adaptation to apartments if it had been limited to one apartment per classroom with the retention of the hallway as a shared lobby among residents. However, because of the drastic change to the floor plan, the historic character of the building has diminished, and the important progression or sequence of spaces through the building, as well as distinctive architectural features were lost. Prepared by: Camille M. Martone, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. -,). ..__ •• 11!-- " 88-100 i 4 1 r- •-IL • - -_ //;-,,e,, 'r• 1.• .„. _ 1.:2`;,,, . :r -:- --,- ' _fteftai': ---•--- i -1 - .6•Tic.-, 1 i . 4e" .4. *444... • "A t•• "".„ .77•....... V.,, -t. ,' '' - -,... ,_-•- tft-q,_-..,„, , .,. . -I ' -•' '. / ......- •-a.... - -li , .! F7----:=•-•• -le..., .9- ' - ' i /1:4•-• ; " - • -----.' --- .-- . '.' )."-.-. .z- ' ‘le'- :=1%ii.,,, , • -P S.A t' •.r'"Vt., „4-5. ---. _ '. .''..'.; l'''';.•!.i- , ,:st.TX,,:.4-..2.•4:1.1-INg.m., - - . I*.-;:- ---'" ?" • •.. • ..• •-..,,r, - -•--.-.;:..... ,J!..-,...„ -' . •,':Sr•-••••=..-,._-,•••,' - _ .....-.. ---i,-.7.1-...2'...-._-. ••••.........,•-z1.••,. , .. tt,••• -.."-''''''':•,-- , . '.. ...-' .-. •"i. ..1 !'r..7---;-. ... ' --1 *', -. • !.;--i-----. ",-''• - ;.:.`.V --"'='---A.4*-,•-.7, •-•'-'-A.•8;•-•---,-..- '' • • .tz.--'-'1';'..'';'-`:''',.' '--.•...-7;---?` '. t. if-'.1,.. ..r..... .....'?--...,....- •: ;' ,..7..---_ .-----_,:tz's-;•••-•,,,.'"4-":7"7-1•,„.. . -1..„ • - ,. • .....,•,'• 1--- I ,;,---_--.....,it _ ,.:4-_-.:. „ r /T..t..i...- ...!...= :-: , rt- ' .....•.-1.--.›......,,„2.:...,..!r...1...:.;---......._,-,........, ,• ...... ,7 ,_ . -..... t f it t-:=-,yt-.;:i,-,,,iii,. _ '.•..j... ".;-:-,46'.7i-'., 5fi...:.:";4_7=riMilr; .11ft --..'-----..v.. % •-l• - `' '•• - • •:".. ..`,..... ____ -. -_,-.. 7:r_ . ,,..... +:11•04,:f , " (1 :1._,_..„.....4„... rodo eel•'--pp.. • of er --- "qp-v-- - i-r• ''-t•, - -""' - --• - --' --- :- ---,MARC f -,- -7/- ill 1 _ _-_ ,...,P"" • " i": ,„.., .,,. . --, •-• -_- ..:, -- 1. , ..-Erzi,.--. 1., ,tt% _... -4,g 4- r---- -'"4' .- -..q.... "E'_.i.... .4,..-4--._:7..'..-.:--21'..',..•-... tr---li , • ...., 414, ,.• -' . II '-:;-:';',--*z.ft*-74 -.`'.... :‘,,-/,-. ,'-" -- s ".",-*K-'7..,__-,---- * ' - ......!-?:11A-11::'!,-.:-.;77.'----' •"'''r- --;,-- -',.'t.e. ..j3...• _ ', . 1 '•'''' ;.1-_i 7- :-. . -.•' • •,.... -... :*.f_ ,-;"- -4...7.'1.,........,•!'''..4-.`1.,-;',-",...7; ._.: •r",..... .1,1.....e:;•! ' ` -,t,, • ,; ,,,z..-,•-,-.- -41‹: • `' ...„1.. d. .. kit.,-...:-„„.. ... ., ...„. ... 7.,,,..... Ali. .!:_,-tt 4-,`*"- .::.,...-; • , ..____,,,_• . ... , . . -.-.,-_,_ . -.... , -.- - 4*--7,--._ ink - •,• .., - -. i# • '• :,5..---1::::,-,t...-..... .. .r• .,,--. f i :...„.,,,..„.... . , .:,_:„._, -„--.7..4...,_.g...,_..ri...7.4.:.. , r.,,...,..:. ...: -.•,..1..-14,....44,.....4.,„ ______..1../..„..__,...,.:_. ....,:„. ,...,. .. ..1 ! ...,„„.„:„..._:_. ..* _ _.._,ur , ,..•. .,,...,...._... Nip -1,,..L..1.-Lsr--zw ;., ---,-. _- :..-..f....- . --. ....-1,;.,.., ,.. • , --,....,• -':-..q.1 - -- - --I 1 [.., 4.n.-.-._ - ,i ,-.-'-..-..:,-,z_---.-.,,-*__ -,-; .t.17.---.- •-...--;-; r..6,r-t-.-_-,•,404-. •. •_.i 4 , , 1 vi ,,..:•,:a..,-._,,,,4 - •-_:.•.- --•:•••,a.."•••••••••.,:f.,-;•_44-,4..Pt.;.r...,......"., .r...-'.....l.g...?:•' ' -..: - - .,-.'140;...7...... .i."...'•‘ . p., 1 ...... r-- ...-- -..-&-- 12 •:,,,,: ".,. ..,. y..149e:'',17-.. ..i..-.--:... N,,, --":".i.:rs:•-•4"_._ • - •- ---,,,--• -7•'---- ...1 .•-•1••l',..7. - t'44 v'!'" -.r.-Vi:'..‘t--".'`7.-1141" ...'- I.. - " .N 4 j.:-'4------1:=L-r--X- ---k---Z-SX;_r_4:":„.._r._,7;-'''Ct1::;;...*-4:-.E.7).. ....„,. •.-' . -,,e'-i.-';., -.'' ' ,.i•I 14,-.I.ir;.r Id, W. ;1 1 '1 ...Z...lis .4 4.•:.,. Jr:.se-. ., , 1 - •- "...f'''3.. •''. ' ,!`"!..."11-" "... '''' -. 1.4..•.../....--... ', 1 , e .1:,,, ,,,7-ci.,,,,,,z...., • •, : •• ....., .. ...„..._ ,_..1..-_-...,-:_4.7-,...„.1,-f..,,,, ,,,.:::,...i...... .. ,..v.p.i.,,,..tiF,,,h1,..,„..:,,......A:...2,„.., .,,..„ ....4.,..e.,4,.. 4.. .L. _,„. :, .if: --".'. . :4!, .:. 7.: U...-',.,---.......,_.„,„,:--1- ..,...ii -;--j.,.... ..._.,.: ::, ....1:,..,-;-,--ill.4---,„:„..„--,:::„.,--t!--_-,. ---...1-5,Fik:.:-.- _-_-7-7.-,-z- ----W.---*.z‘,..,-; ':.,-- 27.-•:•::----.'_',.-N4i. e4 !.4. •I'. i A i. to iv . _...,,, ... .„,:-......, . .:,.. .:, :..- , :, t .,..1.2...;:„.., .. =.1. _ ... _ _.,..4-:...... ,..„...t.._.1 -A__. ., ..„4.4„......s.A...,.....„,,,,..-,.-I__.... .f.. ..0..... . 4,-,..... ..- . . ,07-i-%:.,..-. ::-. it, Z.t' •" • 1-441-7t'74:4 •I'74., 1461/•,..‘..‘ Fre A•- , ..-•-„-i, r"."--' • _---.- . ! 7 1 x-4-.1-.'-i•trt....e':.-'. .... . --......---'.• '-j - - - ' -II -.„,,... '.1-.':.:1'• t • :-.1.W".;.., . ?.. ,. , .i • .,,. it-,-;.„ .., .,,,r 1 ... fl:,..-t-i.,.r....=-... 1 ---:21 -;'--- -' . ' - '''1- ..; '*t -17 • 'p.",.;;:1*--.4.;4,- i i 2 ,... f .,-1 , 1 .5...---:-.7_, -.) ,. . •••,.....i.,:-... 24 ._.,_,•:-_,-.. ..„.4).....)-i..7.4- -.•• .., ) --..1 -,..,-,.....4-., ,.. -- i ...--J ' - f,.."' 1 ' , • .i-V,r I I"a, '4', -; •1 NI .7,:4". , - 1 I - , • -, --. ‘i- ,- t..-.L.; - ...--,_-•-.„v„,,-, - .... .. -• '7$ ' r i. -,., ;.,- .-.i.- 3 . 13-- I. - .. i3,--:-...:-,„--4. M._ -,...,.:.• --..„-; • •-..i. *-#--7-.-itE•4 ••,1-,,.,, -.......7:,...L- , ir,,,,,ii,- --.3. 1-...7":-...!;..._- ,li .-,,,i., : • ..,, - C...4--".1' 1 1 - I: II:.' .........0k-; j.... • -,.,_-,,r...., - -.CI _ e-- • atrag.4 -:.:.,.,-)':24',PA,....,4,..........--...._!.."...s... ....7:.-77._ :.--'-';'*/':teLl":,r _ 1,,. . _,.,./' .41 low,' . ,,,.4,-.zfj-.J.1,-_- :-'..•,- ..-,,,4..-• •- -,;••-1.-;;-.,14,-.:2.-:_if :::::I.,,..1,...;iiri•ii•`.:,4;„::”..A.k..dit.'",1%--4'::;!it- ' ' -- ' :h '1 •'i: I IS.L,', 1.-.,,2.--,.--: tt-;+ :-ti: :-,..:ff 4.M..4t..%,.:,, r1.---4.=:. ---g--•:iv5x,,..zfr-'7:-.,..44,44k..".----, 7*.=. 4:' ".-1,--;-- •1:'4'.--- 1 I --% ,,- . .., -- • ,-. ..A..11-,---.!--•:_ -•,..1144. •-'-- -:-.•,-...•6:-.7-„a: „,=,. 7.1%!..-,....r.. ...:..-....„, te. ... .....,.....,11....i.t .„.-.T...;„•,T•7S-,..,. .•16.1...:14tj:r3:7•2,..•z.7'.....,..e.."..._,. ._ •.:,.....,....:1. 4...: ..,' .„41 4 t ; 7 •'-.7' -14 ••:9!\`-•-:- t,it: _..., ,,,,.;......::,, 1 . .ti - , - • .'g 1!:"..k•-'411--,. .j - i . i 3, r----;-:-7a - -- -4 ,:-:‘,•%::..p.,47...:- ,..-,--7,,,„_.:.- --,--;, • -- .: -. ,-,..b..,44,1`Xy.,-....-•' ,,,7,- ..- %.,:....- -,...• - - ..4.ii - r '•'C ci I.,Ar:,--.. .... 11 i - ---, _*1-v,,„.: ;• _:. Li -r...4-i-.A- - 1.7.„.:7-.z...-,--'-,:';',.:14 ' ,:••••••:7---'----`,;:-.7, ---,-,,:.; 44-•"--.--'1,•`...--- -,e,i.i.-J.4.-: - _. -, ., 'ti-Cir Ow.; ,1-„t;-,-J-,..,.; „-,- ,:-3.-:•-•,-;,;,..,1-3...t.'--.--'-'--;:_"-*:-.... .:,:. : • • 41' .. :i.^-, •,-31..i4:-.2. - t _ • -• ti - . 4'?-3)-- :,-,3-:,4, 1 i .,3--:- --: -.•,,-;:... -1.-.•.:,' ••,..,,' 14.f,a-.-•-- -:!------ _. .2-...4, 3 - ii - sz. :. o • •-_,- .i .-r4A,..:-. ...7,-,-,....,,44: .... - 1 lk -elitigtiCi-- „__,-;:•'.-: ' - . . _ --_ .. • , ,.. ,.. .„ ...„1., , .4 _ ... . -_-;•,,,... 1 -•.-• ••••,,-- - , -r-egi'',:s.' ' ' 71.4•---- .__:., -----,..•060.1 r _ ., ,. • 1.„ •,... •,, - • ...-,..-... ..„, • .._,. .;,-„.;,.t-,..- 14 . ... A. ..-. -....,.3-:- ,•-•,, ., • • ,.-1,----- ....-__,. .:.i., ,...-......... ..... „. tiffti=t . .... , -, • , • •--,..14,_ • 4,.t4 -tti• .ttiiiiiiiii . . . •- ...,•., -• I.._ .. - - .. .... _ . I '-'• 4 •1 • • .. • _ ._,.. _- - . •--- .1, I .._ _...... --......__ ;,... fit r.). - 7.e - .. . . - .._ . -..- ''.4. : ,:ie.‘••,,,......, 1...: • • '-'• t .:"......,- ib:•.."Z V,'••• ,....., _ -'••,.•;,.,.•-,....... :4;...r_. -....1.,„.;...... •_•;t.:---44' ..-- -.'4.4c-4-;•••-:"..!.."--":".•,..,--,....- '''',17t''',. -- . " • - . . - --4:.-.:.; _:-:,.,::-..:--: :,..:::--?.'--r-""' .,--77"''''s,-..., *-,-• - ..aszr..vo-1. ",''' ilA• _ .-,-. .. . ••-:,..,,,, -,1:iia-s;,,»f:,-..,',.----.----,..---- ,,,,,,... `'''.`.."- - 4,...,4.... •-•,..;“;;;?....,:i- ,•.7.*;'',,---::::'--‘•--- 1:4.'''''Iri ' - liz!" , •-• .- .4-,, ,,-,.. , ...t---46m -,,i,..J...._,,...-:-...__...,..----- .,,f..t,,.....,.,,--..._. .. •.... ._-- . -, ,..,--.:-.•Th-Fro.'"7,---•---..---• --...%.1,....._ - ,- --',•-• ..-_----1..--.7."--•=;,:--•• -1---:•`-':- ..,•---r-,,.----'•-',:;-*-.:-- ,- .. , ,- ---.---7"-"..d.--,v..... --•=a7.• . • -•-•4442- .--,...;*•-•,'7I --t ' ------”mr • • .... __ -,, -k.---------:-.:,-..---1*.----z..... „L., -----''.--ii--,...ii-..-'...• •-• - :=4,..;;;;.--- -.,.2N-. ..,,--.---.4-4„.•-.•-14.....:,-• '..- -----...,„_ ,s.,••7" . .•‘. ...4."-.'..-,:'Z.:4.i '4.-.4,5 ''',., 1. . _ --, .440.1.-.t.i4.7-,;1177-,-,,•5.-,,,...-', ;-2;----;;i:;_*'7:A"-,---:- :-: .7:: :.`Ar. ,-'.,...-. - ''-••.---,• , .•..,,,, .... ‘4110..t.r ,-1', - ':.f.,it: - - ".' ._'..:171".."*".,....,r,..• - .ft:7".'-';'... ...'''...4.0,4,'Ai,a,;3.-.6..Zr-Z..'-'.":'::-....'"'' .-. . :...."‘'. ..-.....".".i.c:.7.7.,.., . '4.-,..;:',.. 41INkr .:.'..''-'. ' • . :-..''''1•, :t.. ''-',-.': '''''.-'''-''',..:.-. -.-''''': -'-.,.'.: .,'....-1'u71.,..,,..”'X 4,• .....„,.. y ,c,t•k.,..... , , -_,-;?*---,c_72.'_""0;,-,-,---_:--..-..•<-,,_,:„..,-;.-,- c - lirr-A.- - - ,4.4•J -.4-1.-A.,......:' ,. ' -: ....e•--,'"?•-........',-- "..-- ----4. • , '. -...'-'2.•;,----: ,,Y•77t.....r,a -''' - .":4,47,,,,L.-;•-,...--.2c.... •-,„„ -- -'"?''7Z,..4;z.....s.-"4. . . .- +Err 1 t...••, ''' '- --"..--,:t ' ' ... itk.`.."*.kii.vt..;..-,',----'-'''....-,...`",•:•:',....'...•--. ":...,:.: •t,._. ' - -... s".....--...*1.46::,:•;,A.:';.....„1,,-'...,1... '....,*1‘$...p.v.v40.-t.%..•.`'...'"•-•-• --"....'"•'.--..----' ----•,•-- .., : r^ ' `jz..-`4- "• ..,, '-:•,.. . . . ,4i--,,•...4t4'4.4., ":44.-77,---';'..-4. .-..-.1.1"...i;.•-•'," , . . :•s•.'..C.1.-..z‘="i: ;4,.."11 r"'"--2, -'fir J.....7.-,r.`...2. - '.4:--:"'"..f-:,---,•.-1 .-- • :.- ---,......,..-- F: --C.. ..,---S:._;.--.,-.....;:r.,;‘,.; ',......!;:•:-'47--,V.;...4%-:':,---",,,,'--r---,.17--.Zif . -_. -- ' ` • ._. ,. .. --4,•!.'•::Z.e't,,C. ....-7:-.10:;.,..-'7i',...ttlio--7.--c.:,;_.',-.:-." .:.-- . - 1. Pre-rehabilitation photograph of school building. — /.i/' v/e-/ 44.7 -\,., 88-100 ri�J ....., __....:r ‘4.. .._ _ 1 . r /4 7. 1 •A./I _ 7 • i t '�` T ) t 4:.:_,_ r - t • 0. rf'. . A F 6 r".F t / G "'vim_, /'eliPPl 144?// _ I / }' { a/I f • 1 r.. . ..; ., ., • . .. , _ ..__ _ . . . , .., c,• /,„ i { J /!rive.ri�sl , . if .1 rilli! *Inn --------'''"...'"'""u.'"'M----'""Nl- tiliC. 1.°.:1.1'1:.'':::,,-;':41"::!1:;'44-7:1': ...it , / ... .. _ ._ — • -- t • El* elr wr .•ate.-i,�,, i'i i+• ,N3�i'y' -�" j " r _}/ fi r°,y •' • ti 'r 4 ri, -.a+ 'r.',,y?'6 •>sf3 W+r.aw- t i! 1'"-• i,-,•• :. ,� • r y Y Y t ,a• ., T j `9^,. .ai.-�..: w�w1 „s.G"'r1 "+, ,=-..1t .♦.•Cn ,T r r4{r� -v''` C.l'' ?na_...1S f fir',- ' ;- 'y s..r•�,' '..M?a ''! "1- r','c3 .f-; ' 'y��' f''r yr • 5, r+.�..�. a- Y ♦ w 3't..k- vblpy� -J' .� - vt 6* 2. Pre-rehabilitation photograph of first floor center stair and hall. This stair was removed in the process of rehabilitation. . 10d°r��u di 1t 7 { i r '•if •6S^,4,Ar.rrh� i'q" r' 'S�i r ": urc, . i., ;�i ;.. nx'. ', ,• '' d 1 ] 4•. 2 v ,f'*1 .r +7 � i '� ` ^.d. �,9 biu i... q al. r �tv + jrS}r a�r 1 iirr F�"+' ' n 7 r r I t z / Q J id.- ,�C ti • {1-d r^3r�. _ :.i J 1!+`, •, .. ( . 1. a S i, .. r'' 1,,t �` y 4: ..."(`I- .+ +i iY l r I fi y • 8- .. • .. �; r• 1� +.{''aX~ :4,../....:,-..,i-..-.s '${ i {, y ,.;c Fv� w _ r.c 3` .. ! _ .� �{l ;4q`S a fit,. r tAr i i3i�4 r Aty 1.. ra , " .4 K f: i S x-- - �� ^ 41 �' ff 4 t. G x . • y�.�'RC.v.1•,iurj� r rs i. "1 4 ,F Y 1 �1 j7:A 1• ,•' � !• tittitizi..4 . : • • 1 '' Wil 1 . r, tS I P. �1 1 r r r t, A dj4( rr tit? r• f • r 1 ; ✓ � h . i ,a t :?i X� ra. t y { y e": tl i��4idr 111 .,.....,,.....:,..4,-4, v., ..xviv..Wit aa.,.,,•••••••., •••• •+.4 r• ii. i t; , . . .e4 tAlit 1,,r A, Li, 1.11y• , �...y,.,.✓ k -- j',1�5 I' rbi 'd'�1 t,iy �'S.•�. • ji • :� j7...r' .�. • ! 41 1 W;•a w yts fy �" ' 7 1 c �yy��g' ,,�� spy,j ��' T"•''l''Si = 1:1.*1 ;'S'1< 1 �y1 w .s 7 y.� •I — -.Q. .t° C > f� :t.9dk. µ' '� _ r }1* •4 :G. ry tl5. R CIA �1 ...Mt�..r -Ijl'.14 . �i t— r �" ,^.w i *;�f Ni. {{ i:t SSA a . .4.4+ `•`�Y `I.c , 4.d ' #,:i"'bTk rz... ti .r b .a •4.V. ; 4.4. •,dle }� 'yfir. S : I{Fxis ° ��. 2 u a j�'. '1 41 ...-y - r +. •^ y J:•rt .�'rl'.�lf,. q r•�'"' 't''"t 7r�d"..-••. ..•, y ` it '-'` K yp.• Y,.. ti + • r'.y.,,e t. u Lr Rr �.. !{i t > `7rJ e • s L 1;. • ' • •' ra �.•,e• i F i �. f+ �j'i'•�, .x•.YF l'rr}, .y, I.1 ,/'• ifi� 1'^R rC y.%`dr'( ; ....1 s 7 .5• , . .R ...-�•Ls2 1 { a a _.1st S f '7`i'Y.'J', .r 7�q ! v . 7'+ :. !;¢`•.•' y...• �. y V w 144 , fy�t�7lrr lC 4�f x"{i� :Y1► �r'+�r , " 1 El , any' `" ,t fii`�1 ' ±,_ a ' r , : ,•'* l.' i�SrA`F'•"^ .aY.1.. ...or' .•"IP+7 1'.< ry.,Y ....it " ` `�.:I,! x�0, ' r' , .e1 v ,p ..., ,ALL r Tr3� 17i hg�.' r. 1 1 iA s.lts ..W VA�+ t,-� r 1 I.,M Y t' j d•rys r h.!, r 1;�{ 5 � ,71�y '�" r ,' ., rs?",.r'.f� •z....0 . nIf r f �s.. +fir« � � t• • , a !F. 31G'-� r!ro u V l '/yq....y�jyl��{ tir c,,. ., *�S ,. . 3. View of interior first floor classroom prior to rehabilitation. Arched opening between classrooms was added after original construction. 88-100 to It tl it N III =NW UM __.Mil I = ~yl,‘Nw = II 1I 1.1111111.4 II II II 18.1 Int- 1 11 II 11 4. Floor plan of first floor prior to rehabilitation. — _ - II II i II ilizr_ 1 il mfr. 114r7. I J MIMIC 10-6 1-4111 ' .11-1 . --1-- L f Y 1 1 5. Floor plan of first floor after rehabilitation. Classrooms and hallway have been subdivided into apartments. o T :+.• )ir' i " • >•f� t "Y• �``t1 y +s.r,y'. TI'." [ i-4 • �q. �� t,t�1 J • -' �1.ex t,.. e"1 l� +rT }'j� .t�yY'�+ !r•li ,,�."'t 7 t x ' 7 t 3s .,k5 o , ';Rk >�'''' 4. 4r,^• rf x+'+•'r ir�rr u,a #� A' J tt}^o�`t!'+�v,` 4k N. t „ # x sa } fFv1 °�,Fvrylt rl.{ '� 5,J"Yi. Y lj �`*, ,, r}•..5 1tF r..( c S r i ) t /r 1 • +�' .,K* 5�,,$.+1, ! 1l} C yL ' f ...5 L �J r l 9 � cr �tr' 3}^>'r�t +' }�,d �, a ri 7 Y x`,1 r,XAV Ole 4 t '7-I + , } RNle' r .,feTF i -$ t .Li; t }Ytr V YI, .r�, " s,a i, f—/ ( • .,c,r.a�7l � ,'!.,5 t)! I �.+t Wt ` - ! t7 S 'k,f 5S k NY i i J ) -) •- �' ft'`t°S?' 'a 1' "' "3'LP Yy. v Llfy4 ,,p1�7 *. +t!'f C t l•.. ::.1,-. 1 ~pp,, +! t,)fi V 11 M it�{ :r= • A.J+ • x. - + , s , t Y 7 "1(h„'. ,,a , r+,, * t3�oi fi r -�tz � - i i tyA .A 5." {�: r ' '1} ,,•ti,?1':' `1'}'i 1 ' s• •i7•"' + ' l Y4a r I i J t,t r V 1F , .fit ¢', r yN°F'4. tLf'• 1 t 4 ' r .F S 1 r t}{ 11{F4�I d+'f e i.11 jV )�y� n4 , f l a i L.1F AIhL 1 }{. IYr. i tLi! T.;i t c {Fr d t 7i'.r + '''1• •`'ya r r -.4P + (PY. r i a\1. � r1 y .r?y i },r•� �rl3171 • ni' r ri j � �'•f >r Y F 3 15 C a•I l� {y�%.nL'� r. i 1 i y. a 5.V t) `Ltj • •� i '`,:'''PS '' ,k+`v •i.• ,, ..e...y!q r� 't'^'y,ar f 1 d ` 1 Y+'R° ,,1, . ��i` • `1.•�'`{'4>� i">ffl7 '„ r3f +` 5 i�`r ty {. t � .. "kr rk ,�. • rra �,t 4?� V )t }:'s e f C F'd: xi. ! 1 t�3. }-t I" x y4 i .te 1 )5. 1' t C is S+,t a 1 Y s L i Fr`ky. I ro Sy tc mtyu, y� 4,?..?,.., 1' { r° y 1 •f�L}, , , y fl a ,.'. ';.'r r s iM ' + 1 A r - iJ , c.f d ( �',l :1 C S� !y'r ..* �_? a .,;.'t .),1'Ki'L ' 4 1Iv � s yh}�i"�efc P' t< J ` T ` `f�tt ` j 'y+ F tt " t { ' ., • o�•t� �, 7 ,//!� t J f h Y v i.{t Y 5', t Y�'N 31{ "L,s d'd t ne< 1° 1' 'i s+'A qq i J rl ,y ) ,e !1, S3.rdjr+y I,v, s �'41 3Y.et`•e '{ s ..n� i17 ( Y i rr �` �f}Y} ��A`t 1 a ' t + .f q y yea tip. j'L' } i pL � ,{ i� ',iy j . y 3 L� p rt ;. I t 1.y 7aFT a R s .n Y' xg$f'., 't a v +, Z't11. f• C+ G +R.. '+r , Z x a t 5 J j��1 •r a ,,.Y y 5 N �rik, l if+ t;- s •+ v5 .{ 1rF)kyeli!`� ' �r ,1'rai . . I �'i 1 1• '"t .S 4p+1,�} fr ,, ft r nt .( '++• h tv a 4j y q�SL"tr" , !�''}{ i�s,z t { `+9• � z � t'`Y"',Ifi {`S44•rSl L i+.4,-".4;.. + 'Atiq .' 4t, V. *F17', .6 rt1Dk1't� , 4 . .. �' ,. is O fu 4- "'Ff3Y xS i I) +t,1{`r F)p 11,.. 'fe 3,., '+� .OWA ,F ;r 7 ✓ �,. i ,4NL " 7. 4Yk 4{r:2t Y 1, j10..! f {�lt f• t d n. 1 T 4 ''�' f f�,. 1' M �+, t a '' j� r t, � i IL 4''i! + t 1:F ) ,A 'J- tw , ;Z' ri Sr 1 ry+ 5',A cls #r3'[ { i (7 :r w .t M1r 7,td 3 y« 5S`dl„ Nk 'i*G T ��T}y$, 'J V.,{} 1 i^ c:� .L• ?ylrfr,.y 3T!.1'x !" i•..�mg r ��r'. JS- �j+ i'�t f 91°'i`tFyy i�1} i'yS L.� .t`f * 1 .Y jS� i. r`� f 'R..r+).,, ,1 enrtf n R r t +/ 4i'a ' L4 t..._ t i... w".• _ • P.,• .e '. 1+ f( y c ; 4Py T.) 1:''. t ir,k 5?1 er'}a-�r� fi!f a q h st''t?I ti ! p, d 1 '' ,i z..'R.•rT1 v°�i.. } },1.:,-V, f.( r 1!'{ !1 : , °, ,Y�� ,! `r,SSf t + il_ h' * ' .i I-. ` ' 3> t� ; t 4R ' > , ' � �" '"1 d •,1i, 44 to \ < y'a -• z , `iv' ,4', F,tf� k ,�y�2 T r S e.•. f,��+,/,'I ,;'.Y ;4tt .,G�w•. - tt y b era ,t, , . s C'ka,l"r�++ ,', y5 '+.a•.. Yi"InrT .r i t•,i J ,r' Ph F•C' 9t L •Y 1 r t, 7'4,, L�;; L t s� 3 4` i s •d"' , q 5 i 1 t i'�)ti`Y�Yti�S �Sit i�.i d•;('�'1`' \ r 1 t t�,au _ �„'�,-.r. '�, '�' ird ..7 r d 1y,1p 1 r a xo y�� .r•a e RFI" s x kL v 9�,+yt"A-'"! t,, r"' t y, el'krr. r +; /� a ti� 1 r , 7 v v • a + " nc i"vlye r t iiptir'f,�,'.r'.•14KYcev �}'(S r{r i ,•4 r`t� �'�7i' •ti'.4f ,. .L.. +� ,. *..- =K'- '�, .�. a,.,>. yµti: ,,• lr6 ',i ( �F'��c�i'�Fi �,:s.r+V ''S'r�,rj,,{i.-y,,1�7 '3}d 43 y�4� �f'' S,f f� ;,r-p 9` •e-.,--_ �j �. R 4 ..rr r.- Y 'r 'r'L. ti' A.:`!1„a> �� .4'')x;1.5=''•+,. {a a� dy�bh`r;)S b, f r 1� I7.5 rr ;6•1::,:k.::..,1'.4...',1.,,:.....:yr:. 1 . • •ai o t,,.1 to;, f t , 1' ' ,,,:M.Y'k sio, 1� t 5,� i 1v'�_4 jti?xy 4;t t r e 7 l $t` t n L }�,y, .�k .y + t na.'.f,+. R, rs^"'' J • yi ! �°,..t. ,, � { ...1vjie :V ♦ 7L 1 ,:. . ) YYa "'S'. Y�. it 4 z ^F � K t' : l'S. + :7 s r^t �l Ll + :-r 1 tia. A SX7 t i' • to 1 rA 1 < 1 it a 1 �i �- 4 . Z 9i �."'`...: vl J +,hf 1 •+ • i :+h e. k i•p,:,, a t.. ti .a (, ,y, t'zw• t Yr;`�i'7 "tti' r + ; � � ? �, .t lad e•C�r t +1. d "Fri a 1;t ` .y1R +.i • }ig�.l o-eaYWYY'}' .+t • ,'.C: Ri t.m i�,f•'e' 2 1 F' �� . f w�.f1Fy• r x1. ,PC t ; 7 it �� t r Y_� Sef : } )t;,.,�1 1 jr ,. r�' ••i: ' ski 'n• • • ..5t"�d .{. i a F.>'�,,,, 1,e. 4 •1+ r.': c Mx:.. "a H • ) i l ; ,:,i e • +S7i 4 '-v A`t+r./ i, % rs i ,f Jil ��°�` v[.. .tt y`: ..i ! (: a F •'a'�� 'n".{7,.n�,,,,e•..A.y!'+ '.. tr 'x V V f i•'4. s• Si'>rrL14-1,, w . �•- ..q. .---.. yy Pi 1 ., -'i • ri;',1�'A('{{d 'F �y yM is L .rt• yf l` ,• vi, L ., 5 , e3.+ r ' 1 5 Y • r - ",',4 • ...i'.'^t%• n � y tti.Y '1 '� -mot �` � �1 rSr ,/ 7 if 0 Oti t'7!'Z{.7it.rY u V } °`�.k I.s 1 h 1 rp .'1'1 i 1�`7yti�i tr+. - t 1 1.:4.,..,„,... r . i ?^ tyi+{''F c�� L i . , e f' , l"5r iT 6. i;1 y�a k!�I ye •'L.tvy.+ µ. L.' �:1 t +;�.H t,('GtiI.'7c i , '�. { Y V S ! tC s >i " r{. ,,yySy 6`rr�n{La ar i. 1� r (• yte '. 1 ; ' t(lt'St"f, .:,, g•- i �':„Hzal Pr s1�•1 •b.. . wMF) Y?"�jf�`'�'+r,� rYC Sir��il • 5r • �'� �, f�,1 , • F+15��: III � 1k�c�V`' _i+�}f v"S�d • � " 6. Third floor classroom as modified for apartments in rehabilitation. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's liVashington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 88-101 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) Subject: REMOVAL OF DISTINCTIVE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND REPLACEMENT WITH INAPPROPRIATE NEW FEATURES Issue: Interior features in a historic building that are significant in defining the historic character and function of a building need to be retained in the process of rehabilitation. If the interior has been greatly altered over time and documentation indicates that surviving features are severely damaged or deteriorated, flexibility is afforded the owner in making further alterations. New features introduced to the building, however, must be compatible with the scale, design, materials, color, and texture of the surviving interior features. If on the other hand, original interior features have remained relatively intact and are important evidence of the building's history, they should be retained and preserved in situ. Application: A one-story long and narrow railroad depot with a deeply overhanging hip roof and double-hung wood windows on all sides, built in 1870 in the Queen Anne-Stick style, was rehabilitated into a restaurant (see illus. 1). The depot, which was individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places, had been extensively remodeled in 1891 and retained a high degree of integrity and architectural character of that period prior to rehabilitation. Of significance was the structurally and architecturally intact interior of the depot. Prior to rehabilitation, this modest structure retained virtually all of its historic fabric, including interior spaces, features, and finishes. The waiting room, including the original 5-sided ticket booth, a wooden ceiling with a wide cove cornice throughout, and tongue-and-groove panelling had survived (see illus. 2 & 3). The majority of the project work on the building's exterior, including window and roof repair, was sensitively accomplished; one exception was the construction of an awkward-looking exterior ramp and fence at the south end. Work on the interior however, involved incompatible alterations to accommodate seating for the restaurant. The ticket booth, a distinctive element that contributed to the definition of the historic function of this train station, was removed and the original ticket window relocated (see illus. 4). Approximately two-thirds of the plank ceiling and cornice, features characteristic of the Stick style, were also removed (see illus. 5), to permit full utilization of the second floor. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation require that distinctive features which characterize a building, structure, or site be treated with sensitivity. They also require that the removal or alteration of ary historic material or distinctive architectural features be avoided when possible. The removal of these intact features and insertion of new architectural elements greatly impairs the historic character of the structure and violates the Standards. 88-101 The ceiling of the depot which was removed to install a functional second floor above, was replaced with new ceiling joists dropped below the original first floor ceiling (see illus. 5 dt 6). The new unfinished and exposed wood joists are not in keeping with the character of the previously finished waiting room. Further compromising the room was the insertion of restrooms and a staircase at one end of the waiting room; two end windows were obliterated and the distinctive waiting room was reduced by approximately 1/4 to 1/3. Although some detailing was retained on the interior, it was extensively reconfigured, and the new features added were incompatible to the building. As a result, the existing 19th century interior lost its integrity and historic character. Prepared by: Camille M. Martone, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 88-101 I , '',si.. -ate ., .K Ft- ,-,AC- _i le- le `_ "p• 1 k.-... ...'-.11.:1 . ! / • INwr�'I• L� ` 1• : j `, •:.;: 'r ri - 1. Railroad depot prior to rehabilitation. .i a� b 1 { +Gv �1 :n • 7 _ -w — is'g t,.t' yy. . La. MGM 4 ._ 1 • ^ • ha . . t 'I iz 4.,,.: ,, I , _ f' ___ ��1:-.; taxi` ^ i. f N I. y -1 -tip 2. Interior view of waiting room prior to rehabilitation. Note wooden ceiling and wide coved cornice. 88-101 F' 3"x - r a. ,.77e-7 s f „r,:..:'t.,g,, c — o rs4 Y.a ..` .-, ;tier • :_." r, .1 ) j ' ..)/ ...1,... 1 . %.; .-4. • z 1 ply ' ?) i Wi rijIllr�� r ti �I 1i,11�illl _ i 1 veal 1 to 3. Interior view of ticket booth prior to rehabilitation. This historic feature was removed in the process of rehabilitation. - • ,- 40 ` , 2a.1194 r - ' i111 . �� •••1 I lel ' I I 0 soul RP .[ ' .off 5 ••• t ` 'ram _ •` i • 1. `tO' 'it .. 3 1 !' .7, - ._...... ...MO - lyi--- 414\*'' - •,•.. I I 1 P.... • \l'ir... it f. �l ;a - " :,. ! i 4. Post-rehabilitation view of waiting room after the removal of ticket booth. Note ticket booth window relocated in new stair wall. 88-101 - sl -3 �.-.-..tea �.-.:... . ;Qr Y inn 4 ;_ i im i im. :I 1\\\4 1..S.:-•i..:: .al.3:;I;\• I '164 7. /1* ' ..*:.:1'''---7...'.. Ili-- IffirriffilliZ.V.V.--rilles", I: a� \ ,,, -- cm! , . i� - , I 0 ...,:- '‘ ......_\ . 5. Post-rehabilitation view of waiting room. Note the removal of existing ceiling, and the addition of exposed ceiling joists above. M,. r t r n to 1 ,\ 1 IAA\ /4 ...„..„.,,_ \ ;, 'tit _ _ - t 1 1 \I\ • i \ \ l 6. Post-rehabilitation view of second floor. Original attic space converted to restaurant space by lowering the ceiling below. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. 20240 rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 88-102 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (conformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing/Features (conformance) Subject: REHABILITATING PREVIOUSLY ALTERED INTERIORS Issue: Rehabilitating a historic building in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards requires not only that exterior work be carried out with sensitivity, but that interior treatments also be undertaken with equal respect for those significant character- defining features which make it distinctive. Generally this means that the rehabilitation should retain and preserve as much as possible of the original floor plan and spatial configuration, as well as those interior features and finishes that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. Some interiors are of such significance that they must be retained almost in their entirety if the building's historic character is to be preserved. However, other buildings, because of unsympathetic uses or other changes over the years, have been reconfigured on the interior and no longer contain notable interior features or finishes that must be preserved. When rehabilitating buildings where rooms have been greatly reconfigured, walls torn out, and doors and trim removed, the owner is generally afforded some flexibility in making further alterations. Application: A three-story, brick rowhouse built in 1893 was rehabilitated for residential use into three apartments (see illus. 1). Originally constructed as a single-family house, and later altered for office use, the building was vacant and had already been partially gutted by the time the new owner purchased it for rehabilitation. The previous owner had removed wall partitions and, leaving wall studding on the first floor only, stripped the plaster from the ceiling joists and removed the one remaining mantel, and most of the decorative door, window and floor trim (see illus. 2-3). The staircase, running from the 1st to 3rd floors along one wall survived; most of the woodwork which had been removed, had not been thrown away but was found later by the new owner piled on the third floor. The second and third floors had been stripped of their wall studding and were essentially open spaces. Although the walls were gone on the first floor, the studding still remained between what was originally the front and the rear parlor, and between the front parlor and the stairhall. The spaces and basic configuration of the stairhall and front and back parlors, were retained in the rehabilitation, although some of the rooms were converted to new uses necessitated by the rearrangement of the first floor into a two-bedroom apartment unit (see illus. 4). As part of the rehabilitation, the double-door-sized opening between the front and rear parlors was permanently walled-off to provide a bathroom and closets for the apartment. Although this is 88-102 generally not a recommended rehabilitation treatment, in this case it was minimally acceptable because it did not destroy an original or historic spatial sequence. That had already been lost when the previous owner removed the walls which had traditionally defined these spaces. Despite the existing shell-like condition of most of the interior, the new owner restored the historic staircase (although code compliance necessitated several changes) and repaired and reused the woodwork and trim that had been removed by the previous owner. Because the rehabilitation also included a careful restoration of the exterior, which was the major remaining character-defining aspect of the building through which it contributed to the significance of the historic district, the rehabilitation was certified. Prepared by: Anne Grimmer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the facts and circumstances of each case. illowt. ,i ,W �f_ �� . .,._ a: - if it - j {� 41 l S. . 'sue; ;• _, e'�. a 1 p yi _'st , R. .. t= .' o f 5«r.,j' ir .�-r-.. r". ,,,_t: ^ --,_-_- _ice �(1..k ...:. .ac..-.t.'Y�S.:.. . JK- '-fit `tr.. ' mil Ei t .' i•�_'► - !ar ti. fir. 4,:„ f=0" .. ' S t r f --t 1 sit- h..,am., .,,,o,% _ ttr'n t 1...f.5•. ,l ."1:7:.?"'.%-.4ttl..-:,,,L,...._÷,7 :IP 74;f5,T,4,71 I. The exterior of this 1893 brick rowhouse is its primary character- defining feature through which it contributes to the historic district. FIFftr FLooF, — ' \�` . ..__ _ - .4z 88-102 - Yij _� • r11; i' A. ice. f . s va. 1 A I _. s " ! F-1; rye i . rsj S- N. z 7 1 yam, i I �'� I i I i • itti. . C-It ..- '.i .f....0 1 Mil t ii .l!, I , A j I. r V f' • f 11 rl- n .. i t ■3Itt r SEC,OIJD FLOOF, • .. x ,5. .tea...- •s..- a 1.k 2. The interior of the house •�' - --: •..� — i -�� , -, ' "� ,,, after it had been "gutted" by w`�' z,, ,,1 'k jh "` `' , ` �x ' the previous owner. The ? ? <�� "x -- - '�,; { � • `.' k r, is fir. '`- v4-. - � ; Fp photographs of all 3 floors are ' ' — • -, --'- `- - � ^�"' xk.* taken from the same location on -t`: t` -`�`., . each floor, and show views �g #' 3 ':' fi toward the front of the house. .. . � �''' i t ? aE� ' The new owner was able to °r } t ; . -„e. repair and reuse wood trim ' _ d , (here, shown piled behind the _ '`r stairs on the third floor), that I L. �== i � �..Y had been removed by the • : previous owner. t 1 , a _ 7 Ii1,-,,ai:7.---..=-5,- t, 'C a _ c - • ' ,,,, PSr. " t- .. t ," F. - = n' w 4,- - TaYj r_ ev S 'h. - f0. T P . , y. • ;X � ' • i 88-102 Li It 1 in r, ri ,i _ --- n FIRST FLOOR I �11III�1�1►�� II SECOND FLOOR 3. Floor plans of the interior I+ I' prior to rehabilitation. The I fireplaces had been removed II during previous renovations. Dashed lines represent open !i II stud walls. r_ r- L _ I THIRD FLOOR 4. The redesigned first floor after rehabilitation �I�■ F W showing retention of the I �—� basic spaces and stair-hall M 1� II configuration. Q II 11,-"" o -E " 0 I . OEM aliillui • :21 FIRST FLOOR REHABILITATION Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Intenor's Washington, D.C. 20240 [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 88-103 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/ Additions (nonconformance) Subiect: ADJACENT NEW CONSTRUCTION Issue: The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation govern new additions to historic structures undergoing rehabilitation work. They also apply to new construction ad iacent to historic structures when the new construction is placed on the same property on which the historic structures stand. Furthermore, the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings recommend "designing... adjacent new construction which is compatible with the historic character of the site and which preserve[s] the historic relationship between a building or buildings, landscape features, and open space." Adjacent construction that impairs the historic character of a historic building may render the rehabilitation project ineligible for historic preservation tax incentives even if the work completed on the historic structure itself is otherwise acceptable. Application: A college campus that formerly functioned as a Roman Catholic seminary was rehabilitated into an extended-care retirement community. Historically the main structures of the educational complex were aligned across a formal, terraced platform, overlooking the expansive lawns and playing fields that separated the institution from the surrounding community. This linear arrangement of the principal campus buildings conveyed the impression of an institution proclaiming its presence to the world, while retaining a certain detachment from it (see illus. 1). The overall project included the conversion of several historic classroom buildings and dormitories into apartment buildings. As part of the overall, massive project, three new apartment buildings were constructed, grouped in front of an existing structure (see illus. 2 and 3). The rehabilitations of all of the historic structures met the Standards for Rehabilitation, with the exception of a dormitory constructed at one end of the line of principal buildings. (This building, although constructed in the mid-twentieth century, was determined to contribute to the significance of the historic district as a physical expression of the profound changes undergone by the institution in its last decades.) Both by its location and its shape, the structure serves as a terminus to the row of buildings to which it was added. The grouping of three newly built structures around the dormitory overwhelms the latter, severing its visual connection to the row of historic buildings. As a result, the end building is no longer visible from the main entrance to the campus, from what remains of the lawn, or from any other principal vantage point in front of the buildings. 88-103 Although the new construction is generally sympathetic to the neighboring historic buildings in size, scale, color, materials, and design, it fails to meet Standards 2 and 9 of the Standards for Rehabilitation because of its impact on the site and environment of the building it obscures. Prepared by: Michael Auer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. ------'-i:C. .•,-;'2 1 -` "4`'� + _- a -,i v --• I: . ' y �j� : 'Al.—,'7K.J�: ''-- •�r..:.i�' 14 " i... irk :'b _,y 'Z.::1 •k!`t _ y, _ _ y, _sa'tiF:s1 -� " -,r_ ,._ �—, _—tea--c 1-:----aw-L r�+s...o •.�'n+-1. /+-"4- K'*" '= c,,- �C'- .tS�a!`r _y - ti� - - ' ate." T S•i es. :C „try FCC "S Y�` `. @ice j'"P� 7" . ..y —.+• �. "�ii Ma +- �y�-�` Yts r.a-...ce:,c cri.�+ � Y. .w,y,` r�,?p,..r .___- -: -;,,,'!:If!-:. „R—ri. e - - z I.i.Y,'"▪ ? h`..' pn T.'^ra ! �,. `�" J � �.� ' ,.JC'•g -zt' p ' 17iL .I —•4.41.:... `r ss &� u,..4,4til� ..rtY.[-.a J�^ "y,'y'G( fry I.--`C ate?s;.' il. • "` `L cai � '-- �t ,0s.. l-e J4. .,,,,k" ,yam µr•41.,,, ; . TC.R ,Y,S_ Y.�w ✓'Y tt e4e 1 F •.rl•? � °L7"` ' 'ik ..S kAxat ." , — • �; 44 >r ' , sf� � : t. { re, , ac -,- .- . � _ ,.._ s S ,,,. - ..-.J• 2- t. 3 d''" }ft'�°}++' X " Z s' �w + � S - r , ') 7 ✓�tra"= � �, �� F"—fiyam 4.M O'''yt 7� —�:i ; . l ,� T� ;4 � �.x � : ' : �-..c_.� .c a.t$'�-� c.: . ' I. The alignment of the principal structures overlooking a formal terrace, expansive lawns and playing fields was a principal feature of the historic campus. 88-103 n. d y , ....t^ r« Mom- �.�+ 7—♦♦��d �i-t,a �.- �`r- Ay*• [ri' �4 ' - %•'_, St 4<a `i -.,4 •_. ..12.1 ' +fir" ►�pt'' SL r %7M C3 x/^,[',••�}'�'•Y . +✓ • �i ♦ . ,. ',♦"•3 i,- �,x� .� .?-i..,.- ti ... ..`. n _.*" t Y .d ti},' `,- ""e'"ti ,n 6,G„• t'__ s ' •- „:."i'x 1•• -Pr ,t,.v-Ps'„° ."'. ,,,;�,,",k Vie,•• ♦ - '}.. y*..''�h.„3*,, +Y,_ _,.....Y'y�;¢'f... s-i. • ti -�•`•- ,' .<Y'0..,v4`' tic...-..c!• �S t.1' ,.•.l�""w� yam= �w1,�IV 1` ' _ya1+.1�, 'n. 2yy� �tt,lp _ }:�• ♦^.Ye7:.�rr�. Z3�St-x n•n. _�s1t.' t)y • -- F., ,i' _' 1► �ti• '* <t q P - } t i ''�.- . v.^ -- 'aap. . 1 c . i , ,�.... 'e � `�;s v s"` r a a , a k • s ;L-,as . ,;. ,* r i+p. -, t a t tV a ' s ( `_ -.....-A, er ..- 'r _ rest" y,, '�`-rt-'��t x c t } Ss. ,F'T' �` .ar.�:'^ ' •p�Al� :.:+i. _ 'i'_: -. .'"��_+ �" mot,t 1• '•YtY`. ., ��„_ ��:� it♦ i.i€;+:: . •c ., "-'S.� :ice v4- .-s.t �'�•' . .„ J. .ii.4. .s �.1 C r " .'• 4`' :! - _�' b - «•ter.,.''.-+� -,sl w `r , !� tri- i.•0 f: N i• •a •pfpgf,,.'. ' .^►�."�, ` k,r.5'1?j,17� III I - • I� a 1•-s a'.1'^ " ,- ». ! . } i r+/IIf11/�� Is L.I ,� J 0. q;yf,ffi� ,j.�. N:Opl ".a t t by 1 •. ii'M y_, SLY ,i,- • ' •- . 4;T:'a t�SA...- .'a %aw.ti.. •^-_i. ' •_' - se, a.4.� t • n +�� •"' N r� •i ,P,- s 'Y '�, '' J"' ^'L M-.. "` � `: y eq. _4 r`t , ! � _., "x,r`w 1O'�J -Q + eASA`C' l .}' .,,;S ..i :y ems.,r��".titi` .s'�` C-�.y,,tla- �`i..,� f':".n ifo.�f'�'� e „,..•t<4 L - • .._ -�.+...�,-. _ i•r ...yam.-Y� 6 ,.+`;e� :^T �• -4 . ~ .-. + f gyp., amb '` • • ,J"=` Y � . • , c. - - j!i ' t ,,_ 4 _41 -, . ".-4 .-k) -.--a :q.t. • ` , ! .2 ,.2 ,-.1 ..f+� *" r 1,.., ."-' nX " t ` +. y.w =• : 13. 4›,,.. 'J+, .t K44. ,a. 1 < > a.-- 7r "--� _ ems. f... .. '- fit,. ar--qf `' -A' l,,� I r, ash' �i1 •• m 1- k•ic` +,'Y,� _ ;N..a , r� x [`1, .a .a w 71, Y - _ ,s< r 1 -@� ' . "y.\ q� ' cs . Y '!. ,+,s' ' i-"}_ K ^ ar• -"�r r`t„rF+.' ' ..la 1A... " � R - " pfir rti,i,r-� ,.‹. ny �a � . e "� ,, , �♦5,�,. s-� i '. :. •'1•,fF ' r-S^ .41 'ax ` ''A-'. a . a4L„�, a l Y♦ '- E - 2. Aerial view of campus. The three new buildings at right visually sever the end building from the rest of the row, thereby drastically diminishing its historic character. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 88-104 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) Subiect: INAPPROPRIATE EXTERIOR PAINTED FINISHES Issue: Paint or paint color can be an important factor in defining the character of a historic building. Painting a building that has never been painted, or removing paint from a building that has traditionally been painted is never a recommended rehabilitation treatment, because either of these treatments can change a building's appearance to one that is at odds with its historic character. Likewise, when repainting a historic building that is already painted, the new color should generally be close to the original, as well as historically appropriate to the building, and the historic district in which it is located. Application: A derelict, two-story, reinforced concrete, stucco apartment building built in 1941 was rehabilitated for apartment use. It is a U-shaped structure entered through a deep central courtyard, and although quite plain, the building is a characteristic example of the Moderne style (see illus. 1). The exterior is accented by rather simple architectural details, which include bulls- eye windows, "eyebrow" window canopies, geometric raised panels, and like many other buildings in the historic district, features decorative panels of local stone (see illus. 2). As part of the rehabilitation, the exterior stucco, which had been repaired and patched as necessary, was painted as the owner himself stated, in a "fanciful and sportive manner." Prior to rehabilitation, the building had been painted beige with a few of its decorative features highlighted in a darker brown. After rehabilitation, the wall surfaces of this building had been transformed by the application of numerous colors and decorative painted and patterned surfaces (see illus. 3-5). Wall surfaces were painted in alternating horizontal bands of aqua, yellow and pink, and projecting horizontal overhangs and the raised geometric panels were boldly outlined in black. Most notable was the use of paint to create contemporary stylized patterning, exaggerated illusionistic stone textures on door surrounds and above door panels, and a "cracked-tile" pattern above second-story stairwells and on planters surrounding the base of the building. This apartment building is typical of the Moderne style, and as such is characterized by simplicity of materials, flat roofs, horizontal unbroken lines, use of pure colors and honesty of materials. It is the building's plain, monochromatic wall surfaces combined with only a few simple geometric decorative features that define its character. The application of these exuberant painted finishes during the rehabilitation distorted these features so characteristic of the style, thus confusing the historic stylistic identity of the building. Consequently, as no evidence was presented to indicate that this type of exterior decorative painting had ever existed on this particular building, nor indeed on any building located in the historic district, it was determined that the decorative painted abstract patterns and faux finishes applied during the rehabilitation were inconsistent with the historic character of the building, and the historic district. The plain, unpatterned aqua, yellow, and pink colors on the walls were not considered objectionable, or in violation of the Standards, although it is most unlikely that they would have existed historically either in such a combination, or in such intense colors. 88-104 In order to receive the tax credits, the owner agreed to paint over the patterned finishes on the walls in solid white and the planters in solid black, thereby bringing the rehabilitation into conformance with the Standards and making it consistent with the historic character of the property and the historic district. Prepared by: Anne E. Grimmer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. T4•�Tlrt -. � • Jttiw y- fru ., ,..,,,,—...,. ,....."...;A.,— _, ,+.9: ,, t , ...1. • _ ' :i1 -IJ i 4 u... <. ., , i n t t^ ,. , �� f r. 4 4 .. w 3 # i f J ...st.ww y I 1 s 1 " a .F Inc..mat' `S•�- �- !'�re "' y ri t -r 1. The primary entrances to this early 1940s Moderne apartment building are located in the courtyard of the U-shaped structure. Note the overall plainness of the building before rehabilitation, which is highlighted only by horizontal banding and raised geometric panels. / _ I ,, . - . ,,1 Orr . . . . , ill 11[.. r I. - `, _ • ,: Y 1I� 5G'.•1; Y } 4 -Mr •✓S't "Mv. '�� .I 'ate ,� rP; ,S.�J �d i..�..., yi.. f.- �4.f ...�'ST_r. #- ..u*•.-iQ _ ,+r ._ _�`1r _ ems'�` } `� ) 2. The street elevation of the building where patch repair work has already begun shows the decorative panels of local stone under the second story windows at either end of the building. `,(� IIAI I'j�' ,....,—"A I.. will 01! •yam :: piiiil � �� k. 141 , . "_. . . i 4f'141 Y7ykK l s .f-: ?p ti 4 .p,9;, .--..:::;:tk -,15... i •� �' r/i 1 :c�i F% r .�F _ +�'1, '•:.-. ‘2i1:: f;-;.w...f: 4.17..--i,, !., -,s. ..g• k;.; .• lit to I \�,%v..:\'. �:. \�'{/,=Ay�'�- f��• iv. 1,:� of n..- -../. i kee— , ' ' ': ` 4.i9y9 :, .,4.. ' O 2 ' .4: .1 C iliel*.h.,;'itt,.„'"'IL),*1:1,57- lift t,...,. . .. MI - . ; �'r1 Y ' • :,:� .,,"fit � .. _ .;j - ► —T , , r ''J 1 '/., 2. .. - _ J � y _':` z . .; _ r.Y-arr- .,ilk ..,,.• - t ". .�w., . to I .I ., y , _i r . �' , lk...„, j 4. r 1:'� iiio<< '41. Ilr mot_ yT ,11 'i.• .. ..4.: .4.4 t' ';*.4,6* ,. _ a :. 1... - - - , . . ,.. - am- , .. - -..51,01.1....."......,•••-••••••••••••••••••• - . 3-5. After rehabilitation the character of the building has been greatly changed by the application of a variety of decorative painted finishes, in particular the "faux" stone surfaces around doors, the contemporary patterned design used above doors and on balconies, and the "cracked tile" pattern on the planters that surround the building. n 1, 1 itio Lt, 4 • ..r'i lu , K t -II 1 ,. - IC'� ,eLuil2._.aftuiLl 6, ,''' !1"al�ke Technical Preservation Services interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. [Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 88-105 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 4. Retention of Changes Which Have Acquired Significance (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Evidence (nonconformance) Subiect: REMOVAL OF EXTERIOR FEATURES WHICH DEFINE HISTORIC USE Issue: Even when it is not possible to establish the original appearance of an architectural feature which has been replaced during the life of a building, the very presence of the feature in an altered form may be important in understanding the historic function or historical evolution of a building. According to the Secretary's Standards, if the feature is deteriorated or does not comply with building codes, all attempts should be made to repair the feature that exists. Attempts to reconstruct such a feature without physical or photographic evidence may raise concerns about the appropriateness of a replacement; however, when the feature has served in the same location throughout the building's history, and is important to an understanding of the building's historic use, retention or suitable replacement of the existing feature should occur. Complete removal of the replacement feature with no effort toward retention would place the project in violation of Standards 2, 4 and 6. Aoolication: In the conversion of an 1889 two story, balloon frame building to professional office space, a highly visible exterior wood staircase which had formerly accessed the second floor was removed (see illus 1 and 2). The building, located in a district of residential and small commercial structures, had served as a store on the ground floor with separate living quarters above. The staircase had originally allowed separate entry to the second floor, and thus reinforced the functional independence of the two floors. The existing staircase was constructed within the last fifteen years; no remnant of the original feature had survived to guide replication and photographic documentation was unavailable. In view of the Standard's cautions against reproductions which are purely conjectural, the owner maintained that any attempt to reconstruct a staircase would misrepresent the original type. Because the narrow width and deteriorated condition of the staircase made it undesirable to retain, the decision was made to remove the staircase entirely with no attempt at reconstruction. The project was determined not to meet the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation because some form of staircase had always served the second floor of the ell and it was felt that the staircase should have been retained or rebuilt. Furthermore, the staircase had been cited as a character-defining element representative of commercial vernacular architecture in the district. Without a staircase to access the second floor of the ell, the historic independence of the living quarters is no longer evidenced and the ell is represented as a single unit. The project would meet the Standards if the staircase were reinstated, thus recapturing the historic division between the first and second floor living quarters. Preeared by: Lauren McCroskey, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 88-105 .�. /'tom- ,. `,r r z. Wit.•-` .rs v 2•1 r+ii, i7� i t as Ad -. v s.-7 •'c -y+•T-R ''"'r.t 1. \7"...ati I .7=-...r• ..a ,. • �'` .^ � �i ',.j,,.tf .yam..,........ ' F � Pf° .r eh ! • litr rz"-'.sy .... :. - -1"44114". ... ---- - .4444264f.% k .., , 4._ . , _ ,. • ..,, _1/4. ..._... . ..._ _••._ _ . 1. This view shows the exterior staircase in place before rehabilitation. Although this staircase was a replacement of the original, the feature was significant because it had remained in the same location and because it announced a separate use and function for the second floor of the ell. t• ,te,,�'. ,tom.`\t t�r.- �~'-."4�`- ___� ---FFFFF it lit P. ,} `' t .. i , y • _^� li �. -t 4! ;5 , { 3„ /` Oiiil .• .'aye- r.. 1.y; �./" ' 3 5 ; Z:*-:"';''''' eet:.--a..-... ...:(-: !ta:1---;: "k_''!..,".. :4_ 1,.... , - [ L...,.:_._ r— L y4 14.r a ,.. ... ,.•..- 2. With the removal of the staircase there is no longer an indication of the second floor's independence from the first. The two floors of the ell addition appear to be functionally integrated. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's thington, D.C. [Standards for Rehabilitation Number: 88-106 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/ Additions (nonconformance) Subject: INCOMPATIBLE ROOFTOP ADDITIONS Issue: When rehabilitating a historic building for a new or continued use, it may be necessary to expand the historic building somewhat to meet new functional requirements or to make the project economically viable. New additions to historic buildings located in urban areas frequently take the form of rooftop additions because of higher property costs or limited availability of land on which to expand. While it is always preferable to choose the new use to fit the size of the existing historic building, the Standards allow the construction of new additions if they do not destroy significant historic or architectural fabric, and if their design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property and the neighborhood. Compatible rooftop additions should be subordinate to, and clearly differentiated from, the historic building; not all historic buildings can be enlarged in a manner that is consistent with the Standards, whether for reason of size, siting or location within a historic district. The Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings recommend that new rooftop additions be designed so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way, are set back from the front wall plane of the building, and do not damage character-defining features of the historic building. A proposed rooftop addition that violates any of these principles generally would not meet the Standards. Application: A small, two-story commercial building originally constructed in 1891 as a law office was rehabilitated for residential use. Located on a hill in the business district of a small rural town, this semi-detached brownstone structure almost completely covered its building lot, and its unattached side wall abutted a steep hill, with space for only a narrow service walkway providing access to the rear of the building (see illus. 1). Despite the fact that the entire two floors of the building were utilized for its conversion into a single-family residence, the owner felt that the existing space was inadequate, and accordingly engaged the project architect to design a new rooftop addition. The new one- story addition, approximately 10' x 16', was clad in wood and featured a large brick chimney on the primary elevation. Although set back more than halfway from the front of the historic building in an attempt to minimize it, the new addition is still highly visible within the historic district (see illus. 2-3). This is due in part to its size which is almost one-half the size of the historic building, as well as to the fact that the building itself is highly visible within the town and historic district because of its location on a hillside. 88-106 Because the rooftop addition is too large, and its proportions too heavy for such a modest- sized building, the rehabilitation was denied certification. (The new awning over the front door was also cited as violating the Standards because its size and proportions intrude on the simple classicism of the facade.) While the rooftop addition is not particularly noticeable from many points within the historic district, it is very visible from the main intersection nearby. It is also extremely visible from the historic district boundary up the street from the building. This is the first impression one receives of the historic district when entering the town from this point, and it includes an important scenic view which encompasses much of the district as well as the river and hills beyond. Prepared by: Anne Grimmer, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 88-106 I. ., a l\ 1 IJT3JJ?Y •1GJT.7IJSS? J.l", .- s r„+,u a"•` : `��C itl >r" ., m_'�h xF .. p+st '_!x ,- a�Fr'..yQr— T' ,t. 'A* "'-`�r; Q swam �, cf dC. i#t ip ..... • a r� r =s � . ,. 6" ?' ems'+-y'Me!„W .`:- 1 ''s � � -i � �a:ti• ai .'I-'� om-4:'-- _ 9 • ': .X71 .M ' , , ., 4 . ;; • 1 We ► NI.. , . fo ra. L _ ;:yy. 77-7.-, d - . J Gi 4. - ..„..t.___,.3.,-, — :.---7- ,,,,,, M {}q — •;41 . ',:::4'1. '.'41. ...:7"-.4.s1 ' IlL":".-' . al ::-.7'-'t..._. aoi.Ym'1 ..''l s"'tvr< wft:.;,.... .7.•. ... TIY - c,...fau 1. This small, semi-detached building was constructed in 1891 as a law office. A narrow walkway to the rear separates the building from the steep hill that abuts it on the right. 88-106 ...., _ . „ 4- ..i... ..• It ,-e-:„, • -.1 —. --- iact... s• „A ..,..... .Tg -- . .,.-k-,-,-,- ..... : ‘-- .:-. , •. • ••::.: ..,.,: .:,--..., . -- _ ...-.. - E,.1 • -,..- ,,,vt- -1.•.!- .,..„.., 2 • c --;-s. C. - •1.,f; ;4.',.••••• _ _ , 4 tl.::- _7'... --.:.*-0, _ft-v.., r• . ,•-..._--_--_.o._:.;_,•-•,,-„,'" .,--_,,,- . - -!-_,..-...---ci__ ___....•-•>---_-,--4. .-.! ----z----, i ' • • ——-.-,.?-....-4354141111111110...... --:-- =-7-7- r-5 *V --'- — - ,...---_, ----..--,---., ‘-:-.-,-,,,..---.4.--RF ii-vt.f_z- t-_-_--- - --„,-;,--.:,,----:-4k-x0,--- . ! ...,..,if.‘::,, ., -r.. .1.,:;"`' ,'!T':"'-'1.-__--,...7 64477----.4.- _ ''; • -.‘ *4 1. 4..1;"'_: •-..-_,-. ,-. . =': -, • '''''• Z:47- - •,- _ is_ - 11 '-'-',r-iti-E T. • ---,, .---:.----.- ---- -•-• -. t—, - A . ". . ';-,-:-....-". , 1,-;,-,.._ ----• '''.7 'VP-. :te "-i, • - 44 ....0,0its...,,W, r:h7-1..": - '-....1' . - - • -- "' s•-.. - •v ..: ' . ....-- 5,Ai"...,A... .*).cr: IA !•!( "'-_-- .1., ,rsi• , ...... ......., k _II ''''1---- "-:- 1 i....--. --i.. .._ 5',---".=-:--- ••••-‘,- '',4 I 1 •- - I 3 . ..-.7 --,•._. ..j --: --... 1 -___ ----- - 2-3. After rehabilitation, the new rooftop addition is highly visible within the historic district, both from below the building at the main intersection at the foot of the hill, and from above the building higher on the hillside. '14.1• ... , . • -01' .''' ---% - - - le., • • 4,•-. It, ...., .• ,•,, ' .,,,"..;.., ,.."."' t. -'w4, - '--- • ';',V 0* '' - ...,- -..r • •• V.•- . - 1 itte,„:!•;106.1rft i •-:::--,St-7-, --I:. -'- 0.Zr.' .:..0, ;A.5'S'.,,,,s , Z- -. : --':"---.;. - r:f ' • ...-' t -- , 05d '4 k ,--•.......---- - .:....:-..... , ,or' - ' : "11‘, • • - - •ft*r.41 -47;Y4-r-- --villio [ :. 4 ' • . :. Ije eff..1.• • . ......•.....---2. ..- i - , -- . p.•4;;;,1 - .0,, •....Ve;..1.,.1.A, ',1, .,,a. ,..",-...f:r:ca";.4 - . .• ' , I :----'•, . I, ,... -'41r.zw-•,'''r- ,.. -... C•• V r th- • ``'' • .„,-ilvt, - . --,1`Zee,-• ",.. :.,r, • •!....e.1.... 14 1-- . !•••••_,'--„,......- .-. . - ....: ' " .:.:A.H.•;.'- ,040- 40 • ' ,4- ..,, p:p._ ,,,ae ' - .--:---. . Air,zie,•• -...,.4. .^ .-0,, 4.; fiat' r t ...„,........,,,...,i...'_,...•..,. ¢.}.1.... . .-. - ' •.....". ^7. fip. lir_ .• - --4' ''.<*4-?..,...-4:;r: il.,7-1•4a.'vrk.... : - „,.;;;.:.. ,i -..,,* ' ••••9".• .,,, lir .''''''$E;t17Ye-•...rer..,.4.,• - , o";„.-'7.-- ....e-..,.-...IA....,-,4•"1-. '.Ns.I, ' .4z" Cop-4/ , • 1' 4 6' -,'. - - ,,, i -,*,--",:-:;#.71..;tr.'<i,;•;.4r.p$':'„;;Fli-41 if,„: r.:- ,..,k . . • _.,. , . ..,•.,,I.,, ;V:a', I•Aff •'., 2 ' -; r:ks\-'4-Dr-." - b 1 i -, . ...-- ...•,4r-e : ...,-,1. lic-41,..t.a,,,,-.1., ' s -Fr. -„_.4.. . gh, ^ - .,..,....tie-7••_. >..s•.. ....:00,,,,:i.,-41e. -,x,Alp.,44,,,..,, ,•. ir ._ r , .. .-5.5,4_ .4, „ ....4.z.-.,.. - - .. - :zii:-...;..y.c.., - ,,-.1,!,-7,4- ._.;')i.:.`'"frv,e.- --•,. • ,• - ---4-..r..-- • .2 .--..-7 .,.6rd.41.17... ,..W. ..sA, 4...'..-.... — 10. ' -',--.4. .-- -.44• ,...ipl ,..e ...--,L.".,..s ' ',... --....-,..- , ...„.. „ ,,,.,-.-... . ;1-A:x.4. 4., vz,..,. , -i,..... --_,E,•lik J. "ti, :' '".-.'''. !1'7s:3. ' 'gc'et''‘*'71- W1*•-• (.:;i'. -:' . 4 " ..‘-.,-- ,--.4,... '1..airr•.,.."-0,0. ‘0:.`;' 4r-it --...., ‘-ve -7,:-.zi --..„..„.'_,•.:- - " '."' ?-i-t,: , . ..4 ."4-',,,,,,• -4`.4.05. - .' .4,,I,....,_ Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's 7Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 88-107 Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) 3. Recognition of Historic Period (nonconformance) 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Features Based on Historic Evidence (nonconformance) Subject: ADDING DETAILS WHICH MISREPRESENT A BUILDING'S HISTORIC APPEARANCE Issue: Owners are often tempted to embellish simple, unadorned facades with high style details, or features borrowed from a different building epoch. If architectural details are added to a facade it is necessary to establish that the features existed together historically on the facade. Undocumented and conjectural changes create a false sense of historical development and are contrary to the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation. Application: In a historic district of vernacular wood frame dwellings, the main facade of a small, single story, simply detailed 1900 building was elaborated with details suggesting the Greek Revival style (see illus 1.) Triangular pediments were added to the window heads, and simple turned posts were replaced with square, Doric posts (see illus 2.) The resultant changes undermined the vernacular simplicity of the Victorian structure. Although buildings within the historic district built about the same time were fitted with Greek Revival details, they were without exception larger, more imposing structures. No other authentic examples of modest, similarly adorned structures could be found. However, even if such examples could be cited, the evidence would not prove that this building ever had these particular features. The use of unprecedented details on this small facade is also historically and visually improper because the proportions of the new features create awkward junctures with the existing cornice. For example, the capitals of the posts are improperly scaled and project beyond the gable soffit (see illus 3.) The building's new presentation as a Greek temple is also unsuccessful due to the lack of entablature and requisite Classical cornices and moldings that would normally be found in the overlying gable of a true Greek Revival building. It is not advisable to impose a new stylistic identity onto a facade since attempts will most likely confuse the historic appearance of the building. Although an exterior of any size may lack elaborate detailing and texture, it is important to retain the simplicity which defines the building, realizing that historic character may be expressed only by the few modest details that exist. In this example, violation of the Interior's Standards occurred because the added decorative features caused the removal of historic materials and because the building was given an appearance conflicting with its historic one. By removing the added features and reinstalling the original posts, the visual appearance of the porch and windows can be readily retrieved. Prepared by: Lauren McCroskey, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, arc not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 88-107 Wk. •, �i' 1. Simple turned posts and plain windows � Y • A a . were the only expressive details of 1� . . , :,•. _ ,`;�'; the vernacular frame building. ort kit. I . w 'r ,. . % • ` _ t i' _.,___, ,,... . __ __ _ ,...., . .. • , --;.. __. __.,_ _.,. i .._._ _ _ ,._ ...... . - , ...t -' wili 'µ yr' � - wt. • �.._gc; '.t t.Z•%. _ ...'- .,:=... - .. =., +, ,� -r'_. g r--- : .1.7.%.;..-- 7---:', \ ' • 1'� _ �.2- i • , .. 2. The dramatic shift in appearance from a vernacular structure to a higher style building is achieved with Greek Revival posts and triangular window pediments. The building was not originally fitted with these details, nor is there any occurrence of these features on a facade of this size within the district. 88-107 r-ti K rrr « i. iS'- ' C M •S � A f. �.T+ [ vst tit 44 z tom,. tI r .,,7,xx 9r Ar PPP •t� . 41 3. Not only have the added features created a non-historic appearance for the facade, but the size of the new capitals does not conform to the narrower dimensions of the overlying gable and causes an awkward overlap of the cornice. Compare with the photograph taken before rehabilitation which reveals the compatible proportions of the turned posts and the gable it supports. Technical Preservation Services Interpreting Preservation Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior the Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. rStandards for Rehabilitation Number: 88-108 Applicable Standard: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character (nonconformance) Subject: INAPPROPRIATE DROPPED CEILINGS Issue: Dropped ceilings are often installed in historic buildings to cover up materials in need of repair, to reduce energy costs, and to provide an enclosure for HVAC ducts and lighting. However, they are generally not appropriate for historic buildings. Contemporary dropped ceilings can diminish the architectural character of a building in a number of ways. First, they often destroy or obscure architectural ornamentation. Decorative details such as plaster cornices, ceiling medallions, and picture molds are frequently removed or damaged during installation of dropped ceilings, while other historic features such as exposed beams are simply concealed. Lowered ceilings can also have the effect of altering and, in many cases, radically changing room proportions. After a dropped ceiling is inserted, doorways, windows, and other openings can appear to "crowd the ceiling." Finally, since dropped ceilings are often visible from the outside, they can also adversely affect the exterior of the building as well as the interior. In some cases, however, lowered ceilings may be acceptable: where distinguishing historic features and details would not be lost, where altering room proportions does not change the building's overall historic character, and where the new ceilings do not extend so close to windows as to be prominent from the exterior. Annlication: The subject building is a ca. 1890 two-story brick residence located in a turn- of-the-century residential and commercial historic district. In converting the residence into three floors of offices, the owner introduced dropped ceilings in the all primary spaces on the first floor with the exception of the central hall. Originally, the house featured generous 12' unornamented plaster ceilings on the main floor (see illus. 1), an important characteristic of its age and style. To conceal a new HVAC system, dropped ceilings were installed at a height of 10'. (Typically, the HVAC would be installed in the basement of this building type, but the owner elected to use it for office space, and existing headroom was already limited.) The contemporary ceiling installed drastically diminishes the historic appearance of the primary rooms (see illus. 2). The fluorescent lighting, dark grid lines and uneven texture of the acoustical tile are not consistent with the building's historic character. It assumes a visual prominence lacking in the original. 88-108 The project did not retain the architectural character and therefore failed to meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. In this particular case, there was no permanent damage to the historic materials, so the rehabilitation could potentially meet the Standards if the owner were to install a plasterboard ceiling more consistent with the original room proportions, preferably at the minimum required clearance for the HVAC system. One method to better integrate HVAC systems is the use of wall and ceiling chases. Failure to minimize the impact of the HVAC system and dropped ceiling may violate Standard 2. Prepared by: Michael Auer and Neal A. Vogel, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. •�` ! i I 1 i• { � • � Y, ',kl t _ "i` ' 1 ... iI -! a v,"a c fc.4.--------:--:: "elk s:4 A_. ;.^,I ",!h 4• ,• ^'.F : ',:" "fit' ir,7 74., • YS,^r` `nf`: .' `;41.ij.y '- '"• ' ti` :.. ,. "!✓® t`,w.-. F. t C ✓ •w shy -t• ? ,, :Rf e') .. 1. The only primary space on the first floor left 2. This view shows the distracting metal grid and unaffected after rehabilitation was the central ceiling illumination of the new dropped ceiling. hall, shown here with its original ceiling height and column divider. CUMULATIVE INDEX Volume 1: 001-043 Volume 2: 044-075 Volume 3: 076-108 Abrasive Cleaning 009, 039 Additions to Buildings See Also: Greenhouses New Construction, Adjacent Storefronts Demolition of Additions 016, 018, 045 New Additions 010, 022, 026, 027, 028, 034, 037, 045, 051, 058, 072, 075, 079, 085, 091, 095, 097 Rooftop Additions 034, 048, 051, 060, 071, 074, 083, 106 Administrative Issues See: Previous Owner Air Conditioning 014 Aluminum Siding See: Artificial Siding Arcades 030 Artificial Siding 005, 006, 070 Atrium 048, 093 Awnings 079, 106 Balconies See Also: Porches, Galleries 048, 077 Brick Mitigating damage of abrasively cleaned masonry 009 Painting previously unpainted brick 011, 029 Removing interior plaster to expose brick 013 Brownstone See: Sandstone Building Codes 032, 037, 059, 081 Ceilings See: Interior Spaces, Alterations Chemical Cleaning 063 Cleaning, Damaging Methods See: Abrasive Cleaning Chemical Cleaning Codes See: Building Codes Complexes Sec: Demolition, Buildings within complexes Courtyards 097 See Also: Atrium Cupola 078 Decks See: Porches Demolition See Also: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration Buildings within complexes 012, 041, 043 Demolition/alteration of non-original features that have achieved significance 016, 018, 027, 041, 073 Significant fabric and features 032, 039, 048, 072, 076, 082, 084, 093, 100, 101, 105, 107 Deteriorated Buildings, Features and Materials, Repair versus Replacement 029, 031, 038, 040, 042, 043, 054, 055, 056, 064, 067, 069, 086, 087, 088, 089, 090 Doors and Entrances See Also: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration New 029, 047, 049, 050, 077, 094, 097 Removal or replacement of entrance 004, 015, 025, 032, 045, 049, 050, 061, 067, 085, 105 Elevator 059 Entrances See: Doors and Entrances Environment See: Setting Exterior Surfaces See: Artificial Siding Brick Paint, Removal of Replacement Materials Sandstone Wood False Fronts See: Surface Material, Nonhistoric Fireplaces See: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration Floor Plans, Changes 019, 020, 026, 051, 054, 065, 076, 080, 081, 082, 084, 092, 093, 100, 102 Galleries See Also: Porches New construction 008, 078 Gardens See: Setting Greenhouse Additions 007, 022, 045, 091 Historically Inappropriate Alterations and Additions, Construction of See Also: Brick, Removing interior plaster to expose brick 004, 005, 008, 018, 024, 029, 078, 085, 107 Insulation, Urea-formaldehyde Foam 023 Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration See Also: Floor Plans, Changes 017, 019, 020, 024, 047, 054, 059, 065, 066, 076, 080, 081, 082, 084, 093, 099, 100, 101, 102, 108 Light Shaft 081 Limestone, Replacement 055 Moved Building 098 New Construction, Adjacent See Also: Additions to Buildings Greenhouses Historically Inappropriate Alterations Infill Construction Porches Roof Alterations Setting Storefronts 002, 095, 103 Paint See Also: Abrasive Cleaning Inappropriate Decorative Schemes 104 Mitigating damage to exterior by painting 009, 042 Painting previously unpainted surfaces 011, 029 Retention of unpainted surfaces after paint removal 036, 039 Pedestrian Bridges 075 Plan, Changes to See: Floor Plans, Changes Plaster, Removal of See Also: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration 013 Porches See Also: Galleries Addition of decks and porches 094, 096 Alteration/Demolition 006, 018, 033, 039, 044, 054, 072, 073, 078, 085, 107 Enclosures 001, 033 Previous Owner, Project Work Undertaken by Previous Owner 001, 102 Rear Elevations See: Secondary and Rear Elevations Regulations, Project Work Undertaken Prior to Issuance of 018, 028 Replacement Materials See: Artifical Siding Brownstone Doors Limestone Roofing Sandstone, Replacement of Windows Wood Reversibility 079 Roof Alterations See Also: Additions, Rooftop 031, 038, 051, 078, 079 Sandblasting See: Abrasive Cleaning Sandstone, Replacement 040, 056 Secondary and Rear Elevations, Changes to 033, 049, 050, 072, 085, 091, 094 Selective Restoration 078, 096, 099 Setting 002, 068, 095, 097, 098, 103 Siding See: Artificial Siding Wood, Replacing clapboarding with shingles Site See: Setting Skywalks See: Pedestrian Bridges Stairs and Stairtowers, Exterior 037, 083, 097, 105 Standards for Evaluating Significance Within Registered Historic Districts 064, 070 Standards for Rehabilitation, Secretary of the Interior's Standard 1 (Compatible New Use) 020, 028, 033, 047, 053, 065, 066, 077 Standard 2 (Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character) 001, 002, 003, 006, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 017, 019, 020, 021, 022, 023, 025, 026, 028, 029, 030, 032, 033, 036, 039, 041, 043, 044, 045, 047, 048, 049, 050, 051, 052, 053, 054, 055, 056, 057, 058, 059, 060, 061, 062, 065, 066, 069, 071, 073, 074, 075, 076, 077, 079, 080, 081, 082, 083, 084, 089, 090, 092, 094, 095, 097, 098, 099, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 Standard 3 (Recognition of Historic Period) 004, 005, 006, 008, 010, 024, 029, 046, 054, 055, 056, 061, 085, 096, 107 Standard 4 (Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions) 012, 016, 018, 025, 027, 031, 041, 043, 053, 054, 061, 062, 073, 078, 096, 105 Standard 5 (Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship) 011, 014, 017, 020, 025, 029, 032, 033, 047, 048, 053, 054, 058, 059, 062, 065, 073, 080, 082, 084, 089, 090, 093, 100, 101, 104 Standard 6 (Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural Features Based on Historic Evidence) 013, 015, 029, 031, 032, 035, 038, 040, 042, 046, 049, 052, 054, 055, 056, 057, 059, 061, 065, 067, 069, 072, 073, 078, 082, 084, 086, 087, 088, 089, 090, 096, 099, 102, 105, 107 Standard 7 (Cleaning with Gentlest Method Possible) 009, 039, 063 Standard 8 (Protection/Preservation of Archeological Resources) Standard 9 (Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions) 001, 003, 007, 010, 014, 022, 028, 030, 031, 034, 037, 045, 046, 048, 049, 050, 051, 058, 060, 065, 066, 067, 071, 072, 074, 075, 079, 080, 083, 085, 091, 092, 095, 097, 103, 106 Standard 10 (Reversibility of New Alterations/Additions) 026, 037, 047, 048, 051, 066, 079, 080 Storefronts 003, 004, 027, 030, 049, 050, 053, 061, 062, 067, 070, 073 Streetscape 075, 097, 098 Stucco 040 Surface Material, Nonhistoric 005, 070 Timing See: Project Work Undertaken Prior to Issuance of Regulations Vinyl Siding See: Artificial Siding Windows See Also: Storefronts Alteration/Demolition 015, 031, 032, 046, 048, 075, 107 New openings 050, 077, 094 Replacement 021, 029, 035, 046, 052, 057, 086, 087, 088, 089, 090 Wood Abrasive cleaning 039 Removing interior woodwork 017 Removing paint from previously painted wood 036, 039 Replacing clapboarding with shingles 042