Should the Secretarys Standards Be Modified?

Steven W. Semes University of Notre Dame

Visual Dissonance at McKim Mead & White Landmarks

Harvard Club w/ Addition, Davis Brody Bond, 2004 Brooklyn Museum w/ Addition, Polshek & Partners, 2005 Morgan Library w/ Additions, Renzo Piano Workshop, 2006

Visual Dissonance in Historic Districts, New York

Left: Townhouse, Greenwich Village Historic District, Hugh Hardy, 1978 Right: New Townhouse, Tribeca Historic District, OPerA Architects, 2011

Visual Consonance in Historic Districts, New York

5 East 95th Street, by Zivkovic Associates with John Simpson & Partners, 2006 Ralph Lauren Store, New York, Weddle Gilmore Black Rock Studio/HS2 Architecture, 2010

Visual Dissonance: Washington & San Francisco

Addition to Landmark Church, Washington, DC Addition to Jessie Street Substation, San Francisco, Daniel Liebskind Studio, 2008

Revisiting Standard 9: Differentiated and Compatible

Newberry Library, Chicago, Henry Ives Cobb, 1893 Addition by Harry Weese, 1981

Revised Standards for Charleston

Proposed Clemson Architecture Center in Charleston Approved by the BAR Kennedy & Violich Architects, 2008

Revised Standards for Charleston

Comparison of the Texts Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation:
Charleston Standards for the Treatement of Historic Properties Additions or exterior alterations to historic properties should be sympathetic to historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work should be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its setting. To respect the authenticity of the historic structure and its context and setting, the new alterations or addition should be clearly discernible from the old. The differentiation may or may not be sytlistic, and may be as subtle as a change in building footprint, material, or other means. New construction should be sympathetic to the historic features that characterize its setting and context. To respect the significance of the historic context, the new work should respect the historic materials, features, size scale, proportions, and massing of its setting.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

What Would We Want New or Revised Standards to Say?

Protect the cultural significance of our built heritage sites. Judgments about the treatment of cultural heritage should be interdisciplinary. Policies must apply to all built heritage, regardless of style or historical period

What Would We Want New or Revised Standards to Say? Dont Try to Legislate the Architecture of Our Time
Left: Pritzker Pavillion, Chicago, Gehry Partnership, 2004 Right: Office Building on Piccadilly, London, Robert Adam Architects, 2007

What Would We Want New or Revised Standards to Say?

The Jewish Museum, New York, addition by Roche-Dinkeloo, 1993

Preservation should promote appropriateness. The appropriate is the fitting and the exemplary. Fitting is what fits: a connection with valued pre-existing conditions. Exemplary sets a good example for those who will come after us.

What Would We Want New or Revised Standards to Say? The Origins of Differentiation
The Arch of Titus, Rome Restored by Raffael Stern and Giuseppe Valadier, c. 1820

Differentiating new work from historic fabric is a valid idea, and it is not new.

What Would We Want New or Revised Standards to Say? Preserve building cultures that produced our heritage sites.
Left: Taos Pueblo, New Mexico Right: American College of the Building Arts, Charleston

What Would We Want New or Revised Standards to Say? Recognize validity of delayed completion
Left: Kennedy Warrant Apartments, by Joseph Younger, 1929 Right: Completed south wing, by Hartman-Cox Architects, 2003

What Would We Want New or Revised Standards to Say? Recognize how the sites under protection were produced and dont prohibit continuing the same processes.
United States Capitol, Washington DC, 1793-1962 The Louvre, Paris, 1545-1870

Existing Standard 3: Bans a False Sense of Historical Development

Existing and proposed faades for Greenwich Village Townhouse, New York Fairfax & Sammons Architects, 2003

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

Revised Standard 3: Foster a True Sense of Historical Development

New Buildings at Merchants Square, Williamsburg Quinlan & Francis Terry Architects, 2004

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, use, and building culture. Interventions shall not obscure perception of the historical development of the site, and interpretive materials shall be available to assist the public in understanding the sites changing character and significance over time.

Existing Standard 9: Differentiated and Compatible

Left: International Financial Center, Washington DC, John Blatteau Associates, 1997 Right: 5 East 95th Street, Proposal by Zivkovic Associates with John Simpson, 2004.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

Revised Standard 9: Deferential and Harmonious

Whitman College, Princeton University, Porphyrios Associates, 2007 J. Carter Brown Library, Brown University ,Providence, RI, by Hartman-Cox Architects, 1991.
New additions, exterior alterations, or new construction shall be sympathetic to historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work may be in any appropriate architectural style but must be: Deferential toward the historic fabric in terms of massing, scale, materials, and architectural features to protect the cultural significance of the site; Identifiable as such so that, aided by suitable interpretive materials, the historic resource may be distinguished from new construction; and Harmonious, avoiding unnecessary contrast with the historic fabric in form or material, to maintain the integrity and character of the site and its context.

Should the Secretarys Standards Be Modified? Yes, but

Joseph Manigault House, Charleston, SC

The NPS should revise the Standards to remove confusion. The NPS should publicly distance itself from misguided interpretations of the Standards. The NPS should participate in developing best practices for the field. US/ICOMOS can remove stylistic biases from its Charters. Preservation stakeholders, including NPS and ICOMOS, can join forces to draft new guidance, on the model of GBC or CNU.