Preservation keeps D.C.’s historic assets

This piece ran in The Current Newspapers (Georgetown, Foggy Bottom, Dupont Circle, Northwest) on Wednesday. It was based on emails I wrote on the HistoricWashington yahoogroup, in part in response to the original email by Peter Sefton, which discussed why preservationists nominated the apartment building at 1440 Rhode Island Avenue NW. The Current Newspapers then editorialized about the need for predictability in the development process, which my piece focused on. (Developers and the elected officials who jump when developers say jump often talk about this issue of "predictability.")

The final version submitted incorporated comments from Bell Clement and Mary Rowse. (Thank you!) Articles from The Current Newspapers are not available online.

I added five words, in brackets [ ] below, because the one person who let me know that he saw the article is actually one of those truly "enlightened" DC developers.

Also, in the first paragraph, I list DC's "four" competitive advantages, while not listing the fifth and perhaps most important, the strong core of employment in the Central Business District centered upon (and the presence of) the federal government.

RL

The Current Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Preservation keeps D.C.’s historic assets
VIEWPOINT
Richard Layman

The city of Washington is defined by architecture, history and urban design. Along with a great public transit system, these factors define the city’s “competitive advantage” vis-à-vis the suburbs and other regions. Every time these advantages are allowed to degrade, the city
is diminished.

Winston Churchill has been quoted as saying, “We shape buildings; thereafter they shape us.” Yet too often, land-use regulations in the District of Columbia fail to reflect the critical importance of how the built environment shapes the quality of life in our city.

Use of the word “predictable,” as in The Current’s May 10 editorial “Landmark notice” on designation of the Braxton Hotel, to refer to development matters is problematic. The conflict is rooted in drastically differing definitions of the word “historic” in the context of land-use regulation in the city.

The way the development process works, the broader interest group of people and organizations concerned about land use and city livability are often the last to be notified or consulted. Too often, preservationists have no choice but to be reactive.

To a[ll but the most enlightened] developer[s], the word “historic” has a legalistic definition that refers to a building designated on the D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites (or regulated as part of laws such as the Shipstead-Luce Act), and requiring a different kind of review compared to matters solely under the purview of the Office of Planning, Zoning Commission or the Building and Land Regulation Administration of the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. It is not a definition that encompasses broader cultural and community values.

To a preservationist, the word “historic” refers to cultural resources, designated or eligible for designation as a landmark, site or district in the National Register of Historic Places or the D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites. This includes individually designated resources, as well as those considered to be contributing structures as part of a larger historic district.

When considering projects that involve cultural resources, developers and their minions (architects, lawyers, financiers) often fail to consider whether impacted buildings are eligible for designation. (Sometimes developers do seek out designation when it is to their favor to utilize the 20 percent Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit.)

In short, a developer rarely considers the question of eligibility, while a preservationist always considers the question of eligibility.

To a developer, predictability means that if the site isn’t designated when they start with a project, the site should continue to remain undesignated. To a preservationist, predictability means that if a building is eligible for designation, designation must be considered,
especially if the threat of demolition is imminent.

While this is complicated by the fact that the city has never conducted a comprehensive inventory of eligible buildings and districts, the real issue is the failure of most developers to consider that just because buildings aren’t designated “historic,” it doesn’t mean that they aren’t eligible for and worthy of designation.

The hours of volunteer time that people pour into writing and filing historic designation applications is a contribution, a sacrifice made at the expense of other things. But we believe that maintaining the livability of the city is worth such sacrifices.

Preservationists are the guardians of the city’s livability and beauty.

Just the other day I was interviewed for an identity study that is being conducted for a particular area of the city. I made the point that because the historic buildings have been pretty much eliminated from that area over the past two decades, it no longer possesses much
of an identity other than being a large “office ghetto.” Residents don’t visit that part of the city much, because it really has little to offer to us.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Pierre L’Enfant set a high bar, intending through design to create a lasting, beautiful city. We are the stewards of that legacy.

Before you write your next editorial about historic preservation, think about the homogeneous, “placeless” places in our region — downtown Bethesda, the sprawl of Tysons Corner, or the typical new subdivisions in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs. A swinging wrecking ball or a large bulldozer makes it a simple matter to make over the city of Washington into the kind of placelessness and facelessness that you seemingly desire.

Fortunately, the city’s historic preservation laws present barriers that make this difficult — but not impossible.

Index Keywords: historic-preservation