It's better to say that we lost than to gussy it up (historic preservation)

Criteria for Evaluation to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places**

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

** The criteria used in DC are slightly different, but derive from the NR criteria. Usually Criterion C covers the creation of historic districts.
___________________________
The DC Preservation League's current newsletter has a big piece on the changes in the local historic preservation laws, "Council Acts on Preservation Bill." Anthony (Tony) Harvey also has an excellent article about this in the July issue of the Intowner (pdf version on line), starting on the front page, "Historic Preservation Law Strengthened; HPRB Given Enhanced Powers."

As Harvey's article states:

The most important of the provisions stripped from the bill were, as stated in the Committee report, those "in the introduced version that would have statutorily authorized HPO review of every raze permit in the District for a determination of whether the building is a potential historic landmark or a potential contributing building in a potential historic district."

This was my contribution to the bill.

Now I didn't write the bill.

But I had testified on this three years running, laid out a system for this type of review to occur, in furious emails and discussion with various HPO types over the years, on the national Preservation Forum e-list, and in failed attempts to get some buildings landmarked in order to stave off demolition, made the case for why this kind of review is necessary for neighborhood stabilization. (A good chunk of this testimony is inserted in the blog entry, Blaming the building in Baltimore -- when your tool is a gun, you think only about shooting.)

This section, its history, its antecedents, well, I shaped it significantly.

And I was so excited to see it in the bill, and knowing that the bill was going to be passed...

But I failed to consider how strongly this would be opposed by the developers and how well the developers agenda is "communicated" within City Hall.

As I wrote to someone who gave me the heads up on the stripping out of these provisions....

It's an important lesson in the necessity of organizing and having a real advocacy agenda, and people power--a movement.

Basically, the developers were able to trump this provision because of the fact that we don't have much of a preservation "movement" in the city. This isn't a slap at you and others, just an observation. I'm as much at fault for not building the movement as anyone.

However, my belief is that there isn't enough political will and capital to bring these provisions back to the table any time soon, so they are likely to fade away into the "ashcan" of legislative history, not to come back to the fore, ever, without the (re)building of a preservation movement.

_______
So the article in the DC Preservation League newsletter bugs me, because it sugarcoats the real issue--that the buildings most in need of review and protection from demolition continue to have no protection.

The issue is that:

1. There are no provisions in DC laws and regulations to stop the demolition of a building, unless the building is designated historic;
2. So it doesn't matter that ANCs have 45 days to respond to notices;
3. Because there are no remedies in the laws and regulations that allow for a demolition to be halted;
4. Unless you file a nomination for the building to be designated historic;
5. But only buildings able to meet the higher standards of significance for individual landmarks are likely to sustain the hearing process and be designated, thus preventing demolition;
6. What this means is that the average building in a neighborhood that meets the test for "contributing structure" to a historic district, but not for an individual landmark, has no protection;
7. And won't have any under current laws and regulations;
8. And you will see more and more crappy buildings constructed in place of buildings eligible for historic designation, but instead are demolished;
9. In neighborhoods that should be designated, but aren't;
10. And this fails to stabilize and enhance neighborhoods, neighborhood and city livability, historic character, and the architectural and historical legacy that we steward.

Index Keywords: historic-preservation; civic-engagement