The URL can be used to link to this page

6 - Update MemoNovember ls`, 2006 TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board FROM: James Hewat, Chris Meschuk SUBJECT: Update Memo Historic Preservation/Environmental Sustainability Integration Project See enclosed memo. 16`~ Street Historic District City Council approved the 16"' Street Historic District on October 17`~ with a vote of 6-3. A color copy of the new ]ocal historic districts map is included with this packet. Mapleton Place Ruling Attached is a copy of Judge Glowinsky's ruling regarding Mapleton Place (Howe Mortuary) Landmazk Alteration Certificate. ARTICLES AND INFORMATION: Pending Stay's of Demolition and current status. Planning Board Calendar Rule and Order on Brad Fazkas's complaint regazding the former Howe Mortuary project SO and Proud of It, Planning Magazine, November 2006 Honey, Our House is Historic! Goveming Magazine, October 2006 Ciry Strives to Keep its Heritage Alive, Calgary Herald, October 26~', 2006 l~,GEN~A iTE~VI # ~~PAGE ~ ~ Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Stay of Demolition Status Summary, November 1, 2006 \t.ENDAITEM+r ~~PAGE_` lozt Plonn~ng Boord Meennq Oa 5. 4006 flmended Oaabar 19, P006 October 2006 Pl~nning f3oard aw - wm ~ mew~y mnc.um a mmo~ee ~w.~~~«~~~ Cxasn - bm / m~etln9 odded ;Sdm- 'zS_„ • . A ''~ iN9d. „ _. . ~„ -~ '~"`Sa['-.-: -s. 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 CC meetlng, epm in CC LPAB, 6 pm in CC PB meeting, 6pm in CC 9st reading 16th Street Histont '6333 Lookout rezoning Districl (JH) (CF) 95t readmg of 700 76th Street 9095 Canyon CR (BB) Individual Landmark (JH) NAP Public Meeting, 5:30- 7:30 ~Matlers, LPAB WeM Senior role/responsibiliUes(DG) Cenbr,908 Anpahoe (J. Spiher, absenQ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 TAB, 6 pm in GC DDAB, ~ pm In BOZABA, 5 pm in CC MuniLobby 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 CC meeting, 6pm in CC PB meeting, 6pm in CC PB meeting, Bpm in 'is[ reatlmg Budget 'TVAP public heanng to CC? 'ist 2ading 6333 Lookout Provide direchon on P~~erred opeons (RM) •BqCKUP NAP publ~c heannq to provide Rezoning (CF) direcdon on prefened '2nd reatling 16t~ Street Histonc opbons (RM) Dis[nd (JH) 'ist reatling 1802 Canyon Indv landmark (CM) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TA6, 8 pm in CC LUAAG, Bpm Wesl Joint PBILPAB meating, `TVAP public Senior Centar 6pm in Muni Lobby heanng 29 30 31 Sep 2006 Nov 2006 Speciai CC meeting, 7 pm in S M T W T F S S M T W T F S CC 1 2 1 2 3 4 •NAPpublic 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 7 8 9]0 I1 heanngroprovide direction on 10 I1 12 13 14 ]5 16 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 preferretl options 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (RM~ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 \~:ENi)A ITE1A #~ ~~ PAGE_-! lost Plonning eoard Mnenng Oa. 5. 4006 flmentled Occober 19, P006 November 2~,~fi Planning f3oard ~_,~,~~~~~~,~ ~.~~~~~ Gesn - Imm / meeting oddsd "~$ un,. . ~ _ ~ =' efi _ Th Sat,~n:.> 1 2 3 4 Oct 2006 Dec 2006 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S LPAB, 6 pm in CC PB meating, 6pm in CC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ~ Z FLO meeting, West '1655 Walnut Concept Plan SaniorCenter, S7 (BB) 8 9 10 I1 12 ]3 14 3 4 5 6 7 g q pm 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ]0 11 12 13 14 IS 16 'Landmark Lofts II CP (CF) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 I S ] 9 20 21 22 23 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 'Matters. new planning 31 directonnfo 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ELECTION DAY DDAB, d pm in BoZAeA, 5 pm in CC HOLIDAY MuniLobby LUAAG, Public Mtg. 6pm Pres Church 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 TAB, 6 pm in CC CC meeting, 6pm in CC LUAAG, 6pm Wart PB meetinp, 6pm in CC Planning Director '2nd reading Budget Senior Center 'Airport Master Plan (NN~ interviawa, 8-2:30 p.m. `TVAP Diredion on implementalion aDP~ch 'TVAP Direction on implementation approach planning Director (LG/RM) • (LG/RM) Pn°^~~10^s~O CCIPB, 2:30 - 6:30 pm •2nd reading 6333 Lookout •Parks and Rec. Master ~~ CC Rezoning (CF) Plan '2rW reading 1802 Canyon Indv Meet and greel the landmark (CM) Planning Director wndidates , &7 p.m. Library Gallery (Jones, absent) (Levy. Jones, absent) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CC meeting, 6pm in CC Thanksgiving 26 27 28 29 30 .IoiM TAB, PB, CC meating, 6 CANCElLEO - PB meeling p.m.in CC 'TVAP public hearing on plan '7AB deliberetian 8 recommentlation 'PB deliberation & ~ecommendanon ~,!=_=Nc7AITEi1AOi `{TPAGE ~ wsc alonnirg Baoro hteenrg Occ. s. E006 flmended Octabar 19. 4006 December 2006 Planning f3oard ~_~,~~~~~a~ ew. - e.m, ~..n~y ~w+a Groan - bsm / mseCitg oAded O ~°° ~ ~ Nov 2U06 Ian 2007 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 6 7 8 9]0 II 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 12 13 14 IS 16 17 IS 14 IS 16 17 ]8 19 20 19 ~20 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CC maetin9. 6pm in CC LPAB, 8 pm in CC PB meeting, 6pm in CC 'NAP decision on final plan •Brickyard Annax (CF) 'PH, policy direcUOn on H~st Pres •Palmw CP (CF) Em Sust Int (JH) •E Town4 'ist reading on IUCS cortec6ons (EM) 'Washington School CpnceDt Plan (SR) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 TAB, B pm in CC DDAB, 6 pn in MuniLObby BOZABA, Spm in Muni Lobby PB meeling, 6pm in CC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 CC meeting, 6pm in CC HOLIDAY city '2fW readmg on LUCS O~t04 CIOSBd 1/2 conec[ians (EM) dBy 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 HOLIDAY CANCELLED-PBmeeting HOLIDAYcity offices closed 1/2 day 31 ;-~~u~n ~r~:v, ~. ~/Q' „~..~ .~ Januar~ 2007 Planning Board _ _ _ __ __~, , . . , -m ~.~. _ ~ _ _. , . ,_ ~,~ n 1 2 3 4 5 6 HOLIDAY LPAB, 6 pm in CC PB Meeting, 6 pm in CC 'Schlereth Annex (CF) 'Bk 3 Dakola Ritlge Village SR (BB) 'Goltlen BuH (EM) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 TAB, 6 pm in CC DDAB,1 pm in Muni Lobby BOZAB0. 5 pm in CC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 HOLIDAY CC Meeting, 6 pm in CC PB Meeting, 6 pm in CC Martin Luther King day 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PB Maeting, 6 pm in CC7 28 29 30 31 Dec 2006 Feb 2007 S M T W 7 F S S M T W T F S I 2 I 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 I1 12 13 14 IS 16 17 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 3I , '~_!1!.~liI7r25t=~"~NAGF_~~ District Couri, Boulder County, State of Colorado 1777 Sixth Streey B«ilder, Coloxado 803~2 303 441-1776 PLAINTIFF{S): ~ Brad Farkas ~, • COU~tT U5E ONLX • I7E~'ENAANT(S): City of Boulder, City Manager Frank Bruao, The Boulder City Council, thc Bouldax Landmarks Preservation Advisory Baard, Scott VJoodward, attd Mapleton PSa~e. Attorney for Plainti,f):' Williann Koti~alski Case Number: 06 CV 405 Attorrreys for Defenda+ats: Office of the City Attorney and p~~sion ] WiSliaztt Meyer ~ RUL1TiG AND QItIfER This matter comes before the Courl on Plaintif£'s atule 106 complainY. Eiaving considared the par[ies' briefs together with the applicahle law, the couR enters tlae followin~ Ruling and Ordcr: I. Facts The Boulder Landmark Preservation A.dvisory Board ("Landmarks Board'7 appxoved an altezation cextificate for the redevelopment plan of the HoK~e Moriuary Building ("Mortuary"). '1 ~is propexty is located in the 1Vlapleton Historic District at 2121 lt`" Street, and is owned by Defcndants Saott Woodward and Mapleton Place, LLC ("Owners"). Mr. W oodward fixst submitted his platzs so the Design Review Committee and tlae plans werc bmught befote Uhe Landmarks Boatd on May 4, 2005. A;fter hearing the comments the Qwners withdrew ttAe applicsiaon in order to reyise the plan. The Owners then resuhmitted the plan to tbe Landmarks Board at tha Janusry 4, 2006 meeting, The Broad conditionally apptoved the plan, but referred ezr4tin details to the Design ~eview CozrAmitGee for fuithex consideration. The Commiftee met on several occasions and then re~erted the matter back to the Lazadmazks Board for final consideration. The Boazd appro~ed the plan at its Marcfi 1, 2006 nneeting. II. Argument A) Scope of ~eview r- ,~s . ~''~ 17~7', ;; _ ~/'rpAGE _ / This Cowrt roviews #he decisions of inferior tribunals under C.R.C.P.106{ax4) to detenniae if the 6ody exceeded its jurisdiction or abusefl its discretion. Garland u 13d Of Couniy Comm'rs of.Larim¢r County, 660 P.2d 2Q, 29 (Colo. Cf. App. 79B2). The scape o£the court's revicw is limited to determining ifany coAnpetent evidence exists to support the decisioa An agency abvse5 its discretion whcn it applies an ertoneous legal etandard. Electrfc Power Besearch Trutitute, .inc. v. City and Courtty of Derrver, '737 P.2d 822, 82b {Colo. 198'~. However, a reviewing Court should defer to the constivction of a statute by the administrative official s chazgad with its enforceme~rt. City and County of Derrver v. Bnard ofAdjetirtmetrt for City and Caunty of Derrver, 55 P.3d 252, 25A {Calo.App.,2002}. The agency's fimdings of fact are bisxding if this Caurt finds competent evidence. Fire House Car Wash, Ine. u ld. Of.~djustment for Zorting Appeals, 30 P.3d 762, 76b {Coio.Ct.App. 2041 }. A decision must be upheld unless theze is ao competent evidence in the recnrd to suppoxt it such'that it was arbitrary or capriciovs. City and County of Denver u Board ofrtcl,~'ustmerat for City and Coaniy af Denver, 55 P.3d at 254. 'xhe defcrez~,ce to agency decisioa znaking is justified because "the function under review lies in the admsnistrative agenay and not m tbe cocuts." Yan Sick7e x Boyes, 797 P.2d 1267, 1274 {Colo. 1990). B) Competettt Evidence Exiats to Support the Landmarks Board's Decision The Plaidtif£ contends that the Landmarks Boecd abused its discretion ia appzoving the Mortuazy's alteration certificate. The applicable law govertting fhe issuance of alteration cerbificates is B.R.C. 1981: 16-13-18- Standards for Landmazk Alteration Certi~cate {a} The Landmarks board and the city council shall not approve an application for a landmark alteration cexti6cate unless each such agency finds tlaat the proposed work is r.onsistent with the purposes of this chapter. {b) Neikher the landmarks boacd nor the city council shall appmve a landmark alteration certificate unless it mects the followin~ conditions: (1) The proposed ~~ork preserves, enhances, or restores and does not danlage or destroy the exteriar architectural features uf the landmark or the subject praperty within an histaric distric~ (2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special c5aeactez or special histnrical, az~chitectutal, or aesthetic sntaest or valuo o£ the landmazk and its site or the dishict; (3) The archi[ectural style, arratagement, textute, coloz, arrangement of color, and msferials used on existing and proposed structures are comparible with the character of the existing landmazk and its site or the historic district; and r.,`s~):. I7F:'+;~.~!T NApE~? (4) Wfth respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic distxict, the proposed new constructi ou to nptace the buiIding meets the requuements of paragaphs (b}{2) and (3) o£thas section. (c) 1n determindag whether to approve a landmark altexation certi~cate, #he landmarks board shall consider the economic feasibility of sltematives, incorporation of etxergy-efficient desi~, and enhanced eccess far the disabled. The Plaintiff acknowledges in his opening brief that the "slan3ards are extremely subjective." {Opening Brief at 9). Tlae Plaintiff obliquely challeages the DePendants' compliance with the code towatds the end of his brie£ F~e contends that "[iJt appeazs" that the Boazd's decision does not uphold the $rst section o£the code (dpening Brie£ at 48}. Regsrdi~g the second seotion of khe code, the Plasntiff states that the "[r]acord shows that the massive increase in the size of the Howe Mortuary Building `adversely affects' both the Buaidin~ and tha dish~ict " Id. The Plaiatiff makes no reference to the zecord to back up this contention. The PSainGff then contends that certain aspects of the renovarion "appear to r.onnpxomise the architectural style of tlte Howe Morluar~y Buitding and the district " Id. The Plain#iffs azgnment aslcs this CouR to use its historical and a[chitecturai expertise where the Bosrd "apgears" to have strayed from the code, This is not the role of the Cotut in a 106 action. Thexe is competent evidence in the record to support the Board's finding that proposed struchu~e meets the code, and thas Court is bound by that decision. If these standards alone govern the grantatxg of alteration certificates then the Board's decisioxa must be upheld. However, the Plaintiff conteaxds that these standards aze legally reinforoed by binding rules set £or[h in the Secretazy of the Interior's ' Standards £or Rehabilitation, the Gen,eral Design Guidelines £ar Boulder's Historic Aistricts and In,di~ridual Landmarks, and the Mapleton Hill ~istoric Disttict pesign Guidelines. The Court disagees and fnds that the Board's trepfnnent ofthe guidelines as interptetive aids is justified. 1) The Guidelines are Iaterpretiv¢,1Vot Legialative, Rules The Landmazks BQard treated the guidelines and standazds as interpretive rules which psovided aspirational guidanee for decision making but were not binding legislative rules. Tixe Supreme Couri cleazly explained the distinction between Iegslative and interpretiz~e ruies Colorado Motor Yehicle Ikaler licensing Bd. x Norlhglenre Dodge, Ine, 972 P.2d 707, 712 (Colo.App.,1998). "An administretive rule adopted pursuent So ~ `• . ~;; YTf=?.': a: !~~PAG~ ~ ~ an agenoy's statutory authority to pxomulgate a substantive stattdard that carries ihe foxce of law is a'legislativa" nile. An "intexpretive" rule, in contrast, serves the advisory ftuiction of explaining the meaning o£ a word or phrase in a statute or vther rule, and 3escribes the iypes of factors that an ageacy wiil consider in future adminisuative proceedings without binding the a~ency to a paRiculaz ~sulf." Id Furthett[~ore, even when a rule is pzomu3gated pursuant to the staWtory authority "a rule may still be au interpretative rule es long as it serves the explanatory or internretative fwiction chatacteristic o£such a rule:' Regtelar Rotrte Common Carrier Conferenee v. Pu51ic UtiJities Commtssion, 761 P.2d 737, 749. An agency's 'characterization of a zule as interpretive is entitled to defer~ace, aithough it is not detezminative. Nosthglenn, 972 P.2d at 12. 2) Secretary's Stendards are Clearly Tinterpretive Rules '~'he Plaintiff contends that proposed project violates Standard 9 of the Secretary of the Interlor's Standards for Rehabilitation. That standezd ieadst IVew additions, oxterior alterations, or related new construction shall not desttoy hisYOxic matezials ~at characterize the property. The ne~v wozk shall be differentiated from the old and shall be connpatible with the massing, size, scale azid architectural feetutes to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environmeni. 3b CFR 67, The Zandmazks Board "adopted the Secret~ty of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as the basis for guidance ota rehabilitation design for historic properties." {Design Guidelines at 8}. The Standards are codified in 36 CFR 67 for use in the Federal Histonic Preservation Tax Incentives prograra, and were adopted by the Landmazks boazd as guidelines. See htlp;/fwwtiv.boutdercdorado.gov/flles/PDS/historicpres/pdfs/admin reg_d.pdf An examination o£the language of the Standards shows that tJxey are advisory in nature. In the introductory clause #o the rule the Secretazy states that: The following 5tandazds are to be applied to specific rehsbilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into considera[ion economic and technical feaszhility. 35 CFR b7(b). The S4usdards are therefore not hard and fast xules, but aspirationsl goals which should be compromised in spec~fic situations for economic and technical reasons. While Standazd 9 does use the term shall, it is clear &om the introductory clause that the lan~uage is not mendatoxy. Thc Standaz3s weze adopted to explaizl the types o£ facWrs the boatd would consider in en~orcing 10-13-I8, B.R.C.1981 and are therefore interpretive. The otily "mandate" is to apply the Staadazds in a reasaneble manner. _ ~,~> i~i~,~ ~~ ; ~~"~aG~ . ~~ 'I'he Plaintiff contends ihat the Standards were "~~vritten into the Gcneral Guidelines anid axe bindin~ on the Board." (31). The Gemeral C3uidelines state in the iniroduction tlaat: "[t]hese guidelines expand thase [Seccetary's] Standerds and bruag focus to Baulder's own histoxic context and resouroes." (Guidelines at 8). There is an enclosed caption in the Guidelines bigt-lighting the Standazds that had becn previously adopted by the Baard on Novectther 7, 1990, but the Board did not re-promul~ate the Standatds as a legislaYive rule within the Generel Aesign Guidelines, Whet~ the Landmarks Board adopted thc Standards on November 9,1990 it did not even have the legislative xulemaking power enacted in 2002 under § 14-13-24, B.R.C. 1981. Instead the rules were promulgated under §2-3-1(d)(3} wbdch gave each city board the powcr to "[a~opt rules [nterpreting iis legislative duties under this codc and establishing procedwes in sid of its functions:' There is mothing in this language that indicates khat the niles would carry the force of law. The fact that the city latet gave the Landmazks Board legislative rulemaking power under B.It.C. Chapters 1-41981 shows that it only had intetpretive authority before 20b2. Even if the rules we~z issned with the authority to promulgate rules cazryin~ the force of law, thay aze still iaterpretive bacause they carxy out an i~rtesprerivo futxcdon. Regular Ro~ete Commorr Carrier Conjere~ce u PubJic Utilities Commfssion, 76l P,2d 737, 7~9. ~'ltese Standards aze specificalty desi~ned with ihe "explanatory oc interpretative fuaction cliaracter'sstic of [an interpretive] rule." Id Fina[ly, if the Court had instead determined that the Standards were binding legislative niles, there is still competenf evidence supporting the Boatd's decision. The Board detumined unanimously that "the proposed mass, scale, axiemarion, and height for the proposed addidon to the for-x~er mortuary building ~vas generally in keeping wiith the General Design Guidelines, the Mupleton Hill Destgn Guideliaes and the purposes &nd intent of the Historic Preserwation Code.' (fl261). I'his Court has ao architectural expertise and must defer to the judgnient o£ ihe professionals on the Boattl to detetmine questions o£scale and at'chitectural znte$rity. 3} The 1VIspleton Hill Aesign Guidelinee are Interpretive Rules The Plaintiff contends that the Nlapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines {"MH Guidclines' ) aze legislati~e rules because they weire edopted according to §2-3- 1(d)(3) whiclt authorized evcry city board to "adopt rules intezpreting its legislative duties u~ader this code and establishing procedures in aid of its functions:' As stated supra, this provision oniy gives boards interpretive rulemaking powers because iY does not gtant authority to "to protnulgate a substantive standattd that catries the force of law." Northglenn, 972 P.2d at 12. Even if §23-1(d}(3) granis substantive legislati~e authority, the MH Guidelines are still 'znterpretive because they cazry out an inte~retive function. Regular Rou~e Common Carrier Conference v. Pubfic Utilities Comntission, 761 P.2d 737, 749. _ ttie':~;: lTi~~:±;~./0~1~AG~_l!- It is extremely cka~r from the INH Cruidelines that they aze only intended to be an aid in inte~preting B.R.C. § 10-13-18 {1961). The MH Guidelines state that "the guidelines are io be used to ime~pzet the standards for altezarion certificate review set forth in 5ection 10-13-18, 'Standazds for Landmark Alteration Certi~cazes'. [935J. The Guidelines then state that they are not to be applied in every casc. The e1~apleton HiIT Design GZridelines are imended to be xsed as an aid to appropriate design and not as a checklist of items for compliance. Its purpose is w crcate awazeness o£ fhe character of the Distict before propet'ty owners propose alterations W thesx properties. It is recognizod that there is greac variety in the archztecture of Mapleton Hlll and that not all guidelines will be appropriate to al1 properties, These gaidelines idcntifj~ the design eletnents deemed impottat-t io reviewing proposed alterations £or appropriabemess and aze the basis for decisions made by the Landma[k Prexrvstion Advisory Boazd in its review of Landnnazk Altererion Certificate applications. {NiFI Cruideli~s at 4). The MI~i Guidelines themselves expliciUy state that not all guidelines apply to all propexties. The Boazd must take intu coasidexation the ~~auriety of arct-i.'tecture when determining if a specz~c guideline applies to a sgECific pmject. Furthermoze the language of tkle guidelines uses the SUggestive "should" instead of the mat~dating "shall". The Boazd uses the MH Guidelines as interpretive aids. 'I7vs decision is entitled to deference but is not determinstive. '~he Court £mds thet usage to be reasrnnable. Northglenn, 972 P.2d at 12. 4) The General Design Gaidelinea Are Interpretive Rules The Plainti,ff states that khe Genezal Design Guidelines (°Genera! Guidel'snes"} were "re-adopted" undet the speci~c Landxnaxks Board rulemaking power in B.R.C. §10. 13-24 1981, and not nnder tha inteipeet'tve Lule in §2-3-1(d){3). (Plainliff's OpEning at 53). The. Plaintif£'s contention seems to be that since the Landtnexks Boazd had tlae power to issue legislative niles, tlais issuance must be a legislative zule, and since it is a legislative zule, it must fnllow the rulemaking p[ocedures ia B.R.C. 1981, 1-4. But B.R.C. 1981, 1-4-1 clearly states its staradazds for zules do not apply to "a general statelnent af policy wlrich is not binding on the ,publzc." The Landmarks Soard reteinui the authority to issue znterpretive tvles, which are not go~~erned by the formal rulemaking standards of 1-4-1, snd the Oeneral Guidelines comply with t11at interpretive function. Even if the Gwdelines were adopted under § 10-13-24 the inte~tpretive quality of ~the rule indicates that rt is an intetpretivc mle. Regular Raate Con~~orr Carrier Coxfeserece v. Pablic Utilttf¢s Co:nmission, 761 P.2d 737, 749. 'I'he General Guidetines theimselves cleaxly show that they are intecpzetive sids and not maadatory rules. Thc Guidelines state that: `s PTC,~' ; ~~,Nla(aF_. ~~' The puc~wsc of the design guidelines is to facilitste both lhe application and approval af allerations proposed ~'or design revietv by 1) Ptoviding the oti~~ners of historic pmperties some assistance in making decisions ebout maintenance and improvements, and 2) Provid'm~ the Landmarks Boazd with a£ramework £or evaluation ofpmpased impmvements Chapter 4 0£ Ute Oeneral Guidelitxs wh[c11 is the key section addressing addirioRs to historic structures states by way of introduction that "[t]he guidelines wlll he applied most stringendy to these publicly visible azeas. More flexibility will be allowed for rear elevations and other areas largely screened frona public view." Chapter 4. This instruction coticiusively demoz~strates that the Seneral guidelines aze not binding rules, but ~exi6le goals which consider feasibility end the visual impact to passersby. If the guidelines can ~c appSied "more strin$cntly" oz `5more flexibly" then they cannot he the bottom-line minimtiun £ox compLiance. k~rfhetmore the langua3e of the guidelines uses suggestive tertns such as "shauld" and "iuxappropciate" in most iastances. The Landmazks Boazd considered tfie General Ciuidelines an aid £or inte:preting 10-13-18, B.R.C. 1981. 'I'~is Court gives deference to that zntezpretation, and sees no reason to question its reasonableaess. NorfhgIenn, 972 P2d at 12. S} Conclusion Because the Guiflelines are intcrpxekive and not legislative zules, they aze not biziding on tlae Landmarks Eosrd. NortTaglerut, 972 P.2d at 12. The Lauidmazks Board is only legally required to foilaw 10-13-18, B.R.C. 1981. As stated supre, this Court ~mds competent evidence in the recoxd to support the Soard's decision to ~ant an altera#ion cQrkificate. The Plaintiff offered sevezal derivati~~e acguments based osa #he failure to follow the Standaxds and Cruidelines. Those argume~ots fail because the Boatd was not bound by thase interpretive ntles. C) Due Process Argument Tbe Plainti££next contends that the Landmarks Baard's failure to £ollaw the guidelines violatcd the Plaintiff's due pracess nights. Because the Board wes not bound by the gttidelines, az~y failuze to comply cannot violate due process righu. 1} The Public was not Invited to Fiely on the Guideiines 'I'he Plai~rtiff s main contention is that public palicy dictates that the guidclines be followed because t}Ae public was invited to rely upon them. The argument is that when neighbors boup~t propexty in the erea, they gave up their right to deviate from the guide~ines in retum for the other neighbars ~ving up the sazne rights. To the Plaintiff, the guidalines aze almost s quasi-covenant between neighbors, and the Board is chazged ~-~:~:;~:~~",,: ~~9-~a~~~/3 with enforcing the letter of tbat contract. In fact, there is nothing in the Guideiines which invites the puhlic's reliance. The Plaintiff cites fhe General Ouidelines stated purpose "to facilitats both the application and appmval o£alterationa proposed £or design review by (I) providing t}ae owtaers of histoxic properties sorae assistance in making decisions about maimenance and improvamems, and (2) ptoviding ihe Landmarics Boazd with a framework £or evaluation of proposed improvements." (8}. Nothing in this statement invites neighbors to xely on anything. It provides "same assisfance" to homeownezs doing maintenance, and a "framework" to the Board. The Plaintiff then cites a quote selected from the Gene[al Guidelines section describing the revie~v process. "As the project becomes finali2ed, lhe Committee detemnines whekhec it meets tlte ~uidelines set forth in this document and in the Boulder Historic Preservatioa Code. If it does, the Committee will issue an Alteration Certificate, and you can commence with your projcct aRe[ geuin~ the necessary permifs." (at 19). 1'he Plainti£f contends that this leads the public to believe that applications must meet the guidetines to be approved. The Plaintiff aarefully crafted the quote to show that a plan in complitas~ce with ihe guidelipes will ba appmved and draws the fa3sc conclusion that a plan not in complianice with the guidelines would be de[ried. However, the next sentence clestly shows that tltuis is not ihe case. °I~'the vote of the Committee is diviided, the application goes forward for rcview by the ~ve-membet Landmarks Board at a public hesring unless you choose to withdraw the application for tevision and resubmdttal." Id. `fhe nc~ct paragraph eets forth the criteria that are used by the Board. "llecisions are based on ihe majority voto of the five-member Boazd and sfandsrds in the Cade." (at 20)(Empkwsis added}. The Plaintiffalso omiued the first sentcnce of the z~eview process se~tion which states: "The Boulder Re~zsed Code's Historic Preservation Ordinance {10- 13-18, B.R.C., 1981) outlines ttla process and criteria for reviewing changes to indi~dual landmarks and buildings in historic districls." (at 19). The clearest read'vn~ of this section is that a proposal which is nat in strict compliaz~ce with the guidelines, wi31 be zelferrad to the Board which will'khen decide i£ it violates the code. 7k~e Plaintiff s arguments concerning the Mapleton Hill Cruidelines are in the same vein. Tha Plainti#t quotes the MFi Guidelines own latzguage that "[t]he ~uidelines are intended to be used as an sid to appropriate design at~d not as a checklist of items £or compliaace." (at 1). The Plaintiff's intecpnetation is that ihe gnidelines are a baseline thaE raust bc complzad with, but that #he Bosrd can znsist on additional requirements. Again the Plaintiff care£ully crafts the quate to ignore ttxe next sentences: "Its purpose is fo create awareness o£the character o£the District before property o~nxezs pxopose altcrations to iheir properiies_ It is rewgnized shat there is great variety in tlte architecture of Mapleton ~i11 and that not all guidelines w~ll be appropriabe W all ptoperties." ld if the guidelines do not apply to ell properties, thtn the PlaintifPs interpretation is impossible. Ciearly the correat i~er,pzetation is that guidelines are intetpretive aids and not the binding standards of a checklist for compliancs. , ~<,• fiT~=; ~ , ~ ~~ PAC~ ~ % The guidelines clearly do not invite nei~hbors to re[y on theiY stnict enforcement. Therefore no neighbor's due process iighis could be violated. 2) Even Assuming the Guidelines Were Legislative ~ules a Dae Proceas Cleim Fsils E~en if the guidelines were substaritive rules, the Plaintiff cannot bring a due proress claim because he does not have a protected property interest. The first inquiry in a due process analysis is tn determine if a plaintiff has been depcived of a protected intezesY in liberiy or property, A/iiatley v. Svmmit Caumy Bd, of County Com'rs 77 P.3d 793, 798 (Colo.App.,2003). The Colozado Supreme Court set £orth the stendards for evaluatin~ a property dep~ti.vation case in Flillside CommuHity Churchv. Qlsan, 58 P3d la2t, 1025 (Colo. 2042): In evaluating a due procass claixn, a couR must cansider. (a} whether a propezty ri$ht has been identified; (h} whether govaz'nmental action rvi'kh respect to that property right announts to a depr3vation; and (c) whetha the depiti,vation, if one be found, was visited upon the plairrtiff without due process of law. Hillside Comrrrunity Chttrch v. Olson, 58 P.3d 1021,1625 {Co1o.,zaa2~. "A pmtected inter~st in pmperty exists hvhen a person has a legitimate claim of entitleznent to the pzoperty." Ewy v. Sturtevant, 962 P.2d 991 (Coio.App.1998). The Plainti£~' writes iha4 he is "arguing that the regulations promulgated by the Board invited public reliance and creqted a property interest in sabstantive standazds eceated by the Boazd for everyone in the historic districY, and there£ore failure to adhere to them canstituted an abuse of discretioxl." Whi1e substantive standards can create a property interest, one cannot Itave a pmperry inter~:st in substantive stancfazds any more than one has a proparty interest in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The Supreme Court has ruled tbat "the Due Process Clause provides thaf certain substantive rights-li£e, liberty, and pmperty-cannat be deprived except pursuatxt to constitutionafly adequate procedtues. The categories of substance and procedvrc are distinct. Were tAe rule otherwise, the Clause would be reduced to a mere tauWlogy. "PropeRy" canttot be defined by the procedtues pmvided foz irts deprivarion any mone than ean life ar liberty." HiAside Co~munity Church v. Olson, 58 P,3d ]621, *1026 (Colo.,2402}. Iiere the Plaintzff has no pxoparty interest in the standards, and therefore no standing io make a due process claim. D} The Board Did Not Abuae Its Aiseretion Concerning the Flonr A,rea of the Top Floor -'~v'~_'~'~ iT(=:.'+t~.~~~NRCa~ ~~ The Plaintiff conunds that ihe Board abused its discretian by approving the 3,282 foot tap floor. While it is entirely ultclear fi'om the briefs, ihe Caurt assurries that the Plainti£f'i~s asserting e procadural due process claim. The Recocd sbaws tbat on January 1, 2006 Scott Woodward tcstified that "[w]e've reduced the top flooz. It x~as, I believe, around 3,300 squere feet, and now it's right at 3,000 square feet ox- tHat top t]oor." (Record 185}. The Boazd also had a sight plan dated Deeember 15, 2005 which showed the top ~loor as a dotted line, but did not provide square footage nwir~,bers, 'Che Board asked Mz, Woodwaid to submit s floor plan, which he did between Febiuecy 9, 2006 and March 1, 2006. The floor glan showed 3282 squere feet on the top floor. This plan was approved without permitting further comment on March l, 2006. The PlaiptifPs argument aezms to he that the Board ahnsed its discretion by apptoving the platx without hear3ng further comment when the final plan exceeded the 3,000 square feet wlach Mr. Woodward had indicated. The Plauxti~'cannot challenge this action of the Boazd on due process grounds because he has no property interest in the outcome. One cannot claim a proptrty interest in mere procodurc. Hiflside Communily Church v. Olson. S8 P.3d J 62I, ] 027 (Colo.,2~02). 'I'he Plaintif.Ps claim to a hearing is entirely procediaal and doce not create an entiHement necessary to eteate s properiy interesk Id. Secondly, in order to demansttate a ptoperty interest for due process purposes the Plaentiff must show that the Board's decision was ministcrial and not discretionary, and that it would have resulted dit'ferently if it followed the cornai procedure. Hitlside, 58 P.3d 1021 at 1027-28. 'The Haard had greet discretion under B.R.C. ] 0-13- l 8 to grant or deny the certificate, and tha Plaibtif,f cannot show that his suggested procedure would have changed the zesult Even if the Plaintiff was wronged, it is uacleax how his sug~ested relief would remedy the situation, "i'he Plaintiffpleads for a writ of mamdamus in force the City , Manager to enforcc the 3,000 foot area "conceded by the defendan~" Plaintiff azgues tbat the top floor should be ]imited to a maximum of 3,400 squere feet, Woodwazd's "right at 300U" statement can bo interprexed in several ways. The Court finds ihat the Boazd's vndorstanding of the "zight at 3,006 squere feeY' as sn estimate is eminendy reasonahle, and therefore defers W the Boazd's approval of the top floor plans. E) 'I'he Pluinrif£ Cannat Show Actual Bias aa the Board 'fhe Plaimtiff claims that members o£the Board became psychologically committad to the plan when they workad on the Des~ga Review Committee, and ~vere therefore iu-ablo to make an tnnbiased decision as adjudicators. This, tlae plaintiff contends, vioiated his due process rights to an impartial adjudicator. As stated previausly, the Plaintiff must have an implicated pmperEy iatemst to bring a due process claim. Again the Plaintit3' does not tiave a property interest. Even if the P1ainH£f does have az- implicated property intere~i his claim fails. The Board as a `: ~ ~,,, ;, V//i" aACat~.~U! quasi judicial body tnust be im~artial, but there is a p~nesutxlpt~on that decision makers act wi#h integzity, h~ot~est}°, aiad im~artiality. Burns v. City Caurtcil of the City and County of ~enves~, 759 P.2d 7~8 (Colo.App. l 9$$). Due Process is ~nly violated i£ a decision make~r has "a personal, financial, or o~eial sta~ce i~n the decision." Soon Yee Scofr v. City of ~'ngtewood, 672 ~.2d 225, 228 (Co1o.A~~.1983). ~vexi pzaver~ predispasition ~ioes not give rise to a due ~rocess claimz un~ess xt can be shown that the dec~sion make~ was incapable a~ fairly deciding a paz'~icular coz~~ro~ersy. ~l~fountain States ~'eleplzone and Telegraph Co, v. Fublic tTtalities Commissinn, 763 P,2d ~020 (Colo. 198SJ. The P)aiz~ti££ l~s alleged no faets that sl~ow that any Board membez was ~~tcapable of fairly adjudi~au~ng the particular cantrovez~sy i~zzvol~ing the mortuazy. ~~1. CONCLUS~~N For the aforemer~tiozzed reasons, Plainti~s zelie~ is denied. Done this ~, day of ~~~, 2006. Bx '~HE COURT: Carot Giowiz~s~Cy ~3istrict Court Judge „,~ ~~---, _~~-.~~~ ~~~7 Plannme ~o~~rmber'OOG ~~~~C~l~~~l~~ t~~ t~ikc~ ac•c~ount of tnodc~rti treasures. C.ol~rltt~o's ArnPal~ne Arrr; wa.s !he frrsl pos!- lYorld R'arll re~idcrui,rl rrrlidrt~ision to Ge~ list~d ~r,t histori~•di;trict iu t{~e~,~~7!lOlldl RC~ISIPYOI Hrttn~ir Pl~rrcc. arning: C~bjeccs in this mirror mav be doser than che~~ appcar." This phrase, familiar to e~~- en• driver, is an increasingl~~ ap~ metaphor for prrser~~a~ionis~s grapplingwich ~he produccs of ~he post-World ~k'ar II building boom. V~'hen the National Register oFHiscoric Places was crea~ed in 19GG, buildings and distrias had ~o be ~0 ~~ears old in order to be considered For listin~. Fur a long ~ime, ~ha~ ruled ouc che modem icons of the 19i0s and '60s. Bu~ now time has caugh~ up w•i~h "~he recent pas~,'~ leaving local preservacionists and planners wi~h a special set of problems. The enormous amoun~ of con- scruc~ion during those decades has preservation commissions searching for monev and staf~co documenc what's out there. Deciding whac's wor~h saving has also led to a philosophical debate. Some preservacionists vie~v the recenc pas~ as a threacened era chat merits special emphasis. Others say ic deserves no special ar~en~ion. Meanwhile, some planners sav chey are uneasy about the implications of preserving districcs ~har, in theirview, are based on unsu5tainahle de~ign principles. ~~ ~- /~ ~ s. , ...-... - _ -~- _ ~ .. "~'° ' • ~...--_.__.. _ IAsr;" . a•~ . .., . - - ..". -' . . _, _ I~ ~ imnorcanc ~o nore char th~ \a~ional Park ~rr~ icc. ~~ hich admi~ii~rers the historic re,~isn~~. ;:s:abli~i~c.i ~hr ~I.~-~~rar~utott tur el i~ihilin~ ~i~ a ~,:uia,. nc>c a It:u~i-.3n~t-tas~ nilc. I'he point ~~ is c<, cnsurr ch.~t in considrrine nnminations. bc~rh 1te~r~ ~~.rc not merel~~ rr~pondim~ [u current ~t~pula~ [rens~ 3nd ~ads. ln 1`!~`l. ~iie park ccr~ i~~ ,~aticmal Re`~isrer di~~ i.;ic~n i.~ued a h~~~~-to papcr thac spcciticalh~ .i~~dressed rhe i,sttr ot ~~oun~~cr ~roprrti~s. Re- nsme:; ,\;rtinnn/ Re~i.;tcr hrrlletiu _'_' in 1~)90. i~ ~~.i~ r~~ isc~i se~~eral timrs tu ~i~ r`~uidance on post-~1~\'ll properties. ~I hc hullrtin se~s tur~h C~ui<~rlines tnr E~~aluatin~~ and '~ominatin~ I'roperti~. That Ha~•e .-lchie~•ed Si~nihcancr ~~ i~hiil ~he Past Fifn~ ~-ears.' To yualih~ 'tor rhe re~ister. a propern les: ~har: ~l.i ~~ears old is csoecrcd to ha~•r achie~~ed a si;nincancc ~oi e~ce~~ional impor~ance.~~ Thit :~;zndard, hecause it ic co laheled in the bulle~in. is knnu~n in che preser~•acion rrad~ ac °Crireri~r? (,.. Hulf:~iir,, " ourlinz~ -he t~c<<~r= rhar can ne used ~o e5~ablisli exc~pti~nal impor~ancr: • .-lstiociatioii ~i~ith historic person~: Elt~ic 1'resle~~~~ C~racelancl (placrd on rhe regitrer in 1`l~)1!, or pc,li[ical or so~i.~l e~en[s ur m~,~•e- men~s like c'tle Ne~~~ )erse~• communit~• ot f~.t~i- hurn ia~ided i~; 1 ~--~_ ri~-~~ ~~~ar~ .h. ot its SU~h birrhda~•1 "becau~rof ~hc exc~p~ional inHuence i~s ~lan ha. hau sn« ~on~inue~ rn ha~~c un thr plannin~of suburban c~~mmuni~ie;.~ • I hreatenrd struc~ure~ likc thr 1~~i0s an~ ~(,U~ r)~~o AC~op mocels ~~n ~he lerser shore. ~~hich «~ere named m chc Na~ional Trusc t~~r Hi.srori~ Preser~-a~ion~s ?00(~ lis~ of "1 1~~fost ~.ndan_cred Places.~ • ~i~nitican~ar~hitccturalorenginrerin,~si~es: Eero 5aarinen.s Dulles In~crna~ional :~irport ~erminal. builc in 196~. ~~a~ de~ermineci ro be eli;ible for the regisrer as earl~ as 19-(, be~ausr i<«~ac i onsidered b~~ th~ desi;n communir~ "as an archi~eccural masrerpiece and oneof~he mosc iitno~~aci~•e airpar~ desi~ns.~~ .~1 ~i<<~~ si~nihcan: e ma~• br l~~c~l or regiona!. nor necessarilr na~ional. sa~, I).inirl \'i~ ian..~ I~istorian ~t hu m~•ie~~ ~\ational Rr«is~rr nc~mina- •3unrl~r~~~hr.r,: ~I~~ALrrtiu , l,ntrs;• fJuf~l. rrc'~{~~ir~l h} '~'rrs~~t~il!<~ rn~c /~; rc~rt lirrrrr lhu~~r~~. i.~ ~I,r h~~;~ 1'J_?U.~ ~lrrirrl~rr rn i~r' uu,u~,tnr~vl r~, rlrr~ ,~,rnuu~~l 1~'~~~r;rr~ r'~~ ,i,: ;1lrtrr, :'~;r;hr rlic flr~;urn~~il ( ~unrr,~i.+.sir~i:. ,-Ir! ~ in .`~~1•hrvl/r. fli/L~/~n~~~ /71(i~.lii,r+o(. ~1r51~~uri(~lr~ 1'~; r lir l:~ir; ~r~r i~i~~ 1,1~~. ~~ /9 Pl.~nnmE Korrmhrr _'O(16 ~ilC'~ j~l~)I'c1Y~': rlccolad~s ~~reered the 19~_' openin~ ofa ne~ti central libran~ in ~~ ashin~tun, D.C., desi~ile~{ 6~ ~he re~~rred mudernis~. Lud~~i~; titirs ~~an drr Rolie. Located ac Ninth and G streets, hlucks from thr cit~'S commer~ial wrc and near se~•eral planned suh~va~• sca~ions, the spare four-scor~~ s~rucrure n~pihes lfiess in~rrnatiunal sn~lr. ~~~ith iu bronze-cinced ~lass ~urcain wall and «~elded black steel frame, the structurr is a sleek counterpoint to ~he capitil~> n-pical Beaux-.-~r~s and classicsl public huildiitgs. The libran~'s 19G9 groundbreaking ~ook pla~e a ti~ear after ~ii~s~s death and a~•ear afier rhe ric~rs ~hat s~~~epr through do~+-nro~~~n in rhe ~vake ot the slat~in~ uf :~1artin Luther I~in;~ ~r. ]n I~)~1,'the libran~ w~as named tor King, an especialh~ apE~ropriare ~escurr since the discrict's (irst cenaa] library.aCarne~iebuildin~,~tia~si~s ~ Eirs~ in~e~ra~cd municipal buil~l- ing. Todav ~he ]ibrar~~ cullec~ions, alrhou~h une~~en, include impor- ran~, well-used mac~rials on nc~ dis~ric~'s his~o~~, planning, neigh- borhoods, and architec~ure. [n lacer de:ades, as du~ti nro« n continued to decline and rr~3 ink douded the cin~~s budgec. ~lies's 6uildin~ sutfered from su~uccural and fiscal ~~c~lccc [ts mechaniral s~•scems were allo~~~ed w deterio- rate. and much of rhe dis~inaive I11ies-desi~nrel furniture was remo~~ed. [~ i, ironic chac ~hr re~~ival do~~ n~o~~ n ~~'ashin~~ron is finall~• experiencing chese ~ia~ s poses a~~hreat of another kind to ~he ~~fies building. Aher munrhs of rumors. ~la~~or Anthom~ ~Y'illiams recentl~~ con- firmed that he ~~~antrd to build an "iconi~ central lihran• struccure" as parc of a mized use d~velopment on the nearb~ 1 U-acre sice of thc citv's old convention center. He proposed to lease the 1~~Iies huilding co a private developer and use rhe revenue to defrati~ the es~imated $130 million cost of cons~rucc- ing a new buildin~ and making improvemencs to che encire librai~- s~•s rem. Discussions Focused on archirecture are "off ~rack," the may~or said. "This is a s~cial issue." To bridge ~he diQi~al di~~ide and enoa~e new us- ers, he added, the cin> needs an airv, sunnv buildinb equiPped with the mosc modern ~echnology. .~ blue-ribbon task force on the tu~ure of thr cin's librar~ s~~strm held several "lisrening sessions'~ before che ma~~or formalh~ presented his proposal co rhe cin~ council in early ;~-tay. At a heated eight-hour hearing in June, some busincss and civic leaders expressed scron~~ support for ~he mavor's plan. ~t~hile ochers actacked ic. A cencra] issue ~+~as ~ti~hether the building-variousl~ described as an "evesore" and a"modern mucerpiece"-deser~~ed ro be saved. and it so, _•~ ~ : s•_~.f. ~> ~tihechrr i~ should continue as a libran~ or be a~iap~ed to a differenc use. One s}~eaker askrd a~hether a cin~ rha~ had so negleaed the'~fies building cuuld h~ cruste~i ~o do becrer ~~•i~h a ne~s structure. Don Ha~•kins, chair of the Committee of 100 on the Federal Cin•, a ci~~ic advocacy group, ~condrrrd ~+~h~• a building considc;red so us~less b~~ the ciry should be so valuahle ro developrrs. T~ti~o archicects presenred a reno.~a~ivn plan tha< «~as drawn up several }•ears a~o h~~ ~he local chapter of che American Ins~i~ure of Archicec~s. Thrre is no reason wh~~ the buildin~ could no~ become a scare-of-the-arc librarv a~ a competirive cosr, ~he~~said, poincin~ our ~hac I~1ies purposely~ designed "uni~•ersal space'~ to accommodace fu~ure chan~e. NeH• ~ork archi~ec~ James Pol- shek, a likely contender for the commission ~o design ~he proposed ne~v ~ibran~, agreed chac the Mies building had architecrural merit and could be reno~~ated ro sen~e modern needs. He argued, ho~vever, char no mat~er ho~~- m uch mone~~ was spenc, a renovaced libran• ~vould be seen as "second-hand ~oods" and fail to create an "unambiguous and inspir- ino destination." °Chan~ing caste is bu~ a fickle reason ro ne~lect a fine public build- ino,~~ Ik~~zsGi~rgton Post archi~ecrure cricic Ben Forge~• wrote a couple of da}'s laCec Acknowledging rha~ se~~eral ci~ies have cons~rucred firs~-rate new municipal libraries in recent ~•ears, he noted that noth- ing was ~~~rong w•ith rhe mayor's plan "except cha~ we already have a discin~uished main library• in the heart c~f downtown." Another hearing on ~he central librarv plan is slared For the Eall, ~hou~h a Final decision is not likely uncil nex~ vear, when manv faces in cin~ governmenc will change. Rede- velopmenr of ~he Mies library moved a nocch closer afrer September's Democracic primarv. The mayor's likely successor, Adrian Fenty, supports construction of a new cen~ral library ro invigorare the ciry, and the resroration and use of the ;~fies building "in a way~ behcting the unique qualiry of its architecture." ~leanwllile, the D.C. Presen~acion League, ~he Committee of 100, and rhe cirv have requested local landmark listing, which would protect the building from an~~ changes uncil che nominacion is formally acted upon. Local designation is not bound b}~ che ~0-vear rule. Pht~!(is ;'~lyers \iven i~ a planning ~on~ul~an~ based in \Vashineron. D.C. i`:,t`. _ ~" '-;-/~C~.i_~ 1Ylies's lt~I~rtin Luther f~'ing, Jr. LiGnzry is a slePk ro:~r:terpoint ta the capital's typira! Br~rux-Arts and cl,rssical~ublic buildings. tions for sites in the Southeast. As an example, he points ~o a 19~9 modernist ~~mnasium in Greensboro, North Carolina, designed bv lo- cal architect W. Edward Ienkins, thac, with its older companion high school, was listed on rhe regiscer in 2003. ~1 Nacional Register listing is advantageous ~o owners of income-producing propercies. The~~ are eligible for a Eederal tax credit equal to 20 percent of the cosc of rehab iF ic is done accord- ing ~o ~he Secre~ar~~ of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation o( Historic Buildings. (Some staces also allow owner-occupants to claim cax credits.) But being listed doesn'c E~rotect structures from demolition unless the tederal go~~ernment is somehow involved in the threat to their sur- vival. If a road expansion using tederal funds would requirr demolishing a listed propern•, for example, the agencv widening the road would have to demons~rate that there is no alrernative to demolition. "Lis~ing on ~he re~ister is reall~~ a s~ar~ing poin~ for protec~ion; ' says Claudecce Srager. who handles nominarions for che Tennessee Historical Commission. ",'~1am~ cities require ~ha~ a building be a~ least eligible tor che regiscer before the~~ ll consider local legal pro~eccion" such as landmark designation. i . ~. ~;~~.,.. ,:,:- : Na~ional magazines like Dwell and l1letropolis ha~~e mainstreamed the modernist sn-le, particu- larly for youn~er readers. "~oun~er people are verv keen on the modern aesthetic; ~ said Hea~her MacIntosh in an inrer~~irw that appeared in the summer issue o(Cona~rton Ground, a publication of the National Park Service. "Gro~~ing up in the ~80s, when it ~~~as in our rooms and dorms, rhe s~uFf seemed kicsch~~ and fun and funk~~. Noti• ~ve are professionals, we ha~~e mone~>, bu~ we carry ~he same aesthetic sense." hlaclntosh is the presiden~ ofthe na~ional advocacy group, Preservation Action. It's also true tha~ the recent past seems more hiscoric in younger cicies where preserva~ionis~s have less building his~ory ~o covec Los Angeles and Las Uegas are nocable examples. °Los Angcles leads in the awareness of che historic value oF newer places," says Diana Painter, a preservation and planning consultanc in Pe~aluma, California. The Los Angeles Con- servancy> ihe na~ion's larges~ hisroric preserva- ~ion organization, received ~he 2006 Daniel Burnham Award from AI'A for its advancement of planning principles and contributions to che region's qualiry of life. The conservanct's Modern Committee suc- cessfullti~ Fought the demolicion of the 19G1 _ ~ ~ , ,. _ _ . ~ ., , _ _ _ .. _ _ . .. ~ ,~ ,. .. - ° ...<, .h ~ ~ ! • ~ , ` '. .. •. .- .. ~ .. ~ ~ ; , i , ' t s ~ + i ~ + ~ R _ ~ ~ ~ ~ - .. .. i ; ~....a _ ~ .. . . i 1 ~ . ~ ' i ~ r ., + , 9 E~ u ~ ~ 1 ~ 3 ~ ~ I i _ ' ~ _ .. .. .. .a ~ .~.K ~ .. . » ., M .., _ _ _ ° _ .~ _ _ _ _ t ~ s , ~ - o .. ~ - - - ~ ~ _ ,~~.K Theme Building at the Los Anoeles In~erna- tional Airporc. Ic also helped ro~save the A1c- Donald's rescaurane (che oldest of che ori~inal designs) in suburban Downey, along ~i~ith other restaurants and gas sta~inns From the 'SOs and 'GUs. IVtembers have also established the hisroric sioni6cance of whole districts. The ~ ~ained Na- ~ional Register listing for nvo subdi.~is;ons de- veloped by Joseph Eichler, che merchant builder who in the '~Os and '60s employed modernist design on a large scale, and they~ are currently working on a local preservacion zoning overlay for an Eichler tract in Granada Hills. Las Uegas is also no~ed for its modem tocus- noc surprising for a town whose "hiscoric housi n~, stock is primaril,y from the 194Us through the earlv 1)60s," says Courtney Mooney, the cit~~'s historic preservation of~icer. Las Uegas has used state grants to hire consul- tanc Diana Paincer to conduct tour survevs of resources frnm this period, including wedding chapels on the S~rip. However, the cha~els were deemed ineligible for the Na~ional Register ,~ so~~: cr.~<. !~nen~nq . S~StD~ ~ A~K~ ~~~0 ~~ Non~.E~d a~,.~„ g~..c ~~ W '~ v.,,~ti~,~ ~~ T~~ ~ K~,,, . .. ,~.~.~n- ~~`,P.u ,n ~ ~ r., . r,1.--Y'~~,. . ~ ~~,~~~nr~ ~~~s~rut~tior~ ~ ~. ~~~~~~~, H~~~~ .., ~:., ,::.. - „ ~~~°o~;~ ~ w~rC~`.iC N~ ~.~".. ' ~ ~..,~. :,`~: ~ ~~~,.,.,`~ ~,:~ ;«<i~. • - ;~,~, ~~Q~o, `~,. ~~,n:.r«~:os.~o~~,..., R~V ED ~ l~i A ~`pp~.~ ~~.~~o~ ~e. )oin~ Spuns°'s ~~ A Irkel~~ caredrdr~tr~ fo~~ Irsri~r~~ Berklr~~ Sqriare in I~s 6'eQas, LIC'~1~+i1PlI I7Y PQLl~ Rei~err 1Y71lian~s, the ftr.aAfi•rran !'II11PT'li'r711 i71PYI1E~er~nftl7e.~lIA. ~ ,.~-, ~;-; : , ~~~n~~ ~- Pl~nnin~ \ovcmber _'006 "bccausr ~he~~ had lu:~ roo much intrgrin~," f'ain[er sa~•s. Another sur~•e~~, of properties in Berkle.~ tic~uareon d~eciR~s his~oricalh• African ,~merican «•es~ si~ie, Iool:s more likel~~ to Ieac~ ro listin~, she sa~~s. The nei~hborhood, planned in che late ~40s and builc ouc b~• ~he end of the nex~ decade, exhibi~s rhe archicecrural and his~oric si~,niticance rhat could yu~lih' it as bein~; of "exceptional importancr," f'ainter savs. Berkle~• S9uare was designed b~• ['aul Re~•ere ~Y illiams, ~he first African Ainerican member oFtheAmerican [nsti~ute ot Archirects, kno~ti~n tor his mo~•ie starhousesan~ public buildin~~s in Los ringeles as well as h is a~~•a rd-~~ i n n i ng designs for small houses. The name came from Thomas l.. Brrkle~~ ot Oakland, a dis~in,uishcd Atrican ~mrrican atcornet~, civil ri~h~s a~~-ocace, and ~~,u~ial financier of ~hc dr~elopmen~ ' lootte~- sa~~ti ~he cin~ plans ro usr anorhrr ~: =:an~ n ~rrpare a'.~~tional Registr: ~o~- uion for Berkle~~ Square next t~ear. The perennial problem faced b~• presen~a~ion commissions-6ndin~, the funds and ~he stafE to im entory hisroric propertics-is made espe- ciall~~ acure b~~ the huge numbers of scruccures encompassed b~~ ~he rerm "recen~ pasc." "There are jus~ so mam• more buildings from ~he'~Os and bevond," sa~~s PhilipThomason. a presen~ation consul~an~ ~~•ho rccench• ~ti•rote a reg- is~er nomina~ion for ~he Roure GG Sceak n Shake in Springfield, i~lissouri. The 19G~ struc[ure is the only remaining example of the franchise's pos~-~kurld ~Y~ar II corporare design. I~tam~ ~reservation commissions are still scruo- ~ling to document their pre-194~ resourcrs. tlnd ~hosc lud.~~ enough co ge~ s~a~rgran~s tor,urvevs "trnd to spend them on the most threarened areas ~~•ith the greatest likelihood oflocal drsiQnation.'~ savs Drane \X'ill:inson, program coordinacor For ~he Na~ional rUliance of Presrn•acion Commis- sions, an advocacy and craining group based a~ thr Llniversin~ oFGeorgia. A second problem is convincing ~he public of the value of preserving the recent past. "Get- ting people co understand ~vhv you e~~en «~anr co survey chis period cakes a very long leaming curve." savs Wilkinson. Heres how a local preserva~ion group in T~xas solved this problem. VL'hen a cin~w»r architecture survev w~as expanded in 2004 ro include properties b~,:ilc up to 19C9, Prrservacion Dallas crained volunteers to identifv signi6cant sires. According to an arcicle 6}~ W. Dti~avne Jones and Ka~herine Seale in the summer 200~ issue of ~he National Trust~s Fortrnt Jo:~rnal. some ~•olunceers walk chrough the neighbor- huoe~s wi~h residencs. ~~•hile othcrs mec~ a~ the ~rarti• to rrsrarch neiQhborhood histor~~. The ~~ess is lahor-incensi~e, but it resultti not unl~• ~n intormatinn ~-nd images but in a group of residencs ~~~hu apprecia~e hisroric buildings and ha~•e become ad~•ocacrs to sa~~e them. Preserrationiscs in tiorth Carolina had a rela~i~~eh~ easy time com•incing o~~•nrrs ot si~- nifican~ mc~dern houses oF their ~•alue. That~s par~icularl~• crue of the internacional srylr houses desi~ned brn~•ren 19~0 and che late 19GOs bv facultt~ and :ilumni of the Schoul ot [)esign at Nor~h Carolina Scace l:niversin- in Ralri~h. O~~~ners of some of ~he houses used their o«•n funds to ~ommissiun indi~~idual and multiplr prupern• nominations, and b~~ 1996. six houses w-erc listed on ~he Nacional Re~ister and fi~•e hzd local landmark protection. „Vi-c~ ~i~ln't have to rel~• on a big public ~duca~ion can,paign ~o ha~•e ~hr historic sig- niticance oFthese buildinQs reco~nized, because thr owners knew~ the~- had something sprcial,'~ s~~-s Daniel Brcker, theexecu~i~~e~irectorot ~he Raleigh Hisroric Discric~ Comr ~iasion. "So «•c sa~•ed the ueam of ~he crop. but ti~~e still have much ~~•ork co do to ~rotec< <he broader bodv of work inspired b~• these prorot~~prs.'~ Nash~-ille is perhaPs more n•pical. "I'he itite~- ropoli~an Nash~~ille Hiscorical Commission has just begun the Nacional Register nomination Process for a 195G house-i~s Firs~ from the posn~•ar period. Nash~•illr isn'c quite thrre ve~, accurding to hiscorical commission executi~•e direccor Ann Roberts. "E~~en in 1930s neighborhoods ! hear,'1 grew• up in a house like that so it can't 6e historic.~ V~'hen we ge~ ro~he 'S0s and 'GOs and '?Os, I hcar thar even more." To change that mind sre, local architecr John Teselle shows images of'~Os and'GOs architecture ~o am~ com- munin• group that will ha~~e him. "I orienr mv presenta~ion to la~• E~eople ~ti•ho ~~e ne~•cr though~ about ~his snitf ezccpt to cliink it's ugl~, to rrr:~tr an a~~~areness that at least some of it mikht br histuri~,'~ he s,t~~s. ~todernis~ huildings otcrn usrd marerials chac toda~~ are ~~ie~~'rd as questionable. Shoul~i tliose materials be prescn~c~? That's a good qurstion. sa~~s L~ranc u'ilkinson of the National Assucia- tion ot C'resen ation Commissions. "It~s c:ts~ ro figurc ouc ha~+ to deal ~~~ir11 ~~~ood un a Greck Re~ i~ aL buc ~~ h:u abuui E~l.isnc, fiberglass, and asbestos~ I)u ~uu use an asbestos luok-alikr i~is~ead: I're,ena~iun gui.~clines mus~ cakr ~hrse kinds of n~atcrials intc~ .~ccounr.° 1'resen~in;,~ thr inte,~rin• of ~he original ma- ~erials ~ti~as no~ a yues~ion in ,-~rapahoe Acres, builc bcn~~een l~)49 and 1~)~? in Englew-ood, Culora~ic~. ln 19y8, i~ becam~ the Eirsc post- ~'orl~l ~~'ar [1 rcsidential suhdi~•ision to be listed as a hisroric dis~rict un the National Regisrer. The 1~-~ house~ are all inspired b~- Frank Llo~•d ~k'ri~h~ ~ L'sonian drsi~ns. Ruilder Ed~ti ard H:twkins, «~ho designed the houses ~vich archi~ea )oseph Dion, pla~ed res~rir~i.•e co~~enanrs on che encire developmenc and crea~ed an architeccural control commi~ter rha~ approves all ne~ti~ scruc~ures and addicions to exiscing ones, a~ ~1ell as tences, recaining walls, and most lai. aping. The standards even adelress interior~, stating rhar "original interior materials such as buil~-in furnishings, maho~am~ and ~eak panrling, exposed beams, exposed brick or stone, pl}ti~~ood ceilings and cork ftoors should he re~ained.'~ or, if necessarv. "replaced in kind." Buc srrict adhcrence co such scandards ean be difficult when i~ comes co che adaprive reuse necessan~ co preserve mam~ struc~ures. "You ma}' like ~he aesrhecics of a'60s office tower," savs hisrorian Daniel ~'i~~ian. "Bu~ ~ti~hat do vou do if ~~ou re cum~ercing to residen~ial and cn~ing ~_ ~ A- - -- ~~ Ur:;.utnaunn.. :i~ ~~. ~ ~.~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ -~ i- .. .t.~ ~~~ .. ..~l:..u.~~ ;~~ u.. .1:~.~Ii;,.1'...,ti~. ..:ti~.. _ • , f..i.l~'t~r~ ~;~ .ir,.' n. ~. ~.. ~ , ,.,. .~ ,,,.....~.' ,.i:i ;I . t;i~ni.r~. !u ,.nt_~r ~ .•.~;n,~ i. .~.r::. il:, i:_,~i.. t•,:s• 1,:~:_•~..~~,,.;, .. .. ~. ~~~:i:~i,.r.,~~i~ ,~it~~• ...l:~:~.il~li~:...i~ n~;: ' . .. l:,_: !;~. ~.; .ut~~ i f;, , .. ~1::,~~., tlin, ,.. J~1 ...-~.I.i+L~ c;7~!r:1,~Y ~,c~f1l.,._ ~, r, u.:l: .; ~ _ , ~ ~ ,.,. ~' ~:~ , ~ir;,~r l~ i,:. ."tC~ Il. lr .~I"~ i~:i~ ~ .h,- ~ ~ "i~+'. , iti~uti;~.,'~ 1`~':,;~~.,tt~ui'. ~Il~ii~t~, iil•.c ~ ~',i! ~i~ _.i~ ~,,. ~ ~~~, ~F~h~r.~ th.i~ ,, ~., i. i,,. i i:,~t_r,.~: t,~ it ~~1.~__. i u~ .~csen<< F~riu~cciin~;t 1~ 1~"~ ~,ri.~ ~•)Ut~. ti~i, ., ... . . `~f,,. ~.ll!.~ii~.,ll(C~'lli;i:.~I~~~II~.i~ICll _~t^f,I:ll~~-.t~l. ~L~.~. .~Il~~:..: il_Cll! i~'.1+.. l ... ,<<,:.. .u,,'. ,.~I~~„~..~i ~•.,:~" ~.i.~:: , ~,. .k:. __~~n„ ,,,~.~.,.~~,_.;c:i;,_ii~.i~~.~:.j,.. . ,. . ./:'.~, ,.,,,.. ~ ~,~ ~ ...~...~i ~,~. ! >: i~~~r... ~i.:r ,• . ;~,~ ;. ,..,,u,~ , ~,_,ii.. ~ . :~~~ ,,..:.~n. . ~, , ~.,~.lli~~.~ i~l~ i~.~'. - r .. n, ~~c: thc _'f~ [~cr:~r,, tc~;,:,~ ... _.c~1.:. ~n.: ci~~ ~ccrct:~n ~r t!1: inc~ri~~r .:.tn~t.ara• n~,~r. !;~u.:: ~.r rr~ti~r~~ i; i:-in~iuuir~ i~r.}'ic~_ ~h~ nern,rn..ui•,->:air~i ~~.~ino~,~~~~: 1'cui~l, ~•,~.~,;~ \\"lli~ll)l\~> Lfl:ii (II~CL, di7~1 lldl~lllllti~. Il)t... . , ~; , \\ ilk~n.ut; ~uunt~r< tii.;: .,rr>~naur:~ ,~~~.. ;',,.::.~ f;r:.l:;:. i.ia^ii~_ rcus~ i~a~c ai~~,,.~ c.tlte.i iur.r~:ti•.. .,.. .-..is,.' ~~~iun~~n; initi<~.~!e~. r~tn,n:unc,n;~•:,~r,,.~~ , ~ l ~~ d~,~~,~,Prnunaii; n~,~fitr.rcn[[n.inrn_unr._~~_r. , ..~rru,~. u;: ,.. , i~ 1~ -1 ~ iiu~~ t~~ ~,ur uu~nt~,i.,~. in<<, ar. 1 ti~i~ i~~~u:_~. :. ;y,c ,. ., , . I'~ ~~ ... ~' _, 1..,~... l h~•r:• ~.ii.~, n;: uu.,n~r,: c,l iirn~. mu:., i..._ '`..,~;::, ~n ~,r<~cr.:. ~~, i,i~ic:.:i~ t~rc;c•r~ au~,r. ~~ ic'nn~t fi~i;';-.~~Tc'l.' [h~ IU~[III~..llll~f7 C]I '?;~I~~:'. \;11Uc~.. ~1G~ ~CC:i.: f:t-~~iri::%'~' ~'n•.. .. Llft~\~3I1[C~'. ~ullhl:f~ ['~C[tl''.'Ct'. Pi'.'~Cf~~.1T1i111- 1P.r)/T('i'i,:'~ ~...,,I;~i:' 1tiI~ llllil C~ri~C~~C['." i!._f:i. 1q\'U~1:Cr ..~i'~~1". lii . . ~ "t i.... ~ :ll+'7':,~ ~~, ~11ti}llfl~_Si~II. ;i I~~i t~' ~~?I71171UIlIIIC~ N~.lili. C~' t': : ~ ili. ~ 1~~:l ~ illiCOCI: ~111~II~l~ Tu C~l(1~c~. t11: ~1:~~13I1.!l~~t~.. ,.... .. ~. . r 11; ~;':i7. i . ~~ ., . ~ ~l"iOCL' 1Ot7116.i C1L3~'lt:\.11:4iUC~' [~IfljC.l Rl.lfl.l~~l'" L:i~4':" ~`.:~~1~: ~ .~~' ~ r(~1" Uf~~:lll l~ld[1tt1I7~_ ic~r [Il: ~\35R111~~t01; :~l:t~ L,•1:~:'~ .~ .... rop<~i~,ar..~:eaTranci::lu~hunr~,~. ~n Cnrur~rn;~ \ r~ ~; : iu r"rr,~u;u,'. '~ I hc.. rr rn in;_ tn u~. thr iictii~na~ion , r~ :,.. ,.. '~ i' : ~t~~li~ SOi~:. RlCll~~lJt L~1C.L':~lltClillfC C(~ 1~ '.i;._ ~2%5 Irf:N~. ;,~. . r~~ ;, , ..,,.~.~ .. , ~ . ~ ,iil~E~ur~ it. ..~.. ~,;.' 1';C•~Z•f,, ~Uf11C ~I'I! 1~.•.C >1~I71C IfOill' IIl t}1CtiC CtlOrC;. ~ ~1C~' il[~IC Ifl3t tIlU.1Ct'[ll>I :l~lt'p~1t~s 7CC SCC'~ill]~~ ~o G~nn~:~ ;;i: ~~r. t,,i•; ril.i: ea~; hirth ru tnr mnuern l~r«er~.t~iu~: m~,~rmrr,c in ~hc hr>t ,.. t~ia~, ~it, bii~~n~ rcm~,~::: ot urhan r~•n~~~•.ai in~l tnr,lrt~r~~d.ui~,n> ~,t rii~ inrercr.ia• hi~h~~ a~~ ,trnt i~7 ti~: ! `y`I1, : nti ~c,11.:, 1 iir 11~: ~I ~~ c.tr~ ~iun t r~~~rr.rn~ ann~h~•r.re}, ~ i(1 ,i!: C~~O~U[10.1~.1C`." (~Cu~CS• tii ~11125: [~l~ ~dSt ~~) `.~:df. fCIiR'~tI1T 31i ,1~1CIf3CIUil t~(1111 ?.~~~~~) V'l~~~ti ~~I lll"t~dil ~ll~t(1r1. .. V1'f~~IC 1 )(~I1~~A'~Il ~1'~~i~1713 111 ..1~.1~ II1L' [hC }~C~CII: ~~.l~i-:1 I~IlilUtit~j~~ll~1~;111~~ ~'Cd~I1C ~~. I )~~..<CII: .. .lil :1fCl~ ~C ill:li .1Ii~~CdCCCj 1:15I ~~c.ir in a \~a~inn.af ~l~rirt puhlica~ic,n. i:iih.tni 1;~~;nh.~r~~t. ! ,. ,. cx~cuti~~ c1ir~.- [ul" ~'~! U1~ ~:~lfi~Iit~~ll~df'. ~;15~1\'1~1~ ~~~.317I7111~, I~eE~ar[mer:;, t.ikc~ a mi~~dir ~ ic~~. Ii~~ .,ut,~,~rts }~rcnccnun t~~r in.{!~ i~]u~~ l~ucR+.tr hui~~in~~> c~n ~ii,• h:a;i, ~,f i;i~r~t. i~~.;: I~r , lrti; ~urc ahc~ut ~•nt irc ~listn~t~•. ~~\i~,.; ~U. ,tn~{ (iU,, ttet~lil~i~r{ic~c~~is ~ -'~,~ rc nuc }~ar~i~uLirl~~ e~~uci ~::.im~les oi ~lrsir:~hlc _ ~~~t ~i~~cl~,},mcn: naner~l,.' h: >a~~s. In tii• ~ir~~, ic ~ I ~~ .~.;.~ _ Illl~~hl ~~: hC[ICf C~_~ fC~CVtl~)~~ C~lO~C 1f1:3ti IIl S c';~ _ ~ ~: ' 4 ~~ .mor~uri~an-fricn,ll~ ~~a~.~~~ich~~rca«r~irnsic~•. . . ~'~ ~i~~r~cal~.~, an~i tnisc~ iu:. h~ ~ I)ran~ \\'ilkinlon sa~ s~~~r can do huth-save Y~. . ~; `~~°_,,~ :'~ rh~ huildin~~~.ind im~~rc~~ r tiie n~i~,hh~~nc~~o~. "1 _~ ~ ~ ~ t~~'~t ~ ~ ~tr ~ t~.~ilu,~tier~~~h~~i~nu.:ntins~allside~~;ilksandadd -a ; ,,, ~ t ~~.~~ .i~umniunir~~tnaii.i~tcn.i'~U~nei;;'t~h<irhn~,~i,a~ ! ~.X a -~~~ : ; . ] IUI1~~151I1L~f7fiC5Cllsl[I~'C~~'dllUfCS~~CC[tiC}7CC\ISi- , ~ _ e.~,- '.~t' , - . I[1`~~.1tItCI1~:l1i"'1'lllEtiUCCIti,hO[:t°fl~l-1lll{Ihl _li,uactrr. Z~ha~'~ ~~ha~ prescn~a~ion hati ai~~~a~ s ~i~~n~. an.i,.~ill cuntinu~ ~n ca~~." ;~}n~:~ nr.,un~_ i inr.ir.iutrc~urran~i url,ar. E,I.in- - .t:r~_ ~~nl;c tnr It:c .A;t ,~~ii~ .4a-eNr. ~~ ' ~~ -i ~ ~~.II~C?I!~1~~ fr0(~~ th~ n~l~-~'~i ~1 ~:~~'~il.lr~,' ~rp ~°COf~11!1~ ~~I~I~~a ~or la~~am~ar~~~. statu~. ~oc~~ , _ - -.- . ~, ~, -~~~-~ ~~~~~~,~ ~~~~ - -~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ._ ~~tith~Ch ~r~ ~,~~or~r ni~~~~r~~, i!~ ~-:~ By Christopher Swope ~ rlington. Texas. «•ith all its suburban sprawl, seems an odd place For two young architectural historians to be spending their time. But when Jennifer Ross and Sophie Roark go out scouting the ciri•'s subdivisions of ranch houses, they actually are in the ~~anguard of their profession. As Ross turns her Honda S UV down a cuny street lined wzth small tract homes shaped like shoe boxes, Roark explains how she can identify, intuitively, the age of a particular neighborhood. "Y'ou know~ how when you see a John Hughes movie you can tell by the fashions that it was the ig8os? That's how we get about houses. You just sense it. Like if }~ou see a Members Only jacket, you know it's ~ gA4:' Roark's radar tells her that these modest brick ranches were alrnost certainly built in the igSos. Most of them have low•pitched rooEs, picture•frame windows. and filigreed, u~rought-iron columns Elanking the front door. It's safe to say that every suburb that participated in Amenca's post-W'orld War ! I development boom has a few neigh• borhoods that look more or less like this one. Arlington alone has got dozens oC them. Frankly, most people driv- ing down this street would not notice an}~thing remarkable at all. _ V But Ross and Roark do: They see a potential candidate for an Arlin~ . n hisroric district. It seems that this plain Z mid-century neighborhood, merely by turning 5o years old, has reached a magic number in the world of historic o OCTOBER2006 GOVERNING - . , , . . ~~ ,J~~_;: , ~ ~ 11~ _/ , 1 preservation. Generally speaking. the homes here are nou~ eligible for landmark status. and for the legal protections and tax breaks that go along ~tiith such designa- hons. So Arlington decided to take stock of its enormous supph~ of i95os neighbor- hoods, and look for significant examples that might be worthy of preservation. The city hired Hard~~, Heck & Moore, the Austin-based firm that Ross and Roark work for, to do the survec work. It's an enormous task, perhaps the largest effort of its kind anyvvhere in the country. Although overshadowed by nearby Dallas and Fort W'orth, Arlington is a me- tropolis in its own right, ~~ith a population of 360,000. Developers built some io.ooo houses in Arlington in the i95os, most of them ranches and almost all in platted sub- divisions. Finding them all, let alone docu- menring their past and currei:t condition. will take the nvo women and their col- leagues much of this winter. "Preserva- tionists haven't had to deal u~ith this era of architecture before," Ross sa}•s. But doubt lingers in the back of many minds in Arlington: Is there reall}• any- thing "histonc" about cookie-cutter suUdi- visions? And if the ubiquitous tract house is worth sa~1n~ well, what then? 1 s the rest of postwar suburbia-McDonald's. strip malls and motels-also headed for the Na- rional Register of H istoric Places? These is- sues are only~ beginning to surface in Amer- ican communities, especially in the South and West, ~~here the bulk of everr~thing ihat's ever been built came after World War I1. As local officials are increasingly asked to pass judgment on a period that preser- ~•ationists cal] "the recent past." they'll have to sort out for themselves the parts of sub- urban sprawl that are worth saving from re- development. These soul-searching qt~estions aren't for the suburbs alone. ln large cities, a whole generarion of glass-box office towers and minimalist civic buildings is turning So, too. Dallas, for example, nearly lost its most glamorous mid-century hotel, the i956 Stader Hilton. The grid-faced struc- ture, which won awards in its time, has been vacant for several years. But when Mayor Laura Miller proposed tearing down the Statler for a downtown park, preserva- tion advocates screamed. Miller backed ofi: Revised plans show the park occupying a parking lot across the street-tuming the i OCTOBER 2006 GOVERNING Statler, ironically, into prime park-front property. "The mayor was like, ' 1 hate that building; it's the ugliest building in town,"' says Dwayne Jones, head of Preservarion Dallas. "She's actually really good on preser- vation issues-she gets it. But she just didn't get the modern stuff." Even those who love modernism admit that spare i95os st}~les don't capture the public's imaginarion the way Victorian- and Art Decaera architecture do-at least not yet. "It's one thing to lo~•e an old train starion with ornate ornament," says Greg Ibanez, _ . ~~;, , ,: •~' _ . .~ ~' a Fort Worth architect who is active with Do- comomo, an intemabonal association pro- moting the preservation of modernism. "But iYs sometimes harder for the general public to get that warm fuzzy feeling about a glass curtain-wall building:' Preservation consultant Donovan Ryp- kema is more blunt in his assessment. Writing in a recent issue of Forum journal, a publication of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Rypkema argued that postwar design was most often anti- urban and anti-pedestrian, "an aberration , : ~/`1"~ n,f-~:_ v '~ from 3,00o years of urban history from which we are finally beginning to return." Therefore, he continued, "we ought not now designate as 'historic' buildings and neighborhoods ~;~hose defining charac- teristics are the polar opposite of what good cities, good neighborhoods and good buildings are al] about." As Rypkema sees it, the steady dedine oE craftsmanship in the postwar period re- quires preservationists and local officials to set a high standard ~•hen deciding what's worth sa~~ng. "Let me ~r~-ite what most of us %G`._`,-~-~;;+_;~ ,:~. intuitivel}~ know." Ry-pkema sa}'s. "The vast majorih~ of w~hat has been built in America in the last 5o years is crap:' COMING OF AGE Postwar presen•ation can be a diffiailt thing to bend one's mind around. One reason why is because relati~•ely little construction went on during the Great Depression and W'orld War 11. In otherw•ords, the i95os is the first distinct architectural era to h~rn jo in quite some tiine. And for suburbs of that ~~intage that popped up in comfields, or- chards and desert plains, now is the First time t}iey've ever so much as d~ought about historic preservation. Ken Bernstein, the new presen~ation director in Los Angeles who is conducting that city's first ever city- wide survey of historic resources, notes that much of the San Fernando Valley boomed from i945 to the mid-'jos. "These are communiries that are only beginning to think of themselves in historic terms or to consider using presen•ation tools:' This coming of age raises some impor- tant public policy questions. Ta~c credits for preserving historic buildings are already scarce; now, Queen Anne grand dames ~~Il have to compete v,-ith Joseph Eichler tract houses and Lud~~g Mies van der Rohe skv- scrapers for public funds. And u~hile toda~~'s building codes are catching up with the restoration of Industrial Era buildings-al- lowzng narrow stauwells to remain intact, for example-mid-century structures create code-compliance issues of their own. "Those single-paned glass walls, you can't build those anymore under code," says Dwa}ne )ones. "Sometimes low-pitch roofs we can't build any7nore. A lot of really wonderful in- terior stairs in modern houses have these floating steps. You can't do these anymore:' The mid-centur~- period also presents some odd contradictions. The preservation movement as ~~e know it basically emerged in response to modemism during the period of urban renewal in the igjos and '6os. Now, preservationists find themselves trying to educate the puUlic about whv the style is important even when it isn't lieauhful, and why examples must be saved for future gen- erarions. Then there is the polirics of subur- ban sprawl. The National Tn~st and its state and local partners are big advocates of spraw]-busting "smart growth" policies- eve~i as they now find themselves defending developments that are essentially the tem- plate upon which suburban sprawl was built. !vlichelle G ringeri-Brown thinks there's a built-in prejudice against i~~os architecture. She and her husband recendv launched a home magazine, Atomic Ranch, promoring an aesthetic of mid•century cool. "Most city govem~nents are having a hard rime under- standing this," Gringeri-Brown admits. "A lot of people who work in government are our age--early Sos-and we remember the i ~ 5 os! I t doesn't seem possible that this time we li~~ed through can be historic!" Yet that's exactly why preservationists use the half-century mark as a sliding scale. It takes time for people to separate them- selves from their ov~~n past. Meanwhile, tastes change. Victorian architecture was out of vogue ;o years ago. And until recently, homebuyers viewed bungalows as cramped and cheap. Now. Victorian homes fetch pre- mium prices and one can hardly imagine Chicago without its thriving bungalow belt. "We see the younger generation coming up now, and the}° love this 'Sos architecture," sa}~s Karen McWilliams, a preservation plan- ner for the city of Fort Collins, Colorado. The real dilemma with the i95os is not a matter of appreciation, lt's c]uantity. An unprecedented amount of stuff was built then, as the nation's ~ti•ar machine retooled itlto a machine of modem auto-oriented liv- GOVERNING OCTOBER~006 • . _,.~;, is~~..' ,. %/l .: ;`:i _ ._ __ - - ` . ~. =s~`~s.;:. ing. That story'-the fain• tale oi the ~~os suburl~is so familiar it sotulds cliche: «~ar ~•ets coming home. tkle G.L Bill. the Bab} Boom, bacl.ti•ards and fences, the American Dream. No doubt some scenes from this black-and•w~hite mo~~ie must be preserved. Tfie question :. : ho~~ mam•? "We don't icno« ~-et," sa~~s Stan Graves, director of architecnire for the Texas His- torical Commission. "We w~on't w•ant to preserve ever}• mass-produced subdivi• sion-at some point the}- become redun- dant. Ma}~be the first ones were significant in that the~• changed the wa}~ a•e li~~ed and operated as a socien. But those are judg- 'S0s B~OMTOWN Cruising around Arlington, Jennifer Ross and Sophie Roark are looking for answers. For architech~ral historians, however, Ar- lington can be a disorienting place. Al- though the city goes back i3o years, one would hardly know it today. Arlington tore dow~n al] that remained of its original down- town in the i~~os, to make way~ for a con- crete city• hall and public library. Collins Street, one of the many four-lane thor- oughfares in town. is lined with all the usual chain stores and parking lots. The most noteworthy building in town is the Texas Rangers' retro-sn•le balipark. ~~~hich opened in i~c~4. Srnothered in red brick. arches and parapets. it ~•ainh• hearkens toa baseball past that. in these parts, neverw•as. A ,,ton's true zero hour ~~as igjz. That =~ hen General Motors Corp. put a manu;.~.turing plant on a patch oF prairie in the northeast corner of town. At the time. developers raced to build subdi~•i- sions near the facton~. Man~~ of the homes thev built were s~nall ranch houses, in- tended to be afTordable to the autow•orkers. It's in these neighborhoods. the birthplace of an Arlin~ton boom that ne~~er stopped. w•here Ross and Roark will spend much of their time survey~ng in the coming months. On this da}~ in August. however. they~ are still strategizing, pondering ho~ to think about a trove of io.ooo houses. T}~ere's one thing Ross and Roark knoti~ for sure: They won't find Fallingµ•ater in Ar- lington. No big-name architect~ worked here in the i95os. Nor were there famous people living in factory housing. "After World War I I, ranch houses were built al] overthe United States," Ross notes. "Unless they were designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, the majonry of these houses aren't signifi- cant on their owm due to architectural merit:' So Hardy, Heck & Moore, working w~th Fort W'orth consultant Karl Komatsu, de- ti~sed a survey methodology that departs from the usua] way such im~enrories are done. Typicall~~, historians assess each building, one by one, for its significance. ln posiu•ar Arlington, there are simpl~• too mam• homes for that. Instead, the~• u7ll look at broader patterns of de~-elopment. hoping to tease out features that made up thec~uintessential ~~~os neighborhood. Riding through one subdi~ision south of the G h1 plant. Ross eaplains that the ranches themselves are only~ one piece of that. "It's the landscape Feahires. the uniCorm set- Uacks. the cunllinear streets," Ross sa}•s. "Somerimes developers included a shop- ping center, a neighborhood park or a school. ~'hat we're askin~ is: What consri- tutes a good exatnple of a post• World War I I neighborhood from a planr ~mg standpoint?" Ross notices a church and a school mixed into the neighborhood. "1'd ask myself .Are they part of the same developrnent?" There's also an historicai narrative to con- sider. Since govemment financing drove so much development in the ' jos, they are look- ing for subdi~isions where builders foUowed certain rules in order to get loans. They also want to get a handle on the builders' targeted market and find examples of the modest homes of plant workers as well ,~s the more substantial homes of manager5. Ross and Roark won't judge these few blocks of Arlington until the survey begins in earnest. But they seem lukewarm. Many homeowners ha~-e modified their ranches ~ ~ OCTOBER 2006 GOVERNING , . ~~,,`-;i= ~ •. ,~~ ment calls we ha.~e to make. They're not all expendable, but they~ don't all rise to the le~el of presen~ation, either:' b}~ turning garages into li~•ing rooms. adding gables atop lo~- pitched roofs or re-sidin~ the home ~1th ~~nyl or stucco. T1~e} aren't bowled over b} t~ie landscapinQ, ei- ther. The lacl: of big shade trees re- minds Roark of a nile of ttiumb she once heard, althouch she's not sure if it applies to this neighborhood: "When you see hackbem ~-ees, it means it w•a~ a cheap de~~elopment," she sa}•s. "Hac:kberries grow reall} fast but in 30 ~~ears the}~ fall dow~n ot~ your house. They also drop all d~is stuff on yotzr car-they're trasli ~ees, just terrible. Btrt d~e~ gro~+ re• ally fast. So it was a cheap and quick and dirty de~~elopment if there are hackberries:' Ross drives a couple of miles toward the campus of the Univer- sin• of Texas at Arlinp on. ~'hen she turns into a neighborhood called Southwood, she and Roark noticeabl~• perk up. The main boule~•ard has a~~erdant rreen me- dian. and the wide front yards on both sides of the street are shaded by tw~o parallel rows of towering trees. The ranch houses here are a bit bigger, but not laroe b}~ toda~'~ standards. "This is a beautiful neighborhood!° Roark savs. "~'eah!" Ross conctir,. "This is more like the landscaping features we're talking about:' "This is beatitiful!" Roark savs again. "This uniform setback is really, reall}• deep." Ross nods. "The proximin to the university begs tl~e question: W'ere the developers targeti~ig pro- fessors? [ don't kno~~. We'll ha~e to find that out. But I could see this being his• toric distr-ict material:' KEEPING A SAMPLE If there is one overriding reason why Ar- lington is doing this surve}~, it is guilt. As councilman Ron Wright explains, "In the i~6os and '7os, and even into the '8os, t~ie thing to do was to tear everything down and have urban renewal and all t~iat. We had that old downtown core-it was pre•hirn of the century. We leveled it. And we've lived long enough to regret it" Wright is a champion of presen~ation on OCTOBER2006 GOVERNING tk~e council. He points ~ti~di envy to Grape~ine and Waxahachie. t~•o nearbv cities that saveci their historic dow7~towns and turned t}iem into Uig rourist draws. lt takes foresight, Wnght says. to protect w•hat the public may not yet 4~ew as special. It also takes a certain faith that the public's Favor irie~~tably grows w~th age. "It's easy to look back now and say. 'Gosh, 1 w~sh we didn't tear that down,"' W'right says. "It's harder to sar•, 'We'll H~ant that ;o years from no~s.' That's especiafl} mie with the mundanc things. Every cih should have a good sample of what came lx- fore. even if it's ugl~~. It u~l] be something that people still want to see and ma}~be appreciate:' With the postwar sun~e~. Ar- lington is ming to get akiead of the curve. Ever since the G!~1 plant went in. Arlington has been con- tent to p ow ouri~~ard. in concentric circles, into the prairie. Soon. though, t~ie city will be built out. I f Arlington wants to keep gro«~ing. it w-ill have to redevelop existing neighborhoods. One purpose of the surve~• is to integrate historical considerations into planning and development decisions. To do that, all of the st~r~e}• data is to be plugged into the city's geographic information system. "If thev can understand ~vhat the~~ have." Karl Komatsu says, "then their fiiture planning can take it into accotint:' As Arlington nears middle age. it is growing fiercely protective of its histon•-and aware of how his- ron• shapes ci~~c identin. The land- mark preservarion commission re- cently gathered Arlington's last smattering of earl}•-aoth-cenniry burtgalows into a pair of historic districts, proudl} identified b}' bro~~n road signs. Suzanne Sweek, the commission's former chair, hopes the sun~e}' will yield as many as a dozen neighborhoods worthy of historic-district status. "All that stufF represents a period of our histon•," she says. "There needs to be some phYsical evidence of that preserved. The big question is how much, because we have so much:' Critics of rnodernism may scoff. But in a tiay, this thinking represents a leap forv~•ard for a sulr urb searching for its soul. Arlington's essence is not a retro ballpark. lt's a long, flat, boxy ranch house-or, rather, a multi• tude of them. "T1~is is Arlington's history'," Ross says. "lf Ar]ington wants to tell its stor~•, really, it begins with the auto plant. That may be dif~erent from the stories that architecture tells you on the East Coast. But this is a city that boomed in the'Sos, has some great postwar architecture, and they're starting to see that" Christopher Swope can be reached at cswope@qoverninq.cam . ~~-:,-.;-„ . ~9 ~ ~anada.com WM[RE P[RSP[CTIVlS CONMiCT City strives to keep its heritage alive Kim Guttormson Calgary Herald Saturday, October 21, 2006 The breakneck pace of development in the city's core is raising concerns that a headlong rush into the future will destroy a chunk of its past. As developers move to cash in on the demand for new office and residential space, heritage buildings are often in the way, and there are few guarantees they'll be protected. While the city works to convince owners of the value in keeping the historic space, its power lies more with the carrot than the stick. "Heritage in Calgary is not just about Stephen Avenue," Bob van Wegen, a director with the Calgary Heritage Initiative, says. "We want to be way out in front of these things, not behind them." According to the Calgary Heritage Initiative, as many as 12 buildings in the centre city are part of proposed devetopments. Those include the Westbourne Baptist Church, where former premier William Aberhart began his radio show, which is on land needed for the Stampede expansion; the York Hotel and St. Regis, which sit on the EnCana site; the Edwardian-style Curtis Block at Macleod Trail and 12th Avenue, and the boyhood home of the man who designed the Canadian flag. The city has the power to designate a building, which prevents it from being demolished, but under existing legislation the price of that is vague. The provincial legislation requires compensation for the loss of economic value, and municipalities are leery of finding out exactly what that means. "It's a mysterious phrase, it hasn't really been tested," van Wegen says. "It weakens the city in negotiations." Ald. Madeleine King, who has dealt with a number of heritage building developments in her inner-city ward, says the province should make it easier for municipalities to designate buildings. But Scott Barrett, co-ordinator of the provincial municipal heritage partnership program, says changes to the Historic Resources Act aren't on the table. "We encourage municipalities to find creative ways to deal with that," he said. Darryl Cariou, Calgary's senior heritage planner, says they concentrate on working more closely with owners to try to convince them of the value of having a heritage building. For example, the city has developed two strategies to encourage owners to apply for designation on their own. In the Beltline, restoring a heritage building leads to an increase in the amount of density a developer is allowed, while saving a historic site downtown can Friday » October 27 » 2006 /A'~~ , /~'(y// ., . . • 1 ~ .'tlJ1 1:~.'. ~ . . / ..... ~....~ ,.._...........~... ..~.,...... result in valuable parking spaces that can be transferred or sold to another project. "Our highest priority is trying to develop more incentives to preserve buildings," Cariou said. "We're finding now developers are more interested in preserving heritage buildings if it makes economic sense to them." Barrett says while, historically, designation has been viewed as a negative, those perceptions are changing. Studies in B.C. and Ontario have shown property values often increase with the designation. "We see a lot of places where heritage benefits new development and works together," Barrett says. Cariou says the city can also lead by example. It has purchased heritage buildings and makes their protection part of any future development deals. When EnCana bought the York and St. Regis, it was a condition they be incorporated into the new complex. Plans released last week show the York, built in 1929 with an art deco exterior, will be the cornerstone of a seven-storey retail and cultural building. The 93-year-old St. Regis will be turned into a boutique hotel. The city also recently purchased the St. Louis hotel in the East Village, which will eventually be sold as part of redevelopment in the area. However, the fate of the King Edward Hotel is uncertain. King says some on council feel strongly that the 100-year-old hotel be preserved, but it is in the path of an underpass that will connect the East Village and the Stampede grounds and the design of that road could determine its fate. Van Wegen thinks the city needs to do more. For starters, he and Tony Smith, another heritage initiative director, would like to see changes to how demolition permits are dealt with. Right now, any owner can apply for a permit, which are governed under the Alberta Building Code. Since every property on the city's heritage inventory is flagged, as are some potential sites that have yet to be evaluated, any related demolition application crosses Cariou's desk. But if a building isn't already designated a heritage site, there's little the city can do beyond trying to negotiate with the owner. "Ultimately, the city can't prevent a demolition," Cariou says. "It's very problematic. It's really a complicated issue." British Columbia, van Wegen says, ties demolition permits to development permits, so that a building can't be torn down until a replacement is approved, which would remove some of the leverage owners have. King said the city is becoming more successful in convincing developers to incorporate historic buildings. The company developing the block where the President Apartments sits initially applied , +~: ~~.~:,~- ~/ for a demolition permit for the 79-year-old building. But King says the developer changed his mind and will now incorporate it. "Only because of policy changes were we able to persuade him to maintain it and build around it," she said. As well, the planning department is presently working on a heritage management strategy that will include a new assessment system. Cariou says now a building has to score highly in three categories -- architecture, history and landmark status -- to rate on the inventory. The Calgary Heritage Authority will be testing a system where a high score in one area can qualify it. Both systems will be used simultaneously while the new standard is evaluated. Smith says ultimately it will be Calgarians who decide how much of their history is saved. "A lot really hinges on whether Calgarians really care about heritage," he says. kguttormson@theherald.canwest.com New outlook for old buildings 1. Westborne Church 13th Ave. and Olympic Way 2. Enoch Sales House 314-12th Ave. SE 3. Curtis Block 1203-1217 Macleod Trail 4 Carl Safran 930 13th Ave. SW 5. Connaught School 1121 12th Ave. SW 6. President Apartments 803 12th Ave. SW 7. Stanley House 1111 7th St. SW 8. St. Regis halfway 7th Ave. north side 9. York Hotel 7th Ave. and Centre Street (northeast corner) 10. strip along 7th Ave. between lst Street SW and Centre Street 11. Kerby Centre and planetarium on llth Ave. SW at 7th Ave 12. St. Louis 430 8th Ave SE 13. King Eddy 38 9th Ave SE O The Calgary Herald 2006 Copyright OO Z006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Pub~ications. Inc.. All rights reserved. . . ~/-~-.- :~.- 3~-