The historic preservation movement has shifted its focus multiple times and broadened its purposes throughout its existence. Here, Roy Williams returns and considers how it has evolved over time – and how it can be focused today.
The American Heritage Documentation Programs team measures the Kentucky School for the Blind. In Louisville, Kentucky, 1934.
In the beginning the historic preservation movement’s emphasis was preserving heritage through the built environment. The preservation of the built environment provided a framework and grounding point for understanding the culture and heritage of a nation. This provided understanding of the core valued concepts, institutions, and values which make up a nation. In addition to the preservation of the built environment, the National Park Service initially was formed to protect landscapes from the destructive industrial ravages of the 19th century. Ian Tyrell provides the argument that the rise of support for the National Park Service came as a direct result of a perceived global threat to the environment and the immediate need for conservation.[1] In this, the conservation of the environment and historic preservation have similar causes and roots. The two major reasons for preservation stand in pragmatic conservation for the utility of future use and preservation for the sake of preserving the existence of land and sites regardless of their utility to humans.
1970s
The historic preservation movement largely stood in its goals of preserving heritage and identity until the 1970s when the conservation of the environment began to become an important aspect of historic preservation. Questions of how much environmental destruction was wrought from the demolition of buildings and effects of new construction provided another angle to the importance of historic preservation. The embodied energy present in the construction of an old building provided the argument that older buildings should be preserved both out of cultural continuity regarding historic preservation as well as for the pragmatic aspect that the energy of construction would be wasted in the demolition of older buildings. The embodied energy of new construction would also add to the greater energy costs on top of the demolition of the older building. While this conclusion seems straight forward initially, there are opponents to the concept. Helena Meryman adheres to the concept of embodied energy in buildings but delves deeper into the world of materials associated with the preservation of the built environment with an emphasis upon the maintenance and conservation of the environment. In this regard, Meryman argues that while many materials should be recycled and previous methods of craftsmanship should be utilized in maintaining historic reconstructions, the importance of evaluating the potential of certain resources and their environmental impacts remains tantamount. Specifically, Meryman provides the counter argument against the proponents of wood as a sustainable material, that the lumber industry does contribute to deforestation and that, “The rates of timber consumption are exceeding the rate of renewal of natural forests.”[2] Instead, Meryman argues for the attempted extension of the life of current wood materials associated with historic structures and only using newly harvested wood for repairs when absolutely necessary. The National Park Service utilizes a concept known as replacement in kind which allows for the use of new materials at times allowing flexibility in the maintenance and rehabilitation of historic structures, the problem however with replacement in kind stands in the continued dependence on newly harvested lumber. The National Park Service provides the guidelines for when replacement in kind may be utilized as follows,
“The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation generally require that deteriorated distinctive architectural features of a historic property be repaired rather than replaced. Standard 6 of the Standards for Rehabilitation further states that when replacement of a distinctive feature is necessary, the new feature must “match the old in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual properties, and, where possible, materials” (emphasis added). While the use of matching materials to replace historic ones is always preferred under the Standards for Rehabilitation, the Standards also purposely recognize that flexibility may sometimes be needed when it comes to new and replacement materials as part of a historic rehabilitation project. Substitute materials that closely match the visual and physical properties of historic materials can be successfully used on many rehabilitation projects in ways that are consistent with the Standards.”[3]
Embodied energy
Embodied energy is largely an accepted philosophical aspect of the debate between preservation, demolition, and new construction, the costs involved in the creation of materials such as lumber, brick, steel all amount to a substantial amount monetarily and in carbon output. The energy expended in moving materials from one location to another for the actual construction also amounts to a substantial amount especially in carbon output regarding transportation through the combustion of gasoline and diesel engines. Finally, the human labor utilized to create residential and commercial buildings remains a factor in the overall energy costs embedded in a building. The question from this embodied energy in buildings then arises in whether an older building is more environmentally friendly when retrofitted and updated than the construction of a new building? While at first glance, this seems straightforward the answer is not so simple and has engendered a small but passionate debate regarding the future regarding the nexus of preservation, environmental conservation, demolition, and construction.
Some scholars argue that the previous costs or embodied energies of an older building should not factor into current decision making regarding the demolition or preservation of a building. This current of thought argues that the energy that went into the construction of a building 50 to 100 years ago is water under the bridge and has no factor in this decision. Tristan Roberts drives this point home, arguing that resources expended in the past are not relative to the present, stating that, “when it comes to the energy expended in the 19th century to build that structure, that’s not a good reason for saving a building from demolition — it’s water under the bridge. Energy spent 2, 20, or 200 years ago to build a building simply isn’t a resource to us today.”[4] Rather, they argue that the only two factors that should be considered are the costs of demolition and the potential benefits of more energy efficient construction. If the costs of demolition and its environmental impact cannot be offset quickly by more energy efficient new construction, then it is best to wait and leave the current building present for use. If the costs of demolition can be offset quickly by the more energy efficient new construction, then the demolition should proceed. The problem with this argument is that it stands in a philosophical binary regarding environmental destruction and energy efficiency rather than a larger more nuanced analysis. What does it matter which option is technically more efficient if both methods continue to add carbon-based pollution to the atmosphere and destroy the environment? Even with the recycling of materials, the costs of demolition and new construction both still pollute the environment and add to overall carbon emissions. Is the goal of this binary decision making to take the best of two bad options or is it to solve the problem and work towards an environmentally sustainable future? The National Trust for Historic Preservation argues that,
“A new, high-performance building needs between 10-80 years, depending on the building type and where it is built, to offset the environmental impact of its construction. In comparing new and retrofitted buildings of similar size, function, and performance, energy savings in retrofitted buildings ranged from 4-46 percent higher than new construction. The benefits of retrofitting and reusing existing buildings are even more pronounced in regions powered by coal and that experience wider climate variations.”[5]
Green buildings
The United States Environmental Protection Agency details that, “600 million tons of C&D debris were generated in the United States in 2018, which is more than twice the amount of generated municipal solid waste. Demolition represents more than 90 percent of total C&D debris generation, while construction represents less than 10 percent. Just over 455 million tons of C&D debris were directed to next use and just under 145 million tons were sent to landfills. Aggregate was the main next use for the materials in the C&D debris.”[6] The context for this amount of waste provides a framework in understanding how Construction and Debris waste amounts for twice the amount of debris created from municipal solid waste. While new construction may produce less construction and debris-based waste, the reality that older buildings are demolished to make room for the construction of new buildings makes this problem inherently interconnected.
The sentiment of the environmental turn regarding historic preservation can be summarized best, in the words of Carl Elefante, former president of the American Institute of Architects, who said, “The greenest building is the one that already exists”[7] Simply put, the importance of preserving buildings for the purpose of environmental conservation serves both goals of the environmental movement as well as the historic preservation movement. Architect Steward Brand took this concept and developed it extensively in presenting how architects should not be confined to the realm of mastering space but to becoming artists of time.[8] Brand argues that buildings should be constantly updated and refined and utilized by humans to ensure their potential and utility. In this regard, Brand also believes that buildings should be constantly updated by their occupants rather than destroyed for the purposes of new construction. Following Brand’s deeper points, he argues that all buildings are made up of six shearing layers Site, Structure, Skin, Services, Space Plan & Stuff. The organization Restore Oregon provides supplementary evidence to this premise regarding environmental impact. Restore Oregon utilizes the Eco-Northwest study which detailed that,
“Renovating a 1,500 SF older home reduces embedded CO2 emissions by 126 metric tons, versus tearing down the same structure and replacing it with a new 3,000 SF residential building. Such savings may be better understood this way: a savings of 126 metric tons of embedded CO2 is roughly equivalent to the prevention of 44,048 gallons of gasoline emissions being released into the atmosphere. In the case of a 10,000 SF commercial building, which would typically utilize more energy-intensive materials and construction techniques than residential construction, the CO2 emissions savings would be 1,383 metric tons, or the equivalent of 484,127 gallons of gasoline burned.”
Substantially, the ECONorthwest study also presented the reality that preserved buildings have a far greater positive impact on CO2 Emissions than the removal of present combustion engines when accounting for the average annual 474 gallons of gasoline used by American vehicles, arguing that, “renovating an older home, rather than demolishing and replacing it, equates to removing 93 cars from the road for an entire year, while a single commercial renovation equates to removing 1,028 cars from the road for the same period of time.” This stands as significant statistical analysis when considering the broader trends of historic preservation and environmental conservation as united fields.
Reuse and deconstruction movement
A particular bright spot regarding sustainability and the middle ground between preservation and demolition is the recent advancements in the reuse and deconstruction movement. Rather than the current largescale trend of demolition, deconstruction aims to dismantle older buildings for the purpose of reuse and recycling. Deconstruction ordinances such as those in Portland Oregon dictate that older residential buildings must be deconstructed, and their materials reutilized. This revolutionary concept could potentially pave the way for a more circular economy in which waste is recycled and reused rather than discarded for new construction. However, the movement remains in its early stages, “There isn’t a salvage economy in the U.S. for commercial buildings,”[9] said Jason F. McLennan, the chief executive of McLennan Design and the creator of the Living Building Challenge, with most of the projects remaining residential in nature. Reuse at this stage is not necessarily more profitable due to the labor included in deconstruction and the process of storing materials. The most advantageous aspect of reuse remains in the preservation of historic materials as well as the preservation of embodied energy remaining in the materials.
Re: Purpose Savannah led 501(c)3 nonprofit advocates for sustainability through deconstruction, salvage, and reuse of historic buildings.[10] This effort towards deconstruction and recycling provides a viable alternative to the waste and pollution generated from conventional demolition. Upon research and documentation in preserving the history of a structure, Re:Purpose Savannah deconstructs the materials storing them and selling the salvaged material at their own lumberyard in Savannah. Re:Purpose Savannah’s documentation of historic deconstructed buildings includes detailed analysis of the building’s history, history of owners, photos, mapping, and its larger connections to American history all digitized on their website for the purpose of preservation all while the materials are recycled. Another example of reuse of buildings in a potentially viable manner is the development of deconstruction and recycling companies such as The Re Store, Re-Use Consulting, and Unbuilders throughout the country, reselling recycled building materials to builders. These companies originated with the beginning of deconstruction ordinances in the 1990s. Localities which have enacted deconstruction ordinances include Portland Oregon, King County Washington, and Vancouver British Columbia.[11]
The Portland Oregon Deconstruction ordinance of October 31, 2016, dictates that all structures built from 1940 earlier, (Amended from 1916) are subject to the ordinance. This means that all buildings falling within the ordinance must be deconstructed rather than mechanically demolished for the purpose of recycling valuable materials rather than being crushed and landfilled.[12] The city of Portland further regulates this process by determining that the building must be deconstructed by a certified deconstruction contractor rather than any unlicensed and unregulated construction firm or individual. The ordinance does allow for exemptions if the building is deemed unsafe for human life but generally the most valuable reusable material exists in the framing of the house allowing for very little room for exemptions.
Economic benefits
While the marketplace for deconstruction is still in its developing stage, there are certainly economic benefits to its further implementation. The Urban Sustainability Directors Network details the benefits of recycling C&D debris as well as the reusing of material on the project site. Specifically, USDN displays how deconstruction ordinances can significantly reduce waste and the amount of material disposed away in landfills. According to USDN, the Foster Hill California ordinance dictates that 50% of all C&D tonnage to be diverted from landfills to reuse, similarly, Portland’s deconstruction ordinance diverts an estimated 8 million pounds in material to reuse annually.[13] As deconstruction ordinances expand, the amount of materials reused rather than discarded will increase significantly improving overall sustainability, the largest problem stands in implementing ordinances and expanding the market from residential buildings to commercial deconstruction.
The principles of Historic Preservation show that abandonment can be one of the worst things for a building. When a building sits vacant, it becomes vulnerable to the degradation of time, climate-based factors, and wildlife which will utilize the building regardless of humans but may destroy certain aspects of it. The importance of keeping buildings in use stands as a significant goal both between those who are more directed towards the environmental preservation of the built environment as well as those based in concerns of historic preservation. The preservation of buildings in cities throughout the country for the purpose of environmental conservation as the utmost priority can serve multiple goals in maintaining a form of historic preservation, practicing environmental conservation, and in preventing cities from losing their historical character and the effects of the ever-present cultural danger of urban environments hollowing out.
One particular piece of artwork which describes the environmental turn within the historic preservation movement and the larger consideration of embodied energy stands in the gas can building artwork entitled Preservation: Reusing Americas Energy provided by the National Trust for Historic Preservation for Preservation week in 1980.[14] This artwork shows a commercial style building as a gas can to describe the embodied energy present in the building which should be preserved rather than destroyed for the purpose of new construction. In this regard, the building is depicted as having 640,000 gallons of gasoline embodied within the building and should not be preserved to continue utilizing that energy rather than destroyed. The artwork is certainly representative of the times when considering the stagflation and high gas prices of the late 1970s going forward in the 1980s. The importance of preservation for the purpose of utility is on full display as one of the most consequential aspects presented. While the representation of embodied energy as gasoline may feel dated as we continue to transition from fossil fuel-based energy to more sustainable solutions, the importance of conservation and the embodied energy stored in buildings remains an ever-present issue.
Paradigm change
Changing the Paradigm from Demolition to Reuse—Building Reuse Ordinances, by Tom Mayes provides another argument directly implicating the current tactics of urban planning and city management which professes to be utilizing environmentally friendly practices yet demolishes buildings without a second thought. Mayes argues that “few cities actively promote the reuse of existing buildings as a green strategy.”[15] With most being discarded and their materials ending up in a landfill with the new materials gained through extractive methods and transported using fossil fuels. This process of demolition and construction continues the process of environmental destruction all while cities pretend to be solving the issue with new ultra-modern style sleek energy efficient construction. This process does not help the issue of environmental conservation in any meaningful way but continues the process of disposability which continues to destroy the environment. Nigel Whiteley describes this process of disposability and hyper consumerism which became established in the 1950s and the 1960s, displaying how products became designed with an explicit understanding that they would soon become obsolete for other products to take their place in demand.[16] This process of disposability moved from fashion to automobiles, to construction. Logically the development of a throw away disposable culture eventually leads to the disposal of buildings for the consumption of newer and more developed buildings with no concern for the energy expended in their previous historic construction. This also has a significant impact of historic preservation as the continuity of urban environments is broken for newer construction rather than the continuance of previous historic structures which grounded the identity of the area.
The present issues faced by both the historic preservation and environmentalist movements can be best summarized by the words of John Muir, “People need Beauty as well as Bread” The importance of maintaining the pragmatism of a working economy and environment cannot be overlooked. The world of human interaction and commerce cannot stop to ensure that the environment can recover, however, new and innovative practices can be put into place which will ensure that the environment can be conserved for future use. Much like the preservation of the human identity through the environment which has shaped human history, the preservation of the built environment is inexplicably unified with this purpose. Whether in the reduction of CO2 emissions by the preservation and retrofitting of older buildings or in the protection of vast swathes of landscapes to protect both the environmental and cultural identity, both movements are linked together. The importance of adaptation and innovation in accomplishing these goals remains significant in addressing the current challenges and problems both fields face.[17]
Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Lindlaw, Scott. “Preservations Urge Weighing Environmental Impact of Teardowns.” New Bedford Standard-Times, April 9, 2008. https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/lifestyle/2008/04/09/preservations-urge-weighing-environmental-impact/52453454007/.
Secondary Sources
Journal Articles
Adam, Robert. “‘The Greenest Building Is the One That Already Exists.’” The Architects’ Journal, August 13, 2021. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/the-greenest-building-is-the-one-that-already-exists#:~:text=Carl%20Elefante%2C%20former%20president%20of,the%20one%20that%20already%20exists’.
“Deconstruction Requirements.” Portland.gov. October 31, 2016. https://www.portland.gov/bps/climate-action/decon/deconstruction-requirements.
“Encouraging and Mandating Building Deconstruction.” Urban Sustainability Directors Network. https://sustainableconsumption.usdn.org/initiatives-list/encouraging-and-mandating-building-deconstruction.
MAYES, TOM. “Changing the Paradigm from Demolition to Reuse—Building Reuse Ordinances.” In Bending the Future: Fifty Ideas for the Next Fifty Years of Historic Preservation in the United States, edited by Max Page and Marla R. Miller, 162–65. University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1hd19hg.31.
McMahon, Edward T., and A. Elizabeth Watson. “In My Opinion: In Search of Collaboration: Historic Preservation and the Environmental Movement.” History News 48, no. 6 (1993): 26–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42655670.
Meryman, Helena. “Structural Materials in Historic Restoration: Environmental Issues and Greener Strategies.” APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology 36, no. 4 (2005): 31–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40003161.
National Park Service. “Evaluating Substitute Materials in Historic Buildings.” Last Modified October 6, 2023. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/evaluating-substitute-materials.htm.
“Our Mission.” Re:Purpose Savannah. 2023. https://www.repurposesavannah.org/mission.
Preservation Green Lab, “The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse,” National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2011.
Prevost, Lisa. “Sustainability Advocates Ask: Why Demolish When You Can Deconstruct? New York Times.September 1, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/business/waste-salvage-deconstruction-sustainability.html.
Roberts, Tristan. “Does Saving Historic Buildings Save Energy.” Green Building Advisor, May 2, 2011. https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/does-saving-historic-buildings-save-energy.
“Successes of a Sister City: Deconstruction around the World.” Re-Store.org. July 25, 2019. https://re-store.org/successes-of-a-sister-city-deconstruction-around-the-world/.
“Sustainable Management of Construction and Demolition Materials.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed November 7, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-management-construction-and-demolition-materials#:~:text=Demolition%20represents%20more%20than%2090,materials%20in%20the%20C%26D%20debris.
Tyrrell, Ian. “America’s National Parks: The Transnational Creation of National Space in the Progressive Era.” Journal of American Studies 46, no. 1 (2012): 1–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41427306.
Whiteley, Nigel. “Toward a Throw-Away Culture. Consumerism, ‘Style Obsolescence’ and Cultural Theory in the 1950s and 1960s.” Oxford Art Journal 10. no. 2 (1987): 3–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1360444.
Books
Miller, Marla R., and Max Page. Bending the Future: Fifty Ideas for the Next Fifty Years of Historic Preservation in the United States. UPCC Book Collections on Project MUSE. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=nlebk&AN=1425207&site=eds-live&scope=site.
Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built. United States: Penguin Publishing Group, 1995.
[1] Ian Tyrell, “America’s National Parks: The Transnational Creation of National Space in the Progressive Era,” Journal of American Studies 46, no. 1 (2012): 1–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41427306.
[2] Helena Meryman, “Structural Materials in Historic Restoration: Environmental Issues and Greener Strategies,” The Journal of Preservation Technology 36, no. 4 (2005): 31–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40003161.
[3]“Evaluating Substitute Materials in Historic Buildings,” National Park Service, Last Modified October 6, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/evaluating-substitute-materials.htm.
[4] Tristan Roberts, “Does Saving Historic Buildings Save Energy,” Green Building Advisor, May 2, 2011, https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/does-saving-historic-buildings-save-energy.
[5] Preservation Green Lab, “The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse,” National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2011.
[6]“Sustainable Management of Construction and Demolition Materials,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed November 7, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-management-construction-and-demolition-materials#:~:text=Demolition%20represents%20more%20than%2090,materials%20in%20the%20C%26D%20debris.
[7]Robert Adam, “‘The Greenest Building Is the One That Already Exists,’” The Architects’ Journal, August 13, 2021, https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/the-greenest-building-is-the-one-that-already-exists#:~:text=Carl%20Elefante%2C%20former%20president%20of,the%20one%20that%20already%20exists’.
[8] Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built, United States: Penguin Publishing Group, 1995.
[9]Lisa Prevost, Sustainability Advocates Ask: Why Demolish When You Can Deconstruct?” New York Times, September 1, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/business/waste-salvage-deconstruction-sustainability.html.
[10] “Our Mission,” Re:Purpose Savannah, 2023, https://www.repurposesavannah.org/mission.
[11] “Successes of a Sister City: Deconstruction around the World,” Re-Store.org, July 25, 2019, https://re-store.org/successes-of-a-sister-city-deconstruction-around-the-world/.
[12] “Deconstruction Requirements,” Portland.gov, October 31, 2016, https://www.portland.gov/bps/climate-action/decon/deconstruction-requirements.
[13] “Encouraging and Mandating Building Deconstruction,” Urban Sustainability Directors Network, https://sustainableconsumption.usdn.org/initiatives-list/encouraging-and-mandating-building-deconstruction.
[14] Scott Lindlaw, “Preservations Urge Weighing Environmental Impact of Teardowns,” New Bedford Standard-Times, April 9, 2008, https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/lifestyle/2008/04/09/preservations-urge-weighing-environmental-impact/52453454007/.
[15] Tom Mayes, “Changing the Paradigm from Demolition to Reuse—Building Reuse Ordinances,” In Bending the Future: Fifty Ideas for the Next Fifty Years of Historic Preservation in the United States, edited by Max Page and Marla R. Miller, 162–65. University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1hd19hg.31.
[16]Nigel Whiteley, “Toward a Throw-Away Culture. Consumerism, ‘Style Obsolescence’ and Cultural Theory in the 1950s and 1960s,” Oxford Art Journal 10, no. 2 (1987): 3–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1360444.
[17]Edward T. McMahon, and A. Elizabeth Watson, “In My Opinion: In Search of Collaboration: Historic Preservation and the Environmental Movement,” History News 48, no. 6 (1993): 26–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42655670.
