Misunderstanding historic preservation

That people have very different opinions about historic preservation isn't particularly surprising in a time when some can't even agree on topics which are defined by science. Historic preservation is certainly not science but a cultural reflection on the insight that in a rapidly changing world cities need to protect historic assets as witnesses of the past that give places richness and complexity.

The Eddie's block in Mount Vernon

Attending a hearing of Baltimore's historic commission CHAP is an instructive and somewhat depressing experience. It highlights the daily challenges Baltimore's historic buildings and those deciding over their fate face. Application after application owners and developers put heart and soul of this city on the chopping block. The aspiration of protecting the tapestry of history butts heads with the real world and its lack of people and resources to maintain use or provide upkeep for so many old buildings in Baltimore. In the hearing on Tuesday CHAP commissioners put up a good effort, voting for preserving the protected status of historic buildings in the majority of the cases before them, including Eddie's.

The Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation (CHAP) was established in 1964, and is currently governed by Article Six of the Baltimore City Code.  Today CHAP oversees 33 local historic districts, over 200 landmarks, and manages a local historic preservation tax credit program.  CHAP helps preserve and revitalize neighborhoods, celebrates City history, and promotes historic preservation as a proven economic driver for Baltimore City.  The mayoral appointed Commission and its staff are located within the Department of Planning. (Website). 

It was surprising, though, to find so much confusion, misconception and misunderstanding among the commissioners who's express purpose is to protect architectural history. On the agenda was among other applications the request for demolition of 7-14 East Eager Street buildings which date back to 1867.

Developer Dennis Richter addressing the Commission

13 commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and they don't have to be experts or professionals in the field but are thought of as citizen commissioners, even though at least four members of the current  commission are architects or planners with experience in the field. They are guided by a 30 page rule book which also includes the review of demolition applications, as the one for Eddie's on Eager Street. Those reviews have been split into two potential steps, the first with the sole focus on determining the preservation value of the structure(s) proposed for demolition. If a demolition is denied because a structure is considered as "contributing" or "historically significant" the applicant can file for a second hearing to make an "economic hardship" argument. In the regulations this is spelled out this way:

The first step in the demolition review process is a public hearing to determine if the building contributes to a local historic district or continues to meet standards for designation as a local landmark. At this hearing staff shall present the following:

1. The historical and/or architectural significance of the property;

2. The history of all structures on the property including the approximate dates of additions and significant alterations;

3. A determination of the historical and/or architectural significance of a structure’s additions, significant alterations, or ancillary buildings; and

4. Application of criteria for designation (see 2.1) to the structure in question. A determination regarding the significance of the structure will be made prior to considering details of the demolition and hardship application, and any projects for new construction on the site. Doing so allows the Commission to determine the importance of the structure solely upon architectural and historical criteria. If a structure does not meet the criteria or contribute to the historic character of a local district, then an Authorization to Proceed for demolition shall be issued (Guidelines)

Although this sounds simple enough, the Commissioners kept debating on several applications whether they can ask the applicant about his financial means or impose economic conditions or future project timelines. One Commissioner, former law professor Larry Gibson, took opposing positions on the same point in two different applications. He observed at the first application that economic conditions were inappropriate. Two hours or so later he made a motion with just those conditions as part of his motion. (He withdrew it, when the contradiction was pointed out).

CHAP hearing with 6-12 Central Ave on display
(Demolition denied)

But these procedural confusions weren't what was the most baffling. Truly astonishing was how differently various commissioners defined what makes a building historically significant or contributing.   The guidelines are pretty clear:

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

1. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Baltimore history; or

2. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in Baltimore's past; or

3. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

4. That have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in Baltimore prehistory or history.

The above criteria mirror the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, which were developed by the National Park Service to determine historic significance in American history and culture. (Section 2.2 Guidelines)

It was Commissioner Gibson again who in two cases applied the merit question in opposite ways both times contradicting the staff recommendation of CHAP. On four dilapidated run-of-the-mill rowhouses in the Union Square historic district he had no trouble finding them absolutely contributing since they were "so Baltimore that even people in other cities would recognize them" as such. Even that they had lost their cornice when formstone had been applied, or were bereft of their marble steps, did not prevent Gibson from a fervent plaidoyer for those simple houses. His stand in the end saved them from being declassified as contributing, at least in the first hearing. Staff review wanted to save only one of them. But when it came to Eddie's and the former Eager Restaurant Gibson exclaimed he didn't "see anything that made these buildings contributing except that they have been around a long time". He mocked their "utilitarian vernacular" design and bemoaned that they had been altered a few times and compared them unfavorably to other more notable historic structures in Mount Vernon. In doing so he obviously went back to a past notion of historic preservation when only noble architecture of palaces and mansions was seen worthy for preservation. Those are called "landmarks" and protecting them started the preservation movement. Baltimore certainly has plenty of them such as City Hall, Penn Station, or the Garrett Mansion. Gibson's stand is ironic for someone who was a renowned civil rights activist and had just chaired the Baltimore Monument Commission which had to find over monuments expressing white supremacy. Ziger Snead Architects partner Doug Bothner who designs the new building going up instead of Eddie's also came back to "noble architecture" by explaining that If the materiality was that wonderful”, they would consider integrating the buildings or facades, but not with the "cheap brick coursing" that these "utilitarian" structures had. An argument that also bestows merit only high-brow architecture.

Preservation "character frequently matches value
(NHP report)

Preservation has come a long way since the days when it was leveraged only for buildings that were monuments or landmarks. Today preservation is much more inclusive and sees merit in a much broader range of historic structures applying criteria such as context, culture and meaning. As a result, Baltimore's worker and alley housing has been protected as well as utilitarian factories and even entirely unremarkable structures which have only social meaning, such as the Sphinx Social Club. The dilapidated burnt out structure has been accepted as historically significant due to its meaning for African Americans during segregation and the heydays of Pennsylvania Avenue in Baltimore. (My firm ArchPlan is the architect).

Areas of the city characterized by older, smaller buildings and mixed-vintage blocks average more than twice the number of jobs in small businesses found in areas of Baltimore with mostly newer, larger buildings. (NHT, Building on Baltimore's History)

The purpose of the hearing about the Eager Street structures was to determine whether their previous classification as "contributing" was justified. They were never considered "landmarks" in the sense of "representing the work of a master, or possessing high artistic values". A contributing structure is by definition not the hero in the play but an "also ran" without which the play called "city" could never get on stage. Contributing structures make up the "fabric" that architects like to talk about. Preservation research has shown that preservation adds economic value. A research project by the National Historic Trust showed that specifically maintaining that fine-grained old fabric was key to the higher valuation of properties in neighborhoods rich of preserved fabric.  Or as a planning intern worded it in his testimony at the hearing:

These buildings are a record of the evolution of Mt Vernon, expressed in brick. History doesn’t always have to be the prettiest building. 

In spite of the clear rule mandating to only speak about the historic merit of the structure itself  or its context, the entire CHAP hearing was rife with economic arguments that were often enough thinly veiled anti-preservation arguments altogether. Developer Dennis Richter began his argument for demolition immediately with an economic argument calling the intended project (after demolition) a “Catalyst to unlock investment in a historic neighborhood “. In spite of his self-ascribed affinity to historic buildings and preservation he continued with anti-preservation arguments: “I have seen many buildings in Mt Vernon and these buildings (13,15) are subpar” and “A neighborhood should not be static, shouldn’t be a museum“ both lines are often heard from those who think there is too much preservation already. Gino Cardinale, owner of City Cafe and speaking in support of demolition, also assured his "love for historic structures" but then ramped up the economic argument by talking down the entire neighborhood: “How is it that we are losing our vibe..What’s going on in Mt Vernon is a damn shame”. ... "we are talking about the future of our neighborhood “ strongly suggesting that economic stagnation resulting from preservation was the culprit. Another resident and business owner continued swinging the economic sledgehammer this way: “Styles change, fortunes change” and “we are in a totally different economy,” yet another citizen exclaimed about the brilliance of the envisioned future project: “This block for the 21st century “.

Commissioner Larry Gibson making his case

With all this the arguments for a potential level 2 hearing were already aired  and the project proponents had identified themselves as gentrifiers by suggesting that Mt Vernon would be better off with something it doesn't have yet than with what it has. Their aim is to change the character of the area to become a "downtown of Mt Vernon".

For such a second hearing the CHAP regulations require the following standards when considering economic aspects:

 “whether demolition is necessary to avoid a substantial hardship” and whether denial of a demolition permit would result in “no reasonable beneficial use” of the historic structure. The Commission will also determine whether demolition will constitute a “substantial detriment to the public welfare” and demolition will be “without substantial derogation to the intents and purposes of Article 6 of the Baltimore City Code.”

Johns Hopkins of Baltimore Heritage was one of the few who spoke for preservation and against the demolition application, even though he was visibly conflicted by the fact that the developer and all those testifying for him were also his friends with whom "I usually lock arms". But he was firm that "in this case I strongly disagree and urge you to maintain the position that these structures are contributing". 

In the end it was CHAP chairman and architect Tom Liebel who brought the matter back into focus. He asked:

Even though the MVBA says they don't want see this as a precedent for de-listing other structures deemed "contributing", how could it be otherwise. What will we do if the next applicant wants the same treatment as you?" (CHAP chair Tom Liebel, FAIA)

The commissioners voted 5:3  against de-listing the buildings and against granting the demolition. A next round is all but guaranteed. When leaving the hearing, the developer and his supporters were optimistic they would prevail next time. One can only hope, the commissioners have carefully studied the stringent criteria by then.

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

My lecture about the future of Baltimore will take place as part of AIA's Architecture Month on October 18 at 6pm at the MICAH Lazarus Center on 131 West North Ave. My book "Baltimore, Reinventing an American Legacy City" will be available for purchase. 
The event is free but you need to register here