[MassHistPres] house with preservation restriction destroyedbyfire

[Joe Booth]

 The dept. of Interior guidelines clearly indicate that new should look like new to avoid replication of something that never was. As Preservationist we need to preserve the historic fabric of our community. It is not up to us to say what the new innovative designs should and should not look like. What if this happened in the mid 20th century and Walter Gropius created an ultra modern masterpiece? Would we deny his work based on our need to preserve the character of the neighborhood? His work is now being preserved. New England architecture is a compilation of designs from different eras. This should be encouraged!
 
We as preservationist cannot and should not dictate our opinions on current design. By doing so we become restrictionist and prevent the future from sharing our creative thinking. In the historic national whaling park in New Bedford, a new visitor center was added to a burned out shell of a building. Tying another historic brownstone building to it.  The burned out building was the Corson building only the facade remained. The Park Service, who are specifically charged with administering the Dept of Interior guidelines, built a modern addition between two very historic buildings. It was a complete success, blending the new with the old. 
 
I say let the restriction go, keep your design review but with an open mind you may find a modern masterpiece at hand. The historical committee must allow modern new ideas to be entertained. Replication should be a last option.   
 
Joseph M. Booth, AIA   
President
jbooth at dyerbrownsouthcoast.com <mailto:jbooth at dyerbrownsouthcoast.com>  
 
Direct    (774) 206-8002
Mobile   (508) 243-6049

Dyer Brown SouthCoast, Architects 
One Johnny Cake Hill 
New Bedford, MA 02740 
Tel   (508) 999-6220 Fax (508) 990-1265 
 
This Email is confidential and may contain copyright material of Dyer Brown SouthCoast Architects.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and delete all copies of this message.  (Please note that it is your responsibility to scan this message for viruses.) 

________________________________

From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu on behalf of Mory Bahar
Sent: Tue 8/3/2010 6:22 PM
To: Dennis De Witt; MHC MHC listserve
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] house with preservation restriction destroyedbyfire



The continued presence of the restriction ensures that there is some
control over the replacement building. It ensures that the new building
does not "ruin" the character of the existing historic neighborhood, and
is sensitive to the character, size and volume of the adjacent
structures. The restriction does NOT require creation of an exact
replica. Mory

-----Original Message-----
From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
[mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of Dennis De Witt
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 6:13 PM
To: MHC MHC listserve
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] house with preservation restriction
destroyed byfire

OK, but how does one justify preserving through a restriction an
"historic house" after the house is gone?  Restrictions and their
accompanying HSRs are, appropriately, focused on the preservation of
historic buildings.  How does one justify it when the house no longer
exists?  Even an "exact replica" wouldn't be historic and wouldn't meet
the criteria for NR listing -- what then of something that is less than
an exact replica?

Wouldn't an historic preservation restriction on an empty lot or one
containing a brand new house a total oxymoron?

And wouldn't it put preservation restrictions in a bad light?

Dennis


On Aug 3, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Mory Bahar wrote:

> Dennis,
>
> In case of all our preservation restrictions, the restriction runs
with
> the deed and the land and thus remains in force even after the
> destruction of the building. Mory
>
>
> Mory Bahar
> Independent Authorized Representative
> Trust for Architectural Easements
> Office: 978-352-5615
> mbahar at architecturaltrust.org
> www.architecturaltrust.org
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
> [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of Dennis De Witt
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:29 PM
> To: MHC MHC listserve
> Subject: [MassHistPres] house with preservation restriction destroyed
by
> fire
>
> Can anyone cite an example of non-LHD building that had a preservation
> restriction on it that was destroyed by fire (or by any other
> non-deliberate cause)? 
>
> What happened after the fire re the restriction?
>
> Dennis De Witt
> ******************************
> For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact
> Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE
> WHOLE LIST.
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> ********************************
>

******************************
For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact
Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE
WHOLE LIST.
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
********************************

******************************
For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST.
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
********************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100803/4f18034d/attachment-0001.htm>