[MassHistPres] loss of blanket historical exemption

[Ward Hamilton at Olde Mohawk Historic Preservation]

Russ,

Thanks for sharing, although I don't share your sentiment that this is a
done deal.  IECC 2012 was just implemented--IECC 2015 is far enough down
the road that change can still be made.  It will require that folks
actively campaign against it (see my earlier post to this listserv.)  The
article, below, quotes Sean Denniston from the New Building Institute whom
I had a dialogue with in the last seven days.  Below is his response to my
concern, particularly re the insulation of solid masonry walls:

___________________


Ward,

You've hit on a few of the topics that went into the creation of the new
language. I think it's worth starting with what the language does and then
moving on to how we got to it.

The building official won't need any additional training, because the
building official won't be making any determination that requires
expertise. The project simply submits the report and the building official
simply receives and files the report. You'll notice that the language
never directs the building official to make any determination or take any
action based on the report. This was very purposefully done. All the
language does is require the project to document the need for an
exemption, not prove it, just document it. We can dig into this a bit more
by looking at how we got to the language that will now be in code.

There were three main dangers to historic buildings moving into this round
of code development. The first came from the code language itself. The
codes had disparate and very confusing definitions of what a historic
building is. The exemption was ridiculously broad, exempting even
additions to HBs from the energy requirements of the code. The result is
that building departments were not enforcing the code language as written.
Additions weren't being exempted, even though the code exempted them. The
confusing language created an environment of building official discretion
in regard to HBs instead of a simple enforcement of the code as written.

So, combined with unfamiliarity with preservation issues, it is not
surprising you saw what you saw. When the language is confusing, building
officials do what they think is best. This is bad for HBs because knowing
what is best requires quite a bit of background in historic preservation
that few building officials have. Our proposal that succeeded tightened
and simplified the definition of historic building and clarified the
charging language to remove the ambiguity that many building officials had
been navigating, which should help eliminate the situation you described.

The second danger was the attention that existing buildings were getting
going into the hearings. EB was a hot topic (you'll see that a whole new
chapter was created in the IECC for EB), and the HB exemption was getting
a lot of attention. It was not uncommon to hear the HB exemption referred
to the HB loophole, and there were a lot of ideas about closing that
"loophole." They ranged from eliminating the exemption completely to
making the exemption entirely at the discretion of the building official
to only exempting the envelopes of historic buildings. You can see why we
didn't favor any of those solutions. Our proposal narrowed the exemption
(through limiting it only to those provisions that would do harm to the
historic building), but did it in a way that still protected historic
buildings with a very low regulatory hurdle (the report). Projects don't
have to prove the harm the provision would cause, they just have to
document and attest it. These reports will also become a boon for future
preservation because they will document building conditions and
contemporary opinions about what is significant about the building.

The third threat to historic buildings was the exemption itself. A common
argument in the last couple of years has been "the greenest building is
the one that has already been built." There's truth to that, but only so
much. Many people have pointed out that pre-war buildings often perform as
well as new construction, largely due to the passive features that were
commonplace then. But the "new construction" they almost always refer to
are buildings from around 2000. Since then, the energy code for new
construction code has increased in stringency by over 35%, even more in
places with less stringent energy codes. And pre-war buildings aren't the
only historic buildings anymore. The worst performing cohort of buildings,
those from the 60s, are becoming eligible for historic designation. The
performance premium enjoyed by historic buildings is quickly disappearing.

By allowing them a blanket exemption rather than one conditioned on
preservation need, the code was contributing to making HBs increasingly
less effective at their primary role: being buildings. If HBs continue to
slide down the performance scale while energy becomes a more and more
central factor in real estate, HBs will face greater and greater threat
from obsolescence and all the related dangers obsolescence brings. By
tightening the exemption now, we use the code to help prevent HBs from
sliding down that scale quite so much. The key is to keep the exemption
for those situations where the preservation of a historic building really
demands it and to keep that determination in the hands of
preservationists, and that's what the code change does.

For clarity, the exemption doesn't have to be requested, all historic
buildings automatically get the exemption provided the explanatory report
is submitted to the building official. The report is not an application
for the exemption, its submittal is only a condition of the exemption. In
future code cycles, I think we will see the exemption further narrowed.

I see no good reason to exempt buildings that only have a determination of
eligibility. The determination of eligibility exists to make governmental
projects account for historic buildings, even if they are not listed. It
creates an obligation to preserve even in the absence of designation. The
exemption exists to protect historic buildings, a benefit conferred on
historic buildings. But if it is granted to eligible, but non-designated
buildings, it confers a benefit of being "historic" without the obligation
(even if limited) to preserve that comes with designation. It's actually
an incentive to seek the determination while resisting designation.
Allowing the exemption for eligible un-designated buildings runs contrary
to both energy efficiency and preservation.

Likewise, the other way we may see it narrowed is by bifurcating
individually listed buildings and buildings that are part of a district.
District designation does not include interiors (unless they are
specifically named), so it does not make sense to exempt interiors that
have not been designated as historic and carry no obligation to preserve.

It would not surprise me if we see district buildings exempted only from
the envelope requirements of the energy code in the future, with full
exemption requiring individual designation of the building. In short, I
see a very likely future where the exemption from the energy code is
always tied to an obligation to preserve.

Beyond that, I think that a large number of historic buildings *can* be as
efficient as new buildings, especially on the commercial side. For those
that can't, it is simply a matter of balancing the societal benefit that
historic buildings bring to a community versus the societal cost that the
inefficiency creates. It's not an easy equation, but it is exactly the
kind of value proposition preservation makes with every building.

It's been a pleasure corresponding with you. Good luck in Boston.

Sean Denniston

______________________

Submitted by:

Ward Hamilton

OLDE MOHAWK HISTORIC PRESERVATION INC
877.622.8973 online at OldeMohawk.com
Slate Roofing | Masonry | Restoration



> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm afraid I'm the bearer of bad news relative to new energy code
requirements for historic structures.  I excerpt here from a new article
by Hallie Busta from AIA.  Although the issue is cast as one of cohering
practices nationally, the agenda is energy conservation, not
preservation.
>  The focus in this article is on larger projects more than the occasional
> window installation but, overall, I think we'll be seeing that we'll
have to make a specific case for preservation if we wish to employ
traditional building solutions (as opposed to "high performance"
systems) to older buildings.
>
>
>
> Changes to the forthcoming 2015 International Energy Conservation Code
remove the blanket exemption for renovations to historical properties.
The new language, approved earlier this month, pertains to buildings
designated as historic structures as well as to those listed with local,
state, or national registers as a contributing resource within an
official historic district, such as Boston's South End (shown).
>
> Architects now must prove that their historical projects are worthy of
exemptions from the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC),
following changes to the forthcoming 2015 version approved by the
International Code Council earlier this month.
>
> Though earlier versions of the IECC exempted historical structures from
code compliance on renovation work, the requirements varied depending on
which version of the code was enforced in a particular jurisdiction and
to what extent the code was enforced. The 2012 version of the IECC, for
example, exempts residential and commercial buildings registered with
local, state, or national historical registers from compliance on
renovations or additions. As of October 2013 only six states had adopted
the 2012 code in its entirety, signaling that updates contained in the
2015 version will likely face protracted implementation. The changes,
proposed by a team of industry representatives from the New Buildings
Institute (NBI),the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the
Institute for Market Transformation strip the exemption language from
the code. The group added a requirement that project teams file a report
with a code official when seeking immunity on specific areas of the
design or construction.
>
> The changes also include a new definition for residential and commercial
historical structures in the definitions section, instead of its
previous location in the body of the code. To be considered a historic
structure by the code's new language, residential or commercial building
must be: certified or eligible for listing by state or national historic
> preservation registers; designated as historic under local or state law;
or certified as a contributing resource within a historic district that
is listed with the National Register of Historic Places or an equivalent
state or local body.
>
> The new language targets missed opportunities in existing code versions
to increase old buildings' energy efficiency, Laurie Kerr, AlA, director
of NRDC's City Energy Project said in an email. "This is not an
eccentric issue affecting the occasional Federal mansion or Deco
skyscraper," she wrote. "The impact has had wider reach than one might
think. In the nation's older cities, whole neighborhoods are often
landmarked, resulting in a surprisingly large percentage of buildings
falling under this umbrella. In Boston, for example, more than 8,000
properties are either located in one of the city's nine Historic
Districts or are designated as a local landmark, according to the Boston
Landmarks Commission. For Manhattan alone, New York's Landmarks
Preservation Commission lists 65 historic districts; Kerr adds that
approximately a quarter of all lots in that borough are landmarked. "A
greater level of care will be required on all of these projects," says
Sean Denniston, a project manager at NBI. "No more assumptions that,
'Oh, it's historic, so we're not going to do anything.' Now it's going
to require a greater thoughtfulness of what is the impact of doing this
on a building. Is it really going to be a problem to comply with this
portion of the code?''
>
> Denniston says compliance with IECC 2015 will likely be most challenging
when renovations to historical structures require either replacing
windows or opening up walls. Much of IECC 2012's requirements apply to
new construction or renovation work and call for such improvements as a
continuous air barrier in new residential spaces and in new commercial
spaces in all geographic regions but the southeastern U.S.
>
>
>
> Sorry!
>
>
>
> M. Russel Feldman, AIA, NCARB
>
> TBA Architects, Inc.
>
> 43 Bradford Street Suite 300
>
> Concord MA USA 01742
>
> (781) 893-5828 tel    (617) 429-5033 cell
>
> (781) 893-5834 fax   (781) 609-3010 direct fax to email
>
> www.tbaarchitects.com
>
>
>
> Awarded Best Architects of Waltham, 2011-2014
>
> TBA is accredited by the Better Business Bureau
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
> [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of
> masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 8:02 AM
> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Subject: MassHistPres Digest, Vol 101, Issue 5
>
>
>
> Send MassHistPres mailing list submissions to
>
>                masshistpres at cs.umb.edu<mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
>
>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
>                http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>
>                masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu<mailto:masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu>
>
>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>
>                masshistpres-owner at cs.umb.edu<mailto:masshistpres-owner at cs.umb.edu>
>
>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of MassHistPres digest..."
> ******************************
> 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
> ********************************
>