Leland wrote:

I am constantly suggesting and encouraging "preservation" groups to use
vocabulary for which they agree on a definition.  It seems to me that for
good or bad it is best to use the most widely circulated and available
definitions: The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties.  The four categories as outlined, Preservation
(protection and stabilization), Rehabilitation, Restoration and
Reconstruction should serve as the broader context for our debates.

I can't claim familiarity with the Secretary's standards, but at first
glance they don't exactly wear their meaning as a sandwich board. Is the
text available on the net? I did a couple of searches, including the DoI
site, and didn't turn them up.

I should probably wait to know more about them before commenting on their
usefulness in terms of the question I posed.

Bryan wrote:

> Bruce, since you are asking the question, there are definitions you need
> to add in some places in order to get better responses.
>
> I offer a first pass at, ten words or less, definitions of what I
> perceive to be the five levels of preservation.
>
>         - Stablization: to stablize and maintain
>         - Conservation: to stablize and repair
>         - Restoration:  to return to a previous condition
>         - Renovation:   to fix up and change for new use (Remodeling)
>         - Reconstruction: to build new to some level of artifical old

I like this and think that it would be useful to adopt. We could call it
the Dept. of BP Standards for Treatment...
>
> Big problem with definitions is what is the context they are being used
> in. (And who sets the definition?) At the IPTW we found that in the
> presentation by Steve Thomas of 'This Old House', he used these same
> words but from a, none specific, mass culture, remodeling view point. To
> many at the Workshop, his use of these words did not fit the proper
> definition as understood from those that take the preservation of
> historic fabric seriously. His use of words and desired outcomes on
> projects were very different that saving historic fabric.

This shouldn't be a problem here, since we all take the preservation of
historic fabric seriously, but I certainly get your point. When I first
moved to Maine, 26 years ago, no one in this area was doing anything that
even began to approach informed preservation of historical properties. Yet
any job on a house more than 100 years old that didn't include the
application of vinyl siding and shutters was referred to as a restoration.
There was one character here-abouts who came on like the Bible of Old House
Lore, who was self-taught, mostly by taking structures down, did no
research, and had no context into which to place his hands-on knowledge.
Unfortunately, he was taken seriously as a resource by almost every one
with an interest in the field, still is by too many, and the work done
under his guidance still waits to be corrected, but are, none-the-less,
pointed proudly to as restorations.
>
> > Can a structure or community be considered "preserved"
> > if it's future is safeguarded without regard to its intentional
> > history?
>
> ...Need clarification on 'intentional history'?

Best explained by giving three local examples. There are in our town a
number of houses that started out life as taverns, or at least houses with
public rooms for the consumption of spirituous liquors. Three of these
houses have been worked on in  the years since I moved here. All three of
them had been originally constructed with a large assembly room. In one
case it was a ball room or dance hall on the second floor, which had been
turned, sometime in the late 19th Cent. into a number of small chambers.
The owners of that property had to decide whether to retain the newer
construction, which was more  practical, or restore the ball room. They
chose the latter. In the second instance the original large chamber had
been divided in the early 19th Cent. into just two rooms, the larger of
which retained much of its original detail. The owners had to choose
between removing the partition wall and removing some good Federal detail
to return the room to its original form, or retaining the existing plan.
They chose the status quo. In both these instances the owners did serious
research into the house, made some effort at developing a philosophy of
preservation particular to the house, but informed by study of preservation
literature, and considered the options available not just from the point of
view of their own comfort. In the third instance the owners were presented
with another large upstairs ball room, which retained a fair amount of
detail. Without a moment's hesitation they gutted the room and turned the
upstairs into three bedrooms: That in spite of the effort they made to have
the downstairs chambers restored as nearly as possible to their original
condition, and in spite of an addition they had constructed which included
a "family room" of almost the same dimensions as the ball room.

I would say that the first two examples represent a concern for the
intentional history of the house, while the third does not. While the
fabric of that structure was also retained to a great extent, what was
lacking was a responsible perspective that guided decision-making.

> Can we get ten words or less definitions of historical, cultural and
> aesthetic as they relate to your question.

Historical- consideration of a property as  representative of one or more
data points in an attempt to describe how a civilization passed through
time.

Cultural- consideration of a property as representative of one or more
aspects of a civilization at a particular point in time.

Aesthetic- consideration of a property as an object that does or does not
cause chills to run up and down one's spine. Also, placing it within the
context of the history of architecture.
>
> > is it possible to establish a guideline so that the argument and
> > methodology to preserve a structure or community would consider
> > the project contextually and work from there to the possible.
>
> Let's see where it goes. Can you give an example of a project, real or
> not, and use this to help define 'consider the project contextually'.

I'll refer back to the three examples cited above. One couldn't help but
wonder if the third example would have suffered its fate if the contractor,
who was not without the knowledge needed to do reasonable restoration of
the physical elements, had enough perspective on the historical and
cultural context to make a persuasive argument against destruction of the
ballroom.

> > these guidelines do seem to exist and in dealing with clients I,
> > and those I work with, habitually take as the starting point the
> > possibility that the object or structure could be returned to its
> > state at a particular point in its history.
>
> What are the guidelines you and your associates work from? I assume you
> mean guidelines as unwritten but common effort of approaching a project.

Yes, unwritten but discussed and commonly adhered to. In a nutshell, the
guidelines require that every effort be made to survey the structure to
determine its original state, to understand how and when changes were made
to this state, and to research the property in historical archives. With
that in hand, and the client informed, every effort is made to determine
what the client's preference is, but with a commitment to trying to get the
client to fit his or her needs into an approach that retains all that is
possible of the early fabric. I intentionally say "early" rather than
original, because it is often the case around here that the original
fabric, from the Colonial period, was little more than unadorned walls
dividing a partially finished interior, while the next stage of the house's
evolution will contain material that is more desirable in terms of all
three criteria.

Bruce