Grafted Stock: Evaluating Contemporary Additions0104.nccdn.net/1_5/2cc/008/300/Plan4_Additions_.pdf · 2013-01-15 · GRAFTED STOCK: Evaluating Contemporary Additions to Historic

Grafted Stock: Evaluating Contemporary Additions

Prepared for the 2012 CPF Conference

May 5, 20123:45 – 5:15 pm

Tim Brandt, AIA, Senior Restoration Architect, LEED Accredited, Office of Historic Preservation

Rebecca Fogel, Cultural Resource Specialist, Page & Turnbull

Meg Glynn, Preservation Planner, Page & Turnbull

GRAFTED STOCK: Evaluating Contemporary Additions to Historic Buildings

Agenda

Introduce Speakers

Standards for Rehabilitation

Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings

NPS Technical Brief 14

Examples of Successful Additions

Challenges Associated with Evaluation of Contemporary Additions

Case Studies

Questions & Answers


Contemporary Additions


Speakers

• Tim Brandt, AIA Senior Restoration Architect, Office of Historic Preservation

• Rebecca Fogel, Associate / Cultural Resources Specialist, Page & Turnbull

• Meg Glynn, Associate / Preservation Planner,Page & Turnbull


Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation


Standards for Rehabilitation“Rehabilitation” is defined as “the process of returning a property

to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those

portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.”


New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and

9shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.


New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

10


Guidelines for RehabilitationRecommended

• Placing functions and services required for the new use in non-character-defining interior spaces rather than constructing a new addition.

• Constructing a new addition so that there is the least possible loss of historic materials and so that character-defining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed.



• Considering the design for an attached exterior addition in terms of its relationship to the historic building. In either case, it should always be clearly differentiated from the historic building and be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relationship of solids to voids, and color.



• Placing a new addition on a non-character-defining elevation and limiting the size and scale in relationship to the historic building.

• Designing a rooftop addition when required for the new use that is set back from the wall plane and is as inconspicuous as possible when viewed from the street.


Guidelines for RehabilitationNot Recommended

• Expanding the size of the historic building by constructing a new addition when the new use could be met by altering non-character-defining interior spaces.

• Attaching a new addition so that the character-defining features of the historic building are obscured, damaged, or destroyed.

• Duplicating the exact form, material, style, and detailing of the historic building in a new addition so that the new work appears to be part of the historic building. Imitating a historic style or period of architecture in a new addition.


Guidelines for RehabilitationNot Recommended

• Designing and constructing new additions that result in the diminution or loss of the historic character of the resource, including its design, materials, workmanship, location or setting.

• Designing a new addition that obscures, damages, or destroys, character-defining features of the historic building.

• Constructing a rooftop addition so that the historic appearance of the building is radically changed.


CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH ADDITIONS

Has the property been previously evaluated?

What is the period of significance?

Why is the property significant?

Should we remove the addition, or should we keep it?


CASE STUDY: ONE KEARNY Mutual Savings Bank designed by

William Curlett (1902)

“The Annex” by Charles Moore and Clark & Beuttler (1964)

Period of Significance: 1902-1964

Rehabilitation and addition by Charles Blozies (2009)

20% Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits, nominated to National Register of Historic Places

SFP

L P

hoto

#A

AC

-456

2








Pho

to b

y W

illiam

Por

ter








“Three Eras, Two Centuries, One Kearny”P

hoto

by

Mat

thew

Millm

an


CASE STUDY: PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE HOSPITAL U.S. Marine Hospital No. 19 (1932)

Additions to main hospital (1952)

Presidio is a National Historic Landmark (NHL) District

Rehabilitation project by Forest City (2010) Non-historic wings removed New addition constructed

20% Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits

LEED Gold Certification























CASE STUDY: ASILOMAR Founded for YWCA in 1913

Julia Morgan designed the site and buildings until ca. 1920

John Carl Warnecke & Associates designed 20-Year Master Plan and additional buildings

Asilomar is a National Historic Landmark (NHL) District

NHL Period of Significance:

Are the Warnecke buildings significant?























CASE STUDY: MARKET SQUARE Western Furniture Exchange &

Merchandise Mart (1937) 9th Floor (1941) Ninth Street Wing (1947) 10th Floor (1958) 11th Floor (1963)

Significant under Criterion C for its Mayan Deco design


Rehabilitated as office space, including the future home of Twitter

Removal of 1941 additions approved by San Francisco HPC, but not by NPS
















CASE STUDY: MARKET SQUARE


EVALUATION TOOLS

Identify character-defining features Exterior Interior

Diagram building history Construction chronology Assign significance to

spaces


EVALUATION TOOLS: CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES


EVALUATION TOOLS: CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES


EVALUATION TOOLS: SIGNIFICANCE DIAGRAMS


Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.4


WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Has the property been previously evaluated?

What is the period of significance?

Why is the property significant?

Should we remove the addition, or should we keep it?


Grafted Stock: Evaluating Contemporary Additions

Prepared for the 2012 CPF Conference

May 5, 20123:45 – 5:15 pm

Tim Brandt, AIA, Senior Restoration Architect, LEED Accredited, Office of Historic Preservation

Rebecca Fogel, Cultural Resource Specialist, Page & Turnbull

Meg Glynn, Preservation Planner, Page & Turnbull

Documents

Grafted Stock: Evaluating Contemporary Additions0104.nccdn.net/1_5/2cc/008/300/Plan4_Additions_.pdf · 2013-01-15 · GRAFTED STOCK: Evaluating Contemporary Additions to Historic