Historic Resources Committee

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Committee on Design and Historic Resources Committee .
-------------------------------------------

A little help please:

Richmond (VA) has numerous historic warehouses where the footprint of the floor plates are very large.  There seems to be a Richmond, renovation vernacular, which supports designing and renovating this building type with a large percentage of apartments without windows. These units are surrounded by corridors and have legal egress.  Many have skylights or light tubes to compensate for the lack of windows.

These projects receive historic rehabilitation tax credits.  The National Park Service, which reviews these projects, does not permit removing roof areas to create courtyards and natural light (and air) wells.  

I am concerned that we are developing substandard housing in my city by supporting this level of development; however, I lack any back-up regarding my opinion.  I would like to disuss my concerns with our architectural community.  To begin with, I have a couple of basic questions:

1. Do others agree with my perception that windowless, cookie cutter apartments are a form of substandard housing? 
2. Is it  standard practice in other regions of the country, to develop multi-family (renovation) projects with windowless apartments?

Could you please reply to the questions with examples of local zoning codes that respond to the issue of windowless dwelling units.  Providing information on other regions of the country, and providing professional opinions on this topic could substantiate my concerns and provide me with the necessary tools to present to our city planning commissioners and our city's planning staff.

Additionally, if this is a strong concern, and if the National Park Service is in effect promoting this type of renovation work as part of the very much, needed government rehabilitation tax credit program, then maybe the discussion should extend beyond the AIA.

Thanks for your responses.

-------------------------------------------
David Johannas AIA
Johannas Design Group
Richmond VA
-------------------------------------------

David,
I find your anecdote interesting, particularly as I am currently researching conflict between the goals of historic preservation and sustainability. Certainly access to daylight is a well-accepted metric in the world of sustainability, whether you use its limited definition, that of environmental sustainability, the way most of us architects do, or whether you include the more meaningful and complicating measures of economic and social sustainability. This conflict abounds, despite our frequent argument that historic preservation is by many measures a successful sustainability strategy. The Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are intentional inflexible for good reason. Historic properties are subject to a variety of threats; many are quite well intentioned. On the other hand, the absolute enforcement of absolute rules is seldom the precursor or humane architecture.
I'll be interested to follow this thread. Surely successful case studies can provide evidence to support interpretations for more salubrious Standards.

-------------------------------------------
Thomas Howorth FAIA
Principal Architect
Howorth & Associates Architects
Oxford MS
-------------------------------------------

 These projects receive historic rehabilitation tax credits. The National Park Service, which reviews these projects, does not permit removing roof areas to create courtyards and natural light (and air) wells. 

David-

I have been involved in the adaptive reuse of historic buildings using Federal Historic Tax Credits for the past 15 years. Across the country, there are many examples of historic buildings, particularly large, former industrial and warehouse buildings, which have had portions of the interior structure removed in order to create lightcourts, courtyards and even enclosed atrium-type spaces.  I have personally been involved in several of these projects, all of which have received Historic Tax Credits.

Some of the spaces are only a few hundred SF in area, and some are several thousand SF, depending on the type and scale of the structure.  But in every case, the projects were approved by the NPS because the alterations did not significantly alter the historic character of the buildings.  In the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, Standard #1 reads:

A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

In practice, this allows for natural light and ventilation to be brought to the core of a large building, which is particularly important in converting historic buildings to residential and hotel uses.

I am strongly opposed to apartment units which lack natural light and ventilation.  I would likely decline to be involved with a developer who proposed such a plan.  Fortunately, the NPS recognizes that it is sometimes necessary to alter less character-defining elements in order for a historic building to be put back into productive use.

I hope this helps with your efforts in Richmond.  Best of luck.

-------------------------------------------
Andrew Smith AIA
Trivers Associates, Inc.
Saint Louis MO
-------------------------------------------