As America entered the twenty-first century, there had been a gradual but pronounced increase in the amount of construction dollars spent on existing buildings as opposed to new buildings. Architectural firms were reporting that about 40 percent of their fees came from that expanding market.
Some of the affected buildings, undoubtedly, were viewed as landmarks in their communities and perhaps beyond. Some were landmarks of the recent past, others of the not-so-recent past. A number both categories were likely eligible to be designated historic buildings and such designation, or in some instances, even the potential for designation, could bring restrictions or financial opportunities and frequently both.
Architects who specialized in older architecture knew the realities of dealing with historic buildings. They were accustomed to the myriad of issues not familiar to their colleagues focused on new buildings. Some of the issues for historic architecture were matters of administration and compliance, such as redevelopment incentives, building codes and zoning, and the many shades of interpretation for each. Many of the issues for historic architecture dealt with the inherent performance characteristics of buildings created by an earlier construction technology and design approach. That is not to say that the buildings of one period are necessarily better or worse than those of another, only that the buildings can be fundamentally different, and that mixing the new with the old, especially in regards to construction materials, could have unintended and even disastrous results. But, most importantly, the values in the practice of historic architecture and historic preservation are the values of good design valid to every period.
Like it or not, it was undeniable that a sizable share of the construction market was dealing with existing buildings. Many of those buildings were historic and this new reality begged the question, “Are the architects ready?”
The formal process of becoming an architect in this country was then and is still now steeped in the notion that architects design new buildings. Architectural schools place a significant emphasis on studios largely focused on new building design. The accreditation process for architectural schools likewise places major emphasis on education weighted toward new construction.
Indeed, our society as a whole has been slow to embrace the concept of of use and adaptation in many parts of life. Americans are an independent lot, born of fighting for our freedom. From the mobility to go and to be where we want, to property rights, we are accustomed to doing pretty much as we please. Abundant natural resources and ample space, coupled with the individual financial wealth that comes from such abundance, has made this independence relatively easy. And we are a disposable society. As you read this article, you may be sipping coffee from a Styrofoam cup, eating off a paper plate with a plastic fork, and wiping your hands with a paper napkin. When the food is gone, so is everything else. In all likelihood, your shoes have not been and never will be. It is easier, if not less expensive, to discard and start anew. Americans have the same tendency towards buildings. The wood windows need maintenance, we replace. The wood siding needs painting, we cover. The siding installer’s truck reads, “Vinyl is final!” It is not.
As architects who focus their practice on historic architecture know only too well, misconceptions abound concerning the technology that produced those buildings and how to sustain their function through . Most disturbingly, an increasingly larger portion of their work address recent well-meaning but damaging repairs. Too often, the repairs are more harmful than the problems they were intended to address, leading to long-term physical damage.
It is in this context that the Historic Resources Committee of the American Institute of Architects formed in 2003 a Preservation Education Task Group to promote a greater awareness of the issues that the older building and especially the historic building present. Among the members were architects in public and private practice, educators, architecture school administrators, as well as representatives from the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), the National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB), the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT). At the very first there was unanimous agreement that this is a serious problem which would take effort at all levels of the educational and licensing process.
It was also agreed that while there were graduate programs for those wishing to specialize in this type of work, all architectural students seeking their first professional degree should have a basic exposure to the most fundamental concepts. The purpose was not to rewrite the undergraduate school curriculum; rather, the intent was to better integrate preservation values into existing courses. Some examples of values integral to historic preservation are the careful recording of as-found conditions; thoughtful assessment prior to action; respect for the interplay of site and building; respect for the context of community; respect for inherent qualities and characteristics of the existing building’s design; material conservation; the preference for repair instead of replacement; and compatibility with the critical performance characteristics of the established building.
Over the next several years the Task Group grew and made progress on all fronts. For example, in 2003 the Task Group made recommendations on behalf of the AIA for adjustment to the accreditation performance standards; some favorable adjustments were subsequently made. Members of the Historic Resources Committee became members of the accreditation teams. The 2006 Cranbrook Summer Institute for architectural faculty dedicated its entire program to the development of preservation-focused course outlines applicable to the professional design curriculum. Sponsorship of an ACSA/AIA HRC student competition in 2007 focused on the daunting task of adding new space to the iconic Saarinen Gallery and Library at Cranbrook and attracted international interest from students and faculty alike. second competition in 2009 developed model coursework rich with preservation ideals under the auspices of the AIA Best Practices program.
Recognition of the role of the historic architect is improving. When the AIA identified sustainable design as a major platform for its 2008-2010 Strategic Plan, historic architects were heartened. They could point out that historic buildings, by their design, can teach us the wise use of materials to respond to site and climate. The re-use of an existing building is ‘sustainable design’ by definition!
Today, American architects are reporting that their fees from work with existing buildings have increased to about 60 percent. They face the same challenges of globalization and energy costs, but now add an awakened awareness of climate change. The Zero Net Carbon emission standards at the center of the recent Paris Accord is not just a noble endeavor but an imperative for the fate of the planet. It is Carl Elefante, the 2018 president of AIA, who has once again so poignantly captured the stark reality of our dilemma: we cannot build our way to the Zero Net Carbon emission goals, we have to conserve our way. The stock of existing buildings is enormous. And it is the architects who must show the way. In this new reality, it is the traditional values of historic preservation, the timeless values of good design, sustainability, and responsible stewardship that must be the guiding principles of this effort.
Joseph K. Oppermann, FAIA is a past chairman of the AIA Historic Resources Committee and a founding member of the Preservation Education Task Group. He is president of Joseph K. Oppermann—Architect, P.A., in Winston-Salem, NC, a firm that specializes in historic architecture.