Commercial Architecture December 2017 - 11

FEATURE

2017 In Review

Preserve, Rehab,
Restore, Or Reconstruct?
W

hen it comes to historic buildings, the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, suggests there is more than one approach. In fact, Standards for the Treat-

ment of Historic Properties enumerates four: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction.
"Fundamental to the question is integrity, significance, and economic viability," said David Bell, FAIA, LEED AP, BD+C, Bell Architects, PC, Washington, relating how the guidelines
apply to his firm's work.
"Preservation is most viable when there is a great deal of integrity, continuous use that
is consistent with the historical use and limited increase or change in economic demands,"
he said.
"Rehabilitation is the approach most applicable to our practice," Bell continued. "Much
of our work is related to modernizing systems and enclosures in historic buildings to meet
current demands for energy efficiency, comfort, life safety, and accessibility. While rehabilitation can have some areas or elements that are restored, this approach allows for some
flexibility to incorporate new systems and change spatial configurations; it is suited to adaptive reuse. There are federal rehabilitation tax credits applicable to this approach-which
are also available for restoration projects as well."
"Restoration is a more of an academic approach, requiring rigor in research and application," Bell explained. "It is often related to a use similar to the period of significance. It's
not uncommon for historic house museums to fall into this category. Sometimes these will
be eligible for grants with associated conservation easements."
Finally, reconstruction generally is done when the historic resource is largely gone, Bell
commented. "It is probably the least common of the approaches. This can be a tricky approach, while it is hard to avoid conjecture without having a great deal of documentation.
One of the most well-known examples is Colonial Williamsburg."
"At STIR Architecture, we consider many factors when determining the right approach,
as the order of importance of the concepts can shift these depending on the intended use
and the source of funding," said James C, Auld, AIA, CDP, partner, STIR Architecture, Los
Angeles.
"Budget and funding sources, project location, the building and site condition, the context and the future intended use, if different than the historic use, as well as the intended
outcome of a project, influence our choice of approach. We may borrow from all four approaches-especially when the historic use is being replaced with a newer one. When
the project will remain in its original use, we may only employ a preservation approach to
stabilize the structure, make it safe, and more resilient to damage from earthquake, fire, or
wind," Auld said.
He continued, "Our work to date with historic buildings has focused on a combination
of approaches, which results in the greatest benefit relative to the cost. For example, at Los
Angeles Engine Co. 28, we added an additional office level on top of the main roof, behind
an existing parapet. The parapet fronts the only significant façade and allowed a change of
use from fire house to creative office on levels above ground and a ground level restaurant.
Our work retained all of the significant features-the brick, stone, tile façade, great massive
doors, ambience of the engine room, its paneled and tin ceiling and the fire pole linking to
the floor above-while introducing new features to this 1928 monument in downtown Los
Angeles."

commercialarchitecturemagazine.com

DECEMBER 2017

COMMERCI A L A RCHI T EC T URE

http://www.commercialarchitecturemagazine.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Commercial Architecture December 2017