Historic preservation of architecture is not traditionally associated with the natural environment or with conservation issues not linked to structures. Yet participant responses in the survey, roundtables, and retreat dwelled frequently on the role of preservation in a city-wide response to climate change. Many agreed that the moment is ripe for convergence with others sharing an interest in environmentally sound, energy-efficient, and socially conscious approaches to housing and real estate development.
Preservationists, it was frequently noted, need to confront the hard questions more empirically.
One might ask:
Does rehabilitation of older structures have a carbon footprint superior to new construction, or not?
If so, do the financial incentives or disincentives make the discrepancy significant?
It was noted that buildings have a big environmental impact, with construction debris constituting as much as 60% of NYC’s waste stream. Accordingly, efficient construction and adaptive reuse are sectors with high potential to slow global warming. However, preservationists’ arguments are hard to support because the science is not well developed and relevant data is not well articulated -- and perhaps not well understood. Therefore serious research, specific to NYC, is urgently needed to strengthen the case for preservation.
LEED is a de facto standard nationwide, but it sends mixed signals with relation to existing buildings and historic preservation, especially when applied to NYC’s urban environment. Developing a standard with articulate quantitative indicators so that new and old buildings can be compared is important. Pulling this off means bringing lots of people from other fields and disciplines to the table and convincing them of the shared goals. Some respondents speculated about the value of a preservation equivalent of the U.S. Green Building Council. Also recommended was the creations of a database of uses: programs looking for buildings and vice versa – to support matchmaking. Many respondents refuted the notion that free markets do this job well.
Regarding incentive systems linked to environmental concerns, participants discussed a demolition tax, stricter requirements on recycling of building waste, and landfill fees with revenues accruing to preservation escrow accounts. Perhaps working with NY State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) and NY City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) to develop a protocol on demolition. Yet it was noted that requirements like these would not likely make a difference in the high-pressure real estate market of NYC. What’s needed is to get preservation fully integrated in climate action plans and long-term action planning focused on codes (building, energy, zoning) that interface positively with preservation — making sure the building codes do not tip inappropriately towards new construction, preservationists need to become more proficient regarding environmental cost benefit analysis.
Strong leadership and a unified message/agenda among preservationists would help. It was agreed that the agenda should be put in the context of sound, verifiable research and amended. This current economic slow down offers an accidental opportunity which should be exploited.
Steps towards clarity and unity of purpose were frequently articulated by respondents. They included: conducting more research to establish quantitative links between environmental sustainability and historic preservation; building alliances with green building groups; providing persuasive information to the public regarding preservation’s holistic synthesis of issues tied to habitat, landscape, and environment. Respondents noted that preservation can both ride on the coattails of the sustainability movement and lay claim to decades of sensitivity to “green” design and balanced development.
This report is only partial summary of discussions hosted and feedback received by the Preservation Vision: NYC project. Every attempt was made to convey the breadth and content of these exchanges between participants, but brevity demanded that many useful contributions were simplified, combined, or left out altogether. In no case are the assertions and assessments summarized here a reflection of the organizers' opinions or best knowledge; they belong only to the participants and contribute to an open process of deliberation. A final report will provide a more comprehensive and nuanced reflection of these deliberations along with a synthesis of project participants’ visions for the future.
