HISTORIC DISTRICTS: PRESERVING THE OLD WITH THE COMPATIBLE NEW.

• Jurisdiction: United States
• Author: Vignali, Emma Brandt
• Date: 01 October 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 347 I. THE FOUNDATIONS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE LAWS THAT FACILITATE IT 352 A. From Private to Public 352 B. Federal, State, and Local Interplay 354 1. Federal, Efforts 354 2. State Efforts 356 3. Local Efforts 356 C. Why Preserve Through Historic Districts? 358 1. Promoting Patriotism 358 2. Protecting and Valuing Architectural Styles 359 3. Realizing Economic Value 361 II. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCES, BOARDS OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, AND AWARDING CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 362 A. Local Zoning Ordinances 363 B. The Board of Architectural Review 364 C. Certificates of Appropriateness for New Construction 365 III. DIFFERING ANALYSES OF COMPATIBILITY 366 A. Old and Historic Alexandria District 368 1. Purpose Statement 368 2. Decision-Making Process 368 3. Defining Compatibility 369 B. Pioneer Square Preservation District 370 1. Purpose Statement 371 2. Decision-Making Process 371 3. Defining Compatibility 372 C. King William Historic District 373 1. Purpose Statement 374 2. Decision-Making Process 374 3. Defining Compatibility 375 IV. BETTER ASSURANCE FOR COMPATIBLE NEW CONSTRUCTION 376 A. Including Compatible New Construction as a Primary Purpose in Local Zoning Ordinances 377 B. Process of Ensuring Compatible Design 378 C. Defining Compatibility: Implementing an Individualized Test for Each Historic District 381 1. Understand and Document the Historic Resources Worth Protecting 382 2. Identify and Prioritize Design Elements Indicative of Compatibility 383 3. Avoid Overly Inflexible Design Elements 385 CONCLUSION 385 INTRODUCTION

In the Old and Historic Alexandria District in Alexandria, Virginia, a prominent developer submitted plans for three buildings and a cluster of townhomes to be built on the District's coveted historic waterfront property. (1) The development plans were approved by the Board of Architectural Review in a 4-3 vote, (2) resulting in an outcry from many Alexandria residents. A petition signed by fifty-three residents called the Board's approval "arbitrary and capricious" due to the lack of compatibility between the proposed plans for development (3) and the District's eighteenth- and nineteenth-century townhomes. (4) Many residents argued that the proposed buildings were "too modern and too dense for such a historic area." (5) Wayne Neal, a member of the District's Board of Architectural Review, voted against the new development plans in hopes that the developer could make the "exterior designs... more compatible with the local architecture and... the waterfront view more in keeping with Alexandria's past." (6) Vice Mayor Allison Silberberg of Alexandria City also opposed the development plans, stating, "I believe in being careful and having development that fits in, and is to scale, and is respectful of the historic and special character of Old Town Alexandria." (7)

Despite these valid concerns by residents and city officials alike, the massive plans for development on the waterfront were ultimately approved. (8) However, that approval is not the end of the story. Other well-known developers are acquiring the District's much sought-after waterfront property too. (9) With high property values, close proximity to upscale shopping, and access to parks and the Potomac River, the Old and Historic Alexandria District is particularly appealing to developers. (10) And, despite the fundamental differences between the modern architecture of the proposed development and the Federal Period architecture distinctive of the District, (11) many city leaders welcome the new development, which is estimated to bring close to $750,000 in annual property taxes to the city. (12) This struggle between the economic benefits of new development and the desire to maintain the original character of an historic district is not limited to Alexandria, Virginia, alone. (13)

Historic districts represent a gateway for the modern American to experience entire communities as they endured in decades past. This experience is made possible by comprehensive historic preservation zoning ordinances and design guidelines, independently established by local governments, which mandate construction and alteration standards within an historic district's boundaries. (14) When applied to historic structures, these zoning ordinances and design guidelines protect the United States' historic resources from destruction and decay. Still, standards ensuring that new construction remains compatible with historic buildings serve as a second level of protection. When new construction aesthetically relates to protected historic structures, communities create a cohesive story of the past for all who visit. (15)

The prospect of new development constantly challenges historic districts to maintain this cohesiveness. Historic buildings often decay to the point of demolition, and vacant plots represent the opportunity to construct new homes and businesses. In turn, designing new buildings in historic districts poses a challenge to developers, who must present plans that a district's board of architectural review will accept. (16) And, the board is equally challenged to decide whether new buildings will complement or detract from the historic district's preexisting aesthetic scheme. (17) Accordingly, both parties must answer the same question: Which structures will appropriately fill these vacant spaces?

This question is complicated, as every local government retains the power to determine how it will protect its historic resources. (18) It is a question of "compatibility," and there is no nationwide definition or legal test for this term. (19) Historic districts use the term "compatibility" to describe the type of new development that will be permitted to exist among those structures of historic value. (20) It most often refers to a feeling of aesthetic harmony between the exteriors of newly built structures and existing historic buildings. (21) Most historic districts view preservation, including questions of compatibility, as advancing three important objectives: promoting patriotism, (22) protecting and valuing architectural styles, (23) and realizing economic value. (24) However, each district may go about achieving these objectives through different legislative means. What is apparent is that some historic districts are more successful than others at achieving compatibility. (25) Consequently, incompatible new construction continues to threaten historic districts across the country.

Determinations of compatibility are extremely important to the overall success of the United States' historic districts. An historic district that permits incompatible development may experience negative consequences, including threatened perceived historical character and reduced economic outcomes. (26) Too much incompatible development may ultimately lead to the destruction of the historic structures that the district seeks to protect. (27) Ensuring that new development is compatible with historic buildings is vital for the success of an historic district's ongoing preservation.

A viable solution to the issue of incompatible new development is currently absent from historic preservation scholarship. It is well established that historic districts do--and should--have the power to establish tailored definitions of compatibility, founded upon each district's unique historic resources. (28) However, there are some measures that all historic districts can use to protect historic resources from incompatible development, without sacrificing the autonomy of district-specific definitions of compatibility. (29) This Note assembles the most effective methods of protection used today into a single, uniform framework that communities across the country can apply to their respective historic districts. This framework will continue to be important to the success of the United States' historic districts through the foreseeable future because assuring compatibility between new and historic structures is imperative to achieving the primary objectives of historic preservation.

To that end, this Note proposes a nationally applicable framework that local governments can implement to best protect their historic districts from incompatible new construction. Part I introduces the current historic preservation framework, beginning with background on the historic preservation movement. It also addresses the present relationship between federal, state, and local governments, and presents the objectives that continue to drive preservation efforts at all levels of government. Part II reviews the most common legislative and procedural efforts of historic districts, including the typical structure of local zoning ordinances, the creation and purpose of the board of architectural review, and the process of awarding Certificates of Appropriateness. Part III outlines and critiques the zoning ordinances and design guidelines of three geographically and historically diverse historic districts, including the Old and Historic Alexandria District in Alexandria, Virginia; Pioneer Square Preservation District in Seattle, Washington; and King William Historic District in San Antonio, Texas. Part IV hybridizes the most effective methods from the three historic districts outlined in Part III to create a uniform framework. This framework demands a level of necessary protection that, when applied to historic districts nationwide, will both assure compatibility and further the purposes of historic preservation. Provided that this framework is properly employed, historic districts may apply individualized definitions of compatibility with confidence that their historic resources are adequately protected.

1. THE FOUNDATIONS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE LAWS THAT FACILITATE IT

   To fully grasp why compatibility is so important, it is critical to recognize why the United States values historic preservation at all. While historic preservation...