National Historic Preservation Act: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎Conclusion: copyedit
m →‎Later Amendments: "affect" --> "effect"
Line 32: Line 32:
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates a review process for all federally-funded projects that will impact sites listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. Although this process is not binding, it allows interested parties an opportunity to comment on projects. The main purpose for the establishment of the [[Section 106 review process]] is to minimize potential harm and damage to historic properties.<ref>Stipe, 49.</ref> Enforced by the NHPA, any federal agency that may damage historic property, especially those listed on the NR, must consider alternative plans for their project. If the project is believed to have no adverse effect on eligible historic resources, the applicable agency is required to document this. Alternatively, if an adverse effect is expected, the agency is required to work with the local State Historic Preservation Office to ensure that all interested parties are given an opportunity to review the proposed work and provide comments. Ideally, a Memorandum of Agreement is reached between all consulting parties, but this is not always the case. Without this process historical properties would lose a significant amount of protection. Unfortunately, this process helps decide different approaches and solutions to the project, but does not prevent any site from demolition or alteration.<ref>King, 22.</ref>
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates a review process for all federally-funded projects that will impact sites listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. Although this process is not binding, it allows interested parties an opportunity to comment on projects. The main purpose for the establishment of the [[Section 106 review process]] is to minimize potential harm and damage to historic properties.<ref>Stipe, 49.</ref> Enforced by the NHPA, any federal agency that may damage historic property, especially those listed on the NR, must consider alternative plans for their project. If the project is believed to have no adverse effect on eligible historic resources, the applicable agency is required to document this. Alternatively, if an adverse effect is expected, the agency is required to work with the local State Historic Preservation Office to ensure that all interested parties are given an opportunity to review the proposed work and provide comments. Ideally, a Memorandum of Agreement is reached between all consulting parties, but this is not always the case. Without this process historical properties would lose a significant amount of protection. Unfortunately, this process helps decide different approaches and solutions to the project, but does not prevent any site from demolition or alteration.<ref>King, 22.</ref>


==Later Amendments==
==Later amendments==


The NHPA of 1966 made a huge impact in the communities and cities of America. Later amendments only strengthened the previously developed act. In 1969, the [[National Environmental Policy Act]](NEPA) opened more opportunities for the NHPA to take affect. The NEPA protects a larger amount of area of property compared to the NHPA, because it includes the environment around it, which will sometimes inherently include historic sites. In 1976, Congress extended the Section 106 review process to eligible buildings for listing, not just those already on the [http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com the National Register of Historic Places list]. In 1980, Section 110 was added for a higher standard to reduce harm for [[National Historic Landmarks]]. In 1992, amendments increased protection for Native American and Native Hawaiian preservation efforts.<ref>Kanefield.</ref>
The NHPA of 1966 made a huge impact in the communities and cities of America.{{Fact}} Later amendments only strengthened the previously developed act. In 1969, the [[National Environmental Policy Act]](NEPA) opened more opportunities for the NHPA to take effect. The NEPA protects a larger amount of area of property compared to the NHPA, because it includes the environment around it, which will sometimes inherently include historic sites. In 1976, Congress extended the Section 106 review process to eligible buildings for listing, not just those already on the [http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com the National Register of Historic Places list]. In 1980, Section 110 was added for a higher standard to reduce harm for [[National Historic Landmarks]]. In 1992, amendments increased protection for Native American and Native Hawaiian preservation efforts.<ref>Kanefield.</ref>


==Preservation TODAY==
==Preservation TODAY==

Revision as of 22:27, 6 July 2008

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) is legislation intended to preserve historical and archaeological sites in the United States of America. The act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation Offices.

Senate Bill 3035, the National Historic Preservation Act, was signed into law on October 15, 1966, and is the most far-reaching preservation legislation ever enacted in the United States. Several amendments have been made since. Among other things, the act requires Federal agencies to evaluate the impact of all Federally funded or permitted projects through a process known as Section 106 Review.

Early Development

Preservation is a rather early development in America. Although there was no national policy regarding preservation until 1966, early efforts beginning in the 19th century initiated the journey towards this legislative bill. One of the earliest efforts of the preservation movement occurred around the 1850s when George Washington’s home, Mount Vernon was in shambles. His nephew attempted to sell it to the federal government for $200,000, but no one bought it.[1] To prevent any further destruction or it from becoming a resort, Ann Pamela Cunningham created the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association to fight for this house. After establishing the first group promoting preservation efforts, they raised the money to acquire the property and protect it from ruins. Due to the efforts of these women, not only does this house stand to represent the nation and the birth of independence, but it, also, “served as a blueprint for later organizations.”[2]

In 1906, an act was passed on the behalf of the nation’s history and land. President Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act that “prohibited the excavation of antiquities from public lands without a permit from the Secretary of Interior.”[3] It also gave the president authority to declare a specific piece of land a national monument, therefore protecting it from scavengers and proclaiming national identity.[4]

In 1916, the Department of Interior established a new entity known as the National Park Service, the nation’s first agency to regulate and manage public space, including the national monuments.[5] “Over the past fifty years the NPS has acquired more than 26,000,000 acres (110,000 km2) of land, including not only the great chain of parks preserved for their natural beauty and value, but an extraordinary variety of historic buildings, monuments, and sites.”[6]

By 1935, Congress formed the Historic Sites Act that established a national policy for preservation and permitted the Secretary of Interior to create programs on behalf of preservation efforts.[7] Historic American Building Survey (HABS), one of the established programs, provided jobs for architects, engineers, and surveyors who suffered from the Great Depression era. They were to record, document, interpret, and survey historic properties.[8] The Historic Sites Act, also, organized the national parks under the National Park Service, which created the foundation for the future development of National Register of Historic Places.[9] Although the Antiquities Act and Historic Sites Act were major stepping stones for the preservation movement, it did not create a public “national awareness.”[10]

On October 26, 1949, President Truman signed the National Trust for Historic Preservation act “to facilitate public participation in the preservation of sites, buildings, and objects of national significance or international interest." In addition, the bill enforced public participation in preserving and protecting the sites, buildings, objects of national significance in American history.”[11] Initially, the National Trust for Historic Preservation did not provide funds for preservation projects. Today, they are able to offer funds for planning and education, providing a plethora of information, techniques, and methods to assist people in applying preservation locally.[12]

Post WWII and Urban Renewal

In 1956, President Eisenhower signed into law the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 which established the interstate highway system, which provided an easy and efficient way for troops to depart if under attack. Due to this new construction, many historic properties were destroyed. In the 1960s, the Kennedy administration launched the Urban Renewal Program. Hoping the plan would rejuvenate the cities, it in fact increased the destruction in the downtown areas.[13] The increase in population around this time, as well, and the manufacturing of cars called for a rapid change, therefore hindering our nation and its culture.[14] “With the urbanization, tear downs, and rebuilding America…it is destroying the physical evidence of the past.”[15] During the 1950s and 1960s people saw the negative changes in their city and developed a concern for their “quality of life that reflected their identity.”[16]

As a response to the nationwide destruction brought about by federally initiated programs, a report coordinated by Lady Bird Johnson analyzed the country and the effects of urban renewal. With Heritage So Rich, an accumulation of essays, wrote an “an expansive inventory of properties reflecting the nation’s heritage, a mechanism to protect those properties from unnecessary harm caused by federal activities, a program of financial incentives, and an independent federal preservation body to coordinate the actions of federal agencies affecting historic preservation.”[17] The book triggered public awareness of the issue and offered a proposition to handle the situation through the National Historic Preservation Act.[18]

National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act was signed into a bill by Lyndon B. Johnson on October 15, 1966.[19] This act established several institutions: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Office, National Register of Historic Places, and the Section 106 review process.[20]

Meeting four times a year, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation consists of twenty members from both public and private sectors, with the head typically appointed by the president.[21] The Council’s role is to advise the President and Congress on historic preservation issues, to develop policies and guidelines handling any conflicts of federal agencies, and to participate in the Section 106 review process.[22]

The National Register of Historic Places, overseen by the National Park Service, is nation's official list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects worthy of preservation.[23] In order to be eligible for listing, a property must meet one of four criteria and have sufficient integrity. Just because a property is listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register, it does not automatically prevent damage or destruction. It does, however, qualify these approved properties for grants, loans, and tax incentives.[24]

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Officer “conducts statewide inventory of historic properties, nominating properties to the National Register, maintaining a statewide preservation plan, assisting others, advising and educating locals.”[25] There are a total of 59 SHPO officers, one for each state with eight additional ones, which include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and others.[26]

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates a review process for all federally-funded projects that will impact sites listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. Although this process is not binding, it allows interested parties an opportunity to comment on projects. The main purpose for the establishment of the Section 106 review process is to minimize potential harm and damage to historic properties.[27] Enforced by the NHPA, any federal agency that may damage historic property, especially those listed on the NR, must consider alternative plans for their project. If the project is believed to have no adverse effect on eligible historic resources, the applicable agency is required to document this. Alternatively, if an adverse effect is expected, the agency is required to work with the local State Historic Preservation Office to ensure that all interested parties are given an opportunity to review the proposed work and provide comments. Ideally, a Memorandum of Agreement is reached between all consulting parties, but this is not always the case. Without this process historical properties would lose a significant amount of protection. Unfortunately, this process helps decide different approaches and solutions to the project, but does not prevent any site from demolition or alteration.[28]

Later amendments

The NHPA of 1966 made a huge impact in the communities and cities of America.[citation needed] Later amendments only strengthened the previously developed act. In 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) opened more opportunities for the NHPA to take effect. The NEPA protects a larger amount of area of property compared to the NHPA, because it includes the environment around it, which will sometimes inherently include historic sites. In 1976, Congress extended the Section 106 review process to eligible buildings for listing, not just those already on the the National Register of Historic Places list. In 1980, Section 110 was added for a higher standard to reduce harm for National Historic Landmarks. In 1992, amendments increased protection for Native American and Native Hawaiian preservation efforts.[29]

Preservation TODAY

The early movements of preservation were driven by the natural desire of patriotism and protecting the new establishment of a nation by wealthy, private individuals. People focused primarily on the individual building verses an area, such as the downtown or a section of a city. The saved buildings were often turned into house museums and creating tourism and showcases.[30] Preservation transitioned the focus of patriotism to the mere aesthetics of a building, then to the structural relationships to the society.[31] Today, anyone in their community can fight for preservation as a whole. According to Datel, today’s motivations are boiled to four issues:

  1. to retain diverse elements of past
  2. to perpetuate the distinctive identities of places
  3. to involve amateurs in landscape care
  4. to practice a conservation approach to environmental change.[32]

The economic benefits of preservation continue to become more important and better understood and documented. Preservation efforts produce the most number of jobs in the nation’s economy.[33] These jobs create new businesses, tourism, increase property values, and enhanced quality of life.[34] Preservationists continue to strive to provide education and knowledge to the public, so that there can be more practice and experience in the field. Unfortunately, with all of the properties listed on the National Register and the work and fight of the National Historic Preservation Act, properties are still being threatened. The fight of protection is not over.[35]

Quotes

“Preservation…this reaching back and looking forward may enable current residents to feel that they are part of a continuum and to achieve a “sense of stability and belonging.”[36]

“There is a need in every generation to study the past, to absorb its spirit, to preserve its messages…it’s a collaboration of ourselves and our ancestors, the result is a deeper understanding for individuals and in consequence, a broader culture for the nation.”[37]

“Americans aware of the value inherent in many older structures: not that they are old, but that they contains so much of ourselves. This awareness of human values, whether conscious or hidden behind the expression of other motivations, plays a real part in the growing movement for preservation of older structure.”[38]

“Recognizing that increased knowledge and better administration of historic resources would improve the planning and execution of Federal undertakings and benefit economic growth and development nationwide.”[39]

“If the preservation movement is to be successful…it must attempt to give a sense of orientation to our society, using structures, and objects of the past to establish values of time and place.”[40]

Conclusion

Architecture defines the area in which we live. As a result, it tells a story. Some cities still have evidence of their story to tell. For others, history has been demolished, while some are beginning a new story. In either case, our stories, our history of who we are and where we came from should be protected.[citation needed] Destruction only communicates that we have no respect for our past and who we are today.[citation needed] We lose our only visual representation into the past. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 brought the power to preserve our past through buildings into the hands of Americans. We, now, have the ability to fight and protect what is important to us.[citation needed]

References

  1. ^ Christopher J. Duerken et all., A Handbook on Historic Preservation Law, edited by Christopher J. Duerken (Washington D.C.: Conservation Foundation: National Center for Preservation Law, 1983), 1.
  2. ^ Christopher Tunnard, “Landmarks of Beauty,” With Heritage So Rich, chaired by Albert Rains, directed by Laurence G. Henderson (New York: Random House, 1966), 30. & Mitchell Schwarzer, “Myths of Permanence and Transience in the Discourse on Historic Preservation in the United States,” Journal of Architectural Education 48, no. 1 (September 1994): 3-4.
  3. ^ Thomas F. King, Cultural Resource: Law and Practice, 2nd ed. (New York: Altamira Press, 2004), 19.
  4. ^ Duerken, 8.
  5. ^ King, 19.
  6. ^ Walter Muri Whitehall, “The Right of Cities to be Beautiful,” With Heritage So Rich, chaired by Albert Rains, directed by Laurence G. Henderson (New York: Random House, 1966), 48.
  7. ^ Adina W. Kanefield, Federal Historic Preservation Case Law, 1966-1996, rev. ed., http://www.achp.gov/book/TOC2.html (accessed April, 19, 2008).
  8. ^ King, 20.
  9. ^ Duekern, 8.
  10. ^ Kanefield.
  11. ^ Whitehall, 49.
  12. ^ Ibid.
  13. ^ King, 21.
  14. ^ Tunnard, 30.
  15. ^ Ibid, 204.
  16. ^ King, 22.
  17. ^ Robert Stipe, A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in 21st Century (Chapel Hill: University of Chapel Hill Press, 2003), 35.
  18. ^ Kanefield.
  19. ^ Stipe, 35.
  20. ^ King, 22.
  21. ^ Stipe, 38.
  22. ^ Duerken, 9. & Kanefield.
  23. ^ King, 40.
  24. ^ Charles E. Fisher, “Promoting the Preservation of Historic Buildings: Historic Preservation Policy in the United States,” APT Bulletin 29, no. ¾ (1998): 8.
  25. ^ King, 42.
  26. ^ Ibid, 41.
  27. ^ Stipe, 49.
  28. ^ King, 22.
  29. ^ Kanefield.
  30. ^ Fisher, 7.
  31. ^ Schwarzer, 2.
  32. ^ Robin Elizabeth Datel, “Preservation and a Sense of Orientation for American Cities,” Geographical Review 75, no. 2 (April 1985): 125.
  33. ^ Donovan D. Rypkema, The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader’s Guide (Washington D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1994), 11.
  34. ^ Ibid, 13.
  35. ^ Stipe,40.
  36. ^ Datel, 130.
  37. ^ Tunnard, 29.
  38. ^ George Zabriskie, “Window to the Past,” With Heritage So Rich, chaired by Albert Rains, directed by Laurence G. Henderson (New York: Random House, 1966), 57.
  39. ^ Kanefield.
  40. ^ With Heritage So Rich, 207.

External links

Flag of United StatesHourglass icon  

This article relating to the history of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Stub icon

This article relating to archaeology is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Historic_Preservation_Act&oldid=224006716"