Contributing property

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Little Red Schoolhouse is a Contributing Property of the Newberry Historic District in Newberry .

Contributing Property is a legal term in United States law that governs the establishment of a Historic District . Contributing is a building, structure, object or site that contributes to the historical integrity or architectural quality of a historical district and thus makes it state or nationally significant. State, national, or local government agencies use different definitions of what constitutes a contributing property, but there are common characteristics. Local regulations often limit changes that can be made to property classified within historic districts. The first local statute to regulate changes of property in this way was issued in Charleston , South Carolina in 1931 .

Ownership within the boundaries of a historical district is one of two types: contributing or non-contributing . If the property is contributing , it helps to make a historical district historical , for example a country estate from the 19th century, a modern gas station, for example, does not. The contributing property is therefore the key to understanding an area as historical, for its historical or archaeological quality. If ownership is significantly changed - through remodeling or renewal - the status may change from contributing to non-contributing or vice versa.

history

According to the National Park Service , the first enactment of a law restricting the use of contributing property in a historic district by statute was enacted in the city of Charleston, South Carolina in 1931. These statutes stipulated that buildings within the district could not be changed in their architectural features if these changes were visible from the street. By the mid-1930s, other cities in the United States followed the example of Charleston. A constitutional change in the state of Louisiana in 1937 led to the creation of the Vieux Carre Commission, which was tasked with the protection and maintenance of the French Quarter in the city of New Orleans . The city then passed statutes that set standards for structural changes in the neighborhood. (Other sources, such as the 1963 Columbia Law Review , give different dates for the first historic preservation statutes, 1925 for New Orleans and 1924 for Charleston. This publication also states that these two cities were the only ones with zoning plans for a historic district until Alexandria , Virginia passed its statutes in 1946. The National Park Service apparently disagrees)

In 1939, the city of San Antonio , Texas enacted a statute protecting the area of ​​La Villita, the ancient marketplace of the original Mexican village from which the city developed. In 1941 the legal force of local building regulations was challenged in court for the first time. In City of New Orleans v. Parchment (198 La. 852, 5 So. 2d 129 (1941)), an appeals court in Louisiana ruled that control of design and demolition permits within specified historical districts is permissible. From around the mid-1950s, such regulations, which were once only applied to historical districts, were also extended to individual landmarks. As early as 1950, the United States Congress had passed a law that placed the Georgetown district in Washington, DC under protection. By 1965, 51 parishes in the United States had adopted heritage protection statutes. In 1998 more than 2,300 towns , cities and villages had such guidelines.

definition

Badge marking the Little Red Schoolhouse as a Contributing Property

Contributing properties are defined by historical districts or by development plans in which historical monument protection zones are established, usually at the local level. Such development plans serve to preserve the historical character of an area by controlling changes to existing objects and demolitions. In the legislation on monument protection, buildings, structures, objects or sites contribute if they are located within a district and improve its historical quality, its historical context or the archaeological quality. Definitions may vary from state to state, but the main characteristics are similar. Another key aspect is the historical integrity of property. Significant changes can destroy the connection with the past and thus worsen historical integrity. Contributing properties are integral parts of the historical context and character of a historical district. They meet the requirements that apply to individual entries in the National Register of Historic Places and provide the associated advantages, for example with income tax .

Contributing versus non-contributing

This hospital building in the East Grove Street Historic District in Bloomington is an example of non-contributory property.

The line between contributing and non-contributing can be unclear. In particular, entries of historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places prior to 1980 have few indications of non-contributory items. The State Historic Preservation Offices conduct research to assess the historic character of structures in historic districts. For districts included in the register after 1980, the non-contributing components are usually listed.

In general, a contributing property helps the historic district to be considered historic. A 19th century house in Queen Anne style , such as the David Syme House , is contributing , whereas a modern gas station or hospital within the boundaries of the historic district does not and is therefore non-contributing .

Even historical buildings classified as contributing can later become non-contributing if major changes are made. Sometimes a new facade can damage the historical integrity of a building. In some cases this damage is reversible, in some cases the historical value of a house is irreversibly destroyed.

literature

Individual evidence

  1. a b c d e f g Early Models. Working on the Past in Local Historic Districts ( English ) National Park Service. Archived from the original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved August 31, 2012.
  2. ^ A b The Police Power, Eminent Domain, and the Preservation of Historic Property . In: Columbia Law Review , Vol. 63, No. 4. (April 1963), pp. 708-732.
  3. ^ A b John S. Pyke, Jr .: Architectural Controls and the Individual Landmark . In: Law and Contemporary Problems . Vol. 36, No. 3 (Summer 1971), pp. 398-405.
  4. L. Keith Hughes: Use of Zoning Restrictions to Restrain Property Owners from Altering or Destroying Historic Landmarks . In: Duke Law Journal . Jg. 1975, No. 4 (September 1975), pp. 999-1019.
  5. ^ A b Historic and Scenic Preservation Local Option Property Tax Reimbursement , Maine Historic Preservation Commission. Retrieved February 19, 2007.
  6. ORDINANCE NO. 2001-02 , (PDF; 44 kB), Danville, California ordinance, California Office of Historic Preservation. Retrieved February 19, 2007.
  7. ^ A b Historic Districts Q&A ( English ) South Carolina Department of Archives and History. Archived from the original on March 22, 2010. Retrieved August 31, 2012.
  8. ^ Iowa City Urban Planning Division: Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook ( English , PDF ) Archived from the original on December 2, 2007. Retrieved March 26, 2007.
  9. Historic Districts ( English ) Town of Wake Forest, North Carolina. Archived from the original on August 10, 2007. Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Retrieved August 31, 2012. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.wakeforestnc.gov
  10. ^ A b East Grove Street District ( English , PDF) In: National Register Nomination Form . Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Archived from the original on March 25, 2009. Retrieved March 26, 2007.
  11. ^ Sycamore Historic District ( English , PDF ) In: National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form . Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Archived from the original on July 20, 2011. Retrieved April 23, 2007.