ACE PLACES

I run into Julian Adams frequently in downtown Troy, usually at his favorite coffee haunt, Jacob Alejandro. A jovial chap and a significant informational resource for all things historic preservation, I recently reached out to him for the deets regarding the ongoing saga with the Holland Avenue Tudors in Albany as a friend of mine was wondering what it would take to repurpose a few of them as a professional live work campus for their small health practitioner / creative based collective. In our discussion, Julian mentioned this recent article he wrote and it has significant relevance to me as I see so many amazing structures in our region decaying away from lack of adequate reuse planning. I dropped in a few images of some vacant church spaces that have been on my radar for years.

AUTHOR: Julian Adams
Director of Historic Preservation at Carmina Wood Design. Past experience includes Director of Community Services and Programs and Senior Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator at New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO)

I have worked in Historic Preservation for almost 40 years. Over that time, I have interacted with federal government historic programs using federal standards and guidelines for rehabilitation projects, restoration projects, reconstruction projects, historic resource surveys, National Register listings, building documentation, and preservation/restoration grants. However, of all the treatment standards in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the Standards for Rehabilitation are the ones I have most used and still use almost every day.

That set of treatment standards has guided many projects to a balance between project needs and the historic resource and continues to do so. However, over my career, there is one building type that can give state level reviewers pause in applying the Standards in an adaptive reuse project: Religious buildings, particularly Sanctuary buildings.

As preservationists and many communities know, the reuse of religious properties can face significant challenges that often lead to their long-term abandonment, decay, and unfortunately, demolition. Although it’s not the only reason for their loss, the Standards for Rehabilitation, as currently interpreted, can add to the difficulty of retaining and finding a new life for these purpose-built structures, as funding through Historic Tax Credits (state and federal) can be crucial to the success of a project. Perhaps it is time to find ways under existing or new programs to allow them to remain as historic and physical landmarks in their communities, serving in a new way.

Historic religious buildings are typically specific use-built structures, many with unique decorative interior and exterior features and open interior volumes. Constructed in a time with different demographics and community density, they can represent a very early point in local history, or a high-water mark of the local economy, sometimes both, with redecoration, additions or alterations marking the time. Many are physical visual anchors of the area: They can be in the center of the city or village, or a major landmark visually and culturally, or in a part of a city or village associated with an important period of growth or immigration. In any event, they are all associated with a specific community identity and history.

The fact that many of these buildings were “constructed in a time with different demographics and community density” is where the problem can stem from. Many larger cities have entire areas that have emptied out due to the loss of major employers, the pull (push?) of suburban development, the impact of urban renewal, or loss of population due to many other factors. In some cases, the neighborhoods that built these landmarks have been abandoned or demolished, but somehow many of the religious buildings and their associated buildings remain. Even in more intact or smaller communities, demographic shifts and the simple fact that people aren’t attending church as they once did have left many of these buildings empty.

In some of those complexes, former schools, athenaeums, convents, etc., have been converted into housing or other needed programs. However, the major uniting structure, the sanctuary building itself, can remain unused. Some have found uses as event spaces or galleries; however, in an area with several such resources there are only so many of these uses that can be supported; some are so large that the size alone can be daunting.

In trying to reuse a religious building, I have seen many different proposals: While some of these would make a preservationist shudder, and rightfully so, I think that it may be time to talk about what can be achieved under a more flexible reading of the Standards or review processes when it comes to the adaptive reuse of this building type and how we might work towards that.

A federal official once told me that if a project was denied due to their interpretation of the Standards, no worry, the right developer would come along and do a “better” job. For those who know upstate NY this is not always a reality. The closing and abandoning of religious buildings and complexes rapidly accelerated in NYS and nationwide over the last 15–20 years; this represents a crisis that preservationists cannot ignore.

Many states have a state tax credit; however, many of these tie that credit’s approval to the federal approval, damning projects from getting the state credit as well as the federal credit. For those that have independent state approval, the level of that credit alone may not be enough to make the project successful by itself.

I don’t have a quick and easy answer for this, but I do know that a high-level review (federal) of these properties might not be close enough “to the ground” to understand the challenges facing them.

I would hate to think that part of the problem is the Standards themselves, particularly when the preamble includes: “The Standards will be applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project”.

In the case of religious buildings, I am not proposing a laissez faire approach to review, such as allowing total “gutting” or removal of all character defining features. What I am advocating is a more balanced approach to working through the issues, including the building, its condition, the threat, the local need, local economy, and the impact its loss would have on the community.

In speaking with colleagues, it has been proposed that it may be time for legislative action on this issue. One approach would be to demand federal rule change in the Standards, emphasizing the preamble’s direction for the review of difficult property types.

A second approach would be to allow those states with Historic Tax Credit programs to operate independently from the existing concurrent federal review process. Perhaps a periodic “check in” would be undertaken to keep the communication between federal and state reviewers ongoing, and to share questions, best practices, new ideas, or any concerns. This could also be done within national regions to encourage cross border collaboration and sharing of information, challenges, and approaches to review. However, the final approval of projects would rest with the states, who know, as stated above, the building, its condition, the threat, the local need, local economy, and the impact its loss would have on the community.

Changes to review processes have been mentioned from time to time, with federal officials typically being hesitant to “open up the rules”, fearing loss of the tax credit program or the federal/state partnership due to an administration or Congress that is seen as hostile to historic preservation. Even with that fear, it may be time to get more serious about this tactic, given the recent impacts to the federal preservation work force and the more-than ever need for funding assistance for significant adaptive reuse projects. States have traditionally been seen as “laboratories” for new approaches and programs within the United States, and it may be time to open the labs.

In closing, I would have what was built as record of faith, history, and a community’s aspirations remain in a streetscape, a skyline, on a town square rather than losing it when there can be alternative approaches to review.