|
|
|
|
. For the benefit of the Committee on Design members who do not follow the Historic Resources Committee discussion forum I am cross posting Andrew Smith's reply to David Johannas original question. David's original query was cross posted to both discussion forums. Alas it's seems impossible to crosspost a response. So I am copying Andrew's response below. I have to say, that I have been a federal historic preservation tax program reviewer at the state level, and I have presented over a dozen workshops on how to successfully prepare the federal historic preservation tax credit forms. Most of my presentations were made with the assistance of NPS tax credit program staff. My experience with NPS on tax credit projects has been the same as Andrew's in all instances. It is hard to explain David's experience in Richmond, VA. Courtyards, atria and light wells have been employed in numerous warehouse conversion to hotel or housing rehabilitation projects across the country. ----------------------------------- James Malanaphy AIA James J. Malanaphy AIA NCARB Saint Paul MN ------------------------------------------- These projects receive historic rehabilitation tax credits. The National Park Service, which reviews these projects, does not permit removing roof areas to create courtyards and natural light (and air) wells.
David- I have been involved in the adaptive reuse of historic buildings using Federal Historic Tax Credits for the past 15 years. Across the country, there are many examples of historic buildings, particularly large, former industrial and warehouse buildings, which have had portions of the interior structure removed in order to create lightcourts, courtyards and even enclosed atrium-type spaces. I have personally been involved in several of these projects, all of which have received Historic Tax Credits. Some of the spaces are only a few hundred SF in area, and some are several thousand SF, depending on the type and scale of the structure. But in every case, the projects were approved by the NPS because the alterations did not significantly alter the historic character of the buildings. In the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, Standard #1 reads: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
In practice, this allows for natural light and ventilation to be brought to the core of a large building, which is particularly important in converting historic buildings to residential and hotel uses. I am strongly opposed to apartment units which lack natural light and ventilation. I would likely decline to be involved with a developer who proposed such a plan. Fortunately, the NPS recognizes that it is sometimes necessary to alter less character-defining elements in order for a historic building to be put back into productive use. I hope this helps with your efforts in Richmond. Best of luck. ------------------------------------------- Andrew Smith AIA Trivers Associates, Inc. Saint Louis MO -------------------------------------------
Show Original Message
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-01-2012 19:23
From: Charles Graham
Subject: Windowless Apartments
What makes the park service qualified for this function?
-------------------------------------------
Charles Graham AIA
Architect
O'Neal, Inc.
Greenville SC
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-30-2012 17:54
From: David Johannas
Subject: Windowless Apartments
My concerns not only extend to light and view (a humane environment) but to the basic economic sustainability of the districts where windowless dwelling units are being developed. I am concerned that these buildings and districts have a product that will fall out of favor as more humane housing is developed.
Right now they are new, edgy, and in edgy, urban locations. However, the movement towards providing better natural, lighting and stronger connectivity, with our environment, will continue to gain strength, even in Richmond. I would like to prevent the potential of these districts being impacted by today's poor development attitudes.
I look to this forum for help and guidance. Your comments suggest possibly going one step further.
Thanks
-------------------------------------------
David Johannas AIA
Johannas Design Group
Richmond VA
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-30-2012 11:47
From: Steven Gottesman
Subject: Windowless Apartments
Windows, from a Code and Life Safety point of view, provide required ventilation. Mechanical ventilation is an alternative, certainly for bathrooms...perhaps the way to go after this problem might be that as a "fail-safe" back-up modality we need windows in case mechanical ventilation fails -which it inevitably can.
"Light and view" are not necessarily mandated by Code. Your concerns if we rally around them, could make them so. We know that light deprivation has been proven to be psychologically damaging. Unfortunately, the social isolation increasingly dominating our culture (and the younger generations), certainly is only exacerbated by this very disturbing trend discussed here, despite being "cool" or truly historic renovations.
-------------------------------------------
Steven Gottesman AIA
Senior Architect
URS Corporation
Sacramento CA
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-27-2012 13:29
From: David Johannas
Subject: Windowless Apartments
This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Committee on Design and Historic Resources Committee .
-------------------------------------------
A little help please:
Richmond (VA) has numerous historic warehouses where the footprint of the floor plates are very large. There seems to be a Richmond, renovation vernacular, which supports designing and renovating this building type with a large percentage of apartments without windows. These units are surrounded by corridors and have legal egress. Many have skylights or light tubes to compensate for the lack of windows.
These projects receive historic rehabilitation tax credits. The National Park Service, which reviews these projects, does not permit removing roof areas to create courtyards and natural light (and air) wells.
I am concerned that we are developing substandard housing in my city by supporting this level of development; however, I lack any back-up regarding my opinion. I would like to disuss my concerns with our architectural community. To begin with, I have a couple of basic questions: - Do others agree with my perception that windowless, cookie cutter apartments are a form of substandard housing?
- Is it standard practice in other regions of the country, to develop multi-family (renovation) projects with windowless apartments?
Could you please reply to the questions with examples of local zoning codes that respond to the issue of windowless dwelling units. Providing information on other regions of the country, and providing professional opinions on this topic could substantiate my concerns and provide me with the necessary tools to present to our city planning commissioners and our city's planning staff.
Additionally, if this is a strong concern, and if the National Park Service is in effect promoting this type of renovation work as part of the very much, needed government rehabilitation tax credit program, then maybe the discussion should extend beyond the AIA.
Thanks for your responses.
-------------------------------------------
David Johannas AIA
Johannas Design Group
Richmond VA
-------------------------------------------
|
|
Be the first person to recommend this.
|