The Changing Face of Endangered Properties in North Carolina

* Reprinted from North Carolina Preservation (Spring 2007)

Since 1977, when Preservation North Carolina started its Endangered Properties Program, it has had five criteria for property intervention. The first, and seemingly least debatable, condition has been that the property be "endangered." And yet, the explosive recent growth in North Carolina has changed what constitutes an endangered property.

When PNC first started its work with endangered properties, we dealt almost exclusively with rural 19th century houses. Then through the years, our work evolved to include downtown commercial buildings, school buildings, and industrial properties. Now, entire categories of properties that would never have been considered as endangered twenty-five years ago are in jeopardy. Let's take a look at what might be considered endangered properties in 2007.

Houses in good condition in the most prosperous historic neighborhoods

A recent real estate listing in Raleigh sums up the biggest challenge facing historic preservation in North Carolina right now: "Beautiful house, great for teardown." People are "paying for dirt" in some of our finest older neighborhoods.

Thirty years ago, development was going to the suburbs, and preservation was a niche market for urban pioneers. Neighborhood revival took place one property at a time, fueled by buyers attracted to older homes and the appeal of living in town. Demolition was seldom an issue, except where an occasional owner refused to take care of his property. If a house was torn down, the lot would typically remain vacant for years.

Now, thanks to decades of work by dedicated preservationists, many of our older neighborhoods are recognized as great places to live. They're close to downtown, graced by large trees, walkable, and conveniently located. The historic fabric provides beauty and a sense of place and identity. These neighborhoods are so desirable that land there is selling by the square foot. Older homes are being torn down to make way for new condos and much larger "McMansions."

Recently, a Raleigh real estate professional asserted that a new 4,752 square foot home is a "good fit" in a historic neighborhood of 1,200-1,500 square foot homes. It isn’t – it looms conspicuously. It reminds me of huge SUV's that I recently saw parked in a parking garage: each occupying two "Compact Only" spaces.

Many older historic neighborhoods have recently witnessed the construction of new or newly expanded houses. Do these additions diminish or enhance the quality of life for the neighborhood as a whole? Are these new houses good neighbors? Too often, they are oblivious to their surroundings with ill-placed garbage cans and compressor units, prominent garage doors, tree-cutting, and lot grading.

Thirty years ago, preservationists were challenged by the perception that historic houses were too large. Victorian houses were often described as "barns," too big for single-family use. In the early 1980s, we at PNC had feasibility studies undertaken for converting several fine Victorian houses into offices, apartments or condos. At their seemingly huge (3,500+ square foot) size, adaptive use was their only hope. Now they are modest in comparison to many of their new neighbors.

With concerns about global warming and questions about the future availability and pricing of oil, natural gas, and electricity, do these huge new homes epitomize excessive consumption? Will they stand the test of time? Or will they be a liability for the next generation? The materials that are being used in many of these homes have surprisingly short life expectancies. Vinyl, fast-grown pine, waferboard, and glued-up moldings just don't last.

Even when they aren't being torn down, our historic properties are being altered in unfortunate ways. The sales pitches being made for replacement windows are reminiscent of the old claims for aluminum and vinyl siding – energy savings, with no maintenance. Once again, the facts don't match the claims. Most replacement windows will again have to be replaced in 10-20 years. How "green" is a project when it sends quality materials to the landfill, only to be replaced with inferior materials?

A great asset of our older neighborhoods is the tree cover. That shading canopy is at risk. When large houses are built on small lots, not only are major trees being cut down, but no new trees will replace them. There’s no room for trees when the big new houses take up every inch of the "building envelope," stretching from the sidewalk to the rear property line. Where will the greatly increased rain runoff go? Into the back yards and basements of the neighboring homes?

Until recently, it would have been far too expensive to build a new house in an older neighborhood and expect to be able to recoup the investment. Now with much increased market values, it's not. So the smaller (and not-so-small) houses in our older neighborhoods are at risk.

Many of our historic urban neighborhoods are thriving, and ironically, because of their desirability, they’re definitely at risk.

Substantial houses in poorer historic neighborhoods

Other historic neighborhoods face a different dilemma: if someone wants to purchase a historic house in the neighborhood and renovate it for their home, can they expect to recoup their investment? If the answer is "no," then who’s going to buy there? And, what bank is going to lend the money?

These neighborhoods desperately need an infusion of new private investment in renovation and homeownership. The public sector has focused its investment in these neighborhoods on supporting affordable housing. Despite decades of efforts to try to integrate affordable housing throughout a community, many cities and towns still concentrate their affordable housing programs in poorer neighborhoods, where they don't face strong political opposition.

Paradoxically, in some communities, public affordable housing efforts result in neighborhood disinvestment. Effectively, there ends up being "no private market" for property in these neighborhoods. Even though purchase prices are very low, there are no buyers unless they are publicly subsidized. In some older neighborhoods the number of vacant properties now exceeds the number of owner-occupied properties. Houses worthy of renovation get demolished because of their vacancy or illegal activities that happen within them, and the supply of affordable housing (broadly defined) is reduced.

Historic buildings sited on highly developable land

Though this classification of endangered property isn't new, its prevalence is. Houses in western North Carolina that have a few acres and a view are endangered – no matter how nice they are. Similarly, historic houses in eastern North Carolina with acreage and water frontage are potentially at risk, even in the poorest counties. In the urban piedmont, development pressure brings dollar signs to the owners' eyes.

For example, the Josephus Daniels House in Raleigh, designated for decades as both a National Historic Landmark and a local landmark, is currently at risk. A developer proposed subdividing the site into more than twenty lots. The house itself would not be torn down; in fact, it would be restored. But, surrounded by new houses, the grand house would completely lose its setting. Its fate is still unresolved.

A very different and more prevalent example is the fine Modernist houses of the 1950s and 1960s that are sitting on substantial lots. Many of the finest Modernist houses in North Carolina are smaller than 2,000 square feet, and often they are sited in the center of lots of an acre or more. When the property can be sold as several building lots, the house is endangered. Since they are seldom locally designated, their demolition can take place overnight, with no chance of preservation.

Historic buildings located on agricultural land

The consolidation of farms into much larger production units is endangering many rural historic structures. A historic house sited in the middle of its farmland has always presented challenges. Carving a few acres out of the middle of a large tract is seldom advantageous financially. But when large farms are consolidated, several sets of buildings become endangered, and moving the structures becomes the only preservation alternative. Then, the challenge becomes buying enough time to find nearby land and relocate the structures.

Historic buildings that are candidates for salvage

To me, one of the most disturbing trends affecting preservation is salvage. Sound buildings are being torn down in the name of environmental recycling and charity. Destruction is transformed into a virtue. Organizations that build housing actively advertise for the opportunity to demolish ("deconstruct") your home for its parts. Still, most of the building goes to the landfill – and millions of btu's of embedded energy are wasted. And, history is lost.

In some cases, the market value of a historic house's architectural detailing (for example, its mantels, doors, etc.) is higher than its market value as a building. That financial reality brings a whole new meaning to "endangered"! A very early and significant structure donated to PNC in 2006 received its highest appraised value as salvage.

Historic mill buildings are being reduced to rubble for their brick and wood. Any chance that the building might once again serve the economic interests of its community is wiped out. In 2006, North Carolina witnessed the largest demolition and salvage job in its history with the destruction of Cannon Mills plants in Kannapolis. Time will tell whether the demolition of 7,000,000 square feet of buildings was well conceived. I have my doubts about whether the new buildings will last a century, as did their predecessors.

Historic properties owned by religious (and other) institutions

This year a church in Southern Pines decided to tear down four houses for parking. A church in Salisbury tore down a century-old neighboring commercial structure to enlarge the facilities for its choir. In New Bern, a large and historic commercial building at the main intersection of town was destroyed for a church garden. Another New Bern church plans to obliterate nearly a block of early houses for a family life center. A Raleigh church condemned its original 1874 sanctuary to demolition; fortunately it was saved by relocation. A church in Winston-Salem proposes building a huge new facility in its historic neighborhood, despite the clear written intentions of the church's original donor. In Kings Mountain, a church plans to tear down a National Register house for its expansion, despite the town's willingness to do a land swap. Several colleges and universities are planning renovations of key historic buildings that are less than sympathetic. Enough said?!?

So, are there solutions?

Yes, absolutely!

We’ve helped to make North Carolina an attractive place to live and work, creating desirable neighborhoods and active downtowns. Our preservation work has helped to increase the demand for historic architectural features. Downtown institutions are experiencing a comeback as we help to revive older areas. We may now be the victims of our own successes.

If we are going to continue to be successful at preserving North Carolina's heritage, we’re going to have to work smarter, be more diligent, and have greater financial and legal resources at our disposal.

As with many crises, there may also be a window of opportunity. It's time for local governments to designate more local historic districts and landmarks so that they aren’t destroyed. The enabling legislation for local commissions needs strengthening so demolition can be controlled rather than just delayed. Residents in local historic districts need to look at the decades-old zoning in their neighborhoods to make sure that it meets current needs, in light of escalating property values.

On the private side, owners of historic properties that may now be "endangered" should consider placing them under preservation easements. PNC must build up its Endangered Properties Fund so that we have the capacity to buy expensive properties on short notice. Preservationists need to engage in more aggressive neighborhood revitalization programs. PNC's work in Edenton and Glencoe have revived neighborhoods given up as lost, and the local governments there have benefited from huge increases in the tax base, with only modest public investment. Our new partnership with the City of Goldsboro promises to be a model for reclaiming vacant and condemned housing stock in a historic neighborhood.

Preservation is more than a nicety – it's a necessity for quality of life in North Carolina. Authentic heritage can be a potent tool for economic development. Energy savings and sustainability are attributes that our older buildings offer to a world that is going to be wrestling for decades with global warming. We need to better communicate how positive an impact preservation has had – and will continue to have.

Historic preservation has proven beneficial for North Carolina. With new challenges on the horizon that are akin to urban renewal in the 1960s, we must respond to a new call to action. In our patient and persistent way, and with renewed vigor, we must rise to the occasion.

J. Myrick Howard has been the President of Preservation North Carolina since 1978.