Historic preservation is sustainable development. And any development that claims to be sustainable without preservation doesn't make sense, economically or otherwise.

Donovan Rypkema pulls no punches (sorry, EPA!) in this version of his Community Conversations talk in Raleigh on June 23. The Community Conversations series is sponsored by Raleigh Historic Districts Commission and Preservation North Carolina.

There was a Broadway producer who once told an aspiring playwright, "If you can't write your idea on the back of my business card, you don't have a clear idea."

So I'm going to begin by giving you this entire presentation at a length you can put on the back of your business card.

• Sustainable development is crucial for economic competitiveness.
• Sustainable development has more elements than just environmental responsibility
• "Green buildings" and sustainable development are not synonyms.
• Historic preservation is, in and of itself, sustainable development.
• Development without a historic preservation component is not sustainable.
• The EPA should be abolished.

So that's my presentation—everything I say here on out is just fill.

I'm very fortunate that much of my work in the last few years has been international. And what I've discovered is this: much of the world has begun to recognize the interrelationship and the interdependency between sustainable development and heritage conservation.

Much of the world, but much less so in the United States. I'm not so sure we've really learned those lessons in America, or at least we have not yet broadly connected the dots. Far too many advocates in the US far too narrowly define what constitutes sustainable development. Far too many advocates in the US think that so-called green buildings and sustainable development are one in the same. They are not. And I'll come back to that shortly.

But let me give you an example of what I mean.

A while ago in Boulder, Colorado, a homeowner in a local historic district made an application to paint the window sashes and trim on his house and approval was given that day. Two weeks later the Landmarks Commission learned that the historic windows had all been removed—a clear violation of the local ordinance—and had been replaced with new windows. This was done, by the way, by contractor who claims to specialize in "ecologically sound materials and methods" and bills himself as "Boulder's greenest contractor."

The Landmarks Commission staff sent a letter directing that the original windows be retained and their condition documented. The contractor responded by saying that the greater energy efficiency of the new windows should outweigh the regulations that apply to houses within the historic district. A subsequent Commission hearing upheld the staff position and a City Council hearing supported the Commission's ruling.

Here's the next chapter—a reporter for a local alternative newspaper talked to the property owner, and then decided to take matters into his own hands. He went to the house, picked up all the historic windows, took a sledge hammer to them, then took them to the dump and arranged to have a bulldozer run over them. Sort of civil disobedience for an 11 year old's mentality.