Preservation or Pilferage

The last decade has seen a huge increase in the amount of historically significant buildings that have been razed. In the majority of cases the main reason was development. Real estate values have soared over the last decade, making the dirt under these structures far more valuable than even the most significant historic buildings. In many cases the character of the neighborhood has also changed dramatically, making a full scale restoration unrealistic and impractical. There are many other reasons that historic structures are being demolished in increasing numbers including deferred maintenance that has rendered the buildings beyond financial feasibility to keep. Preservation groups that run the gamet of local groups to federal agencys have done an admirable job of trying to keep the drain in check, but in most all cases, lack the proper funding to do much other than delay the inevitable. Further exacerbating the situation is the current preferred,and in fairness, the most cost efficient method of using excavators to break up the building and filling up dumpsters with the debris.

What can be done? In a situation where there is little argument that the building must be removed to preserve it, there are several excellent options. The first is an actual moving of the structure in its entirety. This involves having a suitable location within a short distance of the original site. There needs to be few obstacles along the way, ie power lines, low bridges. This option is usually the most cost effective but for obvious reasons the least feasible. If the character of the neighborhood has changed so dramatically that rstoring the building is not feasible, usually a quarter of a mile is not going to make much difference, and the new cost of the lot is also limiting. The second option is to dismantle the structure is a very deliberate and careful manner for reconstruction elsewhere. If properly documented distance is not an issue and the building can be repaired and properly restored during the process. This is not inexpensive and generally speaking is only feasible for earlier buildings, older that 1850. There must be significant history and details to the building to have an appeal to a potential buyer. This is a practice that has been going on for many years with great success. It is a great way to preserve historic structures. Indeed one needs only look to Historic Deerfield, Old Sturbridge Village, Shelburne Museum and Strawbery Banke to see the results of such preservation. However, the drawback to this method can be timing. In many cases, there is not sufficient time to properly document and carefully analyze the structure. In those cases salvaging as many components as possible is the best that can be done. This could include windows, doors, paneling, flooring, staircases and trim. But here is were we are facing an increased problem in preservation today. The value of these components has gotten very high. In many cases, the value of the individual components for use in reproductions and other restorations far exceeds the value of the intact structure. The market for these components has grown tremendously over the years and yet the amount of historic structures that are so dilapidated that they are beyond restoration has decreased dramatically. The use of components from "donor" buildings has been going on for the last century at least. When Henry Davis Sleeper first envisioned Beauport in Gloucester, MA it was to use components from many period houses to create multiple rooms to tell the story of style, taste and building through the years in New England. When Henry Flynt embarked on rebuilding and recreating Historic Deerfield he looked to Bill Gass to find and salvage components and structures throughout Massachusetts. Ed Ustace supplied many buildings and components to Sturbridge Village. In the first three quarters of the last century, they were actually preserving what would otherwise have been lost. But today many restorable significant structures are being stripped of their components for the gain of the salvager. Everything from barn siding and frames to elaborate panelled rooms are being parted out with no regard to the historic context from which it is being plucked. And this is not just the work of scrounging salvagers but in many cases by many well known, well respected restoration contractors. From a preservation standpoint, there is no excuse for not being able to provide a proper provenence for architectural components. Rare indeed is the case where period flooring or paneled walls are found in an old barn, their provenence long forgotten. But still this is possible for many components available today. However, components that just appear from nowhere generally have a story to hide.
How best do we deal this wanton disregard of our architectural heritage? The simple answer is to demand answers as to the source of the components. And simple economics should help to self regulate the situation. Just as the unbroken fully documented provenence of a period antique piece of furniture can double or triple the market price. So can the history and provenence of architectural components. To be able to attribute an historical reference and location to a key component can only increase its value to the buyer. This will force the salvagers to better investigate and research the history of a particular structure from which a certain component is taken. This work can easily be done even after the remnants of the building are long gone and the site cleared. To be able to attribute the structure and its components to an original owner or builder, or to an historical event helps to preserve our architectural heritage. And after that research is done, give a copy to the local historical society and/ or library for future generations to be able to use.