Making a Visual Distinction Between Old and New
The following statement of approach could be applied equally to
the preservation of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects of National Register significance: "A conservator
works within a conservation ethic so that the integrity of the
object as an historic entity is maintained. The concern is not
just with the original state of the object, but the way in which
it has been changed and used over the centuries. Where a new intervention
must be made to save the object, either to stabilize it or to
consolidate it, it is generally accepted that those interventions
must be clear, obvious, and reversible. It is this same attitude
to change that is relevant to conservation policies and attitudes
to historic towns..." (1)
 This highly visible new rooftop addition appears to be part of the historic building because of its replicative design and historicized detailing, such as the arched windows. This approach does not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. Photo: NPS files. |
Rather than establishing a clear and obvious difference between
old and new, it might seem more in keeping with the historic character
simply to repeat the historic form, material, features, and detailing
in a new addition. But when the new work is indistinguishable
from the old in appearance, then the "real" National
Register property may no longer be perceived and appreciated by
the public.
Thus, the third consideration in planning a new addition
is to be sure that it will protect those visual qualities that
made the building eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places.
A question often asked is what if the historic character is not
compromised by an addition that appears to have been built in
the same period? A small porch or a wing that copied the historic
materials and detailing placed on a rear elevation might not alter
the public perception of the historic form and massing. Therefore,
it is conceivable that a modest addition could be replicative
without changing the resource's historic character; generally,
however, this approach is not recommended because using the same
wall plane, roof line, cornice height, materials, siding lap,
and window type in an addition can easily make the new work appear
to be part of the historic building. If this happens on a visible
elevation, it becomes unclear as to which features are historic
and which are new, thus confusing the authenticity of the historic
resource itself.
The National Park Service policy on new additions, adopted in
1967, is an outgrowth and continuation of a general philosophical
approach to change first expressed by John Ruskin in England in
the 1850s, formalized by William Morris in the founding of the
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in 1877, expanded
by the Society in 1924 and, finally, reiterated in the 1964 Venice
Charter--a document that continues to be followed by 64 national
committees of the International Council on Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS). The 1967 Administrative Policies for Historical Areas
of the National Park System thus states, "...a modern
addition should be readily distinguishable from the older work;
however, the new work should be harmonious with the old in scale,
proportion, materials, and color. Such additions should be as
inconspicuous as possible from the public view." Similarly,
the Secretary of the Interior's 1977 "Standards for Rehabilitation"
call for the new work to be "compatible with the size, scale,
color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood,
or environment."
"New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings" an Historic Preservation Brief
