91ÊÓƵ

I recently returned from Charleston, S.C., the home of the U.S. historic preservation movement. The part of the city dating from the antebellum (pre-1861) period, which is the entire southern part of the peninsula between the Ashley and Cooper rivers emptying into Charleston Harbor, remains virtually intact. Although clearly built on the backs of slave labor (a subject for another discussion perhaps), this lovely city provides the clearest example of literally preserving a built environment with little or no significant change.

Charleston began serious preservation measures in its residential areas early in the 1800s, and it became the inspiration for creating the federal historic preservation program. It is so all-encompassing that a homeowner cannot even change the paint color from what it has historically been – no exceptions. As for demolition, that can be caused only by “an act of God,” even in the commercial areas. Of course, that causes little complaint in a city with retail sales strongest per square foot in the state, and even modest homes priced in the millions of dollars.

While Charleston’s situation is unique, it has helped to create a great surge in the viability of conserving older structures. This has had a significant impact over time in preserving the historic value of these structures as well as their embodied carbon value. Buildings take a significant amount of carbon to build and demolish. A well-built structure, provided it has a viable use, is clearly better in terms of net greenhouse gas emissions in the short to medium term than are most new “green” buildings. By slowing the demolition process, preservation has an impact on our ability to control climate change.

So, it turns out that historic preservation has far more value than just providing pretty communities. And the decisions to preserve or not are far more complicated and important than just historic roots would make them appear.