The New Face of Preservation

An Interview with Richard Moe

by Martin Moeller

Blueprints Winter 2007-08
Volume XXVI, No. 1

On December 13, 2007, the National Building Museum presented the ninth Vincent Scully Prize to Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The award recognized Moe’s leadership in moving preservation into the mainstream of American society and expanding the public’s understanding of the significance of our built heritage. In accepting the prize, he joined a prestigious roster of past recipients including Jane Jacobs, Phyllis Lambert, His Highness the Aga Khan, and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

In an interview excerpted here, Moe discussed some of the ways in which the National Trust and the preservation movement in general have evolved. Particularly noteworthy are the Trust’s growing commitment to the preservation of modernist buildings, many of which are now more than 50 years old, and the organization’s explicit focus on environmental sustainability.

Martin Moeller: In 1949, the same year that the National Trust was established, Philip Johnson completed his famous Glass House in New Canaan, Connecticut. Do you think any of the Trust’s founders could have imagined a day when such a quintessentially modern building would be designated a National Trust Historic Site?

Richard Moe: It’s interesting to think back on what the leaders of the then-new Trust would have thought of a modernist structure like that being historic. I think the more far-reaching and visionary of those men and women would have foreseen that perhaps this iconic structure would someday be historic—many others would not.

But the answer, I think, really lies in the history of the preservation movement. Different styles of architecture have become historic at different periods, and usually over some public resistance. For example, Victorian architecture was very unpopular with a lot of people—nobody could imagine saving that stuff. Now, of course, we prize it. Same thing with Art Deco. Well, the time of modernism has arrived, and the iconic Glass House, of course, just represents the very best of modernism, and it is historic, even in a literal and legal sense—it’s [more than] 50 years old.

Moeller: Have the Trust’s forays into the preservation of modernism led to any general changes in the organization’s strategies or policies?

Moe: Modernist architecture, by definition, hasn’t been with us that long, so our biggest obstacle is persuading the public that much of this is great architecture and deserves to be saved. We’re losing great modernist structures all the time. For example, in New Canaan, where Johnson’s Glass House is located, there have been a lot of tear-downs. Great, iconic modernist structures have been torn down and replaced with McMansions.

We are going to take steps in the very near future to set up a Recent Past Initiative in our Western Office in California and a Center for Modernism based at the Glass House in New Canaan, to give specific focus to these styles of architecture. In terms of the recent past, something need not be historic to have value and to be worthy of being preserved. So we are breaking the mold a little bit here. Some of our predecessors in the preservation movement didn’t think that we should preserve anything before its time came. Well, unfortunately, we lose a lot in the first 50 years, and sometimes we have to intervene and save the best of the recent past, which is what we are trying to do.

Moeller: A burgeoning interest in modernism is just one aspect of what the Trust calls “the new face of preservation in America.” Another is the growing participation of diverse ethnic groups and communities. What is the Trust doing to reach new constituencies?

Moe: We have really tried hard in recent years to expand the constituency for preservation and to make it clear that preservation is relevant to everyone in this country regardless of where they are, or what they do, or what their income level is. I think we have to concede candidly
that 50 years ago preservation appealed to very few people—it was mostly people who cared about great old houses, and that was fine and still a lot of us do that. But preservation’s evolved enormously over the last 50 years, and it really has become relevant to more and more people.

We’re broadening the definition of what preservation really is. And in doing that, we’ve undertaken a very serious and far-reaching effort to diversify not just the National Trust, but the preservation movement. At my very first National Preservation Conference in Miami 16 years ago, we initiated a Diversity Scholarship Program, which literally changed the face of our annual conference. These were largely minority students, people from lower-income neighborhoods, whom we brought to the conference as diversity scholars. We’ve continued to do that.

Moeller: Another aspect of the “new face of preservation” is the Trust’s explicit focus on sustainability. How are you promoting preservation as an environmental imperative?

Moe: We have long maintained that preservation of older buildings is inherently a sustainable activity. The restoration and reuse of older buildings is the ultimate recycling. We’re saving enormous energy, we’re saving natural resources, we’re filling fewer landfills.

We are now undertaking a program at the Trust to research these factors quantitatively. In this time of trying to combat climate change and CO2 emissions, we think preservation has a lot to contribute in this area, and [we will be taking] these data and converting them into public policy proposals. Should there be new tax credits? Should there be changes in the Secretary [of the Interior’s] Standards [for the Treatment of Historic Properties]? In the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED [Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design] standards, should preservation get more credit?

The other thing we’re doing—on our new website—is trying to help owners of historic homes and other older buildings learn how they can retrofit their existing buildings and make them more energy-efficient and greener.

Moeller: One of the Trust’s most widely known initiatives is its annual list of the 11 Most Endangered Places. How are the sites selected each year, and how exactly does the Trust use this list to advance its advocacy efforts?

Moe: The criteria are quite broad: it’s a historic site that’s threatened by some cause. I like to say that [it] is a list of different kinds of significant historic sites, in different parts of the country, coming under different kinds of threats. So it’s really an educational device in that sense. It’s by far the most effective public vehicle we have for bringing attention to endangered sites. We’ve lost a few that have been on the list, but very few.

Anybody can nominate a site, and then our regional offices recommend them and we make the final decision in Washington. But, you know, people love lists, and the media love lists, and it’s just a great vehicle and we’re very pleased with its effect. We take very seriously the listing of a site, because we don’t just believe in putting out a press release saying, “This is an endangered site.” Our regional offices and other departments at the Trust put together a strategic plan for trying to address the threat to each specific site that’s listed, and then they spend as long as it takes to try to remove that threat.

Moeller: Clearly, one of the most endangered places in the country today is the city of New Orleans. What are the latest developments in the Trust’s efforts to protect the city’s built heritage in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

Moe: Hurricane Katrina, in my view, represented not just a great human tragedy but also. . . probably the greatest cultural disaster in the history of our country. There were more historic properties lost or threatened than at any other time in our history. In the city of New Orleans itself, there are some 20 National Register [historic] districts. They encompass physically half of the city. They contain 39,000 historic structures, most of them shotgun houses, Creole cottages, corner stores, and so forth, but great historic buildings. And most of those were flooded. Most of them can be saved.

We opened an office right away in New Orleans, and we’ve worked with our partners with shared field staff in Mississippi and we’re still doing that, and we’ve said we’ll do it as long as it takes. We’ve raised several million dollars, we’ve done a lot of advocacy, we’ve persuaded Congress to appropriate $50 million so far just for historic properties in the Gulf Coast. We have worked with our partners in New Orleans to stop the demolition—the unnecessary demolition—of historic sites, and this is all coming to a head now because FEMA has established deadlines for compensating homeowners for demolition. So far we think we’ve helped save over 600 homes, and I hope we can save many more.

Moeller: How have the economics of preservation changed over the past couple of decades?

Moe: If you take a look back over the history of preservation in America, there have been different themes underlying it—different reasons why preservation’s been regarded as important. If you go back to the very earliest days when Mount Vernon was saved by Ann Pamela Cunningham and a group of courageous, effective women, they were trying to save a great architectural and historic icon, and that’s what preservation was for a hundred years. Then in the middle of the 20th century, that started to change, and people started seeing the economic value of preservation, and they started setting up revolving funds, and they saw the value of adaptive reuse—using a building for a purpose other than that for which it was designed. And then came the adoption of federal tax credits, which were a great incentive. The whole theory behind historic tax credits was that the public gets to enjoy the continued historic value of the exterior of a building, and that’s a great public benefit, which now, happily, has expanded to 29 states.

Moeller: One of your fellow Scully Prize recipients was Jane Jacobs, who argued that healthy communities need a variety of buildings in terms of age, use, and size. How have her views influenced your work?

Moe: We owe a lot to Jane Jacobs and I think we owe especially a debt of gratitude for her really making us understand the value of eclectic neighborhoods, with different kinds of buildings, different eras of buildings, different uses. She was a great advocate of mixed uses, as am I. This is what makes vibrant communities, really lively communities, interesting communities that attract people. I think the most vibrant downtowns, for example, in America, are those that have saved their great iconic historic buildings, but they’ve also built great new buildings... it’s really a blending of the old and the new together that makes for a great city.

Moeller: In what areas is the United States at the forefront of preservation compared to other countries around the world?

Moe: The United States is clearly in the lead on the Main Street program, [which] is probably the most successful program the Trust has ever had. We’ve been in over 2,000 communities revitalizing downtowns with the business communities that are there, and it’s basically trying to make downtown a more attractive place to come and a more successful place to do business. And it’s not just preservation—fixing up the old storefronts and putting in public amenities—but it’s also organizing the business community, marketing it effectively, filling in the vacancies, and making it possible to compete with the big-box retailers.

Every dollar that we put into a Main Street program leverages $40 of public and private money brought to the community. Now we’ve brought the program to larger cities—not the downtowns of larger cities, but neighborhood commercial districts—and the same principles have applied. It’s very important for communities to have viable commercial districts so not everybody has to go out to the strip mall or the big boxes to do their shopping. And this is a program that doesn’t really exist anywhere else in the world, and there’s a lot of interest in it.

Similarly, with tax credits—although every country’s tax system is different—the fact that we give tax credits for investing in historic buildings is very interesting to those who have tax systems that lend themselves to this.

Moeller: Where do you think the preservation movement is headed in the near future?

Moe: I wouldn’t be surprised if preservation expanded its wings sometime soon and got into contemporary design issues. In other words, if we’re being asked to preserve what’s important, why shouldn’t we contribute to making new buildings important and significant? That’s a bit of a reach now, but I can foresee the day when that might be seriously discussed.

It’s really intriguing to try to look forward. Obviously, we’ll have different styles of architecture—that will continue to evolve—and they will eventually become historic, and the best of those styles of architecture will deserve to be preserved. So just as we’ve experienced this with Victorian architecture and Art Deco and modernism, we’ll experience it with whatever is yet to come. And something else will come for sure. •

Get National Building Museum news.