SPEECH: Sustainability and Historic Preservation
Los Angeles Conservancy, Los Angeles, CA
Posted November 13, 2008 | Contact pr@nthp.org or 202-588-6141
By Richard Moe | November 12, 2008
Thank you and good evening. I'm delighted to be here in Los Angeles and to see so many advocates for historic preservation and good friends of the National Trust. I'm especially glad to have an opportunity to join you in celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Los Angeles Conservancy. I believe you're one of the gutsiest big-city preservation organizations in the country, and the National Trust is honored to have you as our partner. Your work here is enormously important – not only because it helps save the places that matter in one of America's most dynamic cities but also because it plays a key role in dealing with the challenge of climate change. I'll have much more to say about that in a few moments.
First, since some of you may not be thoroughly familiar with the work of the National Trust, I'd like to begin with a few words about who we are and what we do. The National Trust was created in 1949 to be the leader of America's preservation movement. We are a privately-funded nonprofit organization. We have about 270,000 members, and a staff of about 300 at our headquarters in Washington, our 6 regional offices, and our collection of 29 historic sites from California to New England.
Over the years, we've worked in a variety of ways to help Californians save and celebrate their rich and diverse heritage. To encourage people to seek out historic places in their travels, we've named 9 California communities – more than any other state – to our annual "Dozen Distinctive Destinations" list; one of those communities is West Hollywood. To call attention to historic places in peril, we've included 18 California sites on our roster of "America's 11 Most Endangered Places;" five of them are here in the Los Angeles area – including America's oldest surviving McDonald's (in Downey), St. Vibiana's Cathedral in downtown L.A., and the neighborhoods that were threatened for so many years by the proposed extension of the Pasadena Freeway. We've presented National Preservation Awards to several projects in Southern California – the most recent ones honoring the spectacular restoration of the City Hall in Pasadena and the Griffith Observatory here in Los Angeles. And finally, last year we awarded well over $17 million in financial assistance to preservation efforts across California – including, here in Los Angeles, a $3 million tax-credit equity investment in the conversion of a historic building on South Broadway into loft-style residences and ground-floor retail. And finally,
The National Trust's work here in Los Angeles, elsewhere in California and across the United States is part of our overall mission: to encourage people to appreciate the importance of the historic places that tell America's story, and to give them the tools they need to keep our heritage intact and alive. To put it even more succinctly, the National Trust helps people protect, enhance and enjoy the places that matter to them.
* * *
That leads me to the subject of my remarks this evening. For the next few minutes, I want to talk about how preservation can – and should – play an essential role in fighting what may be the greatest crisis of our times: climate change.
I'll begin with a reminder of what historic preservation is all about. When you strip away the rhetoric, preservation is simply having the good sense to hold on to things that are well designed, that link us with our past in a meaningful way, and that have plenty of good use left in them.
Preservation in America has embraced that philosophy for more than 150 years now, ever since a woman named Ann Pamela Cunningham launched a successful nationwide crusade to save George Washington's home, Mount Vernon. Our work has always been firmly rooted in a respect for history. But today, more than ever before, it is as much concerned with building the future as with holding on to the past.
This concern with the future has never been clearer – or more important – than it is now: As growing numbers of people are worried about climate change, the degradation of the environment, and our relentless consumption of energy and irreplaceable natural resources, it is increasingly apparent that preservation has an essential role to play in any effort to deal with the environmental crisis that looms over us. Because it necessarily involves the conservation of energy and natural resources, historic preservation has always been the greenest of the building arts. Now it's time to make sure everyone knows it.
Up to now, our approach to life on this planet has been based on the assumption that "there's plenty more where that came from." With our environment in crisis, we have to face the fact that there may not be "plenty more" of anything – except trouble. Today we're challenged to find a way of living that will ensure the longevity and health of our environmental, economic, and social resources.
The seriousness of the problem was laid out in a report issued some months ago by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report states bluntly that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and is the result of human activities.
The United States is a big part of the problem. We have only 5% of the world's population, but we're responsible for 22% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, which are the leading cause of climate change.
Discussions on this topic usually focus on the need to reduce auto emissions. It's true that transportation – cars, trucks, trains, airplanes – accounts for 32% of America's carbon emissions. But here's a fact that may surprise you: The Pew Center on Climate Change has found that 43% of America's carbon dioxide emissions come from the operation of buildings – and this doesn't include the carbon that is generated by extracting, manufacturing and transporting building materials.
If nearly half of the carbon we send into the atmosphere comes from our buildings, it's clear that any solution to climate change must include being wiser about how we design and use our buildings.
The concept of historic preservation as "the ultimate recycling" is something that people in the preservation community have believed and talked about for many years. Back in 1980, long before the word "sustainability" came into widespread use, the National Trust issued a Preservation Week poster that featured an old building in the shape of a gas can – a reminder that reusing an existing building, instead of demolishing it and replacing it with a new one, is a good way to conserve energy.
Much has changed since that poster appeared 28 years ago. The stakes have gotten much higher. Climate forecasts, population growth projections, rising energy costs, dwindling reserves of water and fossil fuels, even the daily news headlines – they all warn us that we can't wait any longer for "somebody" to figure out what to do. The "somebody" we need is us, and the need is clearly urgent.
* * *
The key phrase is "sustainable stewardship."
The retention and reuse of older buildings is an effective tool for the responsible, sustainable stewardship of our environmental resources – including those that have already been expended. I'm talking about what's called "embodied energy."
Here's the concept in a nutshell: Buildings are vast repositories of energy. It takes energy to manufacture or extract building materials, more energy to transport them to a construction site, still more energy to assemble them into a building. All of that energy is embodied in the finished structure – and if the structure is demolished and landfilled, the energy locked up in it is totally wasted. What's more, the process of demolition itself uses more energy – and, of course, the construction of a new building in its place uses more yet.
Let me give you a local example that will translate that concept into reality. The Central Library has been one of the premier landmarks of downtown L.A. ever since it was completed in 1926. It's a very handsome building – but I'd like to mention a few important things that you may not know about it.
- I'm told that the historic original Central Library building has about 30,000 square feet of space. According to a formula produced for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the energy embodied in a structure of that size and construction type is the equivalent of 400,000 gallons of gasoline. If that building were to be torn down, all of that embodied energy would be utterly wasted.
- What's more, demolishing the Central Library would create about 2,500 tons of debris. That's enough to fill about 15 rail cars – a lot of debris to add to a landfill that is probably almost full already.
- Once an old building is gone, putting up a new one in its place takes more energy, of course, and it also uses more natural resources and releases new pollutants and greenhouse gases into our environment. It is estimated that constructing a new 30,000-square-foot building to replace the Central Library would release about as much carbon into the atmosphere as driving a car 1.4 million miles.
The Central Library hasn't been demolished, of course, but another prominent Los Angeles landmark – the Ambassador Hotel – is just a memory now. Diane Keaton recently wrote about the Ambassador in the New York Times – and as she pointed out, the demolition of that building didn't just tear a hole in the history of this city, it also represented an enormous loss of resources. The Ambassador was a 350,000-square-foot building, so the embodied energy wasted in its demolition was the equivalent of millions of gallons of gasoline – not to mention the enormous amount of energy required to tear the building down, plus the even bigger amount that will be required to put up new buildings where the Ambassador once stood.
The wasteful loss of the Ambassador illustrates a disturbing fact: All the statistics tell us that the way we use our buildings causes big problems – but we keep trying to solve the problem by constructing more and more new buildings while ignoring the ones we already have.
It all comes down to this: We can't build our way out of the climate-change crisis. We have to conserve our way out.
California has long been a leader in the green movement. In communities all over the state, efforts are underway to conserve energy, improve water and air quality, and insist on the use of green technology in new construction projects. That's good news, certainly – but please remember this: No matter how much green technology is employed in its design and construction, any new building represents a new impact on the environment. The bottom line is that the greenest building is one that already exists. That means that in addition to building green, we have to make wiser use of what we've already built.
Anthropologist Ashley Montague has said that the secret to staying young is to die young – but the trick is to do it as late as possible. All over the United States, people are showing that old buildings put to new uses can stay young to a ripe old age. They're demonstrating that buildings are renewable – not disposable – resources. If that's not sustainability, I don't know what else to call it.
It's often alleged that historic buildings are energy hogs – but in fact, some older buildings are as energy-efficient as many recently-built ones. In fact, when the General Services Administration (GSA) examined its buildings inventory in 1999, it found that utility costs for historic buildings were 27% less than for more modern buildings. It's not hard to figure out why. Many historic buildings have thick, solid walls, resulting in greater thermal mass and reducing the amount of energy needed for heating and cooling. Buildings designed before the widespread use of electricity feature transoms, high ceilings, and large windows for natural light and ventilation, as well as shaded porches and other features to reduce solar gain. Architects and builders paid close attention to siting and landscaping as tools for maximizing sun exposure during the winter months and minimizing it during warmer months.
Unlike their more recent counterparts that celebrate the concept of planned obsolescence, most historic and many other older buildings were built to last. Their durability gives them almost unlimited "renewability" – a fact that underscores the folly of wasting them. A report from the Brookings Institution projects that by 2030 we will have demolished and replaced nearly 1/3 of all existing buildings. Here's a staggering fact: The energy it will take to demolish and replace those buildings is enough to power the entire state of California for 10 years.
Old and existing buildings aren't the problem. In fact, they can be – and must be – a key part of the solution. Of course, some older buildings need retrofits to improve their energy-efficiency but the notion that old buildings, by their very nature, are inherent energy-wasters is largely a product of our consumer mentality. Manufacturers make things they want us to buy – including so-called energy-efficiency boosters that we don't always need. The bottom line is, we don't have to buy our way into sustainability.
* * *
I believe that climate change is the defining issue of our time – and will be for a long time to come. The debate is over, the facts are in, and it's time to act.
One of the first and most important things that must happen is a thoroughgoing revision of current government policies that foster unsustainable development. For decades, national, state and local policies have facilitated – even encouraged – the development of new suburbs while leaving existing communities behind.
This pattern of development is fiscally irresponsible, environmentally disastrous, and ultimately unsustainable. To replace it, we need federal policy that directs growth to existing communities. You'll note I said "federal policy." Land-use planning has traditionally been a function of state and local government, but it's an indisputable fact that where the federal government chooses to spend its money – our money – has a huge impact on local planning and development. We need federal policy that stops rewarding unsustainable development and enhances the viability and livability of the communities we already have. It makes absolutely no sense for us to recycle newsprint and bottles and aluminum cans while we're throwing away entire buildings, even entire neighborhoods.
We also need incentives to encourage reuse of older buildings. In the past ten years alone, historic tax-credit incentives have sparked the rehab of more than 217 million square feet of commercial and residential space – and saved huge amounts of energy in the process. We must ensure the continued availability of these tax credits, and expand their use in older buildings that are not necessarily historic but still re-usable. Equally important, we must provide similar incentives to help private homeowners use green technology in maintaining and renovating their homes.
Finally, the federal government must get serious about the urgent need to retrofit our existing building stock. I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: New green construction alone is not the answer. Even if we require that every new building must be "green" – and I wish we could – this doesn't address the massive amount of carbon emitted by the operation of existing buildings. We've got to fix that.
Unfortunately, there are numerous barriers to retrofitting, most of them cost-related. To encourage green retrofits of commercial buildings, the Clinton Climate Initiative launched a program last year that provides technical expertise to building owners, makes materials and systems available at wholesale cost, and even offers favorable financing. This is exactly the kind of innovative outreach we need from the non-profit and private sectors. But private-sector action is not enough. We also need the federal government to commit resources to retrofit the more than 300 billion square feet of space in this country's existing buildings.
These federal actions should be complemented by steps at the state and local levels. Twenty-nine states have enacted their own state tax credits to promote the reuse of historic buildings – but sadly, California is not one of them. We need to see rehab tax incentives enacted here in California, and in other states where they aren't already in place. At the local level, we need building codes that allow flexibility and innovation in making existing buildings more energy-efficient.
More and more states and cities are developing Climate Change Action Plans that outline how they intend to fight global warming – usually through efforts such as expanding recycling programs and encouraging the use of mass transit. Many of these plans – even those from cities that are regarded as pace-setters in environmental policy – make little or no provision for green retrofits. Even fewer establish retention and reuse of existing buildings as a priority. This is a serious mis-step, and we need to correct it.
Finally, we need to improve green-building rating systems to ensure that they recognize the importance of building reuse. Under the current LEED standards, for example, reusing 75% of an existing building's core and shell is assigned the same value as merely installing environmentally-friendly carpet. I'm pleased to note we've been working closely with the US Green Buildings Council to improve recognition of the value of reuse, and we are making real progress.
* * *
The needs I've mentioned are the driving force behind a new and ambitious Sustainability Initiative recently launched by the National Trust.
This Initiative is built around four core principles of "Sustainable Stewardship":
1) Reuse buildings: A sound older building that is abandoned or underused is a wasted asset. Putting existing buildings to good use reduces demolition and construction waste, lessens the demand for energy and other resources for new building materials, and conserves the energy originally expended to create these structures.
2) Reinvest in older and historic neighborhoods: All of us know how sprawl impacts our lives. But while sprawl devours our landscape, neighborhoods in the inner city and the inner ring of suburbs are vastly underused. Revitalization of existing neighborhoods promotes efficient land-use patterns and focuses public and private reinvestments in areas where infrastructure is already in place, already paid for. Furthermore, older neighborhoods are typically compact, centrally located, walkable and mass-transit accessible – characteristics that are promoted by advocates of smart growth and the "new urbanism".
3) Retrofit older and historic buildings to achieve energy efficiency: As I said earlier, many older buildings are remarkably energy-efficient. Data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency suggests that buildings constructed before 1920 are actually more energy-efficient than buildings built at any time afterwards – except for those built after 2000. Nevertheless, many older buildings are badly in need of energy-efficiency upgrades – and there are plenty of techniques and products on the market that make these upgrades much less challenging than they once were. That leads me to the final principle:
4) Respect historic integrity: An increasing number of sensitive and successful rehab projects demonstrate that historic buildings can go green without losing the distinctive character that makes them significant and appealing. Architects, developers and property owners no longer have to choose between getting the energy-efficiency they want or keeping the character they love; they can have both.
· As the keystone of this new Sustainability Initiative, we're establishing the National Trust Preservation Green Lab to collaborate with selected cities and states to better integrate historic preservation into sustainable-development policy. We'll form partnerships with state and local governments to develop and implement climate action plans that make conservation of the existing building stock a priority, and to create zoning ordinances and building codes that support the reuse and retrofit of existing buildings.
The Preservation Green Lab will also forge partnerships with universities, green groups and others to ensure that the concept of recycling buildings is incorporated into broader academic and environmental agendas. And it will identify and support demonstration projects that show how historic buildings can "go green." Last spring in Washington, the National Trust opened President Lincoln's Cottage to the public – and just a few yards away from the Cottage, the Visitors Education Center is housed in a renovated historic building that is fully LEED-certified. Projects like this – and there are plenty of others – show that the best historic preservation practices can be integrated with green building practices. We aim to make sure that people know about them.
Finally, our Sustainability Initiative will work to refute some common misconceptions about energy efficiency in older buildings, and we'll make our website a "best practices" resource for how to reduce energy consumption and use green technology in the rehab of older structures.
You'll hear more about this Sustainability Initiative in the coming months. I believe it's one of the most exciting and important efforts we've ever undertaken.
* * *
I hope I've impressed you with the seriousness of the challenge we face – and the critical importance of dealing with it sensibly, successfully and immediately.
We have a choice: We can do nothing for a while longer – until we're forced to take action by soaring energy costs, the disappearance of irreplaceable resources, and the realities of climate change. Or we can take steps now to develop a smart, sustainable development ethic and the policies that will support it.
Historic preservation has always sustained America by working to protect and celebrate the evidence of its past. Now, by addressing the challenge of climate change, preservation can – and must – play a leadership role in the sustainable stewardship of America's future.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a non-profit membership organization bringing people together to protect, enhance and enjoy the places that matter to them. By saving the places where great moments from history – and the important moments of everyday life – took place, the National Trust for Historic Preservation helps revitalize neighborhoods and communities, spark economic development and promote environmental sustainability. With headquarters in Washington, DC, nine regional and field offices, 29 historic sites, and partner organizations in all 50 states, the National Trust for Historic Preservation provides leadership, education, advocacy and resources to a national network of people, organizations and local communities committed to saving places, connecting us to our history and collectively shaping the future of America’s stories. For more information visit www.PreservationNation.org.
