Why Do We Own? Alternatives to the Historic House Museum

By Carl R. Nold, President and CEO, Historic New England, Boston, Massachusetts © 2007, Historic New England

Extensive newspaper reports from around the country and experience in Greater Philadelphia confirm that among the greatest challenge facing local museums and other community organizations today is that of caring for what is usually the largest artifact in the collection—the historic house. Much has been written recently about the decline of the house museum in America, and news stories frequently ignite concern as one or another historic house suffers loss of audience, declining care and, for some, deaccession and sale. Barbara Silberman explored some of the causes of that decline in her paper. In my presentation today, I will to use the history of my organization, Historic New England, as a basis for examining the philosophy of ownership of historic houses. My premise is that in considering the question “why do we own?” or “why should a building be held in public trust?” we can also achieve an understanding of when it is appropriate to deaccession and preserve a house in other ways.

This presentation is in three parts:

• Focus on the background and philosophy of acquisition and disposal of historic properties by Historic New England.

• Briefly review the process that we follow today in making decisions about real property disposition.

• Briefly describe the stewardship easement program that we operate to ensure the long-term preservation of historic properties that leave our ownership; a program that is also available to other institutions and individuals in New England, and is considered by many to be a national model.

BACKGROUND This must be a quite abbreviated look at Historic New England’s institutional history of real property ownership, but I think even an abbreviated view will be helpful to those struggling with these questions. Historic New England has over the years owned 114 properties, and today owns 36 museum properties, 2 rental properties, and 2 cemeteries. The organization has a long history of acquiring and deaccessioning historic houses.

Founded in 1910 as the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities (SPNEA), Historic New England is an institutional hybrid; a system of historic site museums, a library and archives, a large and important artifact collection documenting domestic life in New England over four centuries, a historic preservation organization, and an educational institution. Founder William Sumner Appleton is generally agreed to be America’s first professional preservationist. Historic New England’s involvement with buildings—real property—is long, complex and varied. At times buildings were acquired simply to protect the structure from demolition; at other times they were purchased and held only briefly to create a “right of entry” for future protection, and at

1 times buildings were acquired with clear intent to create full-scale house museums. The first acquisition was in 1911, of the Swett-Illsley House in Newbury MA, but from there the pace was furious. Appleton was unfailing in his dedication to saving buildings during both the boom years of the 1920s and the depression years of the 1930s, when so many were threatened. By 1937 the organization already held 38 historic properties, an acquisition rate of one and a third properties per year.

The annual reports to the membership reflect the success of real property acquisition, but frequently introduce a note similar to this quote from the 1937 report referring to a recent house acquisition: “It is hoped that the Society may here develop a museum of New England country arts and crafts and household implements. The principal drawback to the achievement of this ideal is the lack of endowment.” Many properties came as purchases, bequest or gifts without endowment to support their care. Nonetheless, the record of accomplishment is impressive, and indeed it was success with financing an important preservation project that led to the first, and only, disposal of a property during Appleton’s lifetime. In 1937 the society was very pleased to donate, without encumbrance, the Richard Derby House, in Salem, Mass., to the City of Salem for transfer to help create the new Derby Wharf National Monument, now the Salem Maritime National Park. The building had been purchased, with a mortgage, to preserve it. After raising funds to pay off the building and perform needed stabilization work on the structure, the organization donated it to help spur federal involvement in the preservation of the Salem waterfront.

Appleton encouraged many communities and groups to acquire historic buildings in those years. The society continued to add to its property holdings throughout Appleton’s lifetime. It was not until the year of his death, 1947, that other ways to preserve buildings were first seriously examined. In that year, the society briefly took possession of the Charles Street Meeting House in Boston in order to establish a legal right to convey the property with deed restrictions, restrictions that the organization continues to hold and enforce today. Appleton’s successor, Bertram Little, faced the challenge many historic site managers today know very well, that of too much property and too few funds for maintenance and operation. It was during Little’s time as president that the system of properties was first thoroughly analyzed, and decision made to sell some in the late 1940s and early 1950s to institutions and individuals who it was believed would take good care of them. Some contents were sold along with the buildings, while other items of historical importance were taken into the museum collections that the organization operated from its founding.

It fell to third president Abbott Lowell Cummings and his successor Nancy Coolidge to continue to face the challenge of caring for a large system of buildings, seeking means other than operation as an historic house museum for those whose stories or collections did not merit that approach, and developing a philosophy of how to look at properties for either acquisition or disposal. By the time of the 1970’s economic decline, the society was faltering under the demands of the care of its buildings, especially because it established very stringent professional principals for optimal research, restoration, interpretation and care practices for historic sites; many of which practices became national standards.

2 It was in a 1979 statement that Dr. Cummings most clearly articulated the evolving philosophy of building ownership at SPNEA. He wrote: “Because alternate strategies to outright ownership are almost certain to become an integral part of the process [of preservation], there must henceforth be rational justification for ownership. The fundamental question, in other words, is ‘why do we own?’”

Dr. Cummings could ask the question from that perspective because during the 1970s the organization tested methods of building preservation other than ownership. In 1981 the successful easement program that will be briefly described later was created. Dr. Cummings pointed to characteristics that responded to his question, “Why do we own?” His conclusions, further developed over time, continue to guide Historic New England’s decision-making about ownership of historic properties today. Dr. Cummings sought to look at buildings in three ways:

1. Potential for museum/educational activities: identifying which properties are essential to that process. He noted that “For any significant museum/educational program…, institutional ownership rather than adaptive use is mandatory.” 2. Architectural importance that flows from the educational role: essentially can the organization create a collection of houses that represents the “variety of types, and an impressive qualitative range” of New England architecture, representing its breadth and scope, as well as examples of unique buildings that are important as singular examples of their kind. This should avoid duplication by making choices across the defined region, in this case New England. 3. “Total Preservation”: a full awareness of the importance of the building, the landscape, the accumulation of furnishings, and subsequent changes which represent in turn the changing tastes of each generation. In other words, the organization should seek to preserve in institutional ownership those houses that come down as totally unspoiled; intact in building, context, contents and, we would add today, story. If buildings do not have all of those, they may be of lesser importance for preservation as museums.

So the question “why do we own,” which is the basis for decisions on “when do we dispose of real property,” came to be examined first for educational value. How do we define educational value in this discussion?

1. First, for outstanding architectural merit, or extreme importance in terms of regional historical significance. 2. Having such rarity as that the building would be endangered if held privately, even with preservation restrictions, or be classic examples of New England’s architectural history, deserving of museum status and, therefore, making institutional ownership mandatory. 3. Having significant in-depth collections that relate to the overall history of the building. 4. Have sufficient endowment to maintain them on an annual basis. If you cannot maintain the building and operate programs, you cannot realize its educational value for the public.

3 This evolution of thinking, from looking at buildings individually (often in time of crisis) to looking at a system of buildings as an educational tapestry that spans time, styles and regional geography, was the most important step in defining the practices that have been employed by Historic New England for the last 30 years in the management of its historic properties.

For any organization, knowing how to answer the question “why do we own?” is the cornerstone of a sound acquisition policy, and a sound acquisition policy is the basis for a thoughtful disposal/deaccession policy.

During and since the 1980s the large property holdings of the organization were analyzed under the criteria developed by Abbott Cummings, Nancy Coolidge and colleagues, and 19 properties were ultimately disposed of with protective easements. The most recent of these was the Alexander House, a house in Springfield, Mass., that closely follows Asher Benjamin’s designs. It was moved out of the way of a planned federal courthouse, restored and brought up to code, and sold into private use as a residence and real estate office in 2004.

Also since the 1980s, using some of the proceeds of sale of property, Historic New England has continued to acquire real property by purchase, as well as by gift and bequest; applying the criteria developed to respond to the “why do we own” question. The most recent acquisition was the gift of the Stephen Phillips House, in Salem, Mass., in 2006. Other acquisitions are under serious consideration. Institutional philosophy supports ongoing acquisition, and ongoing deaccession, as essential tools for creating an effective and sustainable educational system of historic houses, while still ensuring that houses that leave Historic New England’s ownership are well cared-for by new owners.

PROCESS Once Historic New England had a clear understanding of why it owns property, then procedures come into play to examine whether current holdings continue to meet the criteria or if deaccession might be called for.

There is not a month that goes by that the organization is not asked to accept, or purchase, or otherwise help save a building somewhere in New England, so review of properties is constant. For internal use, we the organization maintains graphs of its holdings by geographic location, by architectural style, and by period of interpretation. This lets staff and trustees know the strengths of the properties network, and identifies the gaps. Institution-wide emphasis was recently placed on preserving 20th century New England heritage, and that is an important part of our consideration of acquisitions right or other means of building preservation right now.

A 2002 Policy for Disposition of Real Properties which is attached evolved from the criteria of the late 1970s. When the organization reviews any of its properties, either as part of ongoing consideration or triggered by a new acquisition or other reason, the staff analyzes the property in the categories of significance shown. These confidential “case reports” can run some 20-30 pages, and are the basis for internal staff discussion, followed by trustee committee discussion, and board of trustees’ discussion and decision making. The reports help determine what restrictions exist on a property, and what the

4 donor intended in giving the property. Those factors help the organization decide how to proceed, what role the attorney general will play, whether probate court approval is appropriate, and how proceeds will be used. Although not referenced in the 2002 policy, today a communications plan is also always prepared if any action is recommended.

It is noted that the policy opens with a statement that disposition of the property will be judged on “the determination that preservation of the property can be accomplished through ownership by others, with preservation restrictions managed by the stewardship team of Historic New England.” Since 1981, all property deaccession by Historic New England has been accomplished with preservation restrictions, through what is known as the stewardship program.

STEWARDSHIP The stewardship easement program was inaugurated formally in 1981, growing out of prior examples of owning property not intended for museum use, and of placing deed restrictions on properties that were sold by the organization. Today 74 privately-owned buildings are protected under the stewardship program, about half of which were previously owned by Historic New England and the remainder being buildings entered directly into the system by private owners.

Those museum properties that Historic New England returned to private ownership since 1981, in addition to some that were sold with restrictions in the 1970s, are all protected through deed restrictions and monitored in the stewardship program. The program holds legal restrictions that allow Historic New England to continue to visit and monitor the properties, enforce the easements and protect the buildings, and ensures that this will happen in perpetuity; but the properties are owned by others, who are required to maintain them to established standards.

Historic New England is working with several historical museums and organizations which previously operated historic houses and have determined that it is in the best interest of preservation of a property that to return them to private ownership. The motivations are well known: lack of attendance, aging constituency, less than stellar collections, no compelling story, declining community interest, and changing space needs. Organizations can enroll the property in the stewardship program, ensuring that it is protected by a proven preservation program and a stable organization, and can give assurance to their community that the goal of preserving the property is being met. Along with the donation of the deed restriction to Historic New England an endowment contribution is required. That can be made from proceeds of the sale, with the balance of sale income used as determined by the selling organization. The house goes back on the tax roles, and generally is cared for by people who will live in it and love it. Historic New England makes sure that happens.

There are some things that an easement program cannot do. If a building is intact with its contents, stewardship protections cannot be applied to the contents, which are personal property, not real property. Other decisions need to be made about preservation or disposition of the contents. Educational use is also curtailed through private ownership, as Abbot Cummings suggested in the statements referenced earlier. Preservation restrictions through the stewardship program do not require public access, so the

5 educational value of having interior access to a property cannot be sustained under stewardship, except through the good will of the new private owners. (This may be changing under new IRS rules, which are still being determined, and may require some level of public access for future restrictions.) Some buildings simply do not lend themselves to adaptive use and sale. Most of the 17th century properties preserved by Historic New England receive comparatively little visitation and limited scholarly study, and many are in depressed neighborhoods where they could not likely be sold. They are, however, such rare survivors that they must be protected by institutional ownership. That is where the strength as a large organization and a system of historic houses comes into play. Income from a 6000 person organizational membership and from programs and properties that do draw excellent public support and attendance allows Historic New England to also care for those that do not.

To summarize: 1. knowing “Why do we own?” is the philosophical grounding for intelligent programs on acquisition and disposal of historic properties; 2. individual analysis of the kinds of factors outlined in the Historic New England Policy on Disposition (and a similar policy on acquisition) is the basis for making good decisions within an organization; 3. if it is determine that a historic property should be best preserved by return to private ownership, preservation restrictions such as those maintained through the Historic New England stewardship program provide a means to continue to fulfill the duty of seeing that a historic property is preserved in perpetuity, even if not as a house museum.

6 The Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities HISTORIC NEW ENGLAND

Policy for Disposition of Real Properties

Properties Committee Approval, May 31, 2002 Adopted by Board of Trustees, June 19, 2002

PREAMBLE A potential disposition of Historic New England-held property will be judged on its merits as outlined below, and the determination that preservation of the property can be accomplished through ownership by others with preservation restrictions managed by the stewardship team of Historic New England. The properties committee will recommend properties for disposition to the board of trustees.

ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE The recommendation of the properties committee will be accomplished by a disposition case report on the property in question, evaluating it in terms of its significance in the following categories:

1. Architectural significance (structures and landscapes)

2. Historical and associational significance

3. Collections

4. Archival and documentary records

5. Completeness or totality (does it have the “complete package” of architecture, landscape, collections, archives over a long period of time?)

6. Physical condition of the building, landscape and collections (including hazardous materials)

7. Relationship to other Historic New England holdings (geographic, staffing, style, period, story)

8. Environment (other historic resources, neighborhood character, development threats)

9. Financial viability

10. Income potential

11. Popular interest and potential for positive exposure

7 HISTORIC NEW ENGLAND Policy for Disposition of Real Properties Page Two of Three

12. Potential local interest and support (community politics)

13. Exposure to physical threats (vandalism, fire, flooding, emergency vehicle access)

14. Potential to attract an audience (rational house tour, population base, tourism)

15. Existing public access to the property (public transportation, parking, ease of signage/directions)

16. Legal or regulatory restrictions or limitation on the use and treatment of the property (zoning, local historic district, easements)

The case report should also include any restrictions which have been placed on the property as to its use and disposition, original donor intent, why the property was accepted by Historic New England, and what potential uses the property might be suited for at some future time.

PROCEDURE FOR DISPOSITON OF REAL PROPERTIES

A. A written proposal outlining recommended disposition, whether by sale or transfer of ownership, from the properties division staff is sent to the properties committee of the board of trustees following assessment of qualities of the property, investigation of restrictions and donor intent, and potential interest in the property evinced by local historical agencies.

B. Properties committee review and gives approval to proceed.

C. Heirs of testator or donor are contacted [where appropriate].

D. Application is made to Probate Court [where appropriate].

E. Properties division staff investigates further and proceeds with the following: 1. Consultation with real estate advisor including appraisal. 2. Consults with stewardship team which determines endowment contribution and draws up preservation restrictions to be attached to deed of transfer. 3. Consideration of disposition of collections (furnishings, library and archives) in consultation with appropriate staff.

F. Properties division staff reports to properties committee of the board with recommendations where appropriate concerning preservation restrictions,

8 HISTORIC NEW ENGLAND Policy for Disposition of Real Properties Page Three of Three

disposition of collections, sale price and use of proceeds or conditions of transfer depending on the method of disposition.

G. Properties committee recommends disposition of property to board of trustees.

H. Board of trustees takes formal vote.

I. If approved for disposition, properties division staff contacts real estate agent to handle sale of property after consulting with advisor(s) as to agent and contract therewith. In the case of transfer of ownership, staff and counsel will negotiate terms of agreement.

J. Offer to purchase is made. Properties division staff accepts if asking price or above is offered; otherwise, staff consults with chairman of properties committee of the board and real estate advisor(s).

K. Purchase and sale agreement is signed.

L. Title is transferred and stewardship agreement is filed.

M. Statement of accounts showing direct and indirect expenses of sale and amount of net proceeds and their disposition is drawn up.

###

9