PRESERVATION SHORE TO SHORE Planning to Preserve Michigan’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2001-2006 PRESERVATION SHORE TO SHORE Planning to Preserve State Historic Preservation Office Michigan Historical Center Department of History, Arts and Libraries John Engler, Governor State of Michigan Dr. William Anderson, Executive Director Department of History, Arts and Libraries Sandra Sageser Clark, Director Michigan Historical Center Brian D. Conway State Historic Preservation Officer June 2002 Lansing, Michigan This plan has been financed entirely with Federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior. This program receives Federal financial assistance for identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the Department of the Interior pro- hibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability or age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or you desire further information, please write to: Office for Equal Opportunity National Park Service 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Gate post, Iroquois Point Lighthouse, Bay Mills Author Amy L. Arnold with assistance from Chezarae Rose The State Historic Preservation Office wishes to thank all those that responded to the professional and public surveys, participated in the planning forum, and reviewed and commented on the draft plan, especially Laura Ashlee, Jane Busch and Janet Kreger. Special thanks to the students in Ted Ligibel’s Preservation Planning class at Eastern Michigan University for their review of the initial draft. Quotes used in the plan were taken from responses to the professional and public survey conducted by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Department of State’s Office of Policy and Planning in 1999. Photo credits: Cover photo, Lake Street, Petoskey, Dietrich Floeter; page 16, GM Technical Center, New York Film Works; page 25, Muir Archaeological Excavation, Office of the State Archaeologist; page 35, Sprawl, Balthazar Korab. All other photos are from the collection of the State Historic Preservation Office. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preservation Shore to Shore: Planning to Preserve Michigan’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2001-2006 Executive Summary 1 Methodology 3 Introduction 5 Preservation Accomplishments in Michigan 1996-2000 9 Michigan’s Historic Resources 17 Opportunities and Challenges for Michigan’s Historic Resources 29 Michigan’s Historic Preservation Goals and Objectives 2001-2006 41 References 45 Appendix A: The Michigan Historical Center 47 Appendix B: Selected Historic Preservation Internet Resources 51 Appendix C: The U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 53 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Preservation Shore to Shore: Planning to Preserve Michigan’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2001-2006 reservation of core cities, rural communities and • Advocate for the development of strong partner- historic neighborhoods will allow Michigan to ships between organizations and agencies involved Ppreserve farmland and strengthen tourism and in land use planning, urban and economic agriculture-related industries that add over $45 billion redevelopment, and historic preservation to dollars annually to the state’s economy. Key components encourage reinvestment in downtowns and urban in the state’s economic development plan include cores and discourage sprawl development. diversification of the state’s economy to attract high • Develop a statewide building code that takes into tech industries and the creation of vibrant, livable account the special needs of historic resources communities that appeal to the young, educated workers and encourages investment in their reuse. associated with these industries. Michigan should care- • Coordinate state funded development projects fully assess its current land use policies and adopt with the goal to preserve Michigan’s historic re- strategies that slow sprawl and promote the development sources. Develop cooperative relationships with of viable communities in existing urban cores. state and local agencies funding such projects to Historic preservation offers planning and development ensure that Michigan’s historic resources are tools that promote the stabilization of neighborhoods, considered in project planning and implementa- the revitalization of downtowns, and the reuse of exist- tion. Establish a state system for the historic ing resources and infrastructure. It can help create the review of state funded projects similar to that type of livable communities Michigan seeks. To develop required for federal undertakings under Section truly effective programs for the twenty-first century, the 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of historic preservation effort in Michigan will need 1966, as amended. additional legislative and economic support. Our goal should be to make historic preservation an integrated • Increase efforts to document and identify historic resources and make historic resource data avail- part of land use planning efforts across the state. To this able through an internet-accessible Geographic end, the following tasks and objectives were identified Information System (GIS) so that historic resources as high priorities for the preservation of Michigan’s his- are integrated into the planning process. toric resources during the next five years: • Develop statewide historic contexts —the body of • Promote the use of federal and state preservation information gathered about historic resources based tax incentives in local communities. Michigan’s on significant trends, people, and time periods— state preservation tax credit, adopted in 1999, for Michigan’s significant historic themes. generated over $17.4 million in approved invest- Statewide contexts will facilitate designations to ments to historic properties in its first year. the National Register of Historic Places and the • Increase the funding available for preservation adoption of local historic districts, increase the activities in Michigan at the state and local levels. use of federal and state tax credits, and encour- 1 age heritage tourism initiatives and regional plan- • Undertake a public relations campaign to pro- ning efforts. mote a greater understanding and appreciation of • Implement a statewide Main Street program to historic preservation in Michigan. encourage the revitalization of existing downtowns. • Lay a foundation for the future by creating K-12 pro- • Promote historic preservation to targeted audi- grams that teach children the importance of pre- ences such as legislators, municipal officials, real- serving their heritage, relate the state’s history to its tors, developers and other groups in a manner existing historic resources, and introduce students that will meet their needs. to the principles of historic preservation. 2 METHODOLOGY Purpose of the Plan choice questions and open-ended questions allowed respondents to identify new goals, threats, benefits and Michigan’s State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), tasks. A total of 2,105 surveys were distributed. Of under a directive of the National Park Service (NPS), these, 1,490 were mailed to professionals involved in develops a statewide historic preservation plan every five historic preservation issues on a regular basis; 405 pro- years. The purpose of the state’s historic preservation fessional surveys (27 percent) were returned. Of 615 plan is to guide individual organizations so that all strive surveys mailed to members of the general public who toward the same outcomes in the preservation of had demonstrated an interest in history, 190 (31 per- Michigan’s historic resources. How the goals are met cent) were returned. A copy of the survey questionnaire depends on the work of each agency, organization, com- is on file in the SHPO office. munity, or individual utilizing the plan. We encourage In September 2000 approximately fifty preservation each reader to envision how they or their organization professionals and advocates participated in a planning can best participate in implementing a cohesive preser- workshop. The meeting was held on the campus of vation program for Michigan. Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti and was facili- tated by John Beck, associate professor of labor and Methodology industrial relations at Michigan State University and an Preservation planning is an ongoing activity. Automobile National Heritage Area board member. The SHPO staff members continuously identify the critical workshop participants developed a mission statement, issues that affect Michigan’s historic resources through refined the goals from the last planning cycle, conceived discussions with the Michigan Historic Preservation two new goals, and identified new objectives. They then Network, Michigan’s statewide non-profit organization; prioritized the goals and objectives. SHPO staff later governmental agencies; preservationists; professionals compiled the comments obtained from the open-ended and the general public at meetings, conferences and questions of the written surveys and organized them as workshops. objectives and tasks under the appropriate goals. During the fall of 1999, the SHPO conducted