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