Part II: The Three "Rs" of Historic Preservation - New Beach Plan

Part I was a reflection on the "new" beach and casino building redevelopment plan. This Part II deals with how or if we can really term the work on the casino building contemplated by Straticon et al as "historic preservation." At one City Commission meeting, the elected ones talked about the possibility of historic preservation grants for the project. Not so fast - I think this project would have real problems competing for grant funds.

Many of you probably know that I am not a stranger to historic preservation. From early on in my planning career, I worked on documenting historic districts and acted as an advocate for historic preservation wherever I lived. In 1993, that passion reached full flower when I supported the preservation of the Mar-a-Lago estate and was soon hired on to organize the restoration, rehabilitation of the estate in converting it to an adaptive re-use - that being a private, non-discriminatory club in the Town of Palm Beach.

In that capacity, one of the projects we undertook was the construction of two cabana buildings and a pool on the one acre "beach" portion of the estate. During Mrs. Post's day, she enjoyed a saltwater pool at the north end of the beach property, with some wood frame structures around it serving as cabanas. The removal of the existing pool was the first step in the redevelopment of the Mar-a-Lago beach for the use of club members.

This project required many regulatory approvals. We needed permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit to build seaward of the coastal construction control line (the property is bulkheaded, much like the Lake Worth beach). We also needed the approval of the National Trust for Historic Preservation as there was a view easement in place which preserved the vista from the large central window looking east from the living room of the estate - the "mar" view. Additional approvals were needed from the Town of Palm Beach Landmarks Preservation Commission and from the Town Council before we could begin work.

There is a distinction that I would like to point out here as it relates to the Lake Worth beach. While the Mar-a-Lago beach cabana project was part of an overall larger historic preservation project related to the conversion of Mar-a-Lago from a private estate to a private club, the beach project alone represents neither restoration, reconstruction or rehabilitation. While in the Mediterranean revival style, similar to the main buildings west of A-1A, the beach project was not meant to imitate but meant to compliment the style of the large "house" complex. The buildings and the pool at the beach were new construction - period.

Here is a picture from early on in the construction of the Mar-a-Lago beach project:

It is no accident that the banner of this blog is taken from an early postcard of the Lake Worth beach casino building. I've always thought of it as a symbol of the city's past and as an aspirational goal what the city could achieve - through a lot of hard work. What an achievement it would be that we really could create a nice building near to the original's style and scale on our most valuable piece of public land!

As near as I can tell, this is the casino building as it appeared from the earliest color print in its original form. The entire postcard appears below:

With this "new" casino building proposal, we have the term "restoration" being tossed around rather casually. People in powerful positions are using it as a way to promote the project. How could you be against something that would "restore" the Casino to its 1920s glory? This term was used throughout the Suzanne Mulvehill for Commissioner campaign. In fact, I called the now Commissioner Mulvehill early on in her campaign and told her about the distinction which is the subject of this post. It was not enough to prevent the further use of the term.

In order for anything we do at the beach involving the existing building to qualify as "restoration", we need to meet the definition of restoration as contained in our historic preservation ordinance and the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. Here is the definition:

Restoration: The act or process of accurately recovering the form and details of a building, structure or site and its setting as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of later work or the replacement of missing earlier work.

Here is what was presented by Straticon et al:


We are, in reality, talking about two completely different buildings. Count the number of arches in the original, as depicted in the 1920s postcard, and then count the number of arches in the version as distributed by Straticon et al. I count about 19 in the original and about 25 or 26 in the "new" version. Lets assume the space between the columns is 5 feet or so. That would indicate that the "new" building would be at a minimum 35 ft. longer than the original. However, the original arch openings may have been a smaller dimension, so the difference could be as much as 50 ft on the north/south dimension. We already know from their presentation that the "new" building would consume an additional 12 feet east as leaseable space where the existing walkway is now. The top of this new area would create a walkway around the second floor of the building. While a feature of the original building, the building's second floor area was never that large and never extended that far to the east.

So, in order to be a "restoration", you must accurately reproduce how a building looked at a certain point in time. As pointed out, there are features of the new building that were on the original, but the building never was this large - both in an east/west and a north/south dimension. You cannot "restore" something that never was. This current proposal really has more in common with a new building in the same location, with some period details added to it. To call it a restoration is wrong - period. To restore the building would be to return it to exactly how it looked in that early postcard - using original materials and techniques as much as possible.

Or, due to the various iterations of the casino building over time - caused by storms and other considerations - you could choose which era or version you restore the building to. Notice that part of the definition of restoration includes the removal of later work. This building as it now appears is covered by "later work" - the late 40s renovation laid over another building on top of what used to the original building. The "new" proposal just incorporates that later work, in volume and materials, in the new version.

In fact, this is what was left of that "original building" that caused the need for the late 40s modernization we see now:

That's where we are introduced to the term "reconstruction." This is the definition of the term as contained in our historic preservation ordinance and the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Preservaiton.

Reconstruction: The act or process of reassembling, reproducing or replacing by new construction the form, detail and appearance of a property and its setting as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of later work or by the replacement of missing earlier work or by reuse of the original materials.

Let's say those hurricanes in the late 40s destroyed the building so that it was leveled - no evidence of it remained at all. You could then reconstruct it exactly as it was at a certain earlier point in time - but with all new materials and construction. It would not be considered reconstruction if it didn't re-create a version of the building that existed back at one point in time. So, even this term is not appropriately used for the current proposal as it represents a building that never existed. It emulates the building, but it is larger and the relation of the various details is not the same as any other version that existed on this property. Again, the "new" beach casino building has more in common with new construction than historic preservation.

The third "R" of historic preservation is "rehabilitation." This is the definition of that term as contained in the same sources:

Rehabilitation: The act or process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair, remodeling or alteration which makes possible efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historic architectural or cultural value.

The current proposal probably comes closest to this definition. But still, this proposal is not "preserving those portions or features of the property," instead it is creating new ones to look like old ones. If you only look at the surface of the new proposed building, it is essentially all new materials. What is being preserved are some of the structural components of the existing building and, in effect, "icing" is being poured over what portions of the existing structure are salvageable. I am also not convinced that the new proposal has been designed from the inside out. Do we really know that its functionality in 2009 with contemporary retail and restaurant tenant needs have been adequately addressed?

So be wary when you hear some vocal people talk about this "new" proposal as being a restoration that is restoring the casino building back to its 1920s heyday. What it does represent is a tenant-driven project made possible through the local political process. And, really, who is to say that Greater Bay themselves couldn't have done a "restoration" project like this either here or somewhere else on the property?

Next, in Part III, I will examine Commissioner Jennings' renown PowerPoint presentation where she called for a 160 foot setback from the seawall. Funny how now she thinks it's o.k. to extend the building 12 feet further toward the ocean. More later.