ABSTRACT OF THESIS
WOODWARD HEIGHTS LIVE:
A MODEL FOR COMMUNICATING THE CHARACTER OF
HISTORIC DISTRICTS WITH AN INTERACTIVE WEBSITE
Information about a historic district is useful to anyone interested in historic
places, from researchers and historians, to local residents, to architects and planners, to
lawmakers, to tourists. Using visual imagery and interactivity, a website can showcase a
historic district in a form that is useful, accessible, and visually appealing. The creation of
a website for the Woodward Heights historic district in Lexington, Kentucky, acts as the
subject of this thesis’ case study.
Keywords: Historic Districts, Historic Documentation, Interactive Websites, Historic
District Regulation, Historic Tourism
Multimedia Elements Used: Adobe Flash (.swf), HTML (.html)
______________________________
Author
______________________________
Date
i
WOODWARD HEIGHTS LIVE:
A MODEL FOR COMMUNICATING THE CHARACTER OF
HISTORIC DISTRICTS WITH AN INTERACTIVE WEBSITE
By
Mark Fluehr
______________________________
Director of Thesis
______________________________
Director of Graduate Studies
______________________________
Date
ii
RULES FOR THE USE OF THESES
Unpublished theses submitted for the Master’s degree and deposited in the University of
Kentucky Library are as a rule open for inspection, but are to be used only with due
regard to the rights of the authors. Bibliographical references may be noted, but
quotations or summaries of parts may be published only with the permission of the
author, and with the usual scholarly acknowledgments.
Extensive copying or publication of the thesis in whole or in part also requires the
consent of the Dean of the Graduate School of the University of Kentucky.
A library that borrows this thesis for use by its patrons is expected to secure the signature
of each user.
Name
Date
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
iii
THESIS
Mark Fluehr
The Graduate School
University of Kentucky
2011
iv
WOODWARD HEIGHTS LIVE:
A MODEL FOR COMMUNICATING THE CHARACTER OF
HISTORIC DISTRICTS WITH AN INTERACTIVE WEBSITE
___________________________________
THESIS
___________________________________
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Historic Preservation in the
College of Design
at the University of Kentucky
By
Mark Fluehr
Lexington, Kentucky
Director: Ned Crankshaw, Professor of Historic Preservation
Lexington, Kentucky
2011
Copyright © Mark Fluehr 2011
v
MASTER’S THESIS RELEASE
I authorize the University of Kentucky
Libraries to reproduce this thesis in
whole or in part for purposes of research.
Signed: ___________________________
Date: _____________________________
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
viii
List of Images
ix
List of Files
x
I.
Introduction
1
A. Concept Statement
1
B. Description of Chapters
3
Definition of the Study
5
A. Research Questions
5
B. Assumptions
5
C. Scope
6
D. Definition of General Terms
7
Perceiving Landscapes through Documentation
8
II.
III.
A. Reevaluating Documentation through the
Lens of the Cultural Landscape
B. How Designers See Landscape Patterns
8
12
C. Using Documentation to Assist the Regulation of
Historic Districts
IV.
16
Historic Districts Websites
20
A. Effective Communication with a Website
20
B. Comparison of Example Websites
23
C. Conclusions about Historic District Websites
41
V.
Consideration of Possible Documentation Techniques
45
VI.
Woodward Heights Case Study
53
A. User Interaction
53
B. Website Architecture
59
Conclusions
61
VII.
Bibliography
64
vii
List of Tables
Table IV-1, Ranking of Historic District Websites
viii
41
List of Images
Image III-1, Map for Huntersville Master Plan
14
Image III-2, Analytical Sketches of a Queen Anne Neighborhood
15
Image IV-1, Google Maps Image of the United States
23
Image IV-2, Google Maps Image of Lexington
23
Image IV-3, Website of Downtown Denver Historic District
27
Image IV-4, Website of Louisville Historic Districts
29
Image IV-5, Website of Allentown Historic District
30
Image IV-6, Website of Richmond Historic Sites
32
Image IV-7, Website of Charleston Historic Sites
34
Image IV-8, Website of Snohomish Historic District
35
Image IV-9, Website of Durham Historic Districts
37
Image IV-10, Website of Seattle Historic Districts
38
Image IV-11, Website of Savannah Historic Squares
40
Image V-1, Woodward Heights Drawn in CAD
47
Image V-2, Building Drawing Using Rectification
49
Image V-3, Rectification Using Photoshop
50
Image VI-1, District Viewer in Plan View
57
Image VI-2, District Viewer in Building View
58
ix
List of Files
(on CD)
<Historic District Viewer.swf>, Adobe Flash Historic District Viewer
<history.html>, History Webpage
<index.html>, Main Webpage for the Historic District Website
<*.xml>, District Layers
<Images\*.jpg OR *.png OR *.swf>, Various Images
<Images\Building\*.jpg>, Photographs for Each Building
<Images\Building\*.swf>, Text for Each Building
<Images\Elev\*.swf>, Information for Elevation View
<Images\Key\*.swf>, Information for Layer Keys
<Images\Plan\*.swf>, Information for Plan View
x
I. Introduction
A. Concept Statement
The documentation and dissemination of information about historic places are
critical. Individual landmarks such as Mount Vernon, Penn Central Station, and
Independence Hall act as symbols of American history and rallying points of the
preservation movement. Documentation efforts aid in both the preservation of these
places and the education of the general public. With the support of local and federal
government, millions of dollars may be spent to document a single venerable structure.
Documentation serves a purpose far beyond the mere academic recording of
history. Documentation, the documentation process, and the presentation of historic
information all affect what places are preserved, how they are preserved, how they are
perceived, and how modern interventions are made. Collected data is useful to anyone
interested in historic structures or places, from researchers and historians, to local
residents, to architects and planners, to lawmakers, to tourists.
America’s less well-known historic places, unfortunately, can all too easily be
forgotten in the documentation process. This is especially true of the buildings within
historic districts. This is due in part to the fact that the structures within historic districts
are valued less for their own sake, and more for the relatively small contribution they
make to an entire neighborhood. As a result, it is often difficult to obtain information
about a specific building within a historic district. Nevertheless, it is important that the
public be given access to this data. Besides the educational benefits, a greater access to
such information would greatly aid the regulation and protection of historic districts. In
1
order to achieve these various ends, information needs to be presented in a way that
clearly exhibits districts’ important characteristics and builds transparency for the
execution of historic preservation regulations.
More attention needs to be given to the documentation of historic districts. This is
not to say that documentation methods for a district should copy those of individual
buildings. The historic fabric of America’s historic districts should not be considered as a
collection of context-less objects. After all, the character of a district is a result of the
interaction of its constituent elements, all of which exist in physical space. Therefore, it is
important that district documentation works not just on a site-by-site basis, but that
attention is also given to the interwoven informational layers which make up a district.
The documentation process itself is not the only thing in need of reformation. It is
also important that the information gathered through documentation is presented
effectively—that is, it must be both understandable and accessible. Unfortunately, this is
rarely so, regardless of whether presentation is done through text or through imagery. In a
historic district survey form, for example, the reader may be confronted with dozens of
pages of dense and technical text. A handful of still photos are not sufficient to make up
for this deficiency. Additionally, survey forms are held at only a handful of locations, and
only specialists are generally aware of their existence. Useful information which is poorly
presented and difficult to retrieve is greatly diminished in value.
Most online websites do a somewhat better job than the average survey. Some of
the National Parks Service’s online itineraries, for example, create an experience by
which the user can hone in on specific information more easily with interactive maps.
Although an improvement, even websites such as these do not adequately present historic
2
districts. They, like the surveys which preceded them, display information primarily
through text rather than visual imagery.
With the advent in recent decades of ordinances which regulate the treatment of
historic districts, the public justifiably expects increased access to information which has
previously been restricted to preservation “experts.” With the presence of the World
Wide Web, which has been widely accessible to the American public for almost two
decades, there is no reason that information about historic districts should be difficult to
obtain and understand. Indeed, an Internet site provides an engaging platform with which
to both spread and organize information. Using visual imagery and interactivity, a
website can showcase information in a form that is useful, accessible, and visually
appealing. The Historic District Viewer website created in this study attempts to prove
this thesis. The Woodward Heights historic district is located in Lexington, Kentucky,
and acts as the subject of the case study.
B. Description of Chapters
Chapter II describes the goals, assumptions, and scope of this study. It also
defines important general terms.
Chapter III looks at the landscape, as perceived in the fields of geography and
design. The chapter then proposes a way in which a better understanding of the
landscape, both amongst professionals and the public at large, could assist the regulation
of historic districts.
Chapter IV compares several existing historic district websites with one another.
Websites are noted their respective virtues and flaws, and ranked from best to worst.
3
Finally, some alternative presentation methods are proposed which would alleviate the
problems common amongst the websites.
Chapter V examines several techniques for gathering and displaying information
about historic districts. Techniques are selected for the case study which are most
practical.
Chapter VI looks at the Woodward Heights Historic District Viewer which is
developed as a case study. Particular emphasis is given to ways in which the Viewer
promotes user interaction. The chapter also examines how additional districts could be
implemented in a similar way to Woodward Heights.
Chapter VII concludes the paper with an analysis of the overall success of the
case study. Finally, the chapter proposes several avenues for further study.
The Woodward Heights Historic District Viewer case study is a complete and
thorough implementation of the ideas outlined in this paper. As of May, 2011, it can be
accessed at http://woodward.koolserve.com/. A CD of the District Viewer website is also
appended to this thesis.
4
II. Definition of the Study
A. Research Questions
The aim of this study is to resolve these questions:
1. Who needs information about historic districts? Should a website be geared towards
experts or the general public? For what purposes is access to district information needed?
2. How can information be presented in a way that relies more on imagery than text?
More specifically, how can concepts from geography and design indicate a way to
present a historic district?
3. What are current district presentation solutions like, especially on the Internet? How do
they present information, and in what proportions do they utilize text, images, and
interactivity? In what ways are they effective? In what ways are they inadequate?
4. How can information about districts be effectively gathered? What is the proper
balance between accuracy, level of detail, and efficiency when gathering data? What
methods best achieve this balance?
5. How can information about districts be effectively disseminated? What platforms will
the public find most beneficial?
B. Assumptions
1. The amount of time, manpower, and money which can be dedicated to the study of a
historic district is limited. Streamlining the process makes the method outlined in this
study more practical for agencies with limited resources.
5
2. Exact precision is not required to make graphical information useful. Documentation
methods are therefore to be judged based not just on accuracy, but on efficiency.
3. The Internet is the easiest way for most people to access information.
C. Scope
1. The methods outlined in this study are not site- or region-specific. Rather, they are
meant to be applicable to urban historic districts throughout the United States.
2. The use of a website as a platform for information about historic districts is but one
part of a broader scheme. Not extensively covered in this study are deficiencies in the
prose which is used to discuss historic districts, which is often impossible for the
layperson to read.
3. The Historic District Viewer does not supplant traditional documentation methods, but
rather supplements them. Traditional methods may be more appropriate for some
purposes.
4. The case study, which culminates in the creation of an example website, intentionally
relies on software which is widely available and widely used. An impressive variety of
specialized software packages are available for specific uses, but they are generally
expensive and require specialized training.
6
D. Definition of General Terms
character: The physical nature of a historic district. It is modulated to some degree by all
of the elements which make up a physical landscape.
historic district: A collection of historically significant buildings or sites. Districts may be
defined by either national or local authorities.
interactivity: Directly engages the user with information. It allows a user to select the
information which he needs while sifting out everything else. Interactive websites
are the opposite of static documents.
significance: Both the physical and nonphysical nature of a historic district which makes
it culturally important. Significance may be imparted by historic events, persons,
design, and archaeology.1
1
National Park Service. “National Register of Historic Places Fundamentals.”
<http://www.nps.gov/nr/national_register_fundamentals.htm> Accessed 3/11/2011.
7
III. Perceiving Landscapes through Documentation
A. Reevaluating Documentation through the Lens of the Cultural Landscape
Physical context influences the character of a historic district. Context is driven
by the intricate relationship between one physical element (whether a building, a
sidewalk, or a tree) and every other element within a district. To be of use, therefore,
documentation must effectively communicate context. With this fact in mind, a survey of
the literature regarding historic documentation brings up some problems with how
documentation is commonly carried out.
Among documentation literature, there is a general disregard for the unique needs
of districts. The National Park Service Bulletin series is the premier resource for
documenters, and is meant to “[provide] guidance on evaluating, documenting, and
listing different types of historic places.”1 Of these bulletins, only the document “Historic
Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National
Register of Historic Places” gives an in-depth description of how to document a city
historic district. Unfortunately, the bulletin focuses almost entirely on historical research,
while giving scant mention to physical documentation. This imbalance is no accident, and
reflects the general attitude of the Park Service. It is a telling fact that a district
nomination is prepared “using the same National Register Bulletins (instructions), form
and continuation sheets that one would use to document an individual property,” although
in district nominations also require a map and a historical overview of the district.2
Regrettably, an emphasis on individual, standalone objects is also present within
documentation guides such as the National Park Service’s Recording Historic Structures3
8
and ICOMOS’ Guide to Recording Historic Buildings. Manuals such as these tend to
focus more on how to record individual structures and their respective properties than
wider landscapes such as historic neighborhoods. This is not to say that such guides
ignore all non-architectural implications of the historic environment. Indeed, “historical
questions – questions about economic, religious and social conditions, about the spread of
ideas, and about how such conditions change over time” are present.4 Without
acknowledging the relationships within a landscape, however, the usefulness of
information produced according to these guides is necessarily somewhat limited.
In the United States, an understanding of documentation is impossible without
looking at the documentation produced by three National Park Service programs. The
Historic American Building Survey, or HABS, was created in 1933 as one of Franklin
Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal programs.5 To start with, HABS focused almost entirely
on pre-1860 buildings. Beginning in 1969, the Historic American Engineering Record, or
HAER, extended the variety of places documented to include bridges, dams, industrial
complexes, and the like. The Historic American Landscapes Survey, or HALS, is the
most recent program, permanently established in 2000. HALS focuses mostly on
designed landscapes such as parks, cemeteries, and gardens.
While acknowledging the Federal Government’s great contributions to historic
preservation with the HABS/HAER/HALS program, it is questionable whether they are
accomplishing the goals which they should. The National Park Service’s most thoroughly
documented places are recorded using measured drawings, photographs, and written
text.6 However, the HABS/HAER/HALS programs are best known for their emphasis (or
9
overemphasis, according to critics such as Steven Lubar) on architectural drawings.7
Architectural drawings can leave the viewer disconnected from a building’s context.
How, then, can a historic district be understood as a whole instead of a series of
disconnected objects? Geographers use the term cultural landscape to describe a way of
“considering, analyzing, and evaluating places.”8 Interestingly, a cultural landscape can
be anywhere, regardless of the agent of its creation or any qualitative interpretations
about its value.9,10 However, most “recognizable and understandable” cultural landscapes
are designed.11 To be properly understood, both human and natural elements must be
considered when looking at a cultural landscape.
The possible elements of a landscape are numerous. Among them are topography,
natural features, land uses, circulation, spatial relationships, views and vistas, landscape
dividers, lighting, and sculpture—just to name a few.12 The cultural landscape approach
can help preservation by bringing commonly disregarded aspects of a place into focus—
factors such as “paths of circulation, fence and field patterns, water sources, landforms,”
and so on.13 In the urban setting with which this study deals, the “cultural landscape”
gives new meaning to the sidewalks, streets, and vegetation amongst which structures are
embedded. Naturally, the elements which define a cultural landscape’s character vary
somewhat from place to place.
Unfortunately, today’s documentation methods do not display historic districts as
cultural landscapes.14 Instead of using methods designed for individual sites, district
documentation ought to “attempt to define the essence and style of an area.”15 How, then,
can the interconnectedness of the urban landscape be successfully documented? John
Knoerl highlights the role that modern-day technologies can play in connecting pieces of
10
geographic information. Knoerl specifically lauds the developments in computer
technology, which “have significantly increased the power of maps.”16 A geographic
information system (GIS) is one especially powerful tool which has dramatically changed
the way that we collect and analyze information.17 GIS was invented in the 1960s, and
was greatly expanded with the advent of satellites in the mid-1970s.18 GIS, together with
other technologies, is able to map, sort, and overlay information in a way that was not
possible when, for example, the first National Register nominations were being created.
Planner Walter Jamieson similarly calls for an updating of the documentation
process. Jamieson takes the cultural landscape approach and applies it specifically to
historic documentation. In his article “Recording the Historic Urban Environment: A
New Challenge,” he specifically focuses on the ability of historic documentation to affect
design interventions19 However, Jamieson’s ideas are useful for looking at documentation
for other purposes as well. Jamieson disagrees with the view of area-wide recording as
“an extension of single-building recording.”20 Rather, the city is a complicated system of
interconnected pieces. Therefore, everything is important and should be documented. For
example, non-architectural elements such as a row of street trees or a railroad track
dramatically alter the character of a neighborhood.
There are several issues with how documentation is typically gathered. Historic
documentation, Jamieson argues, is neither comprehensive nor comprehensible enough
for those who need it. End-users may include anyone from planners to property owners.
Since they are not involved in “intervention,” historians, archaeologists, and the like are
not included as primary “end-users.” Preservation practice remains in its “infancy,” and
adequate funds and training are often lacking. The problems with training are exacerbated
11
by the fact that there is no agreement about why, what, and how things should be
recorded.
B. How Designers See Landscape Patterns
From a comparison of the literature produced by both preservationists and
designers, it is evident that city planners, landscape architects, and architects have a better
grasp on the importance of context than do most preservationists. Preservationists’
limited understanding of the attributes which create neighborhood character may be due
in part to the baggage built into their craft. It is all too easy for preservationists to fall in
love with a unique historic building and to get caught up in the place’s minutia. Ever
since the beginning of the preservation movement in America, with the restoration of
Mount Vernon in the mid-1800s, preservationists have frequently given their primary
attention to a relative handful of exceptional buildings.21 This myopic tendency has
carried into the documentation process (see Chapter III-A). Obviously, this is not to say
that the details which they love are unimportant. However, the real value of details
usually lies in their aggregation across a wide area, through which broad patterns become
discernable.
Designers of necessity must discern the nature of the site on which they work. A
designer who fails to acknowledge the relationships of the site on which he is designing
with its surrounding context dooms his project to failure. A building carries on a sort of
dialogue with its context, and they affect the character of one another. Every building has
its proper place; a rambling ranch house does not belong in a city’s downtown, nor a
skyscraper in a cornfield. The questions which any designer must answer about a
12
prospective building site should also be contemplated by a preservationist documenting a
historic district—What is the relationship of buildings to the local street pattern? Are
buildings sited amongst similar or dissimilar structures? Are buildings tall or short, wide
or narrow? Does the building belong amongst grassy lawns or paved concrete?
Designers deal with anything ranging from the macroscopic scale (a
neighborhood or even a whole city) to the microscopic scale (an individual building).
Regardless of the specific design problem, designers often prefer to describe the cultural
landscape using visual rather than textual methods. In such cases, the realms of
geography and design effectively meld into one another. David Walter’s book Designing
Community is an excellent illustration of the way planners understand the city. Maps,
street elevations, photographs, and perspectives are all useful graphical tools which
appear in the book. Images such as the “Ripe and Firm analysis” of Huntersville, North
Carolina display at a glance the makeup of the district in question (see Image III-1).
Utilizing various colors and line-types, the analysis “identifies sites for development and
preservation based on physical character, condition and market availability.”22 Even
without access to more detailed information about the individual sites that compose the
neighborhood, one is still able to understand where various types of buildings probably
reside. Visual layers, such as those on the Huntersville plan, are excellent at describing
otherwise convoluted data in an accessible and understandable way.
13
Image III-1. This map was created for the 2004 Huntersville Master Plan. 23
There are many such methods of conveying character-defining information about
an urban environment. Another successful example appears in Richard Hedman’s book
Fundamentals of Urban Design. In a series of nine sketches, Hedman shows how the
elements of a neighborhood of Queen Anne houses appear in a streetscape (see Image III2).24 For this example, Hedman’s own list of urban elements includes building silhouette,
spacing between buildings, setbacks, proportions, massing, shadow patterns, and scale,
among others.25 More than a mere representation of the street, these layers can be used to
pick apart the characteristics which define neighborhood character.
14
Image III-2. Two of Hedman’s analytical sketches of a dense Queen Anne neighborhood. The top image
shows patterns of fenestration, while the bottom image shows entryway locations.26
In his book Looking at Cities, urban designer Allan Jacobs indicates how the
already-built environment can be studied. Jacobs identifies a series of generalized “urban
clues” which say something about a place’s character.27 Architectural styles, for example,
indicate the era and wealth of the people who originally built the neighborhood.28 The
15
size of structures indicates the number of people living or working in the neighborhood.29
Building and public way condition indicates how much a place is valued in the present.30
Regular street patterns indicate a carefully planned neighborhood (perhaps even by a
single designer), while irregular patterns indicate organic growth and a multiplicity of
designers.31 These clues are embedded in all pieces of the urban fabric, among its
buildings, people, landscaping, and streets. The field of preservation documentation
would be well served by adapting a similar awareness of “urban clues.”
C. Using Documentation to Assist the Regulation of Historic Districts
There are many different reasons to disseminate information about a historic
district. One of the most important potential reasons is to assist with the regulation of a
historic district. Historic district guidelines and form-based codes are two powerful tools
to preserve a district’s integrity. Such tools are used to shape the look of a city, including
viewsheds, form relationships, building heights, and sunlight access.32 In either case,
documentation, if made widely available via the Internet, can build transparency into the
regulatory process by making information about historic districts easily accessible to all
parties involved.
Historic district design guidelines define the appropriate treatment of existing
architectural elements, include recommendations for the design of new construction, and
restrict the demolition and modification of existing historic structures. Guidelines are
generally enforced by a committee of architects and other preservation experts. They vary
somewhat in their particulars from city to city, but usually they are meant to cover all of a
16
city’s historic districts. As a result, guidelines tend to be broad and generalized, instead of
specifying specific treatments appropriate for each district.
In Lexington, Kentucky, property owners in a historic district submit proposed
changes to the Board of Architectural Review (BOAR), whose members are responsible
for interpreting the city’s Guidelines.33 Whatever the change, every proposal is judged by
whether it is in keeping with the character of the individual building and with the
respective district as a whole. Thus, knowledge of not just the building in question, but of
an entire district is necessary for both the BOAR and the property owner (or his
representative) who appears before it. Therefore, it is critical that property owners are
given access to such information.
Unfortunately, historic district information is not as accessible as it should be. For
each district in Lexington, the city’s Guidelines give a mere handful of photographs and a
very brief textual description (a mere two paragraphs in the case of Woodward Heights)
of the district’s history and general architectural character.34 This short description may
barely even mention the design issues which must be considered when modifying
properties in the district. Questions regarding the proposed roof form, building scale,
window and door placements, and materials of a structure require more depth than this.
Unfairly, the property owner is largely left on his own in such cases. More useful historic
district information needs to be compiled and placed on the Internet. This would go a
long way towards disseminating the information that is invaluable when a property owner
goes before the BOAR. The website which this study proposes allows both the Board and
the property owner to access and sift through relevant information quickly, and to come
to a common understanding of a district’s character (see Chapter VI).
17
Form-based codes represent a more recent, but growing, trend in historic district
regulation. Admittedly, they are most often associated with the ideals of New Urbanism,
which have led to the foundation of a series of greenfield cities. Indeed, form-based codes
are most easily applied to new developments, since they do not have to be adapted to
existing conditions. Nevertheless, they are applicable not only to new developments, but
also to existing urban areas. The city of Louisville, Kentucky, for example, adopted a
form-based code in 2003.35 Called the Land Development Code (LDC), it created 11
different form districts, such as the Downtown, Village, and Campus form districts. The
LDC applies to the whole city, including its historic districts.
Form-based codes “control the three-dimensional forms of buildings as they relate
to the public spaces of streets, squares, parks, greenways, playgrounds and other urban
places, and they include holistic design requirements for all types of public space.”36
Additionally, they attempt to mediate the relationship between “urban morphology (the
sense of overall grain and character of an area) and building typology (a lexicon of
different types of buildings based on their formal characteristics).”37
Because of their wide-reaching effects, form-based codes are typically vetted with
public comment in the form of charrettes before they are enacted.38 As in a BOAR
review, therefore, access to information is critical for all those involved. The existing
building spacing and setbacks, tree patterns, and street layouts which define a historic
district should affect the regulations which are part of a form-based code. In the end, the
code must be sympathetic to everything which precedes it.
1
National Park Service. “National Register Publications.” <http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/> Accessed
4/3/2011.
18
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. “Heritage Bulletin 6.”
<http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/HCD/NATREG/docs/hb_6_hstoric_districts.pdf?ga=t> Accessed
4/3/2011.
3
Burns, John A. ed. Recording Historic Structures, Second Edition. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 2004).
4
International Council of Monuments and Sites. Guide to recording historic buildings / ICOMOS.
(London: Butterworth Architecture, 1990), 9
5
Lubar, Steven. “The Historic American Building Survey / Historic American Engineering Record /
America’s Industrial Heritage Project: Some Recent Publications.” The Public Historian, Vol. 13,
No. 3 (Summer, 1991), 119
6
Lubar, 120
7
Lubar, 120
8
Longstreth, Richard ed. Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice.
(Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press, 2008), 1
9
Longstreth, 2
10
Alanen, Arnold R. and Robert Z. Melnick. Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America. (Baltimore, MD:
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 2
11
Alanen and Melnick, 3
12
Keller, J. Timothy. “How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes.”
<http://www.nps.gov/history/NR/publications/bulletins/nrb18/> Accessed 3/9/2011.
13
Longstreth, 2
14
Jamieson, Walter. “Recording the Historic Urban Environment: A New Challenge.” APT Bulletin, Vol.
22, No. 1/2, Cultural Resource Recording (1990), 12
15
Jamieson, 13
16
Knoerl, John J. “Mapping History Using Geographic Information Systems.” The Public Historian, Vol.
13, No. 3, Preservation Technology (Summer, 1991), 98
17
Knoerl, 98
18
Knoerl, 98
19
Jamieson, 13
20
Jamieson, 12
21
Fitch, James. Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World. (Charlottesville, VA:
University of Virginia Press, 1990), 90
22
Walters, David. Designing Community: Charrettes, Masterplans and Form-based Codes. (Burlington,
MA: Architectural Press, 2007), 192
23
Walters, 192
24
Hedman, Richard with Andrew Jaszewski. Fundamentals of Urban Design. (Washington, D.C.: APA
Planners Press, 1984), 14-17
25
Hedman, 14
26
Hedman, 16
27
Jacobs, Allan. Looking at Cities. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 30-83
28
Jacobs, 31
29
Jacobs, 33
30
Jacobs, 43
31
Jacobs, 71
32
Hedman, 105-122
33
City of Lexington, Kentucky. “Local Historic District and Landmark (H-1) Design Review Guidelines.”
<http://www.lexingtonky.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5672> Accessed
3/9/2011. 29
34
City of Lexington, 26
35
City of Louisville, Kentucky. “Land Development Code.”
<http://www.louisvilleky.gov/PlanningDesign/ldc/> Accessed 3/9/2011.
36
Walters, 97
37
Walters, 90
38
Walters, 9
2
19
IV. Historic District Websites
A. Effective Communication with a Website
The dissemination of raw facts is not enough to effectively communicate the
character of a historic district in a website. To be of any use, information must be
organized in a methodical and logical way.1 Good organization increases “findability,” a
term popularized by information architect Peter Morville. Findability is important
because it allows a website to effectively communicate information. High findability
enables users to find what they need, even when sifting through literally billions of pieces
of data, as on the Internet.2 A website with low findability leaves the user confused,
disoriented, and dissatisfied.
Low findability is perhaps a less common problem with physical documents than
with the Internet. Physical documents are typically organized in a linear format, whether
by chronology, by cause and effect, through comparison, from general to specific, or
according to importance.3 Historic district nominations are designed to be read in a linear
fashion, from cover to cover. This ensures that the user sees everything contained within
the document.
Findability is much more difficult online, because people use websites in a
nonlinear manner. On a website, the user begins on a homepage, and is then given a
choice of several diverging pathways. The user selects the pathways he thinks are most
valid for him, while ignoring other pathways altogether. As a result, it is probable that the
user will not actually read every piece of information present on a website. The more
information there is on a website, the more likely this is. Nonlinear exploration can be
20
both a good and a bad thing. While it increases the ability of the user to select
information relevant to him, it simultaneously takes away direct control from the web
designer. It is thus a great mistake for web designers to assume that their website is going
to be read in a linear fashion like a traditional text.
How then can a website communicate information about a historic district
effectively? According to Morville, findable information “requires definition, distinction,
difference.”4 In other words, information needs to be classified and organized according
to its characteristics. Highly successful websites such as Google, eBay, and Amazon
efficaciously select and screen information through the use of keywords.5 What, then, is
the historic district’s equivalent of the “keyword?” How can a website communicate the
rich and complex character of a historic district, without inundating the user with
information? As has been seen above, a historic district is best understood as a series of
distinct yet interconnected informational layers instead of a group of disconnected objects
(see Chapter III-A). More than just providing a conceptual framework for understanding
a historic district, layers can also be an organizing principal for the layout of a website.
Layers are the historic district’s equivalent of keywords.
Just as a user can not search for all possible keywords at once, he should not have
to examine all layers at once. Through interactivity, he should be able to examine as
many or as few layers as he wants. Interactivity is thus one of the best mechanisms for
increasing the usefulness of a website. Indeed, it has been shown that “increased levels of
interactivity on a Web site have positive effects on the user’s perceived satisfaction,
effectiveness, efficiency, value, and overall attitude towards a Web site.”6 This is because
good interactivity encourages “the communication flow between users and the Web site,
21
promoting the exchange of information.”7 Given the inherent complexity of historic
districts, interactivity in their case is especially important.
The proper organization of information is not the only factor in an effective
historic district website. The website must also have sufficient detail about the district’s
physical character. Unfortunately, far too many such websites are lacking in this area, as
shall be seen in Chapter IV-B. In such cases, the user is left with an uneven
understanding of the district’s character. Insufficient detail also engenders a biased view
of the district, because the understanding of the district is warped by the website’s limited
selection of information.
Google Maps is a good example of a website which uses interactivity to increase
the findability of information.8 On this website, interaction is designed in such a way that
relevant information is effectively funneled to the user, while irrelevant information is
sorted out. When first loaded, the Google Maps website shows a map of the entire United
States (see Image IV-1). At this level, only the most general information is given, such as
state boundaries and important cities. At the next zoom level, the website displays more
cities, and now includes important highways. At the closest map level, the user can see
the makeup of an individual town, including streets, parks, and important landmarks (see
Image IV-2). Finally, the user can move into Street View, which is a panoramic view at
ground level. Importantly, the funneling of information in this way does not prevent the
user from browsing at random. In fact, it may encourage the user to explore.
22
Images IV-1 and IV-2. Google Maps effectively allows users to hone in on relevant information through
interactivity. Irrelevant information is systematically weeded out. 9
B. Comparison of Example Websites
The following section is an examination of existing Internet websites which
communicate information about historic districts. Analyzing the websites’ effectiveness
helps illuminate the ways in which they are successful and ways in which they need to be
improved. Each website is graded based on how effectively the character of its respective
historic district(s) is/are presented. Especially important are the degrees of depth and
organization of the information they contain (see Chapter IV-A). Information on these
websites is communicated in varying degrees through text, images, and interactivity.
23
Therefore, each website is analyzed according to these categories, with a grade of ‘low’
representing low usefulness and ‘high’ representing high usefulness. The typical
characteristics of each grade are as follows:
Text:
low— What text there is focuses on a few notable characteristics of the overall
district. Individual sites may be labeled, but are not described in depth. It
is impossible for the user to read about the district in detail.
medium—Text gives an adequate description of the overall character of the
historic district. Individual sites are described with short blocks of text. All
text may be placed in a single page or document, making it difficult to
absorb.
high—Both the general character of the district and its finer details are described
in great detail. Essays give in-depth description of the district’s
importance. Individual sites are described with essay-length text. Although
it may include a lot of detail, text is organized in easily digestible portions.
Images:
low—A few images give only a vague flavor of the district’s physical appearance.
There is less than one image per site.
medium—Some photographs, drawings, or maps give a fair impression of the
district’s character. Most sites have one image.
24
high—The presence of many images gives the user a thorough understanding of
the district’s character. All sites have multiple images. Images are
organized in a simple and logical fashion.
Interactivity:
low—The website uses text-based hyperlinks only.
medium—The website uses more than just hyperlinks for user interaction. Some
user interaction is done through maps, scrollable images, and the like.
high—User interaction is largely done without text-based hyperlinks. Instead, the
website utilizes multiple interactive strategies, including interactive
viewports, photographs, and maps. Many layers of information can be
toggled on or off.
The following nine websites are representative of the wide variety of material on
historic districts which exists on the Internet. They are operated by the National Park
Service, local municipalities, neighborhood groups, and interested individuals.
Importantly, they do not necessarily represent the entirety of the online information that
is available for each city. The websites vary greatly in quality, detail, and content. They
are organized in order of most effective to least effective. The respective effectiveness of
each is judged by how well it communicates the physical character of a historic district,
using the rating criteria established above.
This section only discusses websites which utilize some degree of user
interactivity. Not included are static documents such as PDFs and Microsoft Word files.
25
Such items are essentially digital versions of traditional historic surveys or nominations,
and do not utilize computer interactivity in any appreciable way. However, some
websites which use a mixture of both interactive and non-interactive content are included.
i. Denver, CO
<http://www.denverinfill.com/subpages_special_topics/downtown_denver_historic_district.htm>10
TEXT: medium
IMAGES: high
INTERACTIVITY: medium
This website focuses on the Downtown Denver Historic District in Denver,
Colorado. The highlight of this website is an aerial photograph of the district. Interaction
is done with numbered links overlaid on the photograph, and each link takes the user to a
subsection about the specific building selected. Each building is given a very brief
historical and architectural description, as well as four photographs. The photographs
show both overall views and details of the buildings.
Because interaction is done on a photograph, rather than a generic street map, the
user is given a good idea of neighborhood character, context, and spatial relationships.
Other websites which include maps are generally done at the city-wide level, greatly
decreasing their level of detail, and therefore their value. However, the aerial photograph
would benefit from more detailed levels of analysis.
26
Image IV-3. Website of historic sites in the Downtown Denver Historic District.
ii. Louisville, KY
<http://www.louisvilleky.gov/PlanningDesign/ldc/> 11
TEXT: medium
IMAGES: medium
INTERACTIVITY: low
This website gives information about each of Louisville, Kentucky’s historic
districts. Each district includes a map, of varying usefulness. Some of the maps merely
show the district’s boundaries in relation to the city’s street grid. The more helpful maps,
27
however, also show structures drawn to scale and shown in proper physical relation to
one another. Unfortunately, these maps are lacking in sufficient detail, and each structure
is shown only as an outline.
The best feature of this website is its text. A PDF for each district gives a lengthy
written description of the district’s general history, architecture, and defining local
characteristics. This includes descriptions of “character-defining features”: site, facades,
masonry, wood, windows, doors, roofs, and porches. Additionally, each feature is
illustrated with at least one photograph. The essays do a good job of giving overall
description of the district’s character. Unfortunately, individual sites are rarely even
mentioned. Thus, the user is given a good idea of the district’s overall importance, but not
given sufficient detail. Nevertheless, what information there is is presented in a concise
and readable fashion.
A major deficiency of this website is its lack of interactivity, as it relies heavily on
static PDF documents. Besides these, brief photographic “walking tour” slideshows for
each neighborhood give the user a flavor of the architectural character of each district.
However, the user is left confused about the relation of one unlabeled image to the others.
This website would greatly benefit from a wider use of clearly labeled photographs.
28
Image IV-4. Website of historic districts in Louisville, KY.
iii. Buffalo, NY
<http://www.allentown.org/about/properties/index.html>12
TEXT: medium
IMAGES: medium
INTERACTIVITY: low
This website focuses on the Allentown Historic Preservation District located in
Buffalo, New York. Properties are organized according to street, with each street having
its own subpage. Here, text describes the physical character of each street, mentioning
29
materials, styles, and the physical relationship of one building to another. Unfortunately,
the text does not discuss every building. It is also somewhat confusing in that it discusses
both historically designated and non-designated buildings without differentiation.
However, it is fairly effective in giving the user a decent mental image of the
neighborhood.
Links along the edge of the webpage connect the user to images related to each site. This
includes a single image, as well as a map showing the site’s location in the city. The map
would be more effective, however, if it showed all buildings on a single map, rather than
one at a time. The map also lacks a boundary which would delineate the district’s
boundaries.
Image IV-5. Website of the Allentown Historic Preservation District in Buffalo, NY.
30
iv. Richmond, VA
<http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/richmond/index.html> 13
TEXT: low
IMAGES: low
INTERACTIVITY: medium
This website is a National Park Service travel itinerary for Richmond, Virginia.
Four useful essays give an overall background of the city’s history and architecture.
Historic sites are listed in a chart according to neighborhood, helping the user understand
at a glance which sites are most closely related to one another. Sites are also placed on a
map, which locates them geographically, and delineates the city’s major regions with
color. Clicking on a region links to a more detailed map, which labels “historic districts”
with a red star and “historic places” with a yellow star. Clicking on a star links to an
essay and photographs for each location.
A major deficiency of this website is that historic districts are listed on par with
individual landmarks. The historic districts are not given sufficiently detailed treatment.
Instead, each district is described with only a few paragraphs of text. Even worse, some
of the districts are only given one photograph, leaving the user largely in the dark about
its physical appearance. The website would benefit from treating each district as a sort of
“city within the city.” Each district should include its own map, with its own list of sites.
Additionally, the maps would benefit from having further layers of analysis, besides the
mere demarcation of site locations.
31
Image IV-6. NPS website for historic sites in Richmond, VA.
32
v. Charleston, SC
<http://www.halseymap.com/Flash/map.asp>14
TEXT: low
IMAGES: low
INTERACTIVITY: medium
This website is an interactive Flash map of historic sites in Charleston, South
Carolina. Information is overlaid on a historic map created in the 1940s. The original map
includes labels of street and place names, topographic contours, and colors which
differentiate different neighborhoods. The map is interactive, allowing the user to scroll
across the city and click on numbered dots which represent important selected historic
sites. Selecting a dot brings the user to a website which includes images and text which
further explain the selected location. Thanks to the map, the user is given an idea of how
each site relates to the city as a whole.
The information which is included on this website is generally useful.
Unfortunately, the map seems incomplete, since it lists only about 30 sites for the whole
of Charleston. Additionally, as in the Richmond website, districts and individual
landmarks are not listed separately, but are placed on an equal footing. An image or two
are not enough to give the user an adequate idea of the physical context of each site. Nor
is there enough detail to show the general differences between one part of the city and
another.
33
Image IV-7. Website of historic sites in Charleston, SC.
vi. Snohomish, WA
<http://www.ci.snohomish.wa.us/HistoryInteractiveMap.htm> 15
TEXT: low
IMAGES: medium
INTERACTIVITY: medium
This website is focused on Snohomish, Washington’s single historic district. A
couple of pages of text on the website explain the history and physical characteristics of
the district and the city as a whole. Navigation of individual sites is done through an
34
interactive map. Instead of being denoted by a symbol, historic structures are drawn to
scale and proper orientation, and are filled in with a hatch. A table similarly lists all sites
by street, with an image of each site. Clicking on a structure in either the table or the map
brings up a photograph of the respective building, but without any text whatsoever.
This website is very sparse in any sort of detailed analysis or description.
Although the interactive map is an effective method of user interaction, the amount of
information actually contained in the map’s links is disappointingly meager. The website
would benefit from the addition of more information about the district’s physical
character.
Image IV-8. Website of the historic district in Snohomish, WA.
35
vii. Durham, NC
<http://www.preservationdurham.org/places/nhoods.html>16
TEXT: low
IMAGES: medium
INTERACTIVITY: low
This website contains information about each of the historic neighborhoods of
Durham, North Carolina. The bulk of the website’s information is in the PDF “Durham
County Historic Architecture Inventory,” which is organized by district. It gives lengthy
architectural and historical description for each site. In fact, so much information is
crammed into this 229-page document that it is hard to navigate or even comprehend.
More people would be likely to utilize this site if it adopted the interactivity (and
resultant organization) that is possible with the Internet. Unfortunately, the amount of
information outside the PDF’s is limited. On the “Durham Neighborhoods” subpage,
each neighborhood is given a brief written description of its history and physical
appearance, as well as one or two thumbnail images. However, details on individual
buildings are limited to those which are National Historic Landmarks. Without reading
the agonizingly long “architecture inventory,” the user is left with only a vague idea of
what each historic district is like.
36
Image IV-9. Website of historic districts in Durham, NC.
viii. Seattle, WA
<http://www.cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/preservation/historic_districts.htm>17
TEXT: low
IMAGES: low
INTERACTIVITY: low
This website includes general background information for each of Seattle,
Washington’s historic districts. Each district’s subpage includes an essay about its
history, a handful of historic and contemporary photographs, and a map delineating its
37
boundaries. With the small amount of information that there is, either as text or as
images, the user is given the impression that only the history of the districts is important.
Descriptions of the districts’ general physical character are almost entirely absent.
Detailed information about specific buildings or sites is similarly lacking. Even the maps
fail to assist the user in understanding the district. Maps for each district show district
boundaries only, and do not show any buildings or other elements.
Image IV-10. Website of historic districts in Seattle, WA.
38
ix. Savannah, GA
<http://www.quantumtour.com/entity/savannah_historic_district/> 18
TEXT: low
IMAGES: low
INTERACTIVITY: low
This website focuses on the Savannah, Georgia historic district. This site is
notable because it uses interaction with images as the primary method of navigation. The
user is given five panoramic 360-degree views of Savannah’s historic squares to tour.
Buttons above the panorama allow the user to rotate the panorama at will. Flashing icons
within the panoramas let the user move from one panorama to another. The icons are
meant to help the user understand the physical relationship between one area and another.
Extremely brief descriptions at the bottom the page describe each location’s history. The
text fails to mention any physical features of the district which define its character.
Unfortunately, the overall experience leaves the user utterly confused and lost.
The panoramas are of limited utility without a map or additional information embedded
in the panoramas. The user is left to ask, How far did I just walk from spot A to spot B?
What do those buildings which I can glimpse through the trees look like up close? Where
am I?
39
Image IV-11. Website of historic squares in Savannah, GA.
40
C. Conclusions about Existing Historic District Websites
From the preceding examples, some general conclusions about existing historic
district websites can be made. The following chart notes the relative overall strength
(with ‘1’ being the best) of each example website discussed above, as well as its
component strengths in terms of text, images, and interactivity.
RANK
CITY
TEXT
IMAGES
INTERACTIVITY
1
Denver, CO
medium
high
medium
2
Louisville, KY
medium
medium
low
3
Buffalo, NY
medium
medium
low
4
Richmond, VA
low
low
medium
5
Charleston, SC
low
low
medium
6
Snohomish, WA
low
medium
medium
7
Durham, NC
low
medium
low
8
Seattle, WA
low
low
low
9
Savannah, GA
low
low
low
Table IV-1. Table of historic district websites organized according to relative usefulness, with the value of
information presented in each using text, images, and interactivity.
In the end, none of the websites succeed in utilizing the full possibilities of the
Internet. Unfortunately, the majority of the websites are clearly derivative of the
traditional historic survey format. Most of them rely on static documents, which list
districts or buildings in either a list or, even worse, in essay form. The Durham website is
especially poor in this regard, as it relies on a massive 200-plus page document to
describe the physical character of its historic districts. In such a format, how can the user
decipher what are broad character-defining traits, and what are less important details? Of
41
course, information in a historic district exists naturally in three-dimensional space, and
not in an agonizingly long essay. Therefore, a website ought to present information in a
similarly intuitive and stimulating way.
Presenting the district in a way that maintains its spatial relationships can make
exploring it much more natural and more effective. It also emphasizes the importance of
the district’s physical characteristics over its history. To a limited extent, spatially
focused interaction improves the experience on four of the websites. The most common
method of spatial interaction uses maps. Maps not only make finding information more
intuitive, but they also strengthen the connection between general context and an
individual site or building. It seems, however, that maps also fall short. Savannah’s 360degree ground-level panoramas are a creative method of interaction. Savannah’s
panoramas, admittedly, are largely ineffective in practice—they make the user feel like a
goldfish looking upon the vast outside world from his small and stationary bowl.
Nevertheless, further analysis of historic districts from the perspective of a pedestrian on
the street is indeed needed. In reality, after all, people see historic districts from the
ground and not from the air. It is the physical character perceivable in the streetscape that
is most important. Thus, a blend of both aerial and street-level visual data would be able
to better communicate the nature of a district.
In the end, historic buildings only have value if they are placed in context.
Unfortunately, most of the websites leave the user largely in the dark in this regard. Many
of the websites have an abundance of visual information available, especially in the form
of photographs. This is a step in the right direction. However, the context-less
photographs of isolated sites which predominate are of limited use. Not only are maps
42
and streetscapes needed, but they also need to be overlaid with analytical layers. The
Denver website comes the closest to giving the user a good sense of context. This is
because it uses an aerial photograph rather than a grossly simplified street map. The
photographic map succeeds, at least to an extent, because it includes more than just
buildings. It shows trees, sidewalks, parking lots, and other physical features.
This is not to say that a non-photographic map can not work, but instead that none
of the street maps explored above include much in the way of character-defining details.
Indeed, only some things are decipherable in an aerial photograph. This is where
additional layers of analysis should be created. Architectural styles, materials, and solid
vs. void space are not legible without such analysis, although they are critical in defining
physical character.
Morville, Peter. Ambient Findability. (Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005), 4
Morville, 4
3
Muraski, Michel. “Types of Organization.”
<http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/processes/organize/list4.cfm> Colorado State University.
Accessed 1/27/2011.
4
Morville, 4
5
Morville, 4
6
Gao, Yuan ed. Web Systems Design and Online Consumer Behavior. (Hershey, PA: Idea Group
Publishing, 2005), 207
7
Gao, 207
8
Google
9
Image from <http://maps.google.com/>
10
DenverInfill.com. “The Downtown Denver Historic District.”
<http://www.denverinfill.com/subpages_special_topics/downtown_denver_historic_district.htm>
Accessed 1/30/2011
11
Center for Heritage Tourism. “Louisville Historic Districts.” <http://www.chtky.com/Districts.htm>
Accessed 1/30/2011.
12
LaChiusa, Chuck. “Landmarks in Buffalo, NY.”
<http://www.allentown.org/about/properties/index.html> Accessed 1/30/2011.
13
National Park Service. “Richmond: A Discover Our Shared Heritage Travel Itinerary.”
<http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/richmond/index.html> Accessed 1/30/2011.
14
Preservation Society of Charleston. “Halsey Map.” <http://www.halseymap.com/Flash/map.asp>
Accessed 1/30/2011.
15
City of Snohomish. “Snohomish Historic District Map.”
<http://www.ci.snohomish.wa.us/HistoryInteractiveMap.htm> Accessed 1/30/2011.
1
2
43
Preservation Durham. “Guide to Historic Neighborhoods.”
<http://www.preservationdurham.org/places/nhoods.html> Accessed 1/30/2011.
17
City of Seattle. “Historic Districts.”
<http://www.cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/preservation/historic_districts.htm> Accessed
1/30/2011.
18
Quantum Tour Interactive Virtual Tours. “Savannah’s Historic District – Virtual Tour of Bryan and
Congress Street Historic Squares.”
<http://www.quantumtour.com/entity/savannah_historic_district/> Accessed 1/30/2011.
16
44
V. Consideration of Possible Documentation Techniques
As discussed above, an Internet website can be an excellent platform for
disseminating information about the character of a historic district, if presented
effectively (see Chapter IV). This chapter, in turn, discusses the various methods for the
production of the historic district documentation which end-users will find useful. With
the rapid growth in technology over the last century, ranging from computer-aided
photographic rectification to computer-aided drafting, more avenues for documentation
are available now than ever before.
As shall be seen below, documentation methods require varying degrees of skill,
training, money, and time. They also vary in the accuracy of the information they convey.
Even at its simplest level, documenting an entire historic district is a very timeconsuming process. Since municipalities typically have limited resources to dedicate to
preservation efforts, it is important that the methods selected for documenting a district
carefully balance quality with efficiency. Smaller towns frequently have at most one
permanent preservation staff member, although part-time workers may sometimes be
employed. It is the goal of this chapter, therefore, to select methods which can be utilized
by a very small team of people, and even by a single person. It is especially important
that selected methods minimize the amount of fieldwork needed. In the case study which
concludes this paper (see Chapter VII), the author was able to gather, compile, and
disseminate the information of an entire district of about 80 buildings in about six
months. Working full time, and building on an existing Historic District Viewer
framework, it would probably be possible to document a district of similar size in less
45
than half that time. Further efficiencies could be created by creating the website
simultaneously with a traditional survey.
Information which needs to be gathered includes both graphic and textual
information. Together, these various sources can effectively cover the information which
conveys the character of a historic district. Graphic information includes (i) a district
map, (ii) streetscapes, and (iii) site photographs. Textual information includes (iv)
architectural descriptions and (v) historical descriptions. Fortunately, the documenter
does not have to create all this information. There are several secondary sources which
can supplement the documenter’s fieldwork.
(i) District map
Constructing a district map (plan) is perhaps the documenter’s most important
task. Unlike streetscapes or site photographs, maps are able to display the entire district in
a single image. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps are one possible starting point for the
construction of a district map. Sanborns are useful because a new set was occasionally
drawn for every city, allowing historians to see the changes which took place in an area
from one period to another. Unfortunately, Sanborns are no longer being created,
meaning that their information is several decades old at best. Additionally, Sanborns do
not seem to have a high degree of accuracy, especially as regards building and street
dimensions. This is apparent when comparing them with a modern-day Property
Valuation Administrator (PVA) Map. PVA Maps are constantly updated with new
information. Additionally, they are built with the aid of aerial photography and satellite
positioning. For this reason, a PVA Map is to be preferred over a Sanborn Map.
46
Lexington-Fayette’s PVA Map is available online, as are those for many cities and
counties across the country. Lexington’s map includes aerial photographs, property lines,
zoning labels, and street labels.1
The aerial photograph is especially important, because the different elements
which appear on it can be traced and imported into the district map. A program such as
Autodesk’s AutoCAD can be used to trace streets, roof forms, and other district elements
(see Image V-1). Additionally, AutoCAD is able to sort each element into its appropriate
layer. This allows as much or as little information to be exported for the website as
desired. Finally, AutoCAD is widely available and is a standard piece of software.
Image V-1. A map of Woodward Heights being drawn using AutoCAD. (image by author)
47
(ii) Streetscapes
A scaled streetscape is a necessary complement to traditional street-level
photographs. Since a photograph translates a three-dimensional world onto a twodimensional surface, it is distorted by perspective. Perspective necessarily creates a
biased image, since objects which are nearby are larger and more visible, while distant
objects are smaller and less visible. A scaled street elevation, on the other hand, can
display all buildings equally. One streetscape is required for each side of each street
within a district.
Assigning actual values to the dimensions in physical space is a difficult task. For
this reason, a variety of methods have been developed to measure the landscape—most
especially its buildings. The most obvious and technologically simple method is hand
measurement. In fact, until relatively recently it was the only method for producing an
accurate scaled drawing.2 Although at its most basic level it only requires a tape measure,
more sophisticated equipment such as optic levels and range finders can be expensive.3
Finally, hand measurement is very time- and labor-intensive, making it impractical for a
whole district.4
Rectified photography is a more modern option for creating scaled images. The
process uses “optical means to rectify or correct a photograph so that one plane of the
subject is recorded without distortion.”5 This can be done either with physical
photographs or with computer software. kubit PhoToPlan, for example, is a plug-in for
AutoCAD which assists the process.6 Such software can be used in tandem with a piece
of surveying equipment known as a total station. A total station uses a laser meter to
communicate measurements to a computer. Rectification, depending on the amount of
48
detail required, can be faster than hand measurement. Additionally, it can obtain a high
level of accuracy and detail (see Image V-2), sometimes even to the sub-inch.
Nevertheless, doing rectification for an entire district would still require an extraordinary
amount of time and labor, and is therefore impracticable for most cities. Additionally, the
expertise necessary to do rectification is relatively rare, and equipment such as a total
station is very expensive.
Image V-2. A building measured and drawn using rectified photography and a total station. (image by
author)
49
Although rectification, per se, is not readily feasible for an entire district, a sort of
pseudo rectification provides a quick and easy method for creating scaled streetscapes.
As with the method of rectification described above, it combines photography with
computer software. To begin with, a single photograph must be taken of the building in
question. The photograph must be parallel with the building’s façade, in order to
minimize distortion. The photograph is then manipulated with software such as Adobe
Photoshop, skewing the photograph so that the building’s edges are parallel, and thus
removing perspectival distortions (see Image V-3). Finally, the image is scaled using the
already-scaled district map developed above.
Image V-3. A simplified version of photographic rectification using Adobe Photoshop. (image by author)
The obvious drawback with this method is that it lacks the degree of accuracy
which is obtainable through actual photographic rectification. However, it is sufficient for
50
the purposes of displaying the characteristics of a historic district, and the speed with
which it can be accomplished makes it especially appealing.
(iii) Site photographs
In the case of site photographs, the most important thing is to effectively show the
physical character of a single site. Depending on the skills and resources available, a site
photograph may be a veritable work of art. A variety of cameras and lenses are available
to help in this task. A wide-angle lens, to name just one option, is able to photograph an
entire building from a close range, allowing the photographer to stand in front of trees
which may otherwise block his view.7 A shift lens allows the photographer to reduce
perspectival convergence, and make parallel lines flush with one another.8 For the
purposes of the Woodward Heights case study, no intricate photographic techniques are
used, since the photographs possible with a common SLR digital camera were judged to
be sufficient.
(iv) Architectural descriptions and (v) Historical descriptions
Both architectural and historical descriptions can usually be adapted from an
existing district survey. Surveys may be written by either a local municipality or the
National Park Service. However, not all surveys include a written description for every
single building within a district. In such cases, the documenter must create the
architectural and historical descriptions through his own fieldwork and research. In such
cases, a traditional survey would go well hand-in-hand with the creation of a district
website. Additional research, if needed, can be done either through primary documents
51
such as deeds or maps, or through secondary sources such as books. Clay Lancaster’s
book Vestiges of the Venerable City, for example, includes a section which gives a brief
history of many of Lexington’s historic buildings.9
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. “Lexington-Fayette County: Horse Capital of the World.”
<http://gisweb1.lfucg.com/MAPS/ZONING/VIEWER.HTM> Accessed 3/10/2011.
2
International Council of Monuments and Sites. Guide to recording historic buildings / ICOMOS.
(London: Butterworth Architecture, 1990), 45
3
ICOMOS, 47
4
ICOMOS, 47
5
Burns, John A. ed. Recording Historic Structures, Second Edition. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 2004), 109
6
kubit. “PhoToPlan.” <http://www.kubit.de/english/index.htm> Accessed 3/10/2011.
7
Dean, Jeff. “Photographing Historic Buildings.” APT Bulletin, Vol. 14, No. 4 (1982), 33
8
Dean, 34
9
Lancaster, Clay. Vestiges of the Venerable City. (Cincinnati, OH: The C. J. Krehbiel Company, 1978),
195-257
1
52
VI. Woodward Heights Case Study
A. User Interaction
The subject of this case study is Woodward Heights, a historic district located in
Lexington, Kentucky. Woodward Heights, although architecturally diverse, is small
enough that it can be documented by a single person. The Woodward Heights case study
creates an interactive website (Historic District Viewer) from the ground up, to display
the character of the district.
The Historic District Viewer program aims to engage user interaction, which
allows the user to easily find relevant information (see Chapter IV-A). This is done
through a graphical user interface (GUI), in which interaction is achieved through
windows, menus, icons, and the like.1 The purpose of the GUI, in the case of the Viewer,
is to enable the selection and manipulation of the layers which make the character of a
historic district. In the Viewer, elements are grouped in order to make navigation as
intuitive as possible for the user.
Many elements are the same from district to district. It should be noted, however,
that the specific elements may vary, depending on the circumstances. The starting point
for determining a list of district elements begins with local design review guidelines. The
Lexington-Fayette County Design Review Guidelines Manual lists over 20 different
building components which may be present in historic structures.2 These components
range from awnings, to porches, to storm windows. For the Woodward Heights case
study, the components listed in Lexington’s guidelines have been pared down to those
which are common within Woodward Heights. Components which are detail-oriented,
53
such as lighting elements, have been removed from the layer list, although they may
obviously be visible in building photographs.
The following list shows the Guidelines Manual’s list of elements for existing
buildings and sites. Elements which were not included in the Woodward Heights Viewer
are noted with a strikethrough. Many of the remaining elements were renamed or moved
into different categories for purposes of the case study.
1. Rehabilitation and Renovation
a. Architectural Details and Features
b. Awnings
c. Brickwork and Masonry [merged into “Primary materials”]
d. Cast Iron and Other Metals
e. Chimneys
f. Decks/Patios/Verandas/Balconies [merged into “Porches”]
g. Doors
h. Exterior Stairs and Fire Escapes [merged into “Stairs”]
i. Foundations
j. Garages and Outbuildings
k. Gutters and Downspouts
l. Lighting
m. Porches
n. Porch Columns and Railings [merged into “Porches”]
o. Roofs
p. Satellite Dishes/Solar Panels
q. Screens for Porches and Doors
r. Security Doors and Windows
s. Shutters
t. Siding [moved into “Primary materials”]
u. Skylights
v. Staircases and Steps [merged into “Stairs”]
w. Storm Windows and Doors
x. Windows
2. Site and Setting
a. Fences [merged into “Fences, walls, and gates”]
b. Walls [merged into “Fences, walls, and gates”]
c. Mechanical systems
d. Sidewalks, Walkways, and Curbs [merged into “Outlines”]
e. Driveways and Parking Lots [merged into “Outlines”]
f. Landscape, land features, Land formations, Viewsheds
g. Landscape Elements—Pools, Hot Tubs, Gazebos, Pergolas
54
For the purposes of the Woodward Heights Viewer, layers (or elements) of a historic
district are divided into five different categories:
1. General
a. Aerial Photograph
b. Outlines
c. Building Photograph
2. District Analysis
a. Building spacing
b. District boundary
c. Green space vs. grey space
d. Property lines
e. Setbacks
f. Silhouettes
g. Tree canopy
3. Site Analysis
a. Number of stories
b. Primary materials
c. Styles
d. Years of construction
4. Building Components
a. Bay locations
b. Chimneys
c. Doors
d. Fences, walls, and gates
e. Foundations
f. Porches
g. Roofs
h. Stairs
i. Windows
5. Text
a. Address
b. Historic name
c. Year
d. Street names
e. Style
f. Use
g. Architectural description
h. Historical description
55
Layers belonging to the categories of District Analysis and Site Analysis are not
listed as such in the Lexington guidelines. However, layers such as building spacing,
streetscape silhouettes, and tree canopy are all critical in defining the character of a
historic district. No property owner is single-handedly responsible for such features.
Rather, they are the aggregation of physical attributes which span an entire historic
district. On the other hand, attributes such as building materials and building styles can be
distilled to individual properties. If such site-specific attributes are viewed for all
buildings simultaneously, however, patterns which are broader than a single site may
become apparent.
56
Image VI-1. The Woodward Heights Historic District Viewer in district plan view. (image by author)
In the Viewer, the layers listed above are visible in maps, elevations, photographs,
and/or text. Information is further clarified through the use of colors, lines, line weights,
shapes, and hatches. In order to create a logical flow, links from view to view are
organized in physical space. The default view shows the district plan (see image VI-1).
Each side of every street within the district is highlighted with a red button. Clicking on
the button brings up the selected street’s respective elevation. Access to the building view
is done by clicking on a building in either plan or elevation view. The building view
57
contains an enlarged site photograph, and architectural and historical descriptions (see
Image VI-2). As such details are fairly meticulous, it is useful to have them neatly
sequestered into a separate window for each building.
Image VI-2. The Woodward Heights Historic District Viewer in building view. (image by author)
58
B. Website Architecture
The Historic District Viewer is built with Adobe Flash, a platform specifically
designed for dissemination over the Internet. Additionally, Flash has a high degree of
market saturation, “reaching 99% of Internet-enabled desktops in mature markets as well
as a wide range of devices.”3 Flash allows a level of user interaction which is currently
impossible with vanilla HTML. As a result, the Flash-built District Viewer’s GUI can
switch between both plan and elevation views in an intuitive fashion. Interaction within
these views is done through clicking on buttons, clicking and dragging in order to pan,
and using the scroll wheel to zoom in and out.
The Viewer is not built specifically for Woodward Heights. This is important,
because it allows new districts to be documented without starting from the ground up.
Instead of being hard-coded into Flash, information is plugged into the program using
XML, TXT, and SWF files. The XML files tell the program where to find image and text
files. The architectural and historical descriptions are saved as basic TXT files. TXT and
XML files can be edited with any basic text editor, such as Microsoft Notepad. SWF files
contain many of the images which are loaded into the program (an aerial photograph,
district layers, and so on). SWF’s can be created with widely available software such as
Adobe Illustrator. SWF’s are not entirely unlike other image formats. However, they can
store a wider variety of information than traditional image file formats. Most importantly,
SWF’s have the advantage of being able to store vector data, which makes them
preferable over raster images when image scaling is involved. This is the case with both
the district plan view and the street elevation view. Building photographs, since they can
not be stored as vectors, are saved as simple JPG’s.
59
Computer Language Inc., The. “GUI.”
<http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=GUI&i=44001,00.asp> Accessed
3/11/2011.
2
City of Lexington, Kentucky. “Local Historic District and Landmark (H-1) Design Review Guidelines.”
<http://www.lexingtonky.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5672> Accessed
3/9/2011.
3
Adobe Systems Inc. “Flash Player penetration.”
<http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/> Accessed 3/11/2011.
1
60
VII. Conclusions
After the completion of this thesis’ case study, the author solicited comments
from two groups about its effectiveness: the author’s thesis committee at the University
of Kentucky, and three staff members of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Government’s Department of Historic Preservation. Listed here are four questions, along
with the comments received:
1) Does the website adequately convey the important characteristics that make up
the Woodward Heights historic district? The website would benefit from a textual
description of the history and significance of each block or street, since each street
generally has a history distinct from the others. Also, the boundaries on the District
Viewer do not match up precisely with those of the city’s designated Woodward Heights
district. Working more closely with the Department of Historic Preservation would
ensure that information accurately portrays the present state of the district.
2) What information is lacking on the website that needs to be added? A link to an
aerial isometric view like that used on Microsoft’s Bing Maps1 would present a threedimensional view of the district. Also, much of the text taken from the survey forms is
meant for preservation specialists and not the general public; it would be useful to include
hyperlinks from the text to an architectural dictionary to explain technical terminology.
3) Would a website such as this, which is accessible both to the BOAR and the
public, be useful in the architectural review process? Yes, the website would be helpful
to both the Division of Historic Preservation staff and the public. The information on the
website would be useful for determining the appropriateness of building modifications
61
according to the Review Guidelines. To test its effectiveness, it might be useful to solicit
public comments via the website.
4) How could a website such as this be integrated into the website of a city
historic preservation department? The layers of the district viewer could link to relevant
portions of the Design Review Guidelines. It would also be useful to link to any relevant
maps which are available online.
Overall, it was agreed that a historic district website developed from the model
outlined in this thesis can be a useful addition to current preservation practice. With new
tools available, it is time to adapt the way we document and represent historic districts.
The Internet now provides a previously inconceivable level of accessibility and usability
to information. With the dramatic increase of historic district regulations over the last 50
years, it is more important than ever that both professionals and laypeople have the
information with which they can discuss historic districts intelligently and effectively.
The documentation process outlined in this study is not meant to cover all
documentation needs. Rather, it supplements existing methods, including traditional
surveys. For example, it would go especially well hand-in-hand with a simultaneous
traditional survey. Lexington’s Woodward Heights survey, although not significantly
modified for this study, stands in great need of updating, as many buildings within the
district have been renovated or torn down. A further avenue of research would be how to
write survey descriptions which are more appropriate for the wider public instead of
architectural historians and their ilk.
62
Updating documentation is especially important given the ever-changing nature of
the physical realm. Documentation should not be a one-time process, but must be
ongoing. This is especially important whenever some decision needs to be made about
the future of a historic place. Additionally, documentation needs to be updated to reflect
the changing attitudes about historic value. One updating process that Walter Jamieson
suggests is to do an overall recording of a historic district to begin with, and to add detail
over time as needs develop.2
Although focused on a specific example, this study’s case study shows how an
online application can be applied to other districts as well. In fact, a uniform website
documentation system could conceivably be utilized on a national scale. A system funded
by the National Park Service, for example, would provide a basic framework into which
local municipalities could plug in information about their respective historic districts.
Such a scheme would help people understand context not just within historic districts, but
between districts as well. The Historic District Viewer might even conceivably be
plugged into Google Earth, Wikipedia, and Facebook, so that information in one source
could link to information in all the other sources.
1
2
Microsoft. “Bing Maps.” <http://www.bing.com/maps/> Accessed 5/4/2011.
Jamieson, Walter. “Recording the Historic Urban Environment: A New Challenge.” APT Bulletin, Vol.
22, No. 1/2, Cultural Resource Recording (1990), 12
63
Bibliography
Books and Articles
Alanen, Arnold R. and Robert Z. Melnick. Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America.
(Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000).
Burns, John A. ed. Recording Historic Structures, Second Edition. (Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2004).
Crankshaw, Ned M. “CARPA: Computer Aided Reverse Perspective Analysis.” APT
Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 1/2 (1990), pp. 117-129.
Dean, Jeff. “Photographing Historic Buildings.” APT Bulletin, Vol. 14, No. 4 (1982), pp.
31-46.
Fitch, James. Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World.
(Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 1990).
Gao, Yuan ed. Web Systems Design and Online Consumer Behavior. (Hershey, PA: Idea
Group Publishing, 2005).
Girling, Cynthia and Ronald Kellett. Skinny Streets & Green Neighborhoods: Design for
Environment and Community. (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005).
Hedman, Richard with Andrew Jaszewski. Fundamentals of Urban Design. (Washington,
D.C.: APA Planners Press, 1984).
International Council of Monuments and Sites. Guide to recording historic buildings /
ICOMOS. (London: Butterworth Architecture, 1990).
Jacobs, Allan. Looking at Cities. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985).
Jamieson, Walter. “Recording the Historic Urban Environment: A New Challenge.” APT
Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 1/2, Cultural Resource Recording (1990), pp. 12-16.
Knoerl, John J. “Mapping History Using Geographic Information Systems.” The Public
Historian, Vol. 13, No. 3, Preservation Technology (Summer, 1991), pp. 97-108.
Knowles, Anne Kelly ed. Placing History: How Maps, Spatial Data, and GIS are
Changing Historical Scholarship. (Redlands, CA: ESRI Press, 2008).
Krug, Steve. Don’t Make Me Think! A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability.
(Indianapolis, IN: Circle.com Library, 2000).
Lancaster, Clay. Vestiges of the Venerable City. (Cincinnati, OH: The C. J. Krehbiel
Company, 1978).
Longstreth, Richard ed. Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in
Preservation Practice. (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press,
2008).
Lubar, Steven. “The Historic American Building Survey / Historic American Engineering
Record / America’s Industrial Heritage Project: Some Recent Publications.” The
Public Historian, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Summer, 1991), pp. 117-129.
Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960).
Morville, Peter. Ambient Findability. (Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005).
Walters, David. Designing Community: Charrettes, Masterplans and Form-based Codes.
(Burlington, MA: Architectural Press, 2007).
64
Websites
Adobe Systems Inc. “Flash Player penetration.”
<http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/> Accessed
3/11/2011.
Center for Heritage Tourism. “Louisville Historic Districts.”
<http://www.chtky.com/Districts.htm> Accessed 1/30/2011.
City of Lexington, Kentucky. “Local Historic District and Landmark (H-1) Design
Review Guidelines.”
<http://www.lexingtonky.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5672>
Accessed 3/9/2011.
City of Louisville, Kentucky. “Land Development Code.”
<http://www.louisvilleky.gov/PlanningDesign/ldc/> Accessed 3/9/2011.
City of Raleigh. “Raleigh Historic Districts Commission.”
<http://www.rhdc.org/LocalHistoricDistrictLandmarkServices/DesignReview/tabi
d/105/Default.aspx> Accessed 3/9/2011.
City of Seattle. “Historic Districts.”
<http://www.cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/preservation/historic_districts.htm>
Accessed 1/30/2011.
City of Snohomish. “Snohomish Historic District Map.”
<http://www.ci.snohomish.wa.us/HistoryInteractiveMap.htm> Accessed
1/30/2011.
Computer Language Inc., The. “GUI.”
<http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=GUI&i=44001,00.asp>
Accessed 3/11/2011.
DenverInfill.com. “The Downtown Denver Historic District.”
<http://www.denverinfill.com/subpages_special_topics/downtown_denver_histori
c_district.htm> Accessed 1/30/2011.
Google. “Google Maps.” <http://maps.google.com/> Accessed 1/30/2011.
Keller, J. Timothy. “How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes.”
<http://www.nps.gov/history/NR/publications/bulletins/nrb18/> Accessed
3/9/2011.
Kentuckiana Digital Library. <http://kdl.kyvl.org/> Accessed 3/9/2011.
kubit. “PhoToPlan.” <http://www.kubit.de/english/index.htm> Accessed 3/10/2011.
LaChiusa, Chuck. “Landmarks in Buffalo, NY.”
<http://www.allentown.org/about/properties/index.html> Accessed 1/30/2011.
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. “Lexington-Fayette County: Horse
Capital of the World.”
<http://gisweb1.lfucg.com/MAPS/ZONING/VIEWER.HTM> Accessed
3/10/2011.
Library of Congress, The. “HABS/HAER/HALS Collection.”
<http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/habs_haer/> Accessed 3/9/2011.
McClelland, Linda Flint. “Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic
Landscapes.” <http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb30/>
Accessed 3/9/2011.
Microsoft. “Bing Maps.” <http://www.bing.com/maps/> Accessed 5/4/2011.
65
Muraski, Michel. “Types of Organization.”
<http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/processes/organize/list4.cfm> Colorado State
University. Accessed 1/27/2011.
National Park Service. “Lexington, Kentucky: The Athens of the West – A National
Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary.”
<http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/lexington/index.htm> Accessed 1/30/2011.
National Park Service. “National Register of Historic Places Database.”
<http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/research/nris.htm> National Park Service.
Accessed 3/9/2011.
National Park Service. “National Register of Historic Places Fundamentals.”
<http://www.nps.gov/nr/national_register_fundamentals.htm> Accessed
3/11/2011.
National Park Service. “National Register Publications.”
<http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/> Accessed 4/3/2011.
National Park Service. “Online Travel Itineraries.”
<http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/> Accessed 3/9/2011.
National Park Service. “Richmond: A Discover Our Shared Heritage Travel Itinerary.”
<http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/richmond/index.html> Accessed
1/30/2011.
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. “Heritage Bulletin 6.”
<http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/HCD/NATREG/docs/hb_6_hstoric_districts.pdf?
ga=t> Accessed 4/3/2011.
Preservation Durham. “Guide to Historic Neighborhoods.”
<http://www.preservationdurham.org/places/nhoods.html> Accessed 1/30/2011.
Preservation Society of Charleston. “Halsey Map.”
<http://www.halseymap.com/Flash/map.asp> Accessed 1/30/2011.
Quantum Tour Interactive Virtual Tours. “Savannah’s Historic District – Virtual Tour of
Bryan and Congress Street Historic Squares.”
<http://www.quantumtour.com/entity/savannah_historic_district/> Accessed
1/30/2011.
66