A National Summit on the Greening of Historic Properties featuring experts in the fields of both green building and historic preservation was held in October at the Senator John Heinz Pittsburgh Regional History Center in Pennsylvania. The summit was hosted by the Green Building Alliance in Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation in coordination with the National Trust for Historic Preservation whose annual conference began the following day.

Workshop discussions focused on how to reconcile LEED® criteria with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation for both goals—preserving our past and our future. This discussion—green versus historic, or how historic preservation “greenness” can be recognized and rewarded in the LEED criteria—has been ongoing across the country and online, but became formalized with this summit. Surveys of the topics were distributed at the conference where many of the sessions and tours featured green projects and approaches, with the emphasis more on green than historic. Pittsburgh’s unique blending of sustainable actions in harmony with historic preservation and appreciation was the perfect setting for this discussion.

In the morning the experts broke into groups to cover several areas: materials, HVAC, lighting, two envelope groups, and three policy groups. Each group agreed on three issues to be addressed from both green and historic perspectives. Then after switching groups, the task became exploring solutions and how to implement them.

Issues that may not seem critical to those outside preservation, like roof color or original wood windows, are often the key to accurate historicism and can be at odds with LEED criteria. Having both sides of the debate present to discuss the benefits of each was key to getting to the root of the issues. The debate of historic dark roof versus the heat island effect was quickly resolved with the acknowledgement that the most precious historic properties must remain true to their original character, while whole districts and buildings of lesser historic importance should be shown more leniency in allowing white roofs, photovoltaic panels and even grass green roofs if we are to preserve our future on this planet. It was heavily discussed that when lifecycle costs and embodied energy is studied, window repair is often more cost-effective and sustainable than replacement windows. The sustainable benefits of waste reduction and the historic benefit of maintaining architectural integrity may balance the loss of increased energy efficiency of new replacement windows in the long run, especially since there often alternate methods of increasing energy efficiency without sacrificing the original window.

Another increasingly visible concern of the sustainability movement is social equity. It is often overlooked that a big difference between repair and replacement is cost spent on local labor for repair versus non-local materials. The materials, even sustainable ones, can be transported thousands of miles, adding to pollution, trade imbalances, and possible unfair and unregulated labor practices in their manufacture. Historic preservation with its “repair first” philosophy is not only as green as it can get, but encourages the use of local skilled labor, often at higher wages and providing a more stable supply of work than the ups and downs of new construction. The intangible benefits of this practice may not be concretely measurable, but have created strong communities of every size as preservation led to revitalization of many small, now historic towns and cities.

The mantra was “the greenest building is the one that’s already built.” Indeed if the fact quoted that “by the year 2030 half of all buildings will have been built after the year 2000” comes true, then it follows that the other half will be existing buildings built before 2000, more than 30 years old to be maintained and upgraded. It is this future of numerous old buildings, many historic, that must be better dealt with in LEED guidelines. Adaptive reuse, historic rehabilitation, and historic restoration are peculiar creatures that can teach us many things and should be treated as special cases by the USGBC. Reusing a whole building, updating, upgrading, and retrofitting for the future is what we all need in our built environment, but when it involves a building with a special history, event, or design, special care must be taken to ensure that is not lost in the construction dust. This is where the USGBC must take the reigns, forging either new LEED guidelines that accompany the existing NC or EB, or adding innovative categories and points for projects that involve historic buildings.

A surprise was hearing the agreement of many that both the LEED guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines should be rewritten with the other in mind. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation were created initially as a baseline for determining the appropriateness of work funded by federal grants. In the nearly 30 years since they were published in 1977 they have been adopted by historic districts and planning commissions across the country and remain the benchmark against which other guidelines are measured. That preservationists would consider revising or amending these standards is a true measure of the desire to work together on finding common ground between preservation standards and LEED guidelines.

Other issues addressed are summarized in a white paper (visit the Green Building Alliance’s Web site). It was clear that day in Pittsburgh that the preservation movement has not only embraced the green movement, but feels they both were always on the same page. It may look like there are many more times the numbers in the green movement than in preservation if one simply compares the 2,300 attendees of the National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference to the 13,000 of Greenbuild, but that does not give a clear picture of the two movements.

The preservation movement, organized at the federal level since 1966, has political caucuses and a passionate and organized following in communities of every size. How often is it in the news that a small preservation group manages to stop the financially superior opposition from developing a beloved historic property by energizing the masses? It took one woman to start a five-year movement that resulted in the State of Florida ultimately deciding to rehabilitate the Bridge of Lions in tiny St. Augustine instead of replacing it. This power of motivation and grassroots education in preservation is something we can learn and benefit from. The combined power of both movements will lead to the complete market transformation the U.S. Green Building Council and other organizations are working toward.

The message that preservation is green does not seem to be news to preservationists, but may not be that well-known on the green side. This summit sought to bring both sides to the same table based on facts, expertise, and sound logic. Preservationists are passionate about buildings and so are those in the green movement. The organizers of the summit stated several times the goal of the summit was to achieve something concrete, something attainable that will lead to action. The results of the summit and the survey at the conference show they are not alone.

Kim Del Rance, LEED AP, is an associate at Gould Evans in Tampa, Fla.