Historical Village of Clarkston

The Village of Clarkston is where I have lived for over 30 years.  It is probably known best for its historic buildings, and most recently for two very popular restaurants in the Main Street business area.  The historic buildings are all in one area giving the village atmosphere we enjoy and many wish to protect.  I think they are best enjoyed by walking so that you can stop and see the detail up close.  It is difficult, and dangerous, to stop and observe while driving a car, so I recommend you walk in any town with interesting architecture.

Main Street - Village of Clarkston, Michigan

Clarkston has an active Historical Society, the Village of Clarkston has National Historic Designation, an Ordinance for the designated historic district and a Historic District Commission.  There are many similar historic areas in Michigan and elsewhere, some with recognized historical designation, and some with just nice old buildings and other interesting architecture.  All should be considered assets to the community they are in. 

Decisions on the work that can be done on historic properties can be difficult as there is a balance between what a property owner should be able to do and what is in keeping with the historic character and requirements, or the “greater good”.  The National Park Service provides guidance on many of these issues and has a set of general Standards as well as Preservation Briefs addressing specific concerns.  The National Trust for Historic Preservation also provides assistance as does the Michigan Historic Preservation Network and the State Historic Preservation Office.  In the end the argument often comes down to preservation versus appearance and cost.  Is it truly historic or does is just need to look that way?  Which should it be?

Main Street Commercial Building before remodeling

Main Street Building during construction

Two properties in the Village of Clarkston exemplify this issue.  One is a commercial property on Main Street in the downtown area.  It recently had a change of use from a real estate office to a physical therapy provider.  It has been other uses in the past and is believed to have possibly started as a car repair shop or car dealership.  It is considered a “non-contributing” historic building in that it has no great architecture or history that makes it significant but is part of the fabric that contributes to the overall historic district.  In the recent remodeling, the new owners significantly changed the exterior appearance and replaced the wood horizontal siding with fiber cement board that mimics the look of wood horizontal siding.  The existing wood siding did not appear to be in bad condition and probably had been added over the original block wall at some time in the past.  The Historic District Commission recommended, and the owner agreed, to use a smaller lap, or exposure, on the siding which more closely resembles what may have been done in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, and that was similar to the wood siding that was being replaced.  The problem is that the building is not from that period, the overall look of the building has been significantly changed over the years and none of what was done is truly historic.  It is merely an attempt to look like something it never was because that “look” is considered historic.  

Main Street commercial building renovation nearing completion

More troubling to me was the allowed use of the standard cement board siding that is made to look like wood in extremely poor condition.  This is something no self respecting building owner would have asked for originally and it is not in any way representative of good historic preservation, or good wood siding.  Standard 6 of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation states that, “Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.”  The Historic Guidelines further caution against "removing or radically changing wood features which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished."

 Textured fiber cement siding

One wonders why people are now paying extra for something that mimics a new coat of paint on top of very badly maintained wood.  It is arguably not in keeping with governing standards and something no one would have historically wanted.  There are also issues with this particular building in that it did not meet several zoning requirements including screening of roof mounted mechanical equipment or landscaping of the site.  These are probably not historical issues and are best left for another discussion.  Such is the dilemma of walking as you can stop and spend time studying such issues.

In researching the use of similar fiber cement siding in historical areas, there is no consistent opinion overall on whether this product is acceptable.   In a study of 105 Historical Review Boards done by the Maryland Historical Trust, 30 approved the use of this product unconditionally, 15 approved its use with reservations and did not encourage or recommend it, 53 said it could be used only on new construction within a historic district, and seven rejected it altogether. Of the 53 respondents permitting its use on new construction, 29 said they would allow the product only on new freestanding buildings and 24 said they would allow it on additions but not the original historic building itself.  Few of those surveyed specified the material to be used for trim and detailing. Of those who did respond to the question, 21 insisted on wood and 5 allowed fiber cement type products.

In the case of the Village of Clarkston building on Main Street, it could be argued that most of those questioned in this survey would have allowed this product for this application even if with some restrictions.  The survey did not address the fake worn wood grain texturing versus the available smooth surface although other references do unequivocally reject the fake grain look.  This seems to be in keeping with the applicable governing standards, guidelines, and what it historically would have looked like as it would have been smooth unless it was in very bad condition and in need of maintenance or replacement.

Siding before current work was done

Then we have a house at 15 East Church Street.  A truly historic structure from around 1840 and built on the property of original Clarkston settler Butler Holcomb. It needed maintenance and the owner was going to remove the added shingle siding,  and just like the commercial building, put on fiber cement board horizontal siding to mimic what they thought originally existed.  This was approved by the Historic Commission and a 4 inch exposure with smooth siding is mentioned in the Historic District minutes as well as the official approval.  At the time of granting approval, the Commission had no idea what the existing lap and exposure was so here again we have a ruling that appears to be based more on achieving a certain pre-determined appearance versus historical accuracy and preservation of the original historic character.

Textured fiber cement siding and vinyl window

Once the added shingle siding was removed, wood horizontal siding was exposed that, at least in my opinion, looked to be in good condition.  It was now easy to see what the original window trim and detailing looked like.  That trim had probably been removed in the past when the original windows were replaced with new vinyl non-historic ones, or when the house was re-sided the first time.  New cement siding, not smooth but with the fake weathered texture, has now been installed exactly the same as the commercial building on Main Street and just as contrary to any historical correctness.  The remnants of what were the historic trim and detailing at the windows has again been covered over and will probably be forever lost.  The siding will for many years look like a fresh coat of paint was put over artificially bad wood.

There are many lengthy dissertations on how historic renovation, preservation, and restoration should be done while still respecting the rights and wishes of the property owner.  Many of these are well detailed in the official and legally binding decisions of Historic District Commissions.  Unfortunately for historic preservation in the Village of Clarkston, the precedent being set seems to be the creation of a new artificial historic look that only mimics what some feel it could have looked like, not what it ever was.  It is becoming a movie set that will no doubt last longer and with less maintenance than what was once here, but have little significance to the history of Clarkston.  It is no longer an original work of art and history carefully maintained, but instead something that looks somewhat similar done with different materials and ignoring most of what makes historic preservation valuable and a cultural heritage. 

I am not sure why manufacturers are creating products that mimic the original product in bad condition but it is quite common.  I have even less understanding of why people want this and are allowed to do so by those entrusted to preserve historic character and appearance.  How is our history being preserved?  Are we simply creating a new look based on someone’s creative and faulty interpretation of what old should look like versus actually being historic?  I have read arguments that you cannot tell the difference between new fake wood siding and original, or between original and replacement windows, unless you look closely.  So will a rule be developed that it is OK to fake history as long as you cannot tell from more than 5 feet, 10 feet, or perhaps more?  I like to walk, or bike, and stop often to look at buildings and details.  I like to get within a few inches so my opinions may not agree with many, but I know when I see something that is not historic. 

In my profession, I work with new materials all the time.  I am often asked to assess how a material will perform, how long it will last, and what are the cost implications.  These can be very difficult questions to answer as in many cases no one knows.  There has been no test of time.  When they were building what are now historic buildings, did anyone think that cutting down all the old growth forests to make windows, siding and trim would mean there would be no similar wood left to repair them?  Probably not and it will now take a lot of time to replace a100+ year old tree, if it can even be done.  What we now must consider is how our actions will affect our society for the next 100 years.  If we replace what is now historical with something that isn’t, what will the next generation have for a history?

Small towns are in many cases historical in some way, some more than others.  Those that are not may be in the future.  They are part of the culture of America as well as our European and other non-american heritages.  I don’t believe they should be fake.  The real history and culture is much more valuable than a lookalike reproduction, the success of Disneyland not withstanding.  If small towns want to keep what sets them apart, they should not try to mimic something else but instead be true to what established them in the beginning and what continues to attract visitors and residents.  Otherwise there will be no history.

Walk around your neighborhood, or mine, and take a close look at all there is to see.