Restored Bridge of Lions Has Dozens of Malfunctions

[Dashing Dan]

I'm with Nth on this issue.

[ChriswUfGator]

"Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) reasonable opportunity to comment. The historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by ACHP."  Linked here: http://www.achp.gov/106summary.html

Agreed that ACHP is "advisory" but they were also a consulting agency (as per NEPA) by federal law on the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). They played an active and important role in the process and could not be left out of the acronym-soup-litany-of-involved-agencies.
     
I stand on the acronyms presented.  

Edited to add: Ship of Theseus ... excellent and necessary discussion item!   You're point?  
 

Yes, that's certainly the summary sheet available as the first google result.

However, as I asked before, where's the language in ss. 106 stating that replacing 90% of a historical structure is somehow still considered a repair vs. a replacement as long as you make sure to re-use a few visible pieces of the old one in your new copy? Because that's what your prior post was implying, and I haven't been able to find anything that would support your view. So I'll ask again, point to the language in the USC that supports your claim, rather than simply posting the acronyms for every preservation organization you can think of, most of which weren't involved in the process aside from one in an advisory capacity.

This is like me saying "That's illegal according to the FBI, NSA, NCIC, FDLE, JSO, CGIS, ATF, DEA, bla, blah, blah." It's laughable, I'm going to look like an idiot if instead of posting the statute number that contols the issue we're discussing, I just post the acronyms for every law enforcement agency that happens to show up on the first page of a google search. Post the language in the USC or whatever agency guideline was applicable, that you believe supports your point. Otherwise, with all all due respect, this is ridiculous. You cannot stand on acronyms, either point to the language in 16 U.S.C. 470 that supports your claim, or it just looks preposterous.

[ChriswUfGator]

I'm with Nth on this issue.

On which issue?

Making claims that aren't supported by 16 U.S.C. 470 and then dropping every acronym google can deliver to try and sidestep that problem? Or you mean the actual debate over the "renovation" vs "replacement" of the Bridge of Lions? Because, as I said earlier, that all boils down to a matter of opinion not a "right/wrong" type of issue. So while I respect your opinion, it is just that, the same as mine.

And IMO, I would have preferred repairing the original structure for half the cost vs. the Bridge of Theseus.

[ChriswUfGator]

For the record, this is the complete language of ss. 106;

Section 106 (16 U.S.C. 470f)

The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking.

So, as I stated before, ACHP is advisory-only on state transportation infrastructure projects, and even in that capacity they're limited only to a comment period, they have no actual authority or hand in the design process, and IME, they are routinely ignored. And I still can't find that section where replacing a historic structure is A-OK as long as you glue some pieces of the old one onto it. This is starting to sound like Preston Haskell's views on historic preservation, but that's definitely a topic for another thread.

And as a side note, see how much more effective it is to post the statute we're discussing, rather than make unsubstantiated claims about what it contains, and then pass off my argument to Chef Boyardee? But FWIW, he thinks I'm right too, he said so right here;

[Dashing Dan]

I'm with Nth on this issue.

On which issue?

I stand on the acronyms presented.

There are established procedures for designating and restoring historic structures, which Chris and certain others may choose to ignore.   I acknowledge and support those procedures.

[ChriswUfGator]

I'm with Nth on this issue.

On which issue?

I stand on the acronyms presented.

There are established procedures for designating and restoring historic structures, which Chris and certain others may choose to ignore.   I acknowledge and support those procedures.

A straw man works no better than Chef Boyardee for carrying a defective argument, Dan...

I'm not ignoring any guidelines, quite the opposite. I've asked him repeatedly to post any federal or state statute, or any agency guideline, or any agency publication, that would support his assertions. He has failed to do so, and instead simply continues rattling off the acronyms for every preservation organization found on the first two pages of google, without actually posting any of the statutory language that he claimed supports his position. I had to post that for him. He also has failed to post any agency publication or agency guidelines which he claimed supported his position, by any of the agencies he listed in his post. I have asked for it repeatedly.

I am more than happy to discuss the actual guidelines, and I'm hardly ignoring them. In fact, I've asked him to post whatever language he believes supports his point several times now, without result. If anyone is ignoring any procedures or guidelines, it could hardly be me, now could it? This post makes the third time I've asked.

[NthDegree]

"where's the language in ss. 106 stating that replacing 90% of a historical structure is somehow still considered a repair vs. a replacement as long as you make sure to re-use a few visible pieces of the old one in your new copy?"

I apologize, if you are impatient with my slow responses, please understand I do not have the kind of time necessary to answer your every request on this Easter Sunday morning.  But I think I know what you you getting at so here's the way it worked.  

The bridge is a historic resource listed on the National Register (kept by the NPS) and has "characteristics" that are unique to it and it alone (for example: the towers, draw span, steel arched girders, piers) Avoid diminishing the "integrity" of those "characteristics" and you have got a winner (expressed in an MOA).  

So the basis or standard WAS to retain the characteristics that makes the thing historic, i.e. "avoids adverse effects" and is still able to convey its significance.  The basis WAS NOT if it keeps a set percentage of original materials.    

Below is what I use because I am a layman, not a lawyer, so I hope it doesn't offend you that it is a "Citizen Guide" instead of the actual citation and link to the law.   


http://www.achp.gov/docs/CitizenGuide.pdf
(see page 7)

SECTION 106: WHAT IS AN ADVERSE EFFECT?
If a project may alter characteristics that qualify a specific property for inclusion in the National Register
in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property, that project is considered to have an
adverse effect. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance, based on its location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.  Adverse effects can be direct or indirect and
include the following:

􀀗 physical destruction or damage

􀀗 alteration inconsistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties

􀀗 relocation of the property

􀀗 change in the character of the property’s use or
setting

􀀗 introduction of incompatible visual, atmospheric,
or audible elements

􀀗 neglect and deterioration

􀀗 transfer, lease, or sale of a historic property
out of federal control without adequate
preservation restrictions

I hope this helps Chris.  ACHP did consult, it did sign the MOA, it was not ignored on this bridge, so argue if you will about it relevance in general.    

[ChriswUfGator]

1: I wasn't being impatient. I originally asked you for the language you felt supported your position a day or two ago, and you've since been back to explain that you "stand on" your alphabet soup while feeling no need to post the actual language which, you insisted, supported your viewpoint, but which you wouldn't post. Rather ridiculous, and certainly not an issue of my impatience.

2: Whether ACHP signed off or not is irrelevant, their entire structure is advisory and non-binding. If they hadn't signed off on the project, then it would simply have progressed according to plan anyway. What they did or did not do is hardly dispositive, where they have no authority anyway. This is like pointing out that President Obama's housekeeper was in the room when he signed legislation. So what?

In this case, FDOT gave up the 4-lane highrise, and they agreed to keep certain visual cues on the new bridge, and ACHP threw them a bone. This hardly means the design complied with the standard applied to registered landmarks, because as a state transportation project, it wasn't subject to the restrictions other than a comment period.

3: Regarding the basic guidelines you posted, you continue to avoid the issue, as those basic guidelines you posted only reference the actual guidelines here;

http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_8_2.htm

Which, you'll note, do not comport with what happened at the Bridge of Lions. The very first item states;

A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken.

Additionally the very second requirement states;

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

Additionally;

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

And;

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

And;

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

The Bridge of Lions, by FDOT's own admission, was repairable. Indeed, it was cheaper by half to repair rather than replace. Under these circumstances, what happened at the B.O.L. clearly does not comport with the national guidelines for registered properties, regardless of whether the ACHP threw them a bone in elation at FDOT's concession to stick some pieces of the old bridge onto the new one. The guidelines were clearly not followed, where repair was not only possible but quite feasible, and they chose to go ahead with a virtual total replacement anyway. Moreover, under the guidelines, such a replacement or "rehabilitation" should not be a copy of the destroyed historic item, which this is. Obviously you have eyes, you can see the issues with this project under the guidelines.

And, again, isn't it much easier to have a meaningful discussion when I substantiate my position with the language in question, rather than passing my argument off to Chef Boyardee?

[NthDegree]

And then there is always Section 4(f), which came into play and gave teeth to ACHP's "advisory" recommendations ... http://www.doi.gov/oepc/handbook.html


Please provide your proof that the BOL is a "virtual total replacement" with "90%" new material.

Note: edited to include link above 

[Dashing Dan]

A straw man works no better than Chef Boyardee for carrying a defective argument, Dan...

I have absolutely no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.

[ChriswUfGator]

And then there is always Section 4(f), which came into play and gave teeth to ACHP's "advisory" recommendations ... http://www.doi.gov/oepc/handbook.html


Please provide your proof that the BOL is a "virtual total replacement" with "90%" new material.

Note: edited to include link above  

You already acknowledged the concrete was removed and rebuilt, so this is hardly complicated. Other than the bascules and metal deck trusses, what was the entire thing built from? Concrete. Lol...ridiculous.

[ChriswUfGator]

A straw man works no better than Chef Boyardee for carrying a defective argument, Dan...

I have absolutely no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.

The straw-man was your statement implying our disagreement somehow stemmed from my ignoring the preservation guidelines, when in reality I'd asked NthDegree to post them 3 times and he refused. And the Chef Boyardee statement refers to NthDegree's acronym-dropping in an attempt to sidestep posting the actual preservation guidelines that we were discussing, probably because those guidelines completely contradict his point. This can be seen above, after I took the time to post the relevant ones despite my moral objection to having to document his own argument for him.

So, with that explained, hopefully we're all on the same page now. 

[Dashing Dan]

That there are generally accepted guidelines for historic preservation that we all should follow?

[NthDegree]

Chis,

Your 90% conjecture (and I will call it conjecture since it is yours to prove) is irrelevant. The issue is as I stated above: character, integrity and avoidance of adverse effects on the historic bridge. The acronym agencies agreed under the federal law.  So its not your standard, or your interpretation to make.  If you disagree, take it up with them, not me. 

Oh and I forgot to include HABS/HAER in the agencies involved who agreed to the rehabilitation.       



 



     

[ChriswUfGator]

Chis,

Your 90% conjecture (and I will call it conjecture since it is yours to prove) is irrelevant. The issue is as I stated above: character, integrity and avoidance of adverse effects on the historic bridge. The acronym agencies agreed under the federal law.  So its not your standard, or your interpretation to make.  If you disagree, take it up with them, not me.  

Oh and I forgot to include HABS/HAER in the agencies involved who agreed to the rehabilitation.            

The percentage is irrelevant, under the guidelines no historic material at all should been replaced where it was repairable. And as FDOT acknowledged from the outset, the old bridge was indeed repairable, and for half the cost of the new one. Game over.

For the second time, the standards you claim were met, were not met. You, not me, originally brought up the ACHP and the national register. You can keep throwing however many additional agencies into this that you want, the only preservation agency that really had anything to do with the design was ACHP, and as I already pointed out they had no authority to enforce the guidelines and no design input other than a non-binding comment period. Moreover, the preservation guidelines that you brought up but refused to post (now I see why) were clearly not followed, where they call for no historic building material to be replaced at all where it was repairable, which FDOT acknowledged from the outset was the case.

So, I've already posted 16 USC 470 ss. 106 for you, which did not contain anything close to the language you claimed it contained. I've also posted the Secretary of the Interior's preservation guidelines for properties on the national register, which you brought up but refused to post, probably because they completely contradict your position. If there is anything else you'd like to discuss, post the applicable standards, USC, state statute, or agency publication or guidelines involved and we can go from there.

Out of the agencies you've rattled off while avoiding acknowledging that the standards you originally brought up completely contradict you, only two (USCG and ACHP) really had anything to do with the design of this project, and one had no authority, and the other only sets the standards for how wide drawbridge spans must be to accomodate boat traffic. Which has nothing to do with historic preservation.

So as I said, if there is some other standard you'd like to discuss, post it. Otherwise, at least according to the standards you originally brought up, your argument is out of gas. Just because the thing got built does not mean the preservation guidelines were followed. And they clearly weren't. And I guess I can use your logic and say the Secretary of the Interior and USDOI agrees with me, since they publish the standards. Notwithstanding the fact that, like every agency you've listed except two, they had little or nothing to do with the design of this project. And actually, since Federal generally trumps state, and a cabinet department certainly trumps advisory boards and nonprofits, I guess that means I win in the acronym-dropping battle?

Seriously, if you have some standard or agency guideline you'd like to discuss, then post it. Continuing to claim an alphabet soup of agencies agreed with you, without posting anything supporting that, and after you've already made similar claims about 16 USC 470 ss. 106 and the USDOI preservation guidelines which completely exploded and wound up contradicting you, just looks foolish. Pardon me if I don't take your word for it after that.