r/architecture • u/fletchette • 1d ago
News U.S. historic preservation law faces the most serious threat in its 60-year history
https://www.npr.org/2026/10/15/nx-s1-6001504/section-106-historic-preservation-act-threats-anniversaryYesterday was the 60th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act, a US law which set up protections for historical sites. A special section of this act, Section 106, requires developers to work with archaeologists and architecture historians prior to certain construction projects (especially when federal lands, funds, or agencies are involved). The law is designed to prevent developers from bulldozing historic sites, including historic buildings.
But now, a proposed law stands to change everything. Embedded in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is language which would take experts out of this process, remove all opportunities for public comment, and allow development to continue even if historical sites are encountered.
If you're in the US, please consider calling your congresspeople before November 9th and ask them to protect US archaeology by opposing the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act. Learn more at https://www.106strong.com/
29
u/fletchette 1d ago
This change would endanger all of our historic buildings, including national landmarks!
1
u/parallelrule 14h ago
I have sat through dozens of historic preservation meetings. I suggest you go sit through a few and you will realize the process is for a few neighborhood activists. I saw them historic designate a shack in someone’s backyard. I saw them sue a poor family in an old non significant row home to put on a metal roof that they could not afford. The law does need to change.
30
u/ehrgeiz91 1d ago
Remember to vote accordingly in November
19
u/fletchette 1d ago
Yes! But anyone we vote in won't be in office in time to vote on this bill, which goes up for vote in the senate on November 9th. So please also call your incumbents!
4
0
u/JonSwift2023 1d ago
How much of the current legal framework protects genuinely historic sites or is simply a weapon for neighborhood NIMBYs who don’t to see new apartments? Or does this law not apply to residential?
Here in Somerville MA, old, crappy residential is protected as “historical” when it’s nothing of the sort.
4
u/fletchette 1d ago
Currently, determinations are left up to archaeologists and architectural historians, and the public and tribes have opportunities to consult (to my understanding). Archaeologists and historians go through a thorough historical review to determine if a site is qualified, and even then it's rare for it to prevent development. More often a site is documented and impacts are mitigated as much as possible.
The change will set up some sort of advisory board which will just decide on its own, with no input from experts, the public, or tribes it seems
1
1
u/Theranos_Shill 23h ago
You're talking about an anecdotal example local zoning and local ordinance to defend a Federal government that has done insanely corrupt shit like sell part of a national monument to a donor for below the market value of the land.
1
u/Enamred-771 23h ago
Well intended federal regulations are constantly abused by NIMBYs wanting to profit off of a housing shortage.
1
u/Mayor__Defacto 15m ago
People have used NEPA to oppose dedicating a lane on a street for buses only.
-20
u/bobcat540 1d ago
Unpopular opinion. The Historic Preservation Act, though well intentioned, is a net negative. It puts substantial burdens on builders that increase costs and delay projects with the dubious benefit of protecting old buildings out of little more than nostalgia and aesthetic preferences. There are very, very, very few things that are so historic that they should be preserved for the future. Most old stuff is just old stuff.
16
7
u/fletchette 1d ago
It's actually not very expensive or time consuming! The process is a well oiled machine at this point. The proposed changes are very ambiguous and are actually designed to be settled through the court system, which will be much more time consuming than the current process
5
u/fletchette 1d ago
The NHPA helped prevent development in New Orleans' French Quarter, among other examples
1
u/FaithlessnessCute204 1d ago
Bullspit, I’ve been trying to replace a basic bridge in “ historical Jersey“ for over a decade. The bridge is post 50s concrete , it’s historic as a ham sandwich, but we kept winging money every few years at it because we can’t get a new bridge on the docket because we’re “ impacting a historic neighborhood “
2
u/Theranos_Shill 23h ago
> because we’re “ impacting a historic neighborhood “
So it's not actually about the bridge, it's about another aspect of a larger project but you are using the bridge as a false reason for wanting to remove protection from development.
2
u/FaithlessnessCute204 22h ago
No it’s just the bridge , the fact you can’t snap your fingers and make construction take no time isn’t some giant conspiracy.
6
u/wysteriacos 1d ago
Unpopular opinion, anything can be historic in the right context. Anything where major events happened or where it played a significant part in local or wider history is actually historic.
More buildings actually deserve the chance to be preserved or at least have the fabric of it saved. I mean I have noticed that many modernist buildings are often demolished without any sort of attempt to salvage what made it significant.
6
8
u/BlaizeFiammata 1d ago
It really isn’t much more of a burden to developers than any other restrictions (like environmental or zoning) that are imposed during a building process. Part of the idea of the NHPA was that it gave communities a say in what happened to their immediate area. Take for instance the new RFK stadium development in DC. The neighboring communities have historically been disenfranchised because they were inhabited by lower income Black families. Section 106 of the NHPA required the developers to meet with those residents to try and come to a compromise on any potential issues. We don’t need to bring back the era of Robert Moses.
2
u/KingGGL 1d ago
This is such a shit take that it’s hard to even express how shit it is, and I’m a developer.
No one forces any of us to purchase historic buildings or structures. The historic status of a building isn’t hidden or something that’s slapped on a property out of no where. We know what we’re getting into. If we don’t want to deal with 106, then we shouldn’t get involved with a historic property.
The Historic Preservation Act should be STRENGTHENED, if anything, absolutely not dismantled.
2
u/Nacho_Libre479 1d ago
I think there is some middle ground.
Here in Oregon, entire 1920s suburban neighborhoods, now in urban centers, have been designated historic to preserve “neighborhood character” and essentially limit the construction of apartment buildings in single family residential zones.
These 1920s Sears produced cookie cutter bungalows were decried in their day as cheap and soulless compared to the preceding victorian era homes. Now they are “historic treasures”.
But the real goal of this preservation is nothing more than exclusionary regulation intended to preserve home values for incumbents and keep out “renters”.
This is the type of historic preservation that we need to eliminate.
1
u/CMShields Architecture Historian 1d ago
It's an unpopular opinion because it's wrong.
3
u/Theranos_Shill 23h ago
It's an "unpopular opinion" because it misrepresents a more complex situation in a way that advocates for the removal of a regulation that protects the built environment and conserves sites with cultural value.
1
u/Theranos_Shill 23h ago
Exactly. If I want to tear down the Alamo to build a parking lot I should be able to tear down the Alamo to build a parking lot.
49
u/archiotterpup 1d ago
This is why happens when you elect nothing but developers and MBAs.