This document provides an overview of the National Trust for Historic Preservation's work in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, focusing on challenges integrating historic preservation into disaster recovery efforts. Some key issues discussed include proposed demolitions of historic buildings like Charity Hospital, challenges navigating regulatory processes like Section 106 reviews, and balancing recovery needs with preservation of historic character. Alternatives to the proposed new VA and LSU hospital campuses that would have demolished many historic structures were presented, but the proposed plans moved forward despite preservationist objections.

1. Page |1
Integrating Historic Preservation into Disaster Planning and Recovery
Statewide Conference on Heritage
Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
8:30 a.m.-10: a.m., Lancaster Marriott at Penn Square, Lancaster County
Convention Center
20 Minutes
(with Amanda Ciampolillo, FEMA, Region III, and Tim Sevison, The Riser
Group)
1. The National Trust is a privately-funded non-profit organization that works
to save America’s historic places.
Will give overview of work in New Orleans after Katrina
Then focus on one of the biggest issues we dealt with—the
construction of two new public hospitals for LSU and VA.
And illustrate along the way how what you do or don’t have in place
on the ground before as disaster affects what happens afterwards.
Threat of loss of cultural/historic character and identity
(Show these three while reading Moe quote.)
2,3. Two slides of Lower 9th
4. Broadmoor in October 2005.
Then NTHP President Dick Moe’s call/recognition in November 2005
(as one speaker at a recovery conference in New Orleans), saying
“Louisiana has experienced one of the greatest human tragedies in
the nation’s history… Katrina could also be the greatest cultural
catastrophe America has ever known…*T+he Katrina flood interrupted
the creative culture of a region where art is still alive and vital—from
great food, inventive music, and singular festivals to distinctive
architecture, lush landscapes, and lively neighborhoods that nurture
people from diverse economic and cultural backgrounds. That’s what
we must restore….”
The place tells a story; I could appreciate that.
My 12 years in NO and at HDLC pre-K
Working at Trust HQ in 2005
Fall 2005—Trust in NO

2. Page |2
January 2006—I return to NO for 3 ½ years
The big lesson: Have all your plans and procedures in place before
any disaster strikes.
The historic resources were—or should have been—recognized
assets before. They are still assets.
5. (City map with NR districts and flood levels.) Our recognition of the city’s
rich historic districts.
20 National Register districts
80 percent of the city flooded (7 Manhattans)
At the moment the city needed them most, it cuts the staff needed
most—historic districts, planning
6. (Second city map with districts.) City’s master plan and zoning re-write—
had moved forward under Mayor Marc Morial. The city had no complete
master plan at the time of the storm, but does now, and zoning is still in the
works.)
NOLA: 15 local historic districts; over 16,000 properties
With the Neighborhood Conservation District, about 50 percent of
the core area of the city is under some historic district regulation.
Surveys after the storm identified more NR-eligible neighborhoods,
with FEMA HP and SHPO.
The surveys of the local and NR districts had needed updated before
Katrina.
7. Tools and Strategies Early-on
Partner organizations: PRC and FHL
Early role for volunteers: cleaning supply bucket distribution
Informational workshops—mold remediation, structural assessment,
careful clean-out
Volunteers as national advocates
Volunteer management is more work than people realize
8. Understanding and communicating best practices for cleaning and
gutting.
Our guidance (orig. 1993, for Missouri/Mississippi floods) was
updated for 2005. It became useful again with new floods.

3. Page |3
Today, disaster response resources and links on the Trust’s web site,
www.preservationnation.org. Type: “disaster response” on home
page search.
This house, the Bennett house in Holy Cross, a neighborhood in the
Lower 9th, became a poster child for our Home Again!New Orleans
grant program and demonstration project.
9. Structural assessments began early.
Early 2006, universe of 2,900 “red-tagged” buildings (ID’ed by city
and contracted inspectors)
We whittled to about 400 in NR districts and re-inspected (before
Section 106 kicked in)
We were navigating complicated systems and structures of
authorities, agencies, and officials—local, state, federal, military,
contract workers.
10. As returning residents begin to plan their repairs—a new role for
volunteers.
The reactions of volunteers and owners to the work and the help.
Written report “Observations/Recommendations”—top to bottom:
outside-inside—with disclaimer.
“Do I need to demolish my house?”
Targets: based on ower requests.
11. Home repair as another role for volunteers
If volunteers aren’t technical experts, then home repair is a role.
Taking advantage of a surge of concern for NO
Again—serious volunteer management implications
Note that all this was initiated by non-profits or the private sector—
not the city.
12. Historic preservation review using Section 106 of National Historic
Preservation Act. (Does everyone in audience know what Section 106 is?)
City asked for FEMA to fund demolitions of damaged residences.
Began consultation in February 2006, 6 months after K.
FEMA=lead agency; US Army Corps of Engineers=debris removal
Result was Programmatic Agreement for demo process.

4. Page |4
Of 1121 contributing buildings ID’ed, 821 were removed from list due
to our efforts.
Treatment of NR contributing buildings, would include reviews of list,
meetings to seek alternatives to demolition, work with PRC to
contact owners, counsel alternatives, sale, correct errors in records.
If to be demo’ed, recordation first (“pre-demo treatment measure”)
13. Another pre-demo treatment measure: “selective recoupment of
character-defining elements”
PRC as receiver of salvage and allowed to sell at reasonable price to
cover overhead.
Loosely confected agreement.
We should not have to fight for deconstruction.
Corps and FEMA legal constraints preventing deconstructions—or
inability to discuss use of FEMA demo funds for stabilization.
We were reaping the result of the city’s pre-K inability to grapple
successfully with blight, vacant housing, lack of neighborhood-level
planning.
SIDEBAR—Blighted Property, Vacant Property, Population
2009 American Housing Survey: 65,000 homes unfit for habitation;
2/3 will need to be demolished. (Current Mayor Landrieu’s goal:
10,000 demolitions.)
Vacant property: At 25 percent, among the highest in the nation; up
from 12 percent in 2000.
Population: 343,829 (2010 Census)—about ¾ pre-K; before Katrina,
about 450,000 and declining. 1960: 628,000.
July 22, 2012: Population 360,740 or 79.2% of the July 1, 2005,
population.
14. FEMA-funded demolitions--chart
Corps—June 2006 to Sept 2007=4,235 demos
City—Dec 2007 to April 2009=1,574
Total FEMA-funded demos for this period: 5,809 (of 9,215 city
submitted)
Demos in NR districts: 300

5. Page |5
15. How to balance protection of lives and property with protection of
local historic resources? Case in point—
House elevations
Repetitive loss
Hazard mitigation grants, elevation of houses—a problem that’s still
an issue nearly seven years later. Funding delays and administrative
confusion led to owners taking things into their own hands.
Need local ordinance in flood management ordinance that exempts
contributing properties in NR districts from requirement to elevate
(if so choose), but does not bar from protection of National Flood
Insurance Program or cause higher premium.
[Transition here—other issues—modernist architecture and
neighborhood schools.]
16. (Exterior, Supreme Court)
17. (Demo, Court and Office Building)
The city’s ambivalent and sometimes hostile attitude toward its modernist
architecture.
Disaster as opportunity to get rid of buildings we don’t understand or
appreciate.
Ad hoc nature of all of this when no real plan in place: The Benson
solution to use Dominion Tower, for example, which shelved the
state’s building plans. (And all related to keeping the Saints football
team ownership happy.)
Office and former Supreme court demolished—more open land in
the CBD.
18. (Cabrini Church, interior before demo)
19. (Demo)
Curtis and Davis; completed in 1963, $1 million
Nathaniel Curtis and Arthur Q, Davis
Also architects of the Louisiana Superdome and the Rivergate
Concrete barrel vaults; clad in brick to blend in with nearby Oak Park
subdivision
Damaged during Katrina
Chosen site for new Holy Cross School

6. Page |6
Church was determined to be National Register eligible (battle with
SHPO about this; and bafflement of the public and the media shows
the work we still need to do to educate the public.)
Because of use of FEMA funds and NR eligibility=Section 106
consultation
School had no intention of trying to re-use or incorporate church in
school plans.
A small group of congregants fought for its survival; legal action
pursued even after demolition.
106 consultation pushed through with token mitigation—saving
cross, incorporating some of the interior elements into new
construction.
20. (McDonogh No. 19, Louis Armstrong School) New Orleans Public
Schools
21. (Booker T)
22. (McDonogh No. 11)
What role do neighborhood schools play?
The challenge: rehab of existing (with new additions if needed) vs.
demo and all new construction.
Lack of planner’s understanding about meaning of school to parents
and students (and alumni) despite its physical condition.
School facilities master plan Phase I is funded completely by FEMA
and underway. Funding for Phase II also announced.
(McDonogh 11 as segue to hospitals.)
23. (Charity Exterior) The Battle to Re-Open Charity as a Hospital and Save
the Lower Mid-City Neighborhood—A National Trust 11 Most in 2008.
Disaster as the opportunity to rebuild parts of the medical system by
moving out of the Central Business District—a grander version of
designs that had been talked about for years pre-K.
Historic resources not seen as adaptable to contemporary use.
Charity Hospital was designed by the firm of Weiss, Dreyfous &
Seiferth , (1938-39) which also designed the Art Deco State Capitol in
Baton Rouge.

7. Page |7
24. (Charity Exterior)
Operating after Katrina, but closed by LSU. Flooding in basement.
How much damage was caused by flooding?
Damages sought from FEMA by LSU--$450 million.
25. VA Medical Center
1950s structure with adjacent 1980s addition.
26. Lower Mid-City & Medical Center (aerial of orig conditions
Area had flooded, but homes being rebuilt.
27. Site Plan VA and LSU (note surface parking at LSU side)
The entire proposed LSU/VA project encompasses over 70 acres,
containing 263 structures. Of these 165 were identified as
contributing to the historic character of the Mid-City National
Register district.
No more than 20-25 structures were originally slated to be relocated,
and the rest were targeted for demolition.
28. Charity Hospital Feasibility Study (Charity exterior)
House Concurrent Resolution 89 (in 2006) of the Louisiana State
Legislature charged the Foundation for Historical Louisiana (FHL) to
conduct an independent assessment of Charity Hospital in New
Orleans. No funding was allocated for the study.
FHL engaged the services of RMJM Hillier, the world’s seventh largest
architectural firm, with expertise in health care design and
preservation architecture. FHL raised $600,000 for the study.
Joining RMJM were Waggonner and Ball, Architects of New Orleans;
Robert Silman Associates (structural engineers); VJ Associates (cost
estimating); George Ballard Geotechnics (thermal engineering and
non-destructive testing); and Langen Engineering and Environmental
Services, Inc. (hazardous materials assessment).
29. Charity Feasibility Study (Charity Atrium)

8. Page |8
The study determined that the building was ahead of its time in
design and would lend itself to being renovated as a state-of-the art
medical facility.
The structural system is sound
The pattern of diagonal cracks in the façade appeared shortly after
the building’s construction. Today, the building has no “fatal flaws.”
Floor-to-floor heights are ideal in all 20 floors—the lower three floors
for operating rooms and diagnostics; the upper floors well-suited for
up to 446 private in-patient rooms.
The renovation and retrofit would include complete gutting of the
building, preserving and restoring the existing main lobby and
exterior shell.
The building has 24 elevators, another feature that puts it ahead of
its time in design.
After renovation, Charity Hospital will be code compliant, including
fire exits.
Cost estimators V-J Associates determined that Charity Hospital
could be renovated at a cost that is 22 percent less than the
construction cost of building a comparable new one million square
foot building at a new site.
VJ Associates estimates the cost of rehabilitation of Charity is $484
million. The cost of building a new hospital and acquiring land is $620
million.
As a historic structure, Charity Hospital qualifies for federal and state
historic tax credits as well as new markets tax credit allocations. $128
million in tax credits could provide 34 percent in project cost savings.
The building is vacant for the first time, thus making it possible to
expedite the rehabilitation process.
Having the building shell in place shaves at least two years off the
time to deliver a new hospital.
Quicker construction means quicker delivery of jobs, health care,
medical research, and medical education—ultimately benefitting the
entire biosciences industry.
The economic benefits are not exclusive to either plan, yet the
alternative of re-using Charity Hospital as a state-of-the-art medical
facility will take less time, be less costly, and less destructive.

9. Page |9
SIDEBAR: Dave Dixon of Goody Clancy, chief consultant for NO Master plan,
on Charity Hospital: “It survived intact and could have been brought back.”
30. Alternative Sites for LSU/VA were identified and we also called for
compressing the footprint plan.
(The animated site plan)
We were presenting real alternatives, not just saying no.
Note the number of buildings in the fist view.
With the renovation of Charity Hospital and the availability of
surrounding land and neighboring buildings for expansion and other
medical facilities, an alternative plan presents itself—the relocation
of the new VA medical center to a portion of the “preferred” LSU
site.
With the alternative plan, co-location and synergy with all
surrounding medical complexes would be achieved; scores of private
homes and important historic and cultural buildings would be saved.
In short, acquisition and relocation costs in connection with the new
Charity Hospital plan will likely exceed the funds presently allocated.
31. The Campaign for Charity Hospital
Ads on Canal Streetcars
Also “Doctors for Charity” formed.
32. The Campaign for Charity Hospital
Billboards in New Orleans and Baton Rouge (for legislators)
33. The Campaign for Charity Hospital
Being a “Charity baby”
Dr. John, eloquent spokeman
Public opinion poll before Council and Mayoral election—
overwhelming support in general electorate to re-use Charity
Hospital.
Benefit concert
Second-line parade on Katrina anniversary 2009—supporters were
not just “the preservationists.”
34. VA Hospital Site (Street view)

10. P a g e | 10
This fell outside of the city’s master planning process (!)
Attitude: This is not really up for citizen discussion
Streetscape
The Section 106 consultation process was/is baffling to the average
citizen.
Combine this with NEPA review, and you get even more confusion.
35. VA Hospital Site—S. Tonti (Wally Thurman’s home)
Big hopes with NTHP legal challenge to FEMA and VA’s compliance
with NEPA in their reviews for the impacts of the hospital plans—
impacts of all kinds (environmental, historic, social justice)
Key challenge was about breaking the review into segments called
tiers: Tier I-Site Selection; Tier II-Design; Tier III-Operation. To avoid
doing EIS.
And not acknowledging or doing any meaningful analysis of
cumulative impacts (as you would in an EIS)
Also challenging their Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The resulting federal court decision: The agencies did in fact do
enough and did it properly.
Seeing a bleak history in the courts of success in appealing this type
of decision, the NTHP didn’t pursue an appeal.
Site clearance uses HUD $$ for buy-outs/seizures
36. VA Hospital Site—Pan-American Building
Skidmore Owings and Merrill building
Date: 1952. Regional Modernism.
To be used as admin building
37. VA Hospital Site--Dixie Brewery, 1890’s
Some portion of it might be incorporated with new construction
38. VA Hospital Site—Before
From Dixie Brewery
39. VA Hospital Site—After

11. P a g e | 11
Also from Dixie
The Programmatic Agreement resulting from the Section 106
consultation creates a $1.4 million mitigation fund ($700,000 from
VA, $400,000 from City, $300,000 from State) for work on
contributing houses in other parts of the Mid-City NR District.
$800,000 was earmarked to move buildings of “exceptional
importance. At an estimated $32,000-$40,000 cost to move a house,
the maximum would be 20-25.
40. LSU/VA Site—Overview
Moving away from Central Business District
Leaving behind old medical centers with no planned uses.
Talk of putting City Hall in Charity Building; other uses for former VA
hospital (both of which were declared too damaged to return to.)
Loss of 263 buildings, 165 of them contributing to the NR district.
The VA funding was never in doubt, and construction is proceeding.
The state had groundbreaking in April 2011 even though it’s not clear
where all the funds will come from.
State project is pegged at $930 million; anticipated borrowing $270
million.
41. Moved Houses on N. Rocheblave
Not planned for; ad hoc
A solution for a situation that needn’t have occurred in the first
place.
Ultimately, Mayor’s office contributed $3.2 million, promising to
move 100 houses. Less than 70 were moved.
42. Moved House on N. Rocheblave
Roofs removed to avoid having to deal with utility line moving costs.
In June 2012, the community development corporation which
received one of the relocated houses, asked the local preservation
commission for approval to demolish it, when it was cited for
demolition by neglect.

12. P a g e | 12
Now for some good news—some things that worked—
43. Some things that worked: SHPO Hurricane Recovery Grants
NTHP and States went to Congress
Example of a repair program that worked
$53 million to the Gulf through the National Park Service sending
funds to SHPO’s.
$22.7 million to LA in two rounds.
Round I-about 290 properties.
Round II—about 260 properties.
Total of about 540 properties.
Grants from $5,000--$45,000
44. Things that worked: Home Again! Grants
Home Again! New Orleans grants totaled about $400,000 for 25
projects.
45. Things that worked: AmEx/NTHP Partners in Preservation
Grants totaling $400,000 to five local community anchors: St. James
AME Church; St. Alphonsus Church; Lafayette Cemetery No. 1; St.
Augustine Parish Hall; Odyssey House.
56. Things that worked: AmEx/NTHP Partners in Preservation
Lafayette Cemetery No. 1
47. A Few Lessons Out of New Orleans
48. A Few Lessons Out of New Orleans
49. Contact Information
Thank you very much!!