No, it's not our position. It's the position of the Congress. Moreover, it
wasn't just a safety issue, it also considered the quality of life of our
Armed Forces personnel. Let's not forget the lead-based paint and asbestos
issues, the lack of appropriate plumbing, and the lack of space. Moreover, a
full HABS/HAER documentation was done for the 700 and 800 series buildings.
Apparently the NCSHPO and the ACHP felt that was sufficient and signed a
nationwide MOA for their demolition. Independently, the services have
preserved many of these buildings and manage them well. BTW, if you're
looking for WWI cantonments, there are few remaining. They were far less
well constructed, in most cases, and were destoryed almost immediately after
the armisitice.

John Dendy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron May [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 1:15 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Nissen and Quonset Huts
>
> Former Military Personnel,
>
> Safety and historic preservation are indeed "apples" and "oranges." Ok,
> lets
> take the Series 600, 700, and 800 wooden Temporary buildings constructed
> by
> the Department of War and Department of Defense between 1917 and 1945.
> Your
> take on this is that human safety should dictate demolition of all those
> buildings. My take is we have a legal responsibility under Section 110 and
> 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to objectively review the
> significance under Criterion A, B, C, and D and then assess the historic
> context. Our job is not to rationalize political, engineering, or safety
> reasons for demolishing the structures.
>
> Each military base needs broad objective assessment for what those
> buildings
> can say in the historic landscape. For example, if some buildings
> contribute
> to understanding the Battle of Dutch Harbor in the War of the Aleutians,
> then
> there may be grounds for preserving a portion of the temporary buildings
> at
> that location. If some buildings contribute to understanding the Japanese
> attack on Hickam Field in the Pearl Harbor attack, then we need to
> consider
> preservation of a portion of those buildings to protect the historic
> context.
> In those instances, we may recommend lead paint abatement, installation of
> sprinkler systems, installation of halon fire suppression, and removal of
> non-contributing elements like sliding glass doors and aluminum windows.
>
> Naturally, there are going to be thousands of military bases under closure
> or
> new construction projects that do not have historical value. In those
> instances, the architectural historian may recommend the Base
> Environmental
> Officer seek SHPO concurrence these are not eligible for inclusion on the
> National Register. Those Temporary Series 600, 700, and 800 buildings
> probably will be demolished.
>
> My point is that your position is not appropriate for our mission in
> historic
> preservation. Personally, I find quonset huts, Nissen huts, and Temporary
> buildings to be an important part in American history. I personally
> disagree
> with the blanket mitigation plan used by the Department of Defense to use
> Categorical Exemption to justify demolition. But then, that is my
> Constitutional right to have such an opinion.
>
> Ron May
> Legacy 106, Inc.