23
Forging Empathetic Connections to Create Compatible Designs in Historic Buildings

Jessica Goldsmith

Introduction

Interior design is a specialty field of professional practice and inquiry that addresses the design and condition of the interior environment of buildings. Interior designers create environments that balance the needs of the people who will occupy those environments with the pre-existing conditions of a building and its site. Interior designers are professionals who must be educated and licensed in order to ensure their ability to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public (NCIDQ 2009).

Interior design usually takes place within the walls of a pre-existing building, either in new construction or an older building that has perhaps gone through various owners and renovations. Designing new interiors for older, historic buildings is challenging; designers must address the historic architectural and aesthetic style(s), construction, and finish materials, and signs of layers of use. Then they must design for new uses and users. Although interior designers rarely have control over the pre-existing conditions of an older building, they must recognize what character-defining features to save, continue, or eliminate in their interventions and rehabilitation.

This essay analyzes recent research, asking: What shapes the interior designer's experience? What internal factors drive the interior designer and how is their outward manifestation (the design of an interior) affected by the designer's experience? Like materials, artifacts, and technology, interior designers are another resource to be applied in the creation of interior environments. How do these human utensils (designers) work and create? This essay presents a psychology-based theoretical model to support contemporary designers working with existing and, in particular, historic buildings.

New Designers in Old Buildings

Historic preservation is the preservation and maintenance of historic structures and sites, particularly those that are over 50 years old (NPS n.d. (b)). Historic preservation can occur in ways that range from the meticulous safeguarding and restoration of a historic home as a house museum to the regular rehabilitation of a downtown storefront for new renters. Maintaining buildings as museums ensures the future of significant historic buildings, such as Mount Vernon and Monticello. However, most historic buildings will remain in use and be repeatedly reused as a vital part of rural and urban communities.

Functioning historic buildings need to be maintained as a result of both human and environmental events that can degrade them over the years. When a historic building is renovated or rehabilitated, its function may change (e.g., when a historic warehouse is converted into loft apartments). These changes from the original function can keep a historic building in use by rehabilitating it, even though such functional changes can present challenges to designers, who must plan how to integrate the new building functions with existing conditions.

Many buildings undergo repeated major rehabilitations, forcing designers to deal with multiple layers of restoration, redesign, and removal of building elements. In the best designs with compatible elements, new functions integrate smoothly with the existing older building. These new designs are not historical replicas, but a recognizable part of the reused building. Significant features are preserved, and new designs are informed by the past, while also retaining the character of their own time and place.

Designers and design educators recognize the need to prepare future designers to work on projects in historic structures. In their review of the state of architectural education, Boyer and Mitgang cited being able to work with existing structures as an important educational goal (Boyer and Mitgang 1996). Historic and older existing buildings are a significant percentage of US building stock. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) estimates that 80% of future design work will take place within the context of a historic building (Futurevisions 2004).

Currently, any significant building constructed before 1960 is considered a historic building (NPS n.d. (b)); less significant buildings are often referred to as older or existing buildings. For the purposes of this discussion, a historic building is one that is over 50 years of age, regardless of its currently recognized level of significance and whether or not it has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places or is located within a historic district.

Historic and older existing buildings do not usually receive special protections unless they are on the register or in a protected district. Despite the buildings’ lack of legal protection, a large percentage of professional design work is expected to come from historic/older buildings. Preparing interior designers to work compatibility with these structures will be important to their success in professional practice.

Despite the challenges, the continual preservation of historic buildings is important for many reasons. Historic buildings provide a physical record of a community's history, development, and dynamic change over time. They show an area's evolution and allow residents to connect in the larger community by maintaining a diverse physical environment that illustrates the past visions of many residents (NTHP 2009). Living and working in historic structures allows people to enjoy places that matter to them and that may have mattered to the community for generations (NTHP 2009).

Preservation success stories across the country often begin when a community comes together to protect the continued existence of a shared built environment (NTHP 2009). For example, community support led to the preservation of Cincinnati's historic public schools (Flischel 2001). Community members held fundraisers and public events in support of the city's 19th- and early 20th-century schools. Public action encouraged the school system to stop closing and demolishing its historic schools and led to the reopening of some school buildings.

From a sustainability standpoint, reusing historic structures is better for both the natural and built environments. The maintenance and reuse of historic buildings encourages urban areas to remain within their existing footprint and not to continue sprawling into undeveloped land. This allows communities to slowly develop an integrated residential and commercial infrastructure. New building materials, such as wood, metal, cement, and gypsum, are energy- and resource-intensive to develop. New building construction is wasteful; for example, about 4 pounds of building material enters a landfill for every square foot of new construction (NTHP 2009). By continuing to use existing buildings and only updating the interiors when needed, millions of pounds of construction materials will not be created or enter landfills.

New buildings can be more energy-efficient to maintain, but because so much energy is needed to build them it may be many years before genuine energy savings begins. Keeping existing buildings in use through preservation, maintenance, and rehabilitation provides space for human activities, maintains the vitality of urban neighborhoods, and curbs unchecked growth in undeveloped areas.

Designing new interiors for historic buildings requires interior designers to work with an existing building, just as they do with almost all projects. But with historic buildings there are additional considerations; historic buildings can present unique challenges since they are already part of a community with some longstanding residents who remember past owners and uses. Historic buildings have shared in the social and physical life of a community. These buildings were built with aesthetic principles that may be unfamiliar to contemporary designers and design students. For example, designers of Colonial Revival buildings were deliberately working to create buildings that evoked feelings and images of America's past. In contrast, modern designers created buildings for a new future, opposed to historical associations. Undercurrents of architectural theory and ideology inform past and present design decisions. Inexperienced designers may unknowingly be working with the interiors of buildings with one or more design foundations that are different from their own contemporary experience.

Decades of use, aging, changing owners, and renovations may leave many historic building interiors in need of a new compatible rehabilitation. The challenges of preserving historic buildings and the pressure of popular contemporary architectural design often encourage designers to simply gut interiors. Designers need help, not just with the technical aspects of historic materials, but also with how to design within a historic structure and – through continuity or transformation – use significant design elements of the historic structure in their new designs.

Compatibility

Interior designers create architectural spaces within existing buildings, including new buildings and those that may be undergoing their first or fiftieth renovation or rehabilitation. Interior design professionals are distinguished by their ability to work with existing structures and as part of a larger design team that may include architects, engineers, and tradespersons. Working with historic structures can be a daunting and sometimes confusing task because of the different building systems, the aesthetic preferences of multiple owners and users, and the layers of outdated interior materials and finishes. What should be kept for the next iteration of the building? Should everything be removed, allowing a fresh start? Should spaces be meticulously preserved as they are, with equal treatment given to every design feature and material? How should the building be changed and rehabilitated to serve its new purpose? If the building should be changed, then how does one proceed?

Preservationists, including interior designers who work primarily in historic preservation, struggle with these and other questions (Murtagh 2006; Stipe 2008). In the early decades of preservation efforts, emphasis was placed on meticulous preservation, even re-creation, of historic materials and features (Murtagh 2006; Stipe 2008). While prominent public buildings and sites, such as Mount Vernon and Colonial Williamsburg, benefited from being fixed in time and place, there are thousands of buildings that need to remain in use to serve their owners and communities. These buildings need regular maintenance and appropriate alterations to remain functional and relevant for contemporary uses and standards. For buildings that are both historic and actively used structures, preservationists depend on a guiding design goal of “compatibility” (NPS n.d. (a)).

Compatibility seeks to combine and recognize the importance of the old and new physical architectural features of a building. Compatibility allows alterations and additions to be made to a building while guiding designers and owners to preserve the most significant, noteworthy, elements of the historic features. For example, after the restoration of historic Anderson Hall on the University of Florida campus, classrooms were stocked with new furniture and lighting, against a backdrop of original wood paneling. New lighting was comparable with historic lighting in size, scale, and material finishes, but it was distinctly new in appearance and functionality. New furniture was typical of other campus classrooms, allowing the uniqueness of the historic paneling to stand out. Significant spaces, such as the entrance, were preserved and fully integrated into the new design and function.

This combination of old and new into a contemporary, functional design is the focus of this essay. The essay examines the challenges designers encounter when designing rehabilitations for existing historic structures and explores how developing an emotional connection with their project site may help them understand the structures’ unique elements. Understanding may then lead to the creation of new interiors that reflect the best of the past and the present.

Defining Compatibility through Preservation Literature

Communities across the country have developed preservation literature, primarily in the form of historic district design guidelines, to aid owners and designers who are modifying existing structures or building new ones in or near historic buildings. When a designer is working in a recognized historic area, historic district design guidelines are the primary tool available to develop new designs. Most guidelines are based on a set of federal standards and enhanced to address the area's context (NPS n.d. (a)).

Within both the federal standards and local district guidelines, compatibility is the overarching design goal. Compatibility is primarily presented as a designed, architectural response to the physical parameters of a building's character-defining features. Character-defining features are the physical and/or architectural features that distinguish a building, or give it character (NPS n.d. (a); Jandl 1988; Nelson n.d.). For example, the roofline, interior paneling, and fireplace or a particular sequence of interior spatial layouts with traditional proportions could all be character-defining features on one building, but less significant in another building.

Distinguishing a building's character-defining features is part of the task of designing in an older building. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the National Park Service's preservation briefs series provide general guidelines to owners and designers in the identification of character-defining from less significant features (Jandl 1988; Nelson n.d.; NPS n.d. (b)) These sources provide general knowledge, but since each historic building and project site is unique, applying general information may be daunting.

Once owners and designers have a specific project site, identifying the specific context and design elements can help them develop locally compatible designs. Local guidelines may be important tools for designers working in historic districts. If a project building or new construction infill site is located in a historic district, there should be a local set of guidelines for the historic district. A historic district is an area of land protected at either the local, state, or federal level (NPS n.d. (b)). Historic districts can range in size and composition from a fairly unified college campus to a sprawling rural community. Some historic districts have buildings constructed over several decades or centuries; others contain only buildings constructed within a shorter time span.

In most historic districts, the exterior of existing and new construction is protected and changes must be approved, usually by a local Historic District Commission or Board. The lack of current legal protection for historic interiors does not negate their significance; it is a reflection of the extent of US private ownership rights. Historic districts on university campuses are currently leading the way toward protection of interiors and including interiors in their historic district guidelines (see John Muir College 2008; Darbee, Rechie, Rickey, Williams, and Loveridge 2009 [Miami University]; Tate, Dixon, et al. 2007 [University of Florida]).

In this research the contents of over 30 historic district guidelines were examined to inform the discussion. Previously, the author of this essay helped write guidelines through a Getty Campus Heritage Grant for the historic University of Florida campus (Tate, Dixon, et al. 2007) as part of a fieldwork experience in the City of Gary, led by Professor Roy Graham in 2005. As part of those projects and this study, an examination of the content of historic district guidelines was done to assess how that content might relate to and guide the creation of compatible interiors and be used to assess the compatibility of design solutions. Figure 23.1 illustrates ways in which knowing the content of historic district guidelines may help interior designers and students create more compatible interiors.

c23-fig-0001 — Figure 23.1 Conceptual framework illustrating how designers may create relatively more compatible design outcomes.

Like interiors in most historic buildings, historic structures that are not recognized individually or as part of a historic district currently receive no formal protection. However, both information and methods developed to design compatibility for protected buildings could be used to design for unprotected ones as well. This essay expands the boundaries of current preservation practice by emphasizing compatible new designs inside historic buildings, regardless of their protected status. Interiors are a vital part of buildings’ architecture and users’ experiences in the built environment (Malnar and Vodvarka 1992). By expanding the standards of compatible design to include interiors, people can gain a holistic and pleasurable experience as they move through a refurbished building.

Local historic district guidelines can be particularly helpful because such guidelines provide specific detail about recognized features and techniques for working compatibility in a district. Many historic district guidelines for rehabilitation, alterations, and new construction share a similar content structure that requires the designer to investigate the district's social history, identify its major architectural styles, and also analyze its most significant architectural elements. The history section should include information about noteworthy individuals, the community's growth, and shared social history, that is, the human story (for examples, see City of Bolivar n.d.; Tampa Architectural Review Commission 2002 [Hyde Park]).

For example, the Ybor City historic district guidelines include both pictures and the history of the community's historic clubs (City of Tampa 2010). In the early 20th century, major immigrant groups, including Italians, Sicilians, and Greeks, each ran a social club; membership included invitations to social events, free access to a staff doctor, life insurance, and mortuary services. Clubs vied with each other to create grand, ornate buildings. These historic district guidelines help readers appreciate the grandiose architecture of club buildings as a combination of influences from popular American and home-country styles, and a significant statement of social cohesion and group success in the New World.

The stories and histories told in historic district guidelines do more than provide information; these stories also help owners and designers connect with the district and their project site. Historical narratives help explain the significance of the district; that is to say, why the place matters (Allison and Allison 2008; Dohr and Portillo 2011; NTHP 2011).

Caring about historic buildings and working to preserve places that matter have been significant elements in many successful preservation stories. For example, the ongoing Place Matters program in New York City allowed locals to nominate the historic places that they care about (Place Matters 2007). This process has led to a broader understanding of the significance of New York City's history and added new historic literature and protection for some nominated structures (Allison and Allison 2008).

By learning local history, interior designers and students may better connect with their project site and see it as a real place with significance before and after they complete their project. These insights lead designers to greater engagement with their work and feelings of empathy, caring, and helpfulness for the historic project building (Frantz, Mayer, Norton, and Rock 2005). (See Figure 23.1 for a list of ways in which engagement with a project helps create compatible interiors.)

Section 2 of many historic district guidelines discusses prevalent architectural styles and may include labeled drawings of a typical building in each major style. Labeled drawings or photographs call out significant features of each style, as expressed in the historic district, and demonstrate how to discuss the style (for an example, see City of Portland Bureau of Planning 2008 [Skidmore and Old Town Historic Districts]).

The concept of architectural styles has come under criticism within the preservation community in recent years because identifying buildings by style may oversimplify the complex and varied history of architectural aesthetics (Longstreth 1999). However, style sections and their terminology can be helpful to teach design students and practitioners the importance of a major architectural style and its evolution in the context of the historic district (Blakemore 2005; Blumenson 1990).

In their text on those qualities and experiences that most impact the design process and interior environment, Dohr and Portillo noted that place identity, including the qualities that give a building a sense of place, was significant for imparting meaning and engaging users and designers (Dohr and Portillo 2011). Significant local architectural features contribute to sense of place and provide cues to identify the local place. For example, decorative iron balcony railings immediately conjure up images of New Orleans’ French Quarter, while wooden shot-gun houses with carpenter Gothic detailing suggest New Orleans’ Ninth Ward. In these examples, altering the significant architectural features changes place identity, history, and a host of connected meanings. Interior designers working in a historic context need to know and understand the character-defining features of the local district. Then designers can create new interiors that respond to significant existing features to maintain and develop an ongoing place identity.

Section 3 of most historic district design guidelines includes sketch drawings demonstrating specific design elements and showing both compatible and incompatible new design features. The exact features illustrated vary by historic district, but typical examples include: scale, massing, fenestration, roofs, entrances, and materials (see the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions’ [n.d.] Online Design Guidelines for access to multiple examples). Although the design elements and principles in Section 3 are primarily applied to a building's exterior, they have the potential to expand into building interiors (Ching 2007).

Compatibility and Creativity

As an interior design educator, I frequently hear students express their concern that historic preservation projects limit their original input and creative expression. Students say they don't want to copy something old, but feel that they must to respect the historic building. Copying historic features and retaining the original principles seem like the safest solutions. Feeling that creativity and compatibility are at odds with one another may also be evident among experienced designers and design instructors.

This apparent dichotomy between compatibility and creativity shows a lack of understanding of compatibility and creativity. A creative design solution is one that is novel and appropriate (Hennessey and Amabile 1988). Preserving elements of a historic building is appropriate, but how historic elements are transformed into a new design allows opportunity for novelty, in addition to the creativity needed to create a contemporary interior. Successful compatible designs require a designer's full creativity and skills to see and develop the potential of what is already in place and imagine new ways to use that potential. See Figure 23.1 for a framework that illustrates some of the elements necessary for being engaged and working creatively on a historic building project.

Compatible designing has the potential to push interior designers to their creative boundaries. In a monograph on creativity for teachers, Hennessey and Amabile explain that in addition to interest and motivation, creativity needs domain knowledge and the recognition of constraints and opportunities to develop and grow (Hennessey and Amabile 1987). The challenges of acquiring the technical knowledge needed to design compatibility for historic buildings can provide designers with the extra momentum they need to strengthen their creative design skills.

Too few criteria or constraints for a project can result in limited challenges, challenges which could push creativity further. By designing compatibility, design options are constrained, but not eliminated. Indeed, significant spaces and features should be enhanced as designers explore molding and harmonizing their design in partnership with the historic building. These types of explorations could push designers to fresh, creative constructions (Carmel-Gilfinen and Portillo 2010; Hennessey and Amabile 1987; Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi 2009).

In their research on flow, defined as “an enjoyable psychological state of harmonious creative working,” Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi state that to enter flow a person must be challenged to stretch their existing skills. Compatibility and creative design solutions go together. The struggle to design compatibility forms the challenge that stretches a designer's skills and pushes him or her forward to find creative solutions (Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi 2009).

Creativity is significant because working creatively and experiencing flow are enjoyable processes that engage the creator. Engaged designers may be less likely to settle for their first solution. They will return to their project and continue developing their solution; ultimately, this may lead to a more compatible design outcome. Creative, compatible designs can preserve the best of the past, provide a harmonious experience for users, and showcase the best in contemporary design.

Sense of Connectedness

Working with the historic built environment requires engagement in the design project and knowledge of the history and architectural features of the site. Knowledge alone, however, might not be enough to engage designers in the process of creating compatible designs. Designers’ ability and desire to create compatible designs may be improved by a feeling of connection to the historic built environment. An emotional sense of connection may inspire local stakeholders to want to preserve their historic structures (Dohr and Portillo 2011; Place Matters 2007). If designers share in a sense of connection, the designer may be able to combine design skills and site knowledge with an empathic sensitivity to create a compatible design.

Through research into a historic project site, designers may learn that they can work with a historic building to create a compatible design that reflects the best of today and the past. By learning about and analyzing their project building before developing a design, designers may be able to recognize the building's significant qualities and visualize opportunities to integrate both new and existing features into a compatible whole.

If designers can imagine ways they can work with the existing building, connect their new designs to it through appropriate transitions, and emphasize the best features of the old and new, they will have succeeded in creating a compatible design. While much of the design will be informed by their knowledge and ability, the potential importance of creating an emotional connection between the historic building and designer is underscored in recent research in environmental psychology.

Frantz, Mayer, Norton, and Rock researched feelings of connectedness to nature and pro-environmental impulses. For example, participants with a higher sense of connection recycled, donated to environmental charities, and voted for pro-environmental measures (Frantz et al. 2005). Frantz's work begins with an extensive review of psychological literature findings in which one person's feeling of connectedness to another person was shown to increase empathy, caring, and helpfulness. Simply stated, we help those we feel a connection to. Frantz asked if this impulse to help where we feel connected could be extended from a person-to-person connection to one of person-to-environment (Frantz et al. 2005). Through multiple studies it was revealed that people who feel connected to nature, a “we-ness”, also show more pro-environmental impulses. Those who do not feel a connection to nature exhibited significantly lower pro-environmental impulses; those with the lowest feeling of connection were anti-environment.

The logical conclusion from this research is that if designers can make historic buildings part of their “we-ness”, then buildings will benefit. Through their work, designers have the potential to help or damage historic buildings. However, Frantz's research raises the nagging question: “What happens when designers are not connected?” Figure 23.2 illustrates how sense of connection may contribute to compatible design outcomes.

c23-fig-0002 — Figure 23.2 Conceptual framework illustrating how the study's compatibility and sense of connectedness theory combine to support relatively strong compatible design outcomes.

Measuring a Sense of Connectedness

Mayer and Frantz (2004, 2009) introduced their “Connectedness-to-Nature” scale (CNS) as a measure of individuals’ feelings of connectedness and community with nature (Frantz et al. 2005). In their study, they tested their 14-question instrument on large classes of students and members of the community. The CNS was administered as part of a larger study to examine the positive relationship between finding time in nature beneficial and a high CNS score. The test has since been used in several other studies.

Frantz used the scale to examine the connection between nature and a feeling of community or “we-ness.” They found that individuals who can feel a larger connection to nature can also feel a greater connection to the larger community and are less individualistic. This is significant because individuals who feel a connection are more capable of making decisions during difficult environmental dilemmas. Further, these individuals profit from own-group biases toward positive evaluations and greater moral consideration and rights (Devine-Wright and Clayton 2010; Tajfel and Turner 1986).

The results suggest that designers who feel a greater connection to the historic built environment should be better able to make design decisions and consider the historic building more in their decision-making process. This kind of connection could help designers make more sensitive and compatible design decisions in the historic built environment. Nisbet, Zelenski, and Murphy provide further support for the idea that individuals’ sense of connection may explain their personal behavior (Nisbet et al. 2009). In their research they found that individuals with a greater sense of connectedness were more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors such as recycling, donating, and voting for environmental measures.

Milfont and Duckitt have reviewed several measures of environmental attitudes, beliefs, and/or feelings. Almost every instrument they have reviewed is not applicable to other studies because each instrument tests for multiple factors, usually both general and topical concerns, knowledge, and beliefs (Milfont and Duckitt 2010). Unlike other environmental attitude scales, Mayer and Frantz's CNS is particularly appropriate for future interior design research applications because of its single factor (connectedness) analysis, wide past use, and ability to be transformed to test sense of connectedness to something else (Gosling and Williams 2010).

In 2009, Perrin and Benassi published a critical review of the CNS measure based on their five-part study (Perrin and Benassi 2009). They agree with Mayer and Frantz's assessment that the CNS measures one factor; however, Perrin and Benassi argue that the factor is less an emotional than an intellectual connection to nature. Their analysis is based on how the word “feel” is used in the scale and cross-examined with similar scales. They concluded that the CNS “is not a measure of an emotional connection,” but “it taps a connectedness to nature dimension” and “provides a measure of people's beliefs about their connection to nature” (Perrin and Benassi 2009). Perrin and Benassi believe that the CNS may tap a more cognitive, rather than emotional, interest in nature, and elaborate on their analysis by saying it is a useful tool because “an interest in nature motivates a desire to explain and understand phenomena in the natural world” (Perrin and Benassi 2009).

The relationship between intellectual and emotional connections is still being understood in this context. Returning to the historic built environment, it is suggested here that “a desire to explain and understand” the historic built environment could be an excellent first step for a designer trying to develop a compatible design for a historic building. It is suggested that a type of Connectedness-to-Nature scale could be adapted for historic buildings using Frantz's CNS as a guide. Such an adaptation of Frantz's CNS can be seen in Gosling and Williams’ test of connectedness among farmers to their farms, and demonstrates how to modify the context of the CNS instrument while maintaining it as a reliable measure of connectedness (Gosling and Williams 2010).

In their adaptation of the CNS instrument, Gosling and Williams found that farmers who felt a greater sense of connectedness with their farms managed native vegetation differently than those who did not. This finding and Gosling and Williams’ literature review further suggest that connectedness and CNS instruments may be correlated to behavior as well as feelings – all of which are important elements of an interior designer's mental engagement with a historic project.

Significance of a Sense of Connectedness

The literature indicates that current history-teaching practices may not foster a feeling of connection to the historic built environment. Beecher found that history textbooks and class lectures feature a collection of the “unique and elaborate” (Beecher 1998), and Lichtman similarly found that the masterpiece canon focused on exceptional pieces, and textbooks presented each masterpiece as something unique, unrelated to most people's lives either then or now (Lichtman 2009). The masterpiece canon is criticized because it focuses on the products of Caucasian, Euro-American culture; however, unfortunately most attempts to remedy this situation only add examples of the unique and elaborate from other cultures or female designers (Brandt 1998).

Lichtman's research offers a review of several textbooks that discuss furniture and/or objects created by female designers and non-Western cultures in their introduction. Her findings revealed that these books contained only a few new examples and continued to emphasize the exceptional nature of all pieces. In Brandt's case study of an interior design history class it is postulated that the masterpiece canon of Caucasian, male, Euro-American designers and artifacts is increasingly irrelevant to diverse classes of minority and female students (Brandt 1998). To counter this, Brandt introduces designs from diverse sources that highlight different cultures and designers, and presents each site within a set of themes, rather than in chronological order.

In a review of Lichtman's work, Dilnot explains why developing a more diverse collection of masterpieces will not solve the essential problems with this teaching methodology. Underlying the masterpiece collection is the implicit idea of the “other,” and it is this separateness that keeps students from finding relevancy in masterpieces, regardless of the culture or creator (Dilnot 2009). Beginning with two essays, Dilnot has called for faculty to explore teaching methods and content that encourage students to see themselves in history and see historical designs as a source of inspiration, rather than memorization (Dilnot 1984a, 1984b). This philosophy is particularly relevant for historic preservation practice: a designer who feels a connection to historic buildings and history will be more inclined to design for historic structures with empathy.

According to the literature, a feeling of empathy may be significant to the design process. While reviewing designers’ experiences working with clients, Dohr and Portillo state that “design thinking and the experience of interiors are remembered well where empathy is in force” (Dohr and Portillo 2011). Designers feeling empathetic can holistically work with and respond to their clients’ needs; they also remember the project well, and can learn from it (Dohr and Portillo 2011). An emotional connection, including the feeling of empathy, is the extra puzzle piece that helps a project come alive for a designer and affects their design processes over time.

One way to increase connectedness to historic buildings for interior designers and interior design students is by involving them in an historic building project. In a review of environmental research on increasing connectedness to nature, Schultz found that “a considerable amount of environmental research has demonstrated the transforming ability of encounters with nature” and calls for educational activities that will promote a sense of connectedness (Schultz, Schriver, Tabanico, and Khazian 2004). By having a design encounter with historic buildings in a university design studio or through continuing education courses, designers may be positively transformed, thereby increasing their sense of connectedness to the historic built environment and more apt to create compatible design outcomes.

The literature shows that the development of a positive attitude is important for pro-environmental behavior. Hinds and Sparks found the strength of an individual's emotional connection with nature to be a strong predictor of environmental engagement, such as spending time outside and supporting environmentalist causes (Hinds and Sparks 2008). Costarelli and Colloca found attitudinal ambivalence to be one of the strongest predictors of behavioral intentions (Costarelli and Colloca 2004). In other words, unless individuals care, they will not assert themselves in a positive manner. In a related study Whitmarsh found that people who were genuinely concerned with the environment made seemingly pro-environmental life changes (Whitmarsh 2009). However, ignorance of how their actions contribute to global warming led study participants to make life changes with no real beneficial impact on the environment. This finding underscores the need to increase caring and knowledge.

If individuals and designers lack the technical knowledge to truly help, it is not likely that their “best guesses” will have a positive impact. Similarly, Brent, Eubank, Danley, and Graham found that the empathy and desire to help persons with disabilities greatly increased among the interior design students and professionals who participated in their ADA workshop; however, participants’ technical knowledge only increased by 25% after completing the program (Brent et al. 1993). (Follow-up examinations were not conducted to see how time, and practice, affected participants’ knowledge.)

Without more technical knowledge, designers may care about universal design; however, their design decisions will lack the best-practice information that would have allowed them to use their professional capacity to make a positive difference for others. For this reason, one of the main points of this essay is to underscore the significance of caring and learning in relation to the design of historic buildings. It is suggested that through university and continuing education courses designers could become more informed about the relevancy of historic buildings to their design practice and help them develop a connection to the historic built environment.

Frantz's psychological literature review of studies that increased empathy and connectedness between people suggests several sources for inspiration: changing perspectives, stories of personal distress, group identification, finding similarities, and a sense of interdependence. Multiple studies support the effectiveness of each factor to increase connections between people. For example, Story and Forsyth also used person-to-person psychology in an environmental application where they framed environmental engagement with a local watershed as helping behavior (Story and Forsyth 2008).

Psychological factors that increase helping, caring, and empathy could inspire assignments in interior design courses. Many could be integrated within a masterpieces and/or chronological history survey or continuing education course. For example, within a history course, students could change their perspective and write the story of a building's history from its point of view, what it has seen and experienced, or the point of view of its original designers, who saw it when it was new. Through this exercise, students could discover that what they first may have viewed as a dilapidated old dump is instead a building that has a rich history and was loved and created by real people.

Many masterpieces as well as vernacular structures have stories of distress. Some survived bombing in the world wars (European cathedrals), some were used to store explosives and then bombed (the Parthenon), and others experienced vandalism after regime or religious changes (English cathedrals, Afghan Buddhist shrines, Versailles, Incan cities). If history instructors share vivid stories, or designers learn through their own investigation about a building's personal stories, they may become sympathetic and gain personal knowledge of history. In studio projects, design students could learn these stories about their project building, giving them a chance to learn local history while they practice creating a compatible new interior design.

Human and environmental psychological research has identified factors that may increase feelings of empathy, connectedness, and helpfulness. Using this research, interior design faculty could design assignments and present course material to help students develop a sense of connectedness. With a sense of connectedness, students may find relevancy in their learning and practice, connecting their content learning to their studio practice. In turn, students who feel a connection to the historic built environment should be more inclined to work compatibly with it in studio and professional practice.

Compatibility through Connectedness Framework: Unifying the Literature

Historic preservation practice relies on individuals who care about the historic places in their community (Allison and Allison 2008; Dohr and Portillo 2011; NTHP 2011; Place Matters 2007). For decades, preservation, including adaptive reuse of historic structures, has occurred because individuals cared. They wanted to save their historic buildings and help them to remain as active parts of the built community. If an interior designer possesses the same feelings that motivate locals to preserve, their design solutions may show caring and empathy toward the historic building and therefore be more compatible with it.

In this essay, literature was discussed that helps to build a framework for how compatible interior design solutions may be created. As shown in Figure 23.3, the design goal (a compatible design solution) is created by an interior designer with (1) feelings of empathy, caring, and helpfulness and (2) knowledge of the local history and architectural conditions.

c23-fig-0003 — Figure 23.3 Conceptual framework illustrating how the study's compatibility, learning theory, and sense of connectedness combine to support more compatible design outcomes.

In addition to these two components, the designer also needs to be engaged in the design process, with a willingness to keep trying new ideas and to work creatively. An examination of the preservation literature, including texts on how to preserve through architecture and community engagement, revealed the presence of these three qualities – feelings, knowledge, and design process engagement.

If compatibility is a design goal for historic structures, along with the three qualities of feelings, knowledge, and design process engagement, how are these qualities encouraged? Can they be developed? To address these questions, an examination of the relationship between feelings and engagement was undertaken.

According to the literature, feelings of empathy, caring, and helpfulness strengthen people's connections between each other. Feeling empathetic can also improve a designer's ability to work with a client and learn from their design process (Dohr and Portillo 2011). The literature also supports the conclusion that when empathy, caring, and helpfulness exist together a sense of connection is established. This phenomenon is shown as applied to historic structures in Figure 23.3.

These qualities – a feeling of community, desire to understand and explain, positive encounters, and a positive attitude toward historic buildings – may take longer than one project or course to develop; however, practice and learning can form the foundation for interior designers’ burgeoning sense of connectedness.

If these ideas are applied to the historic built environment, designers with a positive emotional connection with historic buildings may spend more time discovering the positive aspects of their historic project building and developing designs to showcase its potential. Both the natural and built environments need active, positive individuals to manage their preservation and future. Having practitioners who care and are passionate about working on historic buildings will result in more compatible designs and more satisfied users and clients. Ongoing education and design practice experiences will also increase the opportunities interior designers need to reconnect with the historic built environment.

Key Terms

The following terms have been provided in an effort to help clarify the discussion and arguments presented in this essay:

Character-defining spatial features The physical features of a building or site that are important to its architectural significance. Example features include roof type, fenestration, ornamentation, materials, or spatial layout. Features can be physical, such as roofing material, or spatial, such as the size and proportions of an auditorium. “Rehabilitation standards focus attention on the preservation of those materials, features, finishes, spaces, and spatial relationships that, together, give a property its historic character” (NPS n.d. (a)).
Compatibility A significant criterion for new construction and rehabilitation in historic buildings and districts. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards do not define compatibility; most local guidelines do not either. The researcher uncovered only two guidelines that directly address the word compatibility. The City of Bolivar historic district guidelines explain compatibility as when a feature is “similar in character to existing or known historic examples” (City of Bolivar n.d.: 2). The University of Florida guidelines explain that compatibility is “based not on individual preferences but on accepted principles of design. These include scale, proportion, massing, materials, color and value, texture, geometric form, and context. Further, understanding of the extant language of detail and form is key to compatibility” (Tate, Dixon, et al. 2007).
Compatibility is not recreating or mimicking a historic or faux-historic interior. Compatibility is the combination of a contemporary interior with the best elements of the historic building. Both historic and contemporary elements are distinct halves of one design. Contemporary interior elements exist in their own right while showcasing the best, most significant, elements of the historic building.
Connectedness An emotional construct explaining a person's feeling of inclusion, we-ness, or connection with other. This term is most often used to explain interpersonal feelings; however, recent research discussed above is exploring how it can be expanded to environments.
Historic building The US Secretary of the Interior's Standards (NPS n.d. (b)) uses the 50-year mark as a guideline to help define significant historic buildings. For the purposes of this study, a historic building refers to any existing building 50 years old or older, regardless of its currently recognized significance. Today, buildings built in the 1960s will qualify as historic structures. Soon, buildings from the 1970s, 1980s, and so on will become historic structures.

References

Allison, E. W. and Allison, M. A. 2008. “Preserving tangible cultural assets: a framework for a new dialog in preservation,” Preservation Education and Research 1: 29–40.
Beecher, M. A. 1998. “Toward a critical approach to the history of interiors,” Journal of Interior Design 24(2): 4–11.
Blakemore, R. 2005. History of Interior Design and Furniture: From Ancient Egypt to Nineteenth-Century Europe (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Blumenson, J. 1990. Identifying American Architecture: A Pictorial Guide to Styles and Terms, 1600–1945 (rev. ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.
Boyer, E. and Mitgang, L. 1996. Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brandt, B. K. 1998. “A thematic approach to teaching design history in a multicultural setting,” Journal of Interior Design 24(2): 17–24.
Brent, R., Eubank, W., Danley, M., and Graham, C. 1993. “Hands-on approach to the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Journal of Interior Design 19(1): 47–50.
Carmel-Gilfinen, C. and Portillo, M. 2010. “Creating mature thinkers in interior design: pathways of intellectual development,” Journal of Interior Design 35(3): 1–20.
Ching, F. 2007. Architecture: Form, Space, Order. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
City of Bolivar. n.d. Historic District Standards and Guidelines. http://www.cityofbolivar.com/HistoricDistrictStandards&Guidelines[1].pdf. Accessed May 8, 2014.
City of Portland Bureau of Planning. 2008. Skidmore/Old Town Historic District Design Guidelines. http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?a=213931&c=48640. Accessed May 8, 2014.
City of Tampa. 2010. Ybor City Historic District Design Guidelines and District Map. http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Historic_Preservation/information_resources/Design_Guidelines/Ybor_Design_Guidelines.asp. Accessed May 20, 2014.
Costarelli, S. and Colloca, P. 2004. “The effects of attitudinal ambivalence on pro-environmental behavioral intentions,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24: 279–288.
Darbee, J., Rechie, N., Rickey, B., Williams, J., and Loversidge, Jr, R. 2009. Miami University Campus Heritage Plan. https://oneness.scup.org/asset/53664/Miami_U_Campus_Heritage_Plan.pdf.Accessed July 11, 2011.
Devine-Wright, P. and Clayton, S. 2010. “Introduction to the special issue: place, identity and environmental behavior,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 267–270.
Dilnot, C. 1984a. “The state of design history. Part I: mapping the field,” Design Issues 1(1): 4–23.
Dilnot, C. 1984b. “The state of design history. Part II: problems and possibilities,” Design Issues 1(2): 3–20.
Dilnot, C. 2009. “Some futures for design history?”, Journal of Design History 22(4): 377–394.
Dohr, J. and Portillo, M. 2011. Design Thinking for Interiors: Inquiry, Experience, Impact. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Flischel, R., ed. 2001. An Expression of the Community: Cincinnati Public Schools Legacy of Art and Architecture. Cincinnati, OH: Art League Press.
Frantz, C., Mayer, F. S., Norton, C., and Rock, M. 2005. “There is no ‘I’ in nature: the influence of self-awareness on connectedness to nature,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 25: 427–436.
Futurevisions. 2004. 2000 Symposium: Historic Preservation and Architecture Education: A Dialogue. American Institute of Architects: Washington DC. http://www.aia.org/practicing/groups/kc/AIAS076343. Accessed May 20, 2014.
Gosling, E. and Williams, J. H. 2010. “Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behavior: testing connectedness theory among farmers,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 298–304.
Hennessey, B. and Amabile, T. 1987. Creativity and Learning: What Research Says to the Teacher. Washington DC: NEA Professional Library.
Hennessey, B. A. and Amabile, T. M. 1988. “Story-telling: a method for assessing children's creativity,” Journal of Creative Behavior 22: 235–246.
Hinds, J. and Sparks, P. 2008. “Engaging with the natural environment: the role of affective connection and identity,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 28: 109–120.
Jandl, H. W. 1988 Preservation Brief 18: Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic Buildings, Identifying and Preserving Character-Defining Elements. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
John Muir College. 2008. Historic Resources Inventory and Preservation Plan. http://muir.ucsd.edu/_files/about/MCPP_Preservation.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2014.
Lichtman, S. 2009. “Reconsidering the history of design survey,” Journal of Design History 22(4): 341–350.
Longstreth, R. 1999. “Architectural history and the practice of preservation in the United States,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 58(3): 326–333.
Malnar, J. M. and Vodvarka, F. 1992. The Interior Dimension: A Theoretical Approach to Enclosed Space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Mayer, F. S. and Frantz, C. M. P. 2004. “The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feelings in community with nature,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(4): 503–515.
Mayer, F. S. and Frantz, C. M. P. 2009. “Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature.” Environment and Behavior 41(5): 607–643.
Milfont, T. L. and Duckitt, J. 2010. “The environmental attitudes inventory: a valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 80–94.
Murtagh, W. 2006. Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Nakamura, J. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2009. “Flow theory and research,” in C. R. Snyder and S. J. Lopez (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 195–206.
NAPC (National Alliance of Preservation Commissions). n.d. Online Design Guidelines. http://www.uga.edu/napc/programs/napc/guidelines.htm. Accessed July 11, 2011.
NCIDQ (National Council for Interior Design Qualification). 2009. NCIDQ Exam Eligibility Requirements. http://www.ncidq.org/Exam/EligibilityRequirements.aspx. Accessed May 20, 2014.
Nelson, L. H. n.d. Preservation Brief 17. Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., and Murphy, S. A. 2009. “The Nature Relatedness Scale: linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior,” Environment and Behavior 41: 715–740.
NPS (National Park Service). n.d. (a). Introduction: Choosing an Appropriate Treatment for a Historic Building. http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/overview/choose_treat.htm. Accessed May 7, 2014.
NPS (National Park Service). n.d. (b). The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/. Accessed October 4, 2010.
NTHP (National Trust for Historic Preservation). 2009. Issues. http://www.preservationnation.org/. Accessed October 20, 2009.

NTHP (National Trust for Historic Preservation). 2011. This Place Matters. http://www.preservationnation.org/take-action/this-place-matters/. Accessed May 7, 2014.

Perrin, J. L. and Benassi, V. A. 2009. “The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of emotional connection to nature?”, Journal of Environmental Psychology 29: 434–440.

Place Matters. 2007. Place Matters. http://www.placematters.net/. Accessed May 7, 2014.

Schultz, P. W., Schriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., and Khazian, A. M. 2004. “Implicit connections with nature,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24: 31–42.

Stipe, R. 2008. A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Story, P. A. and Forsyth, D. R. 2008. “Watershed conservation and preservation: environmental engagement as helping behavior,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 28: 305–317.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. 1986. “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior,” Psychology of Inter-Group Relations 7–24.

Tampa Architectural Review Commission. 2002. Hyde Park Design Guidelines: A Guide to Rehabilitation and New Construction in the Hyde Park Historic District. Tampa Architectural Review Commission: Tampa. http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Historic_Preservation/information_resources/architectural_review_commission/hyde_park_design_guidelines.asp. Accessed March 11, 2010.

Tate, S., Dixon, L., et al. 2007. The University of Florida Campus Preservation Plan with Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction in the Historic Impact Area. Gainesville: University of Florida. http://www.ppd.ufl.edu/HistoricCampusWebsite/pdf/UFPreservationPlan.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2010.

Whitmarsh, L. 2009. “Behavioral responses to climate change: a symmetry of intentions and impacts,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 29: 13–23.