[vc_section][vc_row][vc_column][vc_message color=”info” css=””]NPS published an updated version of this document in July 2023 as Best Practices Review Issue 4: Evaluating Common Resources.[/vc_message][/vc_column][/vc_row][/vc_section][vc_section full_width=”stretch_row” full_height=”yes” content_placement=”bottom” css=”.vc_custom_1759263493149{background-image: url(https://deptest.nj.gov/hpo/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/publications-banner.svg?id=17803) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}” min_height=”3em” el_class=”banner-section” el_id=”media-header”][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row” el_class=”banner-overlay”][vc_column][vc_column_text css=””]

Overview

Published March 2020, mailed by NPS’s National Register program to state historic preservation officer staff

For preparers of New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places nominations and fellow SHPO staff.

• Download PDF

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][/vc_section][vc_section el_id=”media-summary”][vc_row][vc_column][vc_empty_space height=”1vw”][vc_message color=”warning” message_box_color=”warning” icon_fontawesome=”” css=””]

This paper is intended to supplement not replace information in the National Register Bulletins and other NPS publications. If discrepancies are found between this paper and other NPS publications, the guidance in existing publications should be considered correct. Comments are welcome and should be directed to the author. After review and discussion, the substance of this paper may be incorporated into future publications.

[/vc_message][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row”][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_single_image source=”featured_image” img_size=”large” style=”vc_box_shadow” onclick=”link_image” css=””][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text css=””]

Summary

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=””]Created by NJ AI Assistant (GPT-4o) and edited by NJHPO staff.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner el_class=”hpo-callout-text”][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text css=”” el_class=”hpo-intro-paragraph”]This white paper is about evaluating common resources for eligibility on the National Register of Historic Places. These resources are so widespread that figuring out their historical value can be tricky. For the purposes of this discussion, NPS defines these resources as follows:[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=””]

• Common resources can be defined as any property type that is ubiquitous and, therefore, difficult to evaluate. … Common property types can be urban or rural and can be prevalent on a local, regional, or statewide basis.
• A property type is a group of individual properties characterized by common physical attributes, such as style, size, scale, proportions, design, architectural details, and methods of construction. … Property types are united by shared historical or cultural attributes, such as relationships to important persons, activities and events, dates of construction, and cultural affiliations.

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=””]A key point is that while some resources might seem ordinary now, they might have been more significant in the past. Other resource types, such as one-room schoolhouses, were once common but are now disappearing, so NPS suggests not using today’s strict standards for integrity when evaluating once-common but now rare resources, like one-room schoolhouses.

The paper emphasizes using a structured method called the Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF) to create a solid historical context for these resources. Writing this type of historic context involves doing a lot of background research to understand the history and significance of the property type.

For common property types, the white paper recommends creating detailed context statements and defining property subtypes. This helps in making the evaluation process more manageable and fairer. It also highlights the importance of setting clear registration and integrity requirements to determine if a resource is eligible for the National Register.

The paper also advises that some common resources might be better evaluated as part of historic districts, rather than individually, to capture their significance within a larger context. Overall, the white paper stresses the need for thorough research and careful analysis to avoid subjective evaluations and ensure that only truly significant properties are recognized.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″ css=”.vc_custom_1758815062001{margin-bottom: 32px !important;}”][info-box-shortcode icon=”fa fa-solid fa-rectangle-list” title=”Table of Contents”]

• Introduction
• A Familiar Approach
• A Strong Context Statement
• Establish Property Subtypes
• Individual Listing based on Common Architectural Styles or Vernacular Plan Types
  • Celine and Albert Goddard House [South Dakota; NRIS # 10002102]
  • Singhi Double House [Maine; NRIS # 100003589]
• Historic Districts: A Strategy if Individual Properties Lack Distinction
• Registration and Integrity Requirements
• Summary

[/info-box-shortcode][/vc_column][/vc_row][/vc_section][vc_section el_id=”end-spacer”][vc_row][vc_column][vc_empty_space height=”4vw”][/vc_column][/vc_row][/vc_section]