No, I agree, but this is what we call compliance driven work. Or, as my fellow archaeologists and historic preservationists call it, the “Give an archaeologist (or historic preservationist) a job” program.
The building, I am sure, hasn’t technically been placed ON the National Register, it has been deemed eligible. This is the result of the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. In essence, any time federal money or permitting is involved in an activity that either disturbs the ground or a building 50 yrs old or older, the property/building must be assessed for historic significance.
The fact that it has been deemed eligible means that there is a long, costly process involved in going ahead with demolition. Either the school must mitigate the damage by incorporating the building in its current form, move the building (not a real option for many reasons), or take the matter up with either the state historic preservation office or the fed govts. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Personally, I can’t understand why the property would be deemed eligible. A property/arch site must be of extraordinary significance to be considered eligible prior to being 50 years old (ie something like Ground Zero in New York has probably already been listed on the Register). It seems to me that it might have been a favor to the architect in mentioned in the article, who appears to have been a parishoner.
I actually know some of the folks who did these architectural inventories and can’t see who they would consider this eligible otherwise. It’s significance would only be to the local neighborhood, as this architecture is present nationwide. Given the fact that the local neighborhood wants it gone, I’d think the case is shaky…
