Gauging the Relationship between

Contextual Growth and Structural

Neglect 2nd Edition Dr. Galen Newman
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/gauging-the-relationship-between-contextual-growth-
and-structural-neglect-2nd-edition-dr-galen-newman/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The causal relationship between urbanization and

economic growth in US Fresh evidence from the Toda
Yamamoto approach 2nd Edition Dr. Andisheh Saliminezhad

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-causal-relationship-between-
urbanization-and-economic-growth-in-us-fresh-evidence-from-the-
toda-yamamoto-approach-2nd-edition-dr-andisheh-saliminezhad/

Structural Renovation of Buildings: Methods, Details,

and Design Examples 2nd Edition Alexander Newman

https://textbookfull.com/product/structural-renovation-of-
buildings-methods-details-and-design-examples-2nd-edition-
alexander-newman/

The Space Between Experience Context and Process in the

Therapeutic Relationship 1st Edition Carmel Flaskas

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-space-between-experience-
context-and-process-in-the-therapeutic-relationship-1st-edition-
carmel-flaskas/

Frog Pond Philosophy Essays on the Relationship Between

Humans and Nature Strachan Donnelley

https://textbookfull.com/product/frog-pond-philosophy-essays-on-
the-relationship-between-humans-and-nature-strachan-donnelley/
The Legacy of Bosman Revisiting the Relationship
Between EU Law and Sport 1st Edition Antoine Duval

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-legacy-of-bosman-revisiting-
the-relationship-between-eu-law-and-sport-1st-edition-antoine-
duval/

What Predicts Divorce? : The Relationship Between

Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes 1st Edition John
Gottman

https://textbookfull.com/product/what-predicts-divorce-the-
relationship-between-marital-processes-and-marital-outcomes-1st-
edition-john-gottman/

The Goodness Paradox The Strange Relationship Between

Virtue and Violence in Human Evolution Richard Wrangham

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-goodness-paradox-the-
strange-relationship-between-virtue-and-violence-in-human-
evolution-richard-wrangham/

The subject of experience First Edition Galen Strawson

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-subject-of-experience-first-
edition-galen-strawson/

Mental Health Uncertainty and Inevitability:

Rejuvenating the Relationship between Social Science
and Psychiatry 1st Edition Hugh Middleton

https://textbookfull.com/product/mental-health-uncertainty-and-
inevitability-rejuvenating-the-relationship-between-social-
science-and-psychiatry-1st-edition-hugh-middleton/
 Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs
2018, Volume 2, Number 2, pages 33–45

Gauging the Relationship between Contextual

Growth and Structural Neglect
*
Dr. GALEN NEWMAN 1,Dr. MICHELLE MEYER 2, Dr. BOAH KIM 3and Dr. RYUN JUNG LEE 4
1, 3, 4 Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, USA
2 Department of Sociology, Louisiana State University, USA
E MAIL: gnewman@arch.tamu.edu E mail:mmeyer@lsu.edu , E mail: boah.kim@gmail.com E mail: ryunjunglee@gmail.com

A R T I C L E I N F O: ABSTRACT
Article history: Population and land use out-migrations from urban to peripheral areas can result
Received 10October 2017 in non-functional, unmaintained historic structures which deteriorate to the point
Accepted 16 August 2017 where removal is cheaper than removal – or demolition by neglect. The increasing
Available online 16October rate of neglected historic structures is a growing concern. There is a need for
2017 research investigating connections between urban growth management and its
Keywords: effect on neglect. This paper applies Newman’s (2013) conceptual model of
Historic preservation; measuring neglect to Geographic Information Systems, comparing rates of neglect
Structural neglect; in historic Doylestown, Quakertown, and Bristol boroughs in Pennsylvania, USA
Correlation; utilizing different amounts of peripheral agricultural preservation. Comparisons are
Geographic made examining descriptive statistics on existing conditions, a Polychoric
information systems; correlation evaluating relationships between drivers of neglect, and a cross-
Urban growth. comparative GIS spatial analysis. Results indicate as amounts of peripheral
preserved farmlands increase, neglect can be lowered.
This work is licensed under a
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS (2018) 2(2), 33-45.
Creative Commons Attribution
https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.3669
- NonCommercial- NoDerivs 4.0.
"CC-BY-NC-ND" www.ijcua.com
Copyright © 2017 Journal Of Contemporary Urban Affairs. All rights reserved.

1. Urban Dynamics and Heritage Neglect fundamentally connected; he also states that
Forrester (1969) theorizes that the city is a living these connections are, however, not fully
organism whose form takes its shape as the result understood. Local policies do not conserve built
of a combination of external forces. Further, heritage fully (Pickerill & Pickard, 2007). For
actions and interactions of cultures are a product example, evidence from historic areas in
of the desires, necessities, and values of a city’s Germany has shown that contextual economic
actors and give meaning to its form (Newman, and political changes significantly impact
2015). This theory presupposes that historically preserved buildings (Alberts & Brinda ,
comprehension of the built environment must be 2005)
considered in conjunction with the understanding Historic preservation has a primary objective to
of both exogenous and endogenous factors and protect structures and districts of historic prestige
their causal relations(Ben-Hamouche,
*Corresponding Author:
2013).Listokin(1997) takes this theory a step further, Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas
positing that growth management and A&M University, USA
preservation of the built environment are
E-mail address: gnewman@arch.tamu.edu
 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
from alteration, degradation, and demolition
(Ben-Hamouche, 2013). Historic urban areas
require high levels of support to retain structural
viability, safeguard the integrity of heritage
structures, and stimulate local economies. Urban
spatial change is largely tied to alterations in
contextual land uses, threatening many elements
within the historic built environment.
Simultaneously, many urban fringe areas (such as
farmlands), the settings of historic urban buildings,
are also threatened. As such, regulations now go
beyond local preservation policies and include
larger scaled contextual approaches for heritage
management (Collins, Waters, & Dotson, 1991).
Centrifugal development has effected many
urban historic buildings, in many cases resulting in
their removal. Urban sprawl can create a uniform
spatial form across cities and destroy much
structural heritage in its wake (Treib, 2008; Yahner
& Nadenicek, 1997). Urban expansion can
accelerate the loss of historic buildings because
of a lack of utility, a process referred to as
demolition by neglect (DBN). DBN is the removal
of a historic building or structure due to
prolonged vacancy and extreme maintenance
issues (Leatherbarrow & Mostafavi, 1993).
The capabilities of historic preservation policies to
assist in retaining historic character and function
in heritage buildings is highly dependent on the
examination of process and changes within
urbanized areas and their surrounding contexts
(Alderson, 2006; Cook, 1996). Since urban
contexts are constantly in flux, form and function
rarely coincide in any environment for an
extended period of time (Jackson, 1997).
Contemporary historic preservation theory gives
priority to form through the pursuit of historic
integrity. An unfortunate outcome of this position
is that if a historic building loses its function in
contemporary society, it can also eventually be
removed. Luckily, adaptive reuse and
rehabilitation efforts have increased recently,
leading to small upsurges in historic structure
retainance in some localities (Newman, 2015).
Many U.S. historic structures are policed on a unit-
by-unit basis and are then analyzed based on
whether or not they appear as they once did at a
given historical time (or based on their historic
integrity). Jigyasu (2002), notes that historic
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 34
structures have two fundamental dimensions:
historic integrity, and a relationship to the
contextual environment with which they interact.
A vital approach to the preservation of historic
buildings lies with the ability to managing the
individually with local policy (internally) and
successful management of regional land use
changes (externally). Therefore, the examination
of the individual structure and its dynamic setting
must occur if neglect can be fully understood.
(Listokin, Listokin, & Lahr, 1998; Pickerill & Armitage,
2009).
The shift toward a more dynamic management
of historic structures must focus on adaptive
reuse, rehabilitation, and land use management.
American historic preservation can differ from
European approaches due to a stronger
emphasis on local regulations in the U.S., while
many European cities practice an area-based
approach (Doratli, 2005). Area-based strategies
can increase non-government funding, allow for
greater expansions in historic districts, increase
private sector investment in historic regeneration
projects, and increase heritage rehabilitation in
marginalized neighborhoods (Pickerill & Armitage,
2009). In the U.S., broader heritage management
approaches are typically regulatory or incentive-
based. Regulatory measures, such as state
regulated monetary penalties, generally involve
punishment for allowing neglect to occur or
continue. South Dakota statutes makes willful
neglect a misdemeanor; in West Virginia, local
landmark commissions enforce standards for the
maintenance of landmarks; San Francisco,
California can assess a $500 per day penalty to
owners who allow neglect to occur (National Trust
for Historic Preservation, 2008).
Listokin (1997) theory suggests that local polices,
when used in a singular approach, will not
adequately result in conserved built heritage in
the long-term(Alberts & Brinda, 2005; Pickerill &
Pickard, 2007). Contemporary research reinforces
this position, but shows a separation between
historic preservation and external land use
management (Avrami, 2012). Historic buildings
are just one component within a larger, ever-
changing system; if both aims are focused to
align to one goal, only then will the system be
mutually beneficial properly (Newman & Saginor,
 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
2014). Cassar (2009) suggests that historic
preservation requires new research to aid in the
understanding of how traditional buildings
behave in environmental systems, if structural
performance is to be improved.
Newman’s (2013) conceptual model for
measuring neglect takes a systems approach to
measuring areas of the historic built environment.
It is a method to begin to compare neglect rates
across cities and historic districts to initialize the
exploration of the effects of strategies for
managing contextual growth and techniques to
preserve the historic built environment. It is a
framework for measuring neglect, based on
Listokin’s(1997) theory of urban dynamics. The
model is a means to begin to examine area
based approaches for regulating historic areas
through the surveyance and analysis of neglect
of the built environment, specifically in regards to
historic buildings. Newman’s model (2013) uses
dimensions of integrity and viability from Listokin’s
(1997) theory to measure the rate of demolition
by neglect. It is the only model currently utilized to
measure this phenomenon. A synergetic
relationship between urbanization and historic
preservation can be eventually realized through
increased application of the model. While the
original model was developed and assessed
through qualitative analysis, newer methods of
analysis using Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) should also be employed for more thorough
spatial analyses.
2. Geographic information Systems in Heritage
Management
GIS are powerful spatial tools using
computational technologies which allow for
storing altering, creating,, displaying and
overlaying spatial data (Limp, 1999). They offer
the possibility to simultaneously store, organize,
map and represent, manage, and analyze data
concerning geographic locales and their context
while. This allows for a much more thorough
spatial analysis of an historic urban area
(Burrough & McDonnell, 1988). While information
obtained from surveyance or research can be
applied to generate new databases, the
innovative tools involved with the program have
been used too sparingly in historic built
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 35
environment studies, typically involving analyses
involving chronological historical spatial data
combined with statistical assessments (Kvamme,
1993).
The field of archaeology, studying human
activities of the past and their resultant material
culture, has dominated the used of GIS in regards
to historic preservation based research (Kaimaris,
Sylaiou, Georgoula, & Patias, 2011). While
archaeologists globally have recognized the
possibilities GIS can offer and applied its
analytical tools in countries outside of America
such as Scotland (Murray, 1995), France (Guillot &
Leroy, 1995) and Holland (Roorda & Wiemer,
1992), preservationists applying GIS to solve the
issues of current development patterns on
neglected heritage structures are nearly non-
existent. Remote sensing applications, satellite
imagery set the stage for initial historic structure
analysis (Doneus, 2001) but as data sources have
grown, new statistical analysis and multi-scalar
analyst tools have been created to move
beyond traditional GIS based approaches.
Cultural resource management professionals
have relied upon these databases for years to
ensure the protection and preservation of
valuable historic information (Box, 2003). GIS data
can also be used as a way of distilling priorities for
management decisions. For example, the Almería
Province in Spain utilizes its cultural and heritage
inventory data to assess the rehabilitation
potential of buildings and has established a
priority order for their reuse for a ‘decision index’
which corresponds to the considerations of each
building (Cano, Garzon, & Sanchez-Soto, 2013).
This makes each management decision unique to
its corresponding heritage structure.
In regards to the historic built environment, GIS
have been primarily applied for landscape
visualization, viewshed impact assessment, multi-
scale synthesis, spatial sampling, and forecast
modelling. GIS must become more common in
urban heritage studies to help synthesize efforts
land use planning, environmental management
and a variety of historic analyses; a new set of
methods needs to be developed which may
require preservationists to alter the way asses the
historic built environment through expanding its
scope beyond individual built units (Limp, 1999).

3. Research Questions and Methodology
This research uses GIS to determine if contextual
land use management helps deter neglect within
the historic built environment. It seeks to answer
the question, what relationship does farmland
preservation have on neglect within historic urban
areas? It is hypothesized that preserving fringe
farmlands as a policy for external land use
management can aid in increasing viable
buildings within historic urbanized boroughs.
The urban boroughs analyzed – Bristol,
Quakertown, and Doylestown – are all historic
colonial cities in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, USA.
Pennsylvania uses farmland preservation to aid in
the conservation of the historic character of its
boroughs and townships as a means of
countering the effects of sprawl. Bucks County
lost 70% of its agricultural properties from 1950-
1997 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2005). The
entire region was ranked second in the U.S when
ranked according to areas with farmlands
threatened to conversion (Olson & Lyson,
1999)(Bourke, Jacob, & Luloff, 1996). Bucks Count,
is a contested landscape characterized by rapid
land consumption and conversion. It is in
southeast Pennsylvania within an area suffering
from threatened farmland and concentrations of
historic teardowns. From 1985 to 1995,
Pennsylvania lost an area of farmland the size of
Delaware to development while populations
declined in many inner cities (Hylton, 1995). To
counteract decentralization, the state enacted
agricultural preservation as a primary means of
managing growth
Table 1. Similarities of Cases under Investigation
Variable Doylestown
Population 8227
Size 2.2m2
Date Founded 1745
# of Preserved Farms 46
Total Acreage of
3323.38
Preserved Farmland
Agricultural Preservation Purchase
Strategy Development Rights
National Register Listing Yes
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 36
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
Each borough under investigation is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places (National Trust
for Historic Preservation, 2008) and is
approximately two-square-miles in size; similar
polices for preserving farmlands are also
practiced (purchase of development rights).
Evaluating units of analysis within an identical
county with analogous geographic sizes,
populations, and ages helps to control for other
intervening variables. We utilized the central
place theory (King, 1984) to outline an external
boundary for each borough to determine the
highest impacted areas for the context
according to town centers with this particular size
and population (Table 1). Within this boundary,
we calculated the total quantity of preserved
agricultural lands which encircled each borough.
Newman’s model (2013) of calculating neglect is
applied using (Figure 1) GIS based tools. It
combines dimensions of integrity and viability
using five factors: 1) timeframe of construction
(when the building was built), 2) architectural
modification (how much the building has been
altered since construction), 3) land use change
(how much the building’s function has changed),
4) physical condition (the condition of each
building), and 5) assessed value (the fair market
value). A 95% confidence level was reached
based on the sample size and clustered,
multistage area random sampling was utilized to
survey each building (Montello & Sutton, 2006).
Each factor was then measured by scoring three
characteristics.
Quakertown Bristol
8688 9923
2.0 m2 1.9 m2
1803 1720
13 1
1057.27 99.9
of Purchase of Purchase of
Development Rights Development Rights
Yes Yes
 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018

The evaluation of conservation planning requires occurrence of neglect. Characteristics accepted

measurement on multiple scales for meaningful
analysis (Nijkamp, 1991). The research utilized
three scales of analysis: an inventory presenting
descriptive statistics of the measures utilized to
assess variables, a Polychoric correlation to assess
relationships of variables, and GIS spatial analyses
which combining geocoding, reclassification of
attributes, Hot Spot Analysis, Inverse Distance
Weighted (IDW) interpolation, Weighted Suitability
overlays. The inventory describes conditions on a
building by building scale; the correlation
examined which variables impacted DBN
significantly; and the comparison analyzed the
relationship between DBN and amount of
preserved agricultural lands. An ordinal scale was
used in the inventory and GIS analyses to assign
attributed to each building surveyed. Higher
overall totals in summed scores indicated a lower
of each measure per variable were then
evaluated using percentages as a means of
inventorying conditions.
The scores for the five variables were then
summed to evaluate structural neglect on a
building scale. The total score of a given building
could range from 5 to 15. Neglected buildings
had point ranges from 5 to 8, transitory buildings
had score ranges from 9 to 12, and viable
structures had scores ranging from 13 to 15. The
relationship with each factor contributing to DBN
neglect was assumed to be (as sums were
greater, DBN was lessened), a Polychoric
correlation was utilized to test correlation. The
variables utilized to assess neglect were
correlated with their overall impact in a specific
location within the sample frame.

Figure 1. Newman’s Model of Measuring Neglect.

After individual building totals were mapped as
point values, the cross-case comparison used GIS
analyses to identify and map larger-scaled areas
of the built environment which were neglected.
Hot spot analysis was performed for each spatially
located variable and an IDW was performed
from the hot spot analysis. Each hot spot analysis
map was then overlaid using suitability modeling
which was weighted to identify both neglected
and viable spaces.

Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 37
 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018

4. Findings Quakertown had 3.1% of its buildings neglected

4.1. Inventory of Conditions
Each borough under investigation displayed
analogous patterns during the building-scaled
inventory (Table 2). The largest percentage of
buildings built from 1971 to present was occupied
by Doylestown (60%), but a large proportion of
these buildings were also vacant (69%). Over one-
half of the sampled buildings were provided new
land uses through adaptive reuse (60%);
simultaneously Doylestown has a large proportion
of its buildings in good condition (86%).
Quakertown had a large percentage of its
buildings erected from 1940 to 1970 (36%) and
also show a large degree of vacancy (64%).
Relatedly, a large proportion of its built
environment was also experiencing dilapidation
(74%). The assessed value of structures with
occupants was generally above market average
(47%). Bristol, has the lowest proportion of newly
erected buildings (44%) but the highest vacancy
percentage (80%). While 65% were renovated,
67% were considered dilapidated. Bristol, on the
other hand, had a relatively high amount of
buildings above market mean value (93%). The
lowest proportion of buildings that were
neglected belonged to Doylestown (1.5%),
and Bristol had 9.1% (Table 3). The portion of
transitory structures were all extremely similar
across boroughs while Bristol had a low proportion
of buildings that were viable (9.1%.)
4.2. Correlational Results
We performed polychoric correlation analyses for
ordinal variables to measure the relationship
between the five variables (Table 4). We notice
an interesting result – the variables show positive
and negative correlations. Specifically, land use
change and building condition are negatively
correlated with time frame of construction and
architectural modification. This result is intuitive
when we consider how the variables are
measured. For example, this result means that
newer buildings are more likely to have
continuous land use and be well-composed. The
only statistically significant correlations are
between architectural medication and time
frame of construction (0.697)—indicating that
buildings that are modern are more likely to be
newer buildings—and architectural modification
and land use change (-0.094)—indicating
buildings that are modern structures are more
likely to have continuous land use.

Table 2. Inventory of measures accepted for structures sampled per town.

Doylestown Quakertown Bristol Overall

Count Rate Count Rate Count Rate Count Rate
Time Frame of a1 = 1971-present 12 0.185 17 0.258 11 0.200 40 0.215
Construction
a2 = 1941-1970 14 0.215 17 0.257 20 0.364 51 0.274

a3 = 1900-1940 39 0.60 32 0.485 24 0.436 95 0.511

Total 65 1 66 1 55 1 186 1
Land Use b1 = Vacant 2 0.031 7 0.106 8 0.146 17 0.091
Change b2 = Alternate Use 18 0.277 17 0.258 5 0.091 40 0.215

b3 = Continuous 45 0.692 42 0.636 42 0.764 129 0.69.4

Total 65 1 66 1 55 1 186 1
Architectural c1 = Modern 11 0.169 15 0.227 10 0.182 36 0.194
Modification c2 = Modified 39 0.600 43 0.652 35 0.636 117 0.629
c3 = Authentic 15 0.231 8 0.121 10 0.182 33 0.177
Total 65 1 66 1 55 1 186 1
Physical d1 = Dilapidated 0 0 1 0.015 5 0.091 6 0.032

Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 38
 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018

Condition d2 = Moderate 8 0.123 13 0.197 14 0.255 35 0.188

d3 = Well 57 0.877 52 0.788 36 0.655 145 0.780
Composed
Total 65 1 66 1 55 1 186 1
e1 = $0 - 81,000 52 0.800 31 0.470 51 0.927 134 0.720
Assessed e2 = $82,000 -
9 0.139 25 0.379 1 0.018 35 0.188
Value 162,000
e3 = $163,000 -
4 0.061 10 0.151 3 0.055 17 0.092
243,000
Total 65 1 66 1 55 1 186 1

Table 3. Neglected and viable structures per town.

Doylestown Quakertown Bristol

n % n % n %
Neglected (5-8) 1 1.5 2 3.1 5 9.1
Transitory (9-12) 52 80 51 78.5 45 81.8
Viable (13-15) 12 18.5 12 18.5 5 9.1

Table 4. Polychoric Correlation Analysis Output.

Land Use Architectural Building Assessed
Change Modification Condition Value
Time Frame of Polychoric Correlation -0.016 0.697** -0.014 0.126
Construction Sig. (2-tailed) 0.065 0.000 0.110 0.792
Land Use Polychoric Correlation 1 -0.094** 0.241 -0.248
Change Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.019 0.969
Architectural Polychoric Correlation 1 -0.211 -0.047
Modification Sig. (2-tailed) 0.592 0.383
Building Polychoric Correlation 1 -0.026
Condition Sig. (2-tailed) 0.750
**α<0.01; *α<0.05

Table 5. Explanation of Variances.

Cumulative Variance
Measure Eigenvalue Variance Explained
Explained

1 1.77 0.354 0.354

2 1.3 0.259 0.614

3 1.01 0.203 0.817

To understand how these five variables can be
combined into, we ran polychoric principle
component analysis. In Table 5, we notice that
the selected variables explain three underlying
aspects of neglect with Eigenvalues above 1 for
three factors. These three factors together explain
over 80 percent of the variance in the neglect
scores among units. As expected from the
correlation matrix, the variables Time Frame of
Construction and Architectural Modification
indicate one similar factor of neglect and load on
the first factor. The other three variables, Land Use
Change, Building Condition, and Assessed Value,
load onto both factors 2 and 3.
Because all five variables relate to our
conceptual understanding of neglect and the
lack of one clear factor, we choose to combine
them into one rate of neglect. There are various

Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 39
 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018

methods to create a combined index score,
including weighting variables based on the
correlation matrix or polychoric factor analysis
results. Because of the limited ordinal scaling of
the variables (i.e., only values of 1, 2, and 3) and
the smaller sample size (n=186), we are
concerned about strongly interpreting these
results. Thus, we chose simplicity in this exploratory
analysis of neglect rating and sum the scores of
the five variables. We reverse code timeframe of
construction and architectural modification
because of their negative correlations with the
other variables. The scores could range from 5 (a
building scored 1 on every variable) to 15 (a
building scored 3 on every variable). Overall, our
actual rate of neglect scores range from 6 to 15,
with a mean of 11 and standard deviation of 1.61.
In Table 6, we show the rates of average neglect
for each town. All three towns have similar rates
of neglect, but Bristol shows the highest rates with
an average score per structure of 10.55. Only 1
building in our study scored the maximum of 15,
and it is in Doylestown (Table 6).

Table 6. Output of IDW and Neglect Rate Comparisons.

Output of IDW and Neglect Rates Doylestown Quakertown Bristol
Neglected (Black) (<-2.58)
(-2.58 - 1.96) 22.21% 18.37% 37.58%
(-1.96 - 1.65)
Grey (Transitory) (-1.65 - 1.65) 29.41% 57.45% 60.20%
Viable (White) (1.65 - 1.96)

(1.96 - 2.58) 48.38% 24.18% 2.22%

(> 2.58)
Range 15-8 14-8 13-7

Mean per Structure (SD)

11.28 (1.57) 11.11 (1.54) 10.55 (1.68)
Total Score/Sample Size
Rate of Avg. Neglect
24.80% 25.90% 29.70%
(Mean/15) – 100%

4.3. Cross-Case GIS Analysis
Each building surveyed was geocoded using its
address, new fields were created as attributes
using the data obtained, maps were created
according the attributed developed, and then
Hotspot and IDW tools were applied. High z-
scores, hot spots, designated areas which with
clustered neglect. The IDW combined points
created from each building surveyed and
suitability models were then run with equal
weighting. The suitability maps read where darker
areas represent and lighter areas are less
neglected (Figure 2, 3, and 4). Doylestown has
nearly one half of its area as viable and a very
low proportion of neglected area (48.38% and
22.21%, respectively) (Table 6). Quakertown has
nearly one quarter of its space as viable and
nearly one fifth neglected (24.18% and 18.37%,
respectively) and Bristol has relatively no viable
space and over one third of its area neglected
(2.22% and 37.58%, respectively) (Table 6).

Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 40
 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018

Figure 2. Doylestown Hot Spot Analysis.

Figure3. Quakertown Hot Spot Analysis.

Figure 4. Bristol Hot Spot Analysis.

Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 42
 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
5. Conclusions and Outlook
This research sought to determine if external land
use management could help deter the process of
demolition by neglect in the historic built
environment, specifically focusing on the
alteration of viability rates and the characteristics
of neglect as land preservation increased or
decreased. Results indicate as amounts of
peripheral preserved land increased, viable areas
increase while rates of neglect decreased. As
fringe farmland preserves increased by city, the
overall ratio of viable structures increased, the
amount of individual neglected structures
structures had changed over time in an effort to
keep them viable. However, each borough also
displayed a high proportion of vacancies, with
Bristol experiencing the highest. The relationship of
timeframe of construction and architectural
modification indicates if historic structures are
present, modification of the area’s structural
integrity may be necessary to keep it vital through
time. This presents preservationists with a tough
predicament– a battle between integrity and
viability.
Historic buildings and vacancy rates were
relatively high across all cases. Also, while amount
of retained historic buildings was larger as amount
of farmland preserves increased, changes in
function per retained building were also quite
high, suggesting that if a town is to retain heritage
structures, adaptive reuse could be a key factor
in decreasing the neglect of these retained
structures while contributing to their viability. This
condition suggests that that while external land
use management can help contain cities to
retain historic buildings, population stability and
land use consistency cannot be soundly
proclaimed to be heavily affected.
For these reasons, it cannot be soundly stated
that external land preservation has a direct
influence on increasing viability in historic areas.
However, exogenous approaches to managing
the historic built environment are a necessary to
deter the process of neglect, but need to be
implemented as part of a multi-combinational
approach involving adaptive reuse and land use
and incentive policies. Studies linking heritage
preservation to broader regional land use
strategies need to be continually explored, and
decreased, the rate of average neglect
decreased, but the overall proportion of the area
of the built environment in need of immediate
regeneration was not necessarily smaller.
This suggests that external land use management
strategies can have an indirect effect on neglect
rates in historic areas. Hot Spot Analyses
supported the hypothesis - as amount of
agricultural preservation increased, there was an
increase in viability. While all three towns had high
ratios of historic structures, many of the land uses
in these
the current paradigm shift should be accepted as
a pliable avenue of examination. Local
preservation policies need to begin to determine
which broad-scale practices fit best into their
smaller scale preservation efforts to produce a
multi-combinational/multi-scalar approach.
Acknowledgments
This research did not receive any specific grant
from funding agencies in the public, commercial,
or non-for-profit sectors.
References
Alberts, H. C., &Brinda, M. R. (2005). Changing
approaches to historic preservation in
Quedlinburg, Germany. Urban Affairs Review,
40(3), 390-401.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087404267618
Alderson, C. R. (2006). Responding to context:
Changing perspectives on appropriate change
in historic settings. APT Bulletin, 37(4), 22-33.
Available at:
https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publication
s_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/cahe_bibliogr
aphy.pdf
Avrami, E. C. (2012). A systems approach to
historic preservation in an era of sustainability
planning. Rutgers University-Graduate School-
New Brunswick.
https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-
lib/37522/
Ben-Hamouche, M. (2013). The paradox of urban
preservation: Balancing permanence and
changeability in old Muslim cities. Journal of
Urbanism: International Research on
Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 6(2), 192-
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 43
 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018

212. Studies, 13(5), 749-772.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.820213 https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500139558
Bourke, L., Jacob, S., &Luloff, A. (1996). Response Forrester, J. W. (1969). Urban dynamics.
to Pennsylvania's agricultural preservation Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Programs. Rural sociology, 61(4), 606-629. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/168/393
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549- 2/693
0831.1996.tb00636.x Guillot, D., & Leroy, G. (1995). The use of GIS for
Box, P. (2003). Safeguarding the plain of jars: archaeological resource management in
Megaliths and unexploded ordnance in the Lao France: The SCALA Project, with a case-study in
People’s Democratic Republic. Journal of GIS in Picardie. London: Taylor and Francis.
Archaeology, 1, 90-102. Available at: https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=ZPTLjMLSc
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2640 -
48630_Safeguarding_the_Plain_of_Jars_megaliths UC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=The+use+of+GIS+f
_and_unexploded_ordnance_in_the_Lao_Peopl or+archaeological+resource+management+in+F
e%27s_Democratic_Republic rance:+The+SCALA+Project,+with+a+case-
Burrough, P. A., & McDonnell, R. A. (1988). study+in+Picardie&source=bl&ots=ivPcYE1ji0&sig
Principles of geographical information systems: =_-
Oxford University Press. Available at: UGvwYZ5wB8SvoVuL5wRz2peV8&hl=tr&sa=X&ve
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d8e0/b6b225b d=2ahUKEwit2-
36cac23608b41a51e13ddb2746cbd.pdf rprazfAhXFmIsKHWnYBioQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v
Cano, M., Garzon, E., & Sanchez-Soto, P. (2013). =onepage&q&f=false
Historic preservation, GIS, & rural development: Hylton, T. (1995). Save our land, save our towns: a
The case of Almería province, Spain. Applied plan for Pennsylvania: Rb Books.
Geography, 42, 34-47. http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/guides/saveguide.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.04.014 pdf
Cassar, M. (2009). Sustainable heritage: challenges Jackson, J. B. (1997). Landscape in sight: looking at
and strategies for the twenty-first century, APT America: Yale Univrsity Press.
Bulletin. Journal of Preservation Technology, https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300071160
40(1), 3-11. Available at: /landscape-sight
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/18790/1/18790.pdf Jigyasu, R. (2002). Monuments and sites in their
Collins, R. C., Waters, E. B., & Dotson, A. B. (1991). setting: Conserving cultural heritage in changing
America's downtowns: Growth, politics and townscapes and landscapes. Paper presented
preservation. In Politics and Preservation. at the International Centre for the Study of the
Washington, D.C: The Preservation Press. Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
https://www.amazon.com/Americas- (ICCROM) Symposium, India.
Downtowns-Growth-Politics- http://openarchive.icomos.org/387/
Preservation/dp/0471144991 Kaimaris, D., Sylaiou, S., Georgoula, O., &Patias, P.
Cook, R. E. (1996). Is landscape preservation an (2011). GIS of landmarks management. Journal
oxymoron. Paper presented at the George of Cultural Heritage, 12(1), 65-73.
Wright Forum. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.09.001
http://www.georgewright.org/131cook.pdf King, L. J. (1984). Central Place Theory. In. Beverly
Doneus, M. (2001). Precision mapping and Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
interpretation of oblique aerial photographs. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bo
Archaeological Prospection, 8(1), 13-27. ok/lookupid?key=olbp64142
https://doi.org/10.1002/1099- Kvamme, K. L. (1993). Spatial statistics and GIS: An
0763(200103)8:1<13::aid-arp158>3.0.co;2-# integrated approach. Aarhus: Aarhus University
Doratli, N. (2005). Revitalizing historic urban Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.15496/publikation-
quarters: A model for determining the most 2569
relevant strategic approach. European Planning

Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 44
 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018

Leatherbarrow, D., &Mostafavi, M. (1993). On Economics, 15(1), 1-27.

weathering: The life of buildings in time. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF022
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 67399
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Weathering-Life- Olson, R. K., &Lyson, T. A. (1999). Under the blade:
Buildings-Time-Press/dp/026263144X The conversion of agricultural landscapes.
Limp, W. F. (1999). Geographic information systems Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
in historic preservation. Archives and Museum https://www.amazon.com/Under-Blade-
Informatics, 13(3-4), 325-340. Conversion-Agricultural-
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4145-5_10 Landscapes/dp/0813335973
Listokin, D. (1997). Growth management and Pickerill, T., & Armitage, L. (2009). The management
historic preservation: Best practices for synthesis. of built heritage: A comparative review of
The Urban Lawyer, 199-213. policies and practice in Western Europe, North
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27895057?seq=1#m America and Australia. Paper presented at the
etadata_info_tab_contents Pacific Rim Real Estate Society – 15th Annual
Listokin, D., Listokin, B., & Lahr, M. (1998). The Conference, University of Technology Sydney.
contributions of historic preservation to housing https://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
and economic development. Housing policy 1036&context=beschreccon
debate,9(3) 431-478. Pickerill, T., & Pickard, R. (2007). A review of fiscal
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.1998.9521303 measures to benefit heritage conservation. RICS
Montello, D., & Sutton, P. (2006). An introduction to Research Paper Series, 7(6).
scientific research methods in geography. https://arrow.dit.ie/beschrecart/11/
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Roorda, I. M., &Wiemer, R. (1992). Towards a new
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452225814 archaeological information system in the
Murray, D. M. (1995). The management of Netherlands. In G. R. Lock & J. Moffett (Eds.),
archaeological information-A strategy. BAR Computer applications and quantitative
INTERNATIONAL SERIES, 598, 83-83. methods in archaeology (pp. 85-88). Oxford:
https://proceedings.caaconference.org/files/19 Tempus reparatum.
93/12_Murray_CAA_1993.pdf https://proceedings.caaconference.org/paper/
National Trust for Historic Preservation. (2008). 11_roorda_wiemer_caa_1991/
Teardown resource guide: Teardowns by state Treib, M. (2008). Review of Drosscape: Wasting
and community. Retrieved from land in urban America by Alan Berger.
http://www.preservationnation.org/teardowns Landscape Journal, 27(1), 154-155.
Newman, G. D. (2013). A conceptual model for https://www.amazon.com/Drosscape-Wasting-
measuring neglect in historic districts. Journal of Land-Urban-America/dp/1568987137
Preservation, Education, and Research(6), 41-58. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2005). Urban
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2651 ecosystem analysis of the delaware river valley:
24614_A_Conceptual_Model_for_Measuring_Ne Calculating the value of nature. Washington,
glect_in_Historic_Districts DC: American Forests.
Newman, G. D. (2015). The eidos of urban form: a http://www.wrc.udel.edu/wp-
framework for heritage-based place making. content/uploads/2016/07/EconomicValueofNat
Journal of Urbanism: International Research on ureandEcosystemsintheDelawareRiverBasin2016.
Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 1-20. pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2015.1070367 Yahner, T. G., &Nadenicek, D. J. (1997).
Newman, G. D., &Saginor, J. (2014). Four Community by design: Contemporary
Imperatives for Preventing Demolition by problems—historic resolve. Landscape and
Neglect. Journal of Urban Design, 19(5), 622-637. Urban Planning, 39(2), 137-151.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2014.943705 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00051-0
Nijkamp, P. (1991). Evaluation measurement in
conservation planning. Journal of Cultural

Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 45
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
l’emmener, de la prendre malgré moi, comme je l’ai prise malgré ma
mère ?
Le souvenir de sa mère morte acheva de le mettre hors de lui. Il
cria :
— Eh bien, non ! je t’ai promis de te sauver, — je te sauve !… Par
notre passé de vingt ans d’affection, Albert, par notre amitié toujours
vivante, tu n’emmèneras pas cette femme ! J’écraserai cette
puissance malfaisante, avant qu’elle ait pu te perdre !… Mais vois
donc, regarde-la donc ! Regarde comme elle est pâle, sous ses
habits de deuil… Tu sais de qui elle est en deuil ?… Elle tuerait ta
mère, comme elle a tué la mienne, si je n’étais pas là, moi, pour
vous garder contre elle ! — Regarde-la bien, je te dis, pendant que je
la dévoile, — regarde moi ça bien en face !… Ça ne s’est jamais
donné, afin de se vendre un jour plus cher. Peut-être bien qu’elle est
encore vierge ; on ne sait pas ! Soit ! Regarde-la donc, la vierge
adultère ! Regarde-moi ce visage démonté, d’où toute beauté a
disparu. On n’y voit plus que la rage de la défaite, la honte d’être vue
à fond, la terreur sans repentir, d’être châtiée ! Mais regarde-la donc
en ce moment… Elle est horrible : elle est sincère ! Ce n’est plus
Marie : c’est Rita !
Et comme Albert, les yeux égarés, hurlait à son tour : « Tais-toi !
ou je ne réponds plus de moi-même ! » le comte Paul, comme pour
la piétiner d’un mot, répétait avec rage : « Rita ! Rita ! Rita ! »
Elle ne savait toujours pas s’il était sûr de la présence de l’autre.
Elle était là, muette, droite sur ses pieds crispés, attentive, le cou
tendu, comme la bête au ferme.
C’était ici le dénouement d’une de ces tragédies sourdement
compliquées, qui, aux yeux du monde, resteraient inexplicables, car,
pour les comprendre, il faudrait, comme le Dieu de la Bible, sonder
les cœurs et les reins des acteurs en lutte ; mais le monde ne les
voit pas ; ce sont des drames ignorés comme il s’en passe pourtant
tous les jours entre les murs de ces maisons riantes, dont les hautes
fenêtres, encadrées de riches tentures, laissent entrevoir aux
passants des tableaux et des plantes rares, et qui, ainsi vues du
trottoir, muettes, nobles, paisibles, semblent les asiles même du
bonheur.
Paul fit un pas vers la porte de son cabinet ; et, d’un ton tout à fait
tranquille :
— Me crois-tu donc capable de parler au hasard, quand je
t’affirme qu’on te trompe ?… Et puisque le mari c’est toi, cherche
donc l’amant, — malheureux ! Tiens, il est ici, je parie !
Il essaya d’ouvrir la porte qui résista, fermée en dedans.
Elle comprit que tout était perdu. Il n’y avait plus qu’à faire bonne
contenance.
— Allons, — dit-elle, d’une voix sèche, vulgaire, avec un
haussement d’épaules, — il est clair que vous savez tout. Soit.
D’ailleurs, j’en ai assez ! mais je tiens à vous dire que je ne suis pas
le monstre que Monsieur d’Aiguebelle imagine. J’ai épousé, — c’est
vrai, — pour son titre et pour sa fortune, un homme que je n’aimais
pas. Mais quand vous mariez ainsi vos filles ou vos sœurs, vous
appelez ça tous les jours un mariage de convenance… Celui que j’ai
épousé m’a rendue malheureuse et je l’aurais quitté, — c’est encore
vrai, — pour chercher le bonheur avec un autre… moins exalté et
plus riche. Mais, si vos lois le permettent, qu’aurait-on à y
reprendre ? Enfin, j’étais bien près d’avoir pour amant un homme
que j’aimais depuis longtemps… l’auteur de ces funestes lettres que
vous avez lues, malgré moi, une certaine nuit, vous souvenez-vous,
Monsieur d’Aiguebelle ? Eh bien ! mais qu’est-ce que cela prouve,
sinon que je suis capable de fidélité, et que j’aurais eu, de guerre
lasse, un amant, — comme toutes les femmes ? Voilà bien du fracas
pour une histoire assez commune, mon cher !… Je croyais que,
dans votre monde, on était resté plus Louis XV !
Elle se tenait, la tête haute, dans une attitude de défi.
Albert, la tête haute également, blême, supportait le coup en
soldat, — et, l’œil fixe, il mesurait l’abîme qu’on venait d’ouvrir
devant lui.
— Enfin, dit-elle, que me veut-on ? Vous ne me changerez pas,
n’est-ce pas ?… Vous ne me tuerez pas non plus, je pense ?… Ça
n’est pas votre genre… Je ne vois pas beaucoup ça dans les
journaux de demain : « Le crime de la rue Saint-Dominique. Mort
tragique et inexplicable de la comtesse d’Aiguebelle. »… Vous
voudrez éviter ça, je m’en doute !
Elle pensait à tout, et elle riait méchamment.
— … Alors, quoi ? Il faut prendre un parti pourtant ! Notez que je
n’ai commis réellement aucune faute — et que je suis toujours
punie !… C’est même agaçant, à la fin !
Elle avait l’air très ennuyé et nonchalant.
Le comte Paul s’approcha d’Albert et lui mit affectueusement une
main sur l’épaule. C’était un geste de consolation.
Ensuite, il alla à la porte de son cabinet, dont il écarta la lourde
draperie ; et, le visage tourné vers cette porte, derrière laquelle
s’agitait une douleur inconnue :
— Allons, ouvrez !… On sait qui vous êtes, Monsieur Terral !
Le silence qui suivit fut court, mais il fut profond comme la mort.
Ce qui répondit enfin, ce fut un bruit bizarre, qu’on ne comprit pas
tout de suite, un coup sec ; mat, comme étouffé… Son revolver lui
avait servi… Ne venait-il pas d’apprendre qu’elle s’apprêtait à fuir
avec un autre ? Lui aussi, il venait de mesurer l’abîme, mais, déjà
pris de vertige, il y avait roulé.
Les deux hommes s’élancèrent contre la porte… Des
domestiques accoururent… Léon Terral, vivant encore, mais blessé
mortellement, demanda à être porté chez son père.
 VIII

Dès qu’elle s’était vue seule un moment, Marie Déperrier, avec

un grand sang-froid, était allée mettre son chapeau, et prendre, dans
sa chambre, son sac de voyage toujours tout prêt.
Comme elle partait, elle croisa dans l’escalier un homme inconnu
à qui elle fit un petit salut et un sourire. C’était le commissaire de
police, qui s’expliqua fort bien le suicide de Léon Terral : — il était
chargé de l’arrêter.
La jeune comtesse d’Aiguebelle, son petit sac à la main, s’en alla
demander asile à Théramène surpris. Là, au moins, on la laisserait
tranquille. Elle évitait les curiosités d’hôtel.
Pinchard ne l’interrogea même pas :
— Ça te regarde, ma fille ! Je n’ai pas besoin de savoir. Des gros
chagrins, des histoires, des drames, quoi !… L’amour, vois-tu, c’est,
comme la langue, ce qu’il y a de meilleur, et ce qu’il y a de pire. Ah !
ce bossu d’Ésope avait bien de l’esprit !…
Il posa une serviette blanche sur un coin de table débarrassé,
pour la circonstance, des brochures et des copies de rôles qui
l’encombraient d’ordinaire, et, en mettant le couvert, il disait, le
philosophe :
— Le drame, c’est la vie… Tout passe.
En ajoutant, « hormis Dieu ! » il eût parlé précisément comme
l’abbé.
Elle le regardait faire, assise sur le lit, songeuse.
Il courut chez le charcutier.
— Pas de jambon, — un pâté !… Je régale une duchesse, — et
une vraie encore ! Un pâté de lièvre, voisin, — avec du veau dedans,
et une tête de faisan dessus !
Ils dînèrent en tête-à-tête.
— Sans toi, mon bon Théramène, j’aurais passé une fichue nuit,
car je couche ici, entends-tu ?… Oh ! tu ne peux pas te douter du
service que tu me rends. C’est bon tout de même, mon vieux, d’avoir
des gens de cœur près de soi, en de certains moments… Non ; vrai,
sans toi, Théramène, ce que je serais embêtée, ce soir !… Au fond,
vois-tu, j’ai du vrai chagrin.
Elle songeait : « Il était fou, ce malheureux Léon, c’est clair. Sans
ça, c’était devenu si simple, — puisque c’était forcé, — de partir
ensemble ! »
Elle regrettait le Léon d’autrefois, mais ce fou d’aujourd’hui, ce
désespéré, c’était, après tout, une chance, de n’avoir pas été obligée
de le suivre.
Théramène mit avec soin des draps blancs à son lit ; et il passa
la nuit sur son fauteuil, sommeillant de temps à autre, se réveillant
pour la regarder dormir, — heureux de jouer les pères nobles au
naturel.
Elle aussi se réveilla plusieurs fois, cette nuit-là. Quel parti
devait-elle prendre ? Où irait-elle ? Qu’allait-elle devenir ?
Quand le jour parut, et qu’elle ouvrit les yeux, elle trouva
Théramène debout près du lit, et qui, vêtu de son velours râpé et de
sa soie éclatante, lui présentait un chocolat fumant sur un plateau,
apporté du cabaret voisin.
— Heureux de vous servir, princesse !
— Donne-moi mon petit sac, dit-elle aussitôt.
Il posa le plateau et courut au sac.
— J’ai diablement peur d’avoir oublié quelque chose de très
important, fit-elle.
Elle cherchait, — sous les yeux de Théramène ébloui. Un rayon
de soleil, par l’humble fenêtre à tabatière, entrait, jouait gaiement sur
son cou délicat. Ses cheveux dénoués, irisés de lumière, inondaient
ses épaules nues. D’une Vierge de Raphaël, elle avait vraiment
toutes les grâces candides, l’ovale pur du visage, la fraîcheur dorée,
un peu rose sous l’ambre lumineux, et surtout, dans ses yeux bleu
pâle, la pureté de l’innocence même.
— Ah ! ça y est ! cria-t-elle… Sapristi ! que j’ai eu peur !
— Sauvé ! merci, mon Dieu ! déclama Théramène.
Elle tira avec soin, du sac bondé de bibelots, — un étui d’ivoire
sculpté, qu’elle ouvrit. Et elle lut à haute voix :
— Tcherniloff !
Après tout, qu’était-ce pour elle que cette aventure de son
mariage ? Une simple affaire manquée ; tout au plus un retard de six
mois à la vie aventureuse qu’elle avait toujours rêvée.
A présent, elle était libre, et seule maîtresse de sa destinée.
 IX

Deux ans après, aux Bormettes, le comte Paul d’Aiguebelle, mari

de Pauline, Albert de Barjols, mari d’Annette, veillaient, sous la
lampe paisible.
Les hommes lisaient. Les deux jeunes femmes, attentives et
souriantes, se montraient de mignonnes dentelles et des rubans à
orner de petits bonnets d’enfant.
— Tiens, regarde ça, dit à voix basse Paul à Albert, en lui
passant son journal et en lui désignant du doigt la rubrique : Échos
des deux mondes.
Le journal disait :

« La princesse Rita Tcherniloff vient d’arriver à Spa. On

prétend ici qu’elle n’avait jamais épousé le prince, et qu’elle a
été naguère expulsée de Pétersbourg, après des aventures tout
à fait cosaques. On dit encore qu’elle serait espionne aux gages
de plusieurs puissances qu’elle trahirait également les unes
pour les autres. Mais rien de tout cela n’est prouvé. On
calomnie tant aujourd’hui, que la médisance en devient
suspecte. Quoi qu’il en soit, tout le monde s’accorde à admirer
cette femme, illustre par la beauté, par l’intelligence, par la
fortune, aussi bien que par la bizarrerie éclatante de ses
aventures, vraies ou fausses. A Spa, son arrivée a fait
sensation.
Comme le disait, l’autre jour, M. X de Z, secrétaire de
l’ambassade de France à Rome : « C’est une des reines du
monde. »

Paris, 24 février 1894.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FLEUR
D'ABÎME ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.