This week’s reading on the details of preservation was informative and thought provoking. I find that I have not yet completely worked out my own preservation philosophy, however. I am still debating controversial questions such as which buildings are worthy of preservation and how the preservation of those buildings should be funded.
On that note, the book’s discussion of the debate behind preservation of churches and other religious buildings particularly intrigued me. I like to think of myself as a strong First Amendment supporter, so at first something about the thought of taxpayer money supporting the upkeep/conservation/restoration/reconstruction/preservation/whatever of a building used for a specifically religious purpose made me uncomfortable. However, I firmly believe in the historical integrity and significance of many of these types of buildings, so my inner preservationist wanted to cast those misgivings aside. (Not to mention that the architecture of churches like the First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston is just awesome!) I still don’t know how I feel about the St. Bartholomew’s case (which “established that religious organizations are subject to historic preservation ordinances of local government, and that such regulations are not a violation of the First Amendment separation of church and state” [130]). By the end of the book, however, I became more convinced of the legal legitimacy of preserving religious buildings, as they seem to comply with several of the “eight points” of the “historic context framework” discussed in chapter 5 (namely the first three: “peopling places,” “creating social institutions and movements,” and “expressing cultural values”). American history is bursting with religious themes, and the preservation of sites with historic religious integrity must certainly be justified; it only must be done so cautiously.
So, I’ve spent the last 8 days revisiting a place I’ve lived in for 19 years, attempting to approach an all too familiar city within the context of this course. Public history and Boston coexist, and it is nearly impossible to go any amount of time before being reminded of the city’s significance in the country’s history.
The preservation work is absolutely astonishing. I’ll post pictures once I arrive back in Boise (I left my USB cable at home… go figure). The best representation of a building being preserved amongst modernity is a picture I took of Faneuil Hall being surrounded by sky scrapers that barely fit in the frame. Old cathedrals are nestled between more dominating commerce structures, and facades of old are masking buildings of new.
Public history is intertwined with every aspect of daily life. From the coaster under your beer telling the story of the pub you’re in, to the character of the sagging shelves holding up the glasses – all pay tribute to a city that is proud of their heritage and holds dear anything with proof of its longevity.
Maybe it’s just me, but I feel that any older, worn out building has character. Sure, your new Corey Barton home has a fancy granite countertop with impeccable wall to wall hardwood floor, but give me a house with creaky floorboards and brick walls any day (a little lead paint creates some excitement, too!). Something about a structure built for a family or a specific purpose, rather than a cookie-cutter McMansion design makes for a better appreciation for what you have and how you got it.
Of course it’s easier to tear down and rebuilt something shiny and exciting. Like the city I grew up in, I prefer to acknowledge my past and celebrate its influence in my daily life. I am in no way stating that we should all settle for a subpar structure to work or live in, but I do need a better argument than it’s just ‘old’.
The question of whether to preserve any specific structure is an interesting one. Preservation has to be balanced against many factors, such as site usage, cost of preservation/renovation, and its cultural and historical importance. As with some of the Basque sites in the downtown area these factors can vary with time. While many sites which are now on the Basque block might have been historically important, it was not until recently, about the 1980s, that they became culturally important. Their cultural importance–rather than there historical–is what sets these buildings apart. For whatever reason it was not until the 1980s that the Basque community in Boise began to coalesque around a physical area in the city. This began when the old boarding house next to the museum was purchased. It became a rallying point for other Basque cultural institutions-such as the Basque Museum and Cultural Center, Bar Gernica, the Basque community center, and a few other resturants and stores. The success of the Basque cultural preservation (or it might better be termed cultural renovation) has lead to the non-Basque owners of other Basque sites (such as former chapels and boarding houses) to associate their building with the Basque community. The Boise Basque’s are an example of successful grass roots preservation efforts–as opposed to relying on the more formal structures described in our text. They show the importance of not only preserving buildings, but of connecting them with a vibrant culture.
I have to admit I have a difficult time getting back into school after spring break, so I apologize ahead of time if my post is not particularly moving or insightful. This week’s reading was really interesting, but I am going to try and focus on a few ideas that really stuck out to me. Chapter 9 and chapter 11 were enjoyable readings since they followed very closely to my interests in the histories of downtowns and sprawl. The readings have helped to reinforce the vital role that historic preservation plays in creating dynamic and interesting communities. I think that is why I have had an interest in the Main Street program before this, because it is a way that communities can revitalize their downtown areas while being pursuing preservation. Like the book points out, historic preservation needs to be a part of growth, a part of changing communities. It can’t be preservation for preservation sake, but also needs to consider preserving a way of life or shopping habits by working to keep established businesses in the core.
One of the downsides of this discussion that I need to address is to ask the question: Why do we need to preserve our downtowns? To some they are the remnants of a time when things needed to be centralized, and they served all people’s needs. But today, with sprawling shopping centers and big box stores, what else can a downtown be but office towers? Don’t get me wrong, I love downtowns and believe whole-heartedly that they should be preserved, and all I want to do is work and live in downtown. But downtowns are no longer the same places that they once were, and people struggle monumentally to keep them the same. The book proposes restrictive zoning that would force ‘traditional downtown’ business types to stay downtown, but is this really the answer? It didn’t work in Boise when they tried to force a mall into the downtown; they fought from the 1960s to the mid 1980s before they gave up and the mall located where it wanted to, which was the suburbs. I love downtowns and want them to stay viable and successful, but I think we need to re-envision something different (other than restrictive zoning) for them that will actually give them a fighting chance.
This leads directly into chapter eleven’s discussion of preserving farmland and open spaces on the periphery of cities. I find that I am also very passionate about preserving rural landscapes and working farms for both the environmental and historic Preservation arguments. I think that if we can combat sprawl this way, revitalizing our downtown cores will come naturally. I am also very interested in how to increase cultural tourism in Boise. I think it will give current residents a better sense of place, it will bring new people here and our local economy will improve, as well as our livability.
I got entirely too caught up in the excitement of making a slideshow on my nerdy vice, that I forgot to post a weekly ‘reflection’…
I wanted to touch upon the argument on which is more relevant while deciding if a building needs to be preserved or not; the person that lived there, the event that occurred, or the style/era it was constructed in.
Growing up in a suburb of Boston, I saw many places (Paul Revere’s house, etc) that weren’t structurally impressive, nor did any specific event occur there. The mere fact that a founding father used to sleep there (think – ‘Abe Lincoln slept here’ for Boise…) makes this otherwise unimpressive structure, historically significant. Since a non-profit organization runs the Paul Revere house, I don’t have any quarrels with this site being preserved. If it were a state owned facility, I would be singing a different tune.
In working with the Idaho State Historical Society, there were many projects, sites, etc. where our resources were exhausted in trying to even maintain certain areas. One is the Stricker House and Rock Creek Station located outside of Kimberly, Idaho. I originally wrote a long article on this for my blog post, so be grateful that I deleted it (no one wants to hear a former Historian complain). In the case of this site, it annoyed me that the ISHS was spending time and money on a site where the yearly visitors barely numbered in the hundreds – with no attempts to improve the patronage.
Without going into a long rant, my view is that the buildings, sites, etc should be viewed in their cultural context. Is the site THAT significant, where it needs to be maintained and preserved for future generations to immerse themselves. Or is it just us being entirely too sentimental about a place that is only important when someone suggests it being otherwise?
I just wanted to share a few (admittedly disconnected) bits of public history I’ve stumbled across around the web:
Remember the Triangle Fire may not in itself be a particularly stunning or easy to navigate website, but it offers a wealth of links to organizations marking the centennial of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory tragedy. (The factory burned 100 years ago this Friday, March 25.) Women’s historians, fire safety organizations, and labor unions are but a few of the groups marking the event in their own ways. It makes for a nice case study in the ways the public and the academy shape and participate in public history.
Here’s something to brighten your day (as seen at Retroist):
You can read a brief history of the Oregon Trail game–it started out as a board game 40 years ago and has sold over 65 million copies. (It’s still a fun game, but some days I can’t get the mobile version’s damn soundtrack out of my head.)
Scripto allows members of the public to volunteer as transcribers of analog documents. It’s an interesting crowdsourcing model. (And–surprise!–it’s a project of the Center for History and New Media.)
Place Matters offers a toolkit to help the public “identify, promote, and protect” places people care about.
What public history resources or projects have you discovered lately?
It really is a shame that so many of Boise’s old buildings were taken down with such recklessness. Looking at all of the different architectural styles in Historic Preservation makes me realize how many identities Boise encompasses, and I really like that that history is reflected in the architecture we have chosen to “save”. There are so many different styles of building, home, park, and communities here. I’m glad it’s not Santa Barbara. It’s hard for me to feel inclined to stop the development that might be ‘out there’ or ‘odd’ on the block, because someday that building will be a historic relic, of an idea, belonging to an individual or a group of individuals who thought it worth their time in creating. And so where do we draw the line?
So along these lines, I have answered one of the first questions I had in this class. My group went on a walk, we inquired after a small lawyers office, but we ended up at Pioneer Park on Fifth, west of the Basque Block. We filmed it, and noticed that there were a lot of what looked like cornerstones and title-stones for buildings. It is very much like a cemetery, and it turns out that it kind of is! The free-standing arch is from the Eastman building, it’s inscription and I believe the plaque were saved. (the Eastman building stood where the Boise Hole now resides). There is a block for Central School. This school was located on Grove Street, among some of the finest Boise residences. The children from the River Street neighborhoods attended Central School, including two black children. There are several other stones that I recognized, and the giant waterwheel is a relic of systems of canals that used to run on Grove Street, transferring water up the bench.
I had all of these questions the first week of class. Interesting, who knew there was so much to know?
I just wanted to point out a couple of things that have made me laugh as I’ve watched you all develop the Boise Wiki.
1. The first three people profiled on the wiki are an assassinated governor (or, rather, his statue), Shawn the Baptist, and Todd Shallat. What a crew!
2. The most active page right now is about Canada Geese. (Bob Barker makes a cameo appearance.)
Well in light of my weekend workshop on the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao it can. Dr. Joseba Zuliaika has written several books and articles on the museum. So here is how you make this work:
Ingredients:
– 2 egotistical playboys (Who are very good at their jobs.)
-1 depressed city that is obsessed with urban renewal (With a lot of money)
-1 museum that wants to become an international franchise
-1 extremely well rehearsed cover story to smooth out the museum politics
Directions:
Blend together for a couple of years and hope the price of titanium goes below the price of stainless steel
Bake using incredible (for the time) computer technology for wanted architectural design
Results:
Tourist driven resurrected city complete with river/museum view downtown condos.
*Here is the story as argued by Zulaika, who has had personal interviews with the people involved in the project. Thomas Kerns came to be director of the Guggenheim Museum in New York. The museum was in terrible debt when Kerns came on to the scene. His solution to the problem was to make the Guggenheim an international franchise to take the museum out of debt and double the art display (the current shown art is only 2% of the collection owned by the Guggenheim doubling that to 4% for any museum is quite a feat) . Enter Kerns playboy attitude. In Zulaika’s book he quotes Kerns, “Seduction: that’s my business. I am a professional seducteur. I don’t’ earn money but I raise it, and I do it by seduction. I make people give me gifts of twenty million dollars. Seduction consists in getting people to want what you want without having to ask for it. It is a transfer of desire. I am in a way the greatest prostitute in the world.”[i] Kerns traveled Europe searching for place to put his new museum. In the cover up story he did all of this without the help of the architect Frank Gehry. Gerhry came only after a competition between him and two other architects for the design of the Guggenheim Bilbao Museum (so the cover story goes). Bilbao came to Kerns. Bilbao was city that constantly attempted to remake itself. For over century plans had been in drawn up for new projects. Several that never came to life. It was beautiful well structured 18th city. The city’s ambition was to change with the times. It took hold of the industry age and become a factory city. A river runs through the city one side 18th century style and the other a black chimney of smoke form the factory. In the 1980’s the factories shut down and the down suffered from 25% unemployment. With nothing to lose they were willing to gamble the all their money for the museum. The government promised the money to Kerns and the building project began. Ego’s aside both men are extremely good at what they do. The beauty of the titanium plated Guggenheim Bilbao museum is creative, controversial, and has a shock value that paid off of the city. It has now become a well know stop on European trips. It has house art exhibits of Armani and motorcycles. Zulaika argued that Guggenheim Museum saved the town of Bilbao form economic ruin.
Bilbao 18th Century Cityscape
Bilbao Industrial Ruins
Now what does any of this have to with historical preservation? It is an example of preservation, although the museum is art museum it illustrated for example from Historical Preservation. The first painfully obvious connection was the quote on page 7 “Therefore, when we build, let us thinks for ever. Let it not be for present delight, not for present use alone: let it be such a work as out descendants will thank us…” This quote is the very intention of the design of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. It also encompasses the matching, compatibility, and contrast. It does not disrupt the 18th century city that come down on one side of the river, it replaced the old factories that stood across from the historic part of the city and yet did not complexly destroy the “ugly” history industrial history that still stands in “ruins” beside the museum. The museum, also, stands in sharp contrast to the old city and the new. It blends all three opportunities for preservation in one city. We argued in class that a poor economy generates revenue for museums. The book illustrated the boost for preservation pushed by the depression and Bilbao launched multi-museum that paid for itself within five years of it’s opening.
Guggenheim Museum aside, I am very critical of historical preservation. I do not think a building should be “preserved” empty space because the first someone once resided there. If a building is to be persevered it should be used to benefit the people of the present and the future. Whether for education on its historical importance or new economic needs it has to an occupied space. I am annoyed by the “historical sites” the litter the highways of the west that could be potential stopping a useful freeway. I love the idea of historical city ordinances as long as they do remain within a community’s needs and wants. I am a complete sucker for the “edutainment” of Colonial Williamsburg, but I am also aware that it is “cute” picturesque showing of history.
[i] Joseba Zulaika, Guggenheim Bilbao Museoa: Museums, Architecture, and City Renewal, (Reno, Nevada: Center for Basque Studies, 2003), 93.
*Guggenheim argument is taken from notes on the Guggenhiem Museum workshop and according to Dr. Zulaika can be found in his book Cronica de una seduccion: el Museo Guggenheim-Bilbao (Nerea, Madrid, 1997)
Geggenhiem Museum picture from thebesttraveldesinations.com
Bilbao 18th century cityscape picture from art.com
Bilbao ruins picture under creative commons found on flickr under by Red Castle
After completing the reading I found it interesting that most of the chapters focused on preserving historic buildings, however there was a brief mention of the importance of National Parks, and historic battlefields. When I think of preservation, I think of all areas that include; ocean/river ways, land areas, as well as historic buildings. I assume most of you do as well. I’ve been to a few tide pools along California’s coast and the coastal communities there are very involved with preserving their tide pools for future generations. They organize volunteers to clean the tide pools, and community members even volunteer to educate visitors and help with class field trips. The connection I saw in the reading is the importance of being involved in your community and fighting for preservation. Some examples included, the ladies association to preserve Mt. Vernon, as well as Clete’s example in saving Wallace, Idaho. Local organizations, and donations make a significant contribution to preservation. However, even some wealthy preservationists do receive negative comments. For example, Henry Ford’s preservation efforts at Greenfield Village were “criticized as too much a product of Ford’s personal tastes…” pg.38.
Our government has made efforts to preserve historic buildings, and the National Parks Service also does great work in preserving buildings, land, and trails at our national parks. Last week on PBS there was an interesting documentary about Idaho fire lookouts and cabins that are being preserved, and people are able to rent them out. The program was organized by the Forest Fire Lookout Association or the FFLA. Here is their website http://www.firelookout.org/lookout-rentals.htm Many cabins have been restored, however it is expensive, and other cabins that have been deserted for years are falling apart. The longer they are left empty the further in disrepair they become.
I was also interested to learn how Japan, and China deal with preservation. Preservation is important in terms of their language and culture, but not so prevalent in the age of their buildings. I was surprised to learn about the Ise Shrine in Ise city, Japan; and that they rebuild the shrine every 20 years. Japan and China have an abundance of historic shrines that locals and tourist often visit. The Ise Shrine reminded me of an article I read about the Three Gorges Dam in China that was built across the Yangtze river. The intention of the dam was to control flooding, and provide electricity. However, the construction forced at least 1.4 million residents to move, and it altered the course of the river which flooded several archaeological sites. Some historic shrines were relocated, however it was too expensive to move everything. The river dolphins are also being threatened and may face extinction. It is a difficult decision to make when it is time to modernize, but that may threaten or destroy historic sites.
