Progress vs. Preservation

I enjoyed reading about the history of preservation this week. As many people who have already posted have mentioned, the details of different architectural styles have always eluded me (and will probably continue to do so despite Tyler’s valiant efforts at making me more architecturally literate). Thus far, though, the book has focused on preservation of buildings. I would like to know more about views and approaches towards preservation of historic sites that do not include buildings.

The infamous “Wilderness Wal-Mart” is a situation that I have been following for the last few years, since Wal-Mart proposed to build a supercenter on or next to the Wilderness (Civil War) Battlefield in Virginia. The corporation was granted permission to build (albeit with certain restrictions) back in the summer of 2009, but the battle by preservationists raged on, and Wal-Mart finally renounced its plans just a few months ago. (See http://blog.preservationnation.org/2011/01/26/breaking-news-national-trust-for-historic-preservation-commends-wal-mart%E2%80%99s-decision-to-withdraw-plans-for-supercenter-at-wilderness-battlefield)

This twenty-first century battle over a nineteenth-century battle brings up issues that were mentioned in the book regarding what should be preserved and to what extent. (Somehow I don’t think that Wal-Mart would apply a Contextualist approach to its building plans.) Space is often scarce in cities, and thus some historic buildings must be renovated to accommodate modern functions; likewise, land is becoming a precious commodity in our increasingly urbanized and suburbanized nation–even if it has historical significance.  Preservationists can ask, “Do we really need another Wal-Mart?” But on the other hand, proponents of commercial “progress” can question–probably with reason, though I am loath to admit it–just how much of an expansive battlefield really needs to be used to exhibit its historical significance. Is land equally as worthy of preservation as buildings?

(Here is an interesting article about the “development versus preservation” debate. Apparently it is going on at other battlefields and historic sites as well: http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/12/battle-over-the-battlefields.html)

How the National Register of Historic Places Saved Wallace, Idaho

This is the story of  Harry F. Magnuson and his leadership in the battle from 1970 to 1986 to save the Town of Wallace from destruction at the hands of State and Federal highway officials. Born in Wallace in 1923, Harry became a legendary business leader and philanthropist in the Northwest and beyond who never forgot his roots in his beloved hometown. The Federal Highway Administration and the Idaho Transportation Department planned to route Interstate 90 directly through the center of Wallace. Slated for the wrecking ball were blocks of historic buildings, including the iconic Northern Pacific Railroad Depot, that linked the Town to its storied past.  Harry Magnuson sued the FHA and ITD, alleging that they had failed to file an Environmental Impact Statement. A Federal judged concurred, entered an injunction, and halted the imminent bulldozers.  Harry [together with Nancy Lee Hansen] secured placement of the entire Town of Wallace on the National Register of Historic Places, creating insurmountable roadblocks in the agencies’ paths.  The stoplight at the corner of 7th and Bank Streets, the last on I-90 between Seattle and Boston, became a stirring national symbol of Wallace’s fight for survival.  As a result of Harry’s efforts, a compromise was struck, preserving Historic Wallace. A new overhead freeway was designed to bypass the Town. The Depot was moved across the South Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River to its new location on 6th Street.  The battle won, the Townspeople conducted a ceremonial funeral for the storied stoplight in 1991. Media from around the world reported the event. Charles Kuralt of CBS News wanted to know how a town of 1,000 people could stand up to the Federal government. The answer was “Harry.”  Historic Wallace is Harry Magnuson’s legacy to the Town he loved so deeply. Without his efforts, the elegant historic district you see today would be nothing more than four lanes of concrete. With this in mind, a grateful citizenry has dedicated the original routing of I-90 through Wallace as the  “Harry F. Magnuson Way.” 

Preservation Reading

While reading this week’s chapters from Historic Preservation I kept thinking back to Dr. Lubamersky’s presentation to us about Sweden and her observation that the Swedish are not afraid to mix the old with the new. I love to see old buildings preserved, but…. I appreciated that on page 18 of the introduction there was a listing of several perspectives held by preservationists: “Some see their role primarily as saving old buildings, some as preserving a cultural heritage, some as fostering urban revitalization, and some as contributing to sustainability and an alternative approach to current development practice.” I would like to think that all those views are important and taken into consideration. I’d also like to believe there is an option that sometimes a building might not be not worth saving.

I had very mixed feelings about one of the Boise Architecture Project’s picks for their endangered list, the Googie style Japanese Restaurant. I remember when it was a Sambo’s. That’s right. A shortening of the name Little Black Sambo. It may be kind of like a slave cabin in its historical and cultural significance. It might be really important for Idaho to have an example of that kind of architecture. Or we could question its deteriorated state and say bye-bye. Recently, I suggested to a friend who was having trouble purging useless, old knickknacks that he should take digital photos of them and save the images, not the actual items. I might be okay with a digital photo of that restaurant in a digital archive.

Hey everyone!!

So, Dr M-B is having me talk for a little bit on the preservation work I’ve done… the site I’ll be talking about will be a 1939 CCC building at the first YMCA camp in the country, in Silver Falls, OR.

To get a feel for the CCC and their place in history (and thus why it’s important to remember through preservation), here’s a VERY well done PBS documentary on the CCC… Less than an hour long, and available either through the link below, or if you have streaming Netflix, do a search for “American Experience: Civilian Conservation Corps”

 

http://video.pbs.org/video/1309577149/

 

enjoy!

Some Preservation Ramblings

I found our readings in Norman Tyler’s book this week to be incredibly helpful, so much so that It should be required reading for someone going into the public history field. No matter what you will run into terms such as “Section 106” review, and it wasn’t until reading this book that I feel like I have a decent understanding of what it is. I also find that grass roots groups and property owners tend to name-drop emphasis the National Register of Historic Places to defend the significance of a site. I thought Tyler did a great job of demonstrating that the NRHP doesn’t fully protect historic places.

I’ve always found the subject of “facadism” fascinating. It really brings into question the true purpose of historic preservation. If you ask yourself what is the point of protecting or preserving a historic structure or district, then that would dictate the methods in which you preserve something. If you remove everything but a building façade, does that mean the external architecture is the only reason the site is important? It seems to me that if you preserve only a façade, then the true purpose of that project would be to maintain a sense of place from the outside. This makes something like the “Red Lion Row” in Washington, D.C. ridiculous.

A perfect example of facadism here in Boise is the Mode building (which was discussed in the PreservationNation article on endangered Boise). That building was saved and maintained, but mainly on the outside which is interesting because the building is valued for what was inside, such as the Tea Room and the state of the art display functions. I wrote a pretty comprehensive history of the Mode (and some nearby buildings) for a class and a publication a few years ago, and the story is pretty interesting to follow.

In closing, I wanted to remind the class that we spend time in one of those “endangered” parts of Boise each week – the 1000 block of Main Street, which includes the Alaska Building/Center on Main is included in the article.

Eisenman’s Arrow

I found the readings this week really worked well together to introduce preservation and apply it to areas of Boise that have yet to be preserved.  I have always taken for granted the politics behind preservation and the various arguments for or against preservation of various buildings or historic districts; why shouldn’t we just preserve everything?  While the readings gave a lot of insight for and against preservation of different historic landmarks I was able to fully understand both sides of the debate.

I read the “Preservation Nation: What’s Endangered in Boise?” blog post first, followed by Historic Preservation, and then reread the blog post (I am usually not this much of an over achiever).  On my first read through the blog post I was ready to preserve all eleven things cited for Boise, but after reading the book, I became a little more discriminating.  I agreed with the blog that many of the areas seemed to have a lot of history and were worth preserving.  However, I struggled to feel any angst about losing the University Inn or the Sambo/Tepanyaki steakhouse.  The blog did not give a compelling argument for preserving either, beyond the fact that they were old (University Inn) or that they were unique architecturally (Tepanyaki), which does not seem sufficient.

Historic Preservation also did a great job of articulating the different options for those that wanted to preserve historic buildings or areas.  I like the idea of letting a building age naturally without updating this.  It reminded me of a hotel in Silver City, ID that still doesn’t have electricity and has not actually been updated since its mining days and I loved seeing the progression it has made in the last hundred years.  However, this does not always seem to be a practical solution, so I liked the idea of maintaining the façade of the building but updating the interior.  This type of preservation seemed the most applicable to Boise’s downtown area and one the best compromises between history and practical business concerns.  Eisenman’s arrow eloquently portrayed this idea of contextualism and historic buildings as moving on a continuum rather than fixed on one spot in time.

Pertaining to Preservation

While the reading selections for this week were not the most engaging reading, they did provide a nice break from the Lukian style of weeks past. I found parts of the history of preservation fascinating. One thing I especially liked was the was the description of preservation in the antebellum period. The focus on preserving buildings for patriotic purposes was fascinating. I wonder how much the emphasis on preserving sites connected to great men or events in our past can be connected to the veneration of saints and holy places in Europe. While the Catholic church was a minority throughout much of the antebellum their was still a tendency to deify elements of our nations past – especially the founding fathers. The tendency to canonize our nations founders was especially true of George Washington who was often portrayed as a divinely appointed emissary.

The agitation of the Mt. Vernon Ladies Association is a good example of what might be termed an American ‘cult of the saints.’ The founding fathers–and especially Washington–had already been baptized into the narrative of our nations sacred history and mission. The Mt. Vernon Ladies Association–which seems to have been part of the broader evangelical reform movement–took the step of not only canonizing Washington, but of also extending his sainthood to his place of residence.

Historic Preservation and Livability

I just have some random musings about the reading this week and the role that historic preservation plays in making cities more livable. The theme that I pulled out is that historic preservation has the most influence on the local level, and it is the only place that protection can be effectively regulated. It is also the only level that can provide the most economical and environmental benefits to the community. Several sources are beginning to rediscover that historic preservation is important to the local economy, as well as the cultural tourism economy. The new ‘green’ initiative (well new to some but it can be traced back to the 1960s) is beginning to discover historic preservation as part of the key to combat sprawl and save natural resources. Many historic buildings were designed with their environment in mind and took advantage of natural sunlight and heating and cooling techniques, making them as efficient as any other building, minus the new LEED certified buildings. For a resource of ‘green’ historic buildings, go to www.boiseartsandhistory.org, click on History, and then go to Tours and Maps. There is a walking tour brochure about historic buildings downtown that use geothermal heat. 
In addition to this, I just want to comment on the BAP post about buildings in danger here in Boise. BAP’s work plays an important role in garnering local support for historic preservation. It takes almost an entire community to preserve their historic character, and it takes constant education and outreach to build the type of support needed to get required ordinances and partnerships in place that can assist. Education plays such  a crucial role in this mix because you first have to have the community find value in the buildings before they will be passionate enough to fight for preservation. If we can continue to build local support, then the cultural tourism economy in Boise can begin to florish because we will have intact historic districts that are lively and contribute greatly to the local sense of place.

Life Preserver

I’ve always been interested in historic preservation and was thrilled when we were assigned this book. So far it has been an excellent introduction into the field and has provoked quite a bit of thought.

At first I was slightly taken aback when in chapter one there was a brief discussion about Clem Labine and his “seminal article from 1979 titled ‘Preservationists Are Un-American’” (12). While I think Labine was slightly over top in his rhetoric, there is some merit behind what he is saying about our society’s mentality. I agree that culturally, some Americans abide by the traditional “pioneer way…to use it up [and] throw it out” (12). I often find myself fighting tooth and nail with Parks and Recreation with their seemingly never-ending desire to tear down historically relevant structures to put in a skate park. It’s not a threat; it is a promise when I tell them I will chain myself to the Jensen Farm House if they attempt to tear it down. (After all, my mother promised the same thing to protest nuclear submarines first arriving at Bangor Base in Silverdale, Washington. Ironically, her future husband and my father, was working on those same nukes she was protesting, thus exemplifying my strange childhood.) Nevertheless, chapter one brought to light the frame of mind some Americans have to look only to our future, while not sufficiently consulting the past.

I also thought the section of the differing philosophies of preservation was fascinating. The discussion cemented my wanting to research into the different philosophies and contrasting two for my final paper. I think the research will prove beneficial in defining my own preservation philosophy and also provide an avenue to find the philosophy that best suits my thesis project.

I also found the terminology of all the preservation political entities at the local, state, and federal levels as well as their roles were extremely helpful for anyone attempting or thinking about getting funding for a project.

 

Are we a Preservation Nation?

This topic makes it hard to pick a side, at the moment. After reading the chapters in the book (and skimming a bit), I can understand the arguments of he majority of the people mentioned, contradictory though they may be. In the very beginning of the book, when Clem Labine is quoted as writing “Preservationists are Un-American,” ummm… He explains he reasoning well in his argument, however the whole thing seemed just a tad dramatized; perhaps it’s just the terminlology used, such as “preservationist oppose the conventional American idea of consuming ever more….we are the the wave of pioneers.” It felt a little like a Western. Or one of those movies where you leave feeling like you can conquer the world.
I very much enjoyed the Shakespearean ideals of “The past is prologue,” and breaking apart the word ~preserve~ in order to evalute its ‘deeper meaning.’ The idea of seeing buildings as verbs provided a really great visual; I started picturing buildings that were known for something when it was built, though it may be used for something else now; example: Turnerverein Building.
The argument between Eugene Emmanuel Voillet-le-Duc and Paul Leon is what really got me thinking. Voilett-le-Duc was interested not only in preserving the buildings that told stories of the past, but perhaps building them as the were meant to be. Leon saw preservation as more of an insult to the architects of the past, and the signatures the generations that came before left on a place. Ruskin felt the same, yet seemingly a bit more angered by the thought of preservation. While I agree that a building’s “glory is in its age,” comparing preservation to botox it an odd argument to make.
Admittedly, I have never been able to identify a building’s architectural style by the design of the columns or the font used at the entrance. If I looked at it and concentrated, it would probably come to me, but I wouldn’t be the first person to ask the style of something. The bad part about not being able to identify a building’s style is that it hinders my ability to evaluate when it was built–separate from its surroundings. If compared to other sites that have known information, etc., I would be able to do so; but alas, architectural dating on the spot is not my forte. This means it takes me longer (unless the date is on the building) than some others to place it in the needed historical context to evaluate its importance and usability then and now, much like the Timberline kids did with the BAP. There were some things I would have liked to see, but there is always another year, and they followed the criteria quite well!
For someone who skims I tend to write a lot.
The end.