Applied History

It is interesting to me that there are so many steps to establishing a building’s significance before it can be preserved. It is good that the community seems to be very involved in the selection and preservation process, since the building is likely to be something they have to look at every day. It does concern me that so few communities seem invested in which areas of their cities are preserved. I feel like the people might be more invested in preserving the heritage of an area if they felt more connected to its history.

I feel like architectural preservation efforts are important, even if I will never be able to recognize a classic example of the colonial style on sight. I think it is good that more emphasis on preserving ‘recent’ historical places, such those built in the sixties and seventies, as rapid urban growth tends to destroy those places before they’ve hit the magic fifty-years-old mark. I suppose I had not considered that the architectural style of a building would contribute in some way to the history of a community, but I am glad that there are people who take an interest in such things. Old buildings are some of the most intriguing locations on city tours and if historic districts rely on tourism, then preserving as many as possible would be very beneficial to them. It does concern me that so many of the criteria for preservation are highly subjective.

Of equal concern is the possibility that companies might bully city planners into approving poor construction project plans with the threat of litigation. I am fully aware that such corporate goons are out there, but it makes me angry to think about what archaeological material may have been lost through intimidation and a lack of resources that small communities can use to protect themselves. More and more it is apparent that history and community significance consistently loses out to greed and self-interest, and what a pity that is.

How do we decide the significance of a place? I mean, I know how we do it – the book told me. There’s a thermometer. But after we’ve saved 10 significant homes, how do we decide whether or not to save the 11th? What if it’s just as architecturally beautiful? What if it’s just as historically significant to the neighborhood? What if great-grandma’s uncle’s first born son once lived there? TL;DR: I’m having a hard time grasping the line between “worth saving,” and “we’ve saved enough.”

There’s this horrible Facebook group that my dad keeps adding me to (and I keep deleting) that attempts to celebrate the “history” of Boise. Sometimes it’s somewhat interesting (though largely unsourced), but it seems like the majority of posts that I see are made by old fogeys wondering where the old KMart used to be and bemoaning the loss of history every time the city knocks down an office building from the 70s. They’re all that I could think of when I read this book. I know they don’t make the call when it comes to preservation, but they get awfully upset about it, and I can’t help but wonder if that’s what some of these committee meetings might sound like.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m 110% in favor of saving and preserving historic buildings and places, but it has to be done right. When I went to New Orleans a few years ago, I wanted to spend all of my time in the Vieux Carré district, soaking up the history and culture. After a long afternoon of wandering, I became aware of the fact that the French Quarter is a money pit. Yes – it’s beautiful, but it’s only kept beautiful for the tourists, and I’m glad the book touched on this, and places like it. The French façades only hide t-shirt shops, tacky ghost stories, and ridiculously expensive drinks. Venturing outside of the Quarter is where you’ll meet the people who know the city’s real history. Unfortunately, I can’t imagine a world in which historic preservation isn’t largely used for capitalist interests, so I guess I’m glad that they’re being saved at all, whatever the ulterior motive may be…

Once again, I found these sections of Historic Preservation illuminating.  By outlining all the multiple ways of thinking about preservation, I could not help but notice how subjective everything is.  In determining historical or architectural significance, I could imagine how many arguments are fought over different buildings and which ones get preserved or not.  These processes are yet another area in which the bureaucracy creates hoops for people to jump through, discouraging more participation.

I thought it was interesting that the authors brought up the “experience economy” and the Starbucks example.  I see locally in Boise, that very same idea at work downtown and the businesses that occupy those spaces, ironically as a reaction against Starbucks.  The restaurants and coffee shops market themselves as being local and able to provide an atmosphere that deviates from the “chain businesses” to give them a “cool” vibe.  The historic buildings play a prominent role in the restaurant atmospheres, providing an “experience” at the same cost, or more, than the “chain” food establishments.  While that is a great use of the space, I wonder at the accessibility of those businesses.  Yes, I see the historic buildings and unique restaurants as assets to Boise, but I feel as if they only cater to specific people, excluding diverse participation in the downtown scene.  Like we have discussed before, I think it’s important that historic spaces be available to everyone.

I was glad that the authors also discussed the link between tourism and preservation.  By blending the two, heritage interpretation creates a more meaningful visit to tourists that goes beyond “site-seeing”.  This approach seeks to engage tourists foster an understanding of cultural places through the combination of tourism, preservation, living history, “edutainment,” and “experience” industries.  One example provided was how a local actor impersonated Thomas Edison and talked to visitors while on the tour.  While admirable, the book makes this approach seem like it is the best and only way to go about engrossing tourists.  I can’t help but consider how some visitors may not enjoy that experience, and how different people learn in multiple ways.  Once again, I think there cannot be a one size fits all model for varying historic sites.  Lastly, I thought the discussion on cultural and maritime landscapes broadened the scope of the book into areas that I hadn’t considered in my perceived discussion of preservation.

The legality of building preservation and historical significance of a house has never crossed my mind before. If it were up to me, most historical buildings would be saved. Older architecture is so beautiful and intricate. I would save most beautiful historical buildings. But since that can’t be done, the system of determining which buildings to preserve and which ones to not preserve seems like a good system. I am sure as a homeowner or property owner of any of these historical buildings that it is sometimes a nightmare. But it does make sense to have strict regulations in line.

The chapter regarding downtown revitalization got me thinking. I know this might be silly, but I hoped that the author would delve into repercussions of revitalizing the downtown of cities and how that can push low income people from their homes. The author touches on this idea during the Seattle Pike Place Market section and how the residents wanted to maintain its charm and the low-income housing surrounding the area. It is also touched upon in the “Other Preservation Issues” chapter briefly. The entire chapter seemed to only be focused on how these historic or just “old” neighborhoods could be turned into places for business. I feel like this isn’t and shouldn’t be the main point of historic preservation. I believe that there needs to be more of an effort towards stopping gentrification. The small section in the book that talks about it only offers up vague ideas on how to allow for low-income residents to keep their housing. Since this isn’t the point of the book, I will let it slide, but this issue is one that I was thinking about throughout the book. As much as I love older buildings and downtown areas, I am very much against the idea of gentrification. I hope someday we can find a perfect balance between historic preservation and people being able to live peacefully.

Historic preservation part 2… The problems that were so evident with the last reading have gotten worse, it would seem. The most problematic section of this reading for me was the “Historic Preservation and the ‘Experience Economy'”. And I found it problematic because it equated history, and it’s preservation to a Starbucks coffee. I find it absurd that communities should market themselves as being a white chocolate mocha frappuccino because some people think people don’t like regular coffee any more.
Again I am drawn to my experience in Nampa. There had been a push to renovate, rejuvenate, and revitalize the downtown area, complete with metal signage touting the railroad history of the neighborhood. The city fathers seemed to follow the “Main Street Program’s Four-Point Approach”. They even found private funding to renovate the theatre, which would help increase foot traffic and bring more people downtown.
But because they tried to make downtown a fancy coffee, they lost out on all the people who drink Folgers. Time passed, the returns on investments did not meet forecasted expectations, and the next batch of city administrators decided preservation was not worth the time or treasure. Now the city is minus more historic buildings because (as I said last time) it’s much more expensive to bring old buildings up to code than it is to knock them down and build something new.
Which leads to THE problem of historical preservation here in the West. The vast majority of those in authority believe that historic buildings are only of value if that value can be monetized. Thus the problem with capitalism, and society as a whole.
And I should probably stop now, before I go further down that particular rabbit hole.

I think I echo some of my classmates when I say that I didn’t realize it took so much time and effort to preserve a place, and that it takes a lot of private investments and work to make it all happen. The bureaucratic review processes would be enough to make me give up and say never mind, so I applaud those who work in preservation and still have a full head of hair (50-53). In an age in which institutions like the NEH and the National Parks Service are under threat, I can’t help but wonder if organizations like the National Trust for Historic Preservation will be faced with a loss of funding as well. What happens then? Will the work become completely privatized?

Conversely, I think I would love to be involved in the process of contextualism (103). The work of matching and compatibility to ensure the aesthetic and historic value of a site is something that always catches my eye, and I always think of my trip to New York City, where you can see stunning old cathedrals contrasted against the modern landscape of Manhattan. You can’t just put anything next to a historic site, and to learn that there are guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior on this very process is incredibly cool (112-115).

One interesting aspect within this list of regulations is the notion of teardowns, and this is where the Preservation Idaho site fit nicely into the rest of the reading (117). On a couple of occasions, I’ve been downtown on a weeknight and was able to witness some of the houses being moved from the Central Addition neighborhood up into the North End. It’s abundantly clear that the Central Addition land is worth a ton of money, seeing everything that’s being built up around it, and so I’m glad to see that effort is being made to preserve these houses, instead of tearing them down at the first sign of an interested land investor. Before I started paying attention to this neighborhood, I didn’t often think of houses as being worth preservation, and I hope that further work is being done to maybe try and teach the local community why saving these particular homes was worth so much effort and time.