Category: Uncategorized

I had no idea how convoluted, diverse, and complicated preservation was.  There are many types, levels, and functions of preservation.  While Tyler explained the National Register’s Criteria for Evaluation of a property’s historic significance, I couldn’t help but notice how subjective the criteria seemed.  The property has to be associated with a “significant” event in American history, associated with a “significant” person, on a “significant” site, or representative of a “significant” type, period, method, or form of construction or art.  These criteria seem ridiculously ambiguous and I wonder how often political/ethnic/racial motivations help make a specific site “significant?”  I particularly liked the thermometer metaphor in thinking about historic “significance;” specific criteria can benefit or detract from the overall “significance” of a building, area, or location.

While I understand the point of the Fifty-Year-Rule, I am sure there are numerous buildings over fifty years old that lack historic, architectural, or cultural value.  Likewise, I am sure there are more examples than the few Tyler mentions where historic, architectural, or cultural value exists to a great degree on “newer” buildings.  Why can’t history be truly lived?  Why the arbitrary number? Why 50? Why not 100? Why not 25?

On page 148, Tyler explained the criteria for excluding locations from the National Register.  Much like the criteria for including locations, I found these to be rather subjective.  Religious properties are generally not listed unless they have significant historical or architectural merit.  I have been to a great number of churches throughout my life.  Most of the churches either look extremely historic (because they are really old) or extremely new (because they are really new).  Many historic churches are located in historic districts and/or have “significant” architectural features.  Also, why is moving a structure such a big deal?  So long as visitors are informed of the move, I feel that relocating historically “significant” (to use their favorite word) buildings can be of great educational merit.  One of my favorite museums is a County Museum back home.  There are about ten relocated buildings that have been saved from being demolished and relocated to the outside museum.  When you go in the different buildings, the previous location is given as well as a description of when and why residents added to the original structures.  I have already argued about the arbitrary nature of the Fifty-Year-Rule.

In regards to dedesignation, I found one of the criteria to be subjective as well as ironic: a building or location can be dedesignated because of “prejudicial procedural error in the designation process.”  I would hate for a building to be dedesignated for the same reason, prejudicial procedural error in the dedesignation process.  The entire process seems like a bureaucratic mess.  As for dedesignating Soldier Field because they updated the structure, I feel that Soldier Field (Grant Park Field) still holds great cultural and historic value.  It is problems like this make me think twice about advocating the historic preservation of locations.  Economics drives society, America is after all capitalist in many ways.  Where do economics and historic preservation meet?

I found Tyler’s discussion on the “restoration” of Frank Lloyd Wright’s home and studio in Oak Park, Illinois interesting.  I lived less than ten blocks from here during undergrad, and I went on the architecture and history tours a few times while I lived there.  While his specific home and studio have been restored to their 1913 selves, there are three buildings next to this complex that Wright crafted.  People live in these buildings and they reflect later additions as well as Wright’s evolving architectural styles.  If you go to the Frank Lloyd Wright home in Oak Park, they offer a walking tour that encompasses these buildings as well as parts of the local high school and a couple churches he either designed or built.  When his home and studio are places within the context of the other buildings, all of which are currently being used, the restoration efforts seem more than out of place.  Moreover, the museum’s tour guides never mention that the buildings were restored.  Most visitors are led to believe that Frank Lloyd Wright was the only occupant of the building and nothing has been touched since, this is not good history.  Regardless of these “problems,” the tour is a lot of fun, but I would definitely suggest taking the walking tour rather than the simple on site “point and grunt” tour.

I had no idea how many different types of preservation and documentation existed in the field of historic preservation.  After finishing today’s readings, I am very appreciative that I am not going into historic preservation.  Part of the reason for this is seemingly subjective criteria for determining how “significant” a place or location is.  Another reason for this is that I cannot imagine trying to decide which type of preservation to attribute to which building, nor can I imagine trying to defend the reasoning for my decision.  Tyler claims that preservationists are not against development, but I find his argument rather biased.  If preservationists feel that a specific structure needs to be maintained exactly as is, or that one original building materials can be utilized, preservationists are indeed against development.  Development and progress go hand in hand, therefore, being against progress is being against development.  There is a fine line between maintaining the cultural, historic, or architectural significance of a building and rendering a building useless or unable to make money.  As for the discussion regarding “experience economies,” I wish Tyler would have delved deeper into how a community, state, or region effectively pursues such an experience.  Furthermore, I wish Tyler would have discussed the, inevitably there are many, failed attempts at creating “experience economies.”

After reading, please click on the link at the end for some more information connected to this article.

My response to this week’s reading is hopefully going to be less scathing than in previous weeks. I am at heart a material activist. Though I spend much time considering and debating the mental and philosophical aspects of things, at the point where I resign myself to material activity, I actually enjoy the processes and procedures involved. I spend much of my free time, and a good portion of my work time involved in hands-on projects. Having said that, when I began reading about preservation technology, I was immediately and intimately enthralled to turn and read each page.

When I was growing up I was known to most of my friends, and many of their parents as “Zach the Lego Maniac,” which was a play on the ‘80s marketing campaign for Legos. I spent nearly every free hour and minute that I could playing with Legos. I would build everything from buildings and basic engines to entire play cities on a sheet of cardboard on which my sister and I had drawn streets, building lots, and parks. We would even sometimes designate buildings that were so cool that they could not be destroyed (we were little preservationists). One of my early works—probably when I was about six—was a house that I built in such a way as to have a stream running through and beneath it, not too unlike Fallingwater. I can only figure that having a father who had practiced as an architect, I must have seen a picture of the house and it so transfixed me that I had to do it myself. And so began what remains today an infatuation with Wright’s fabulous architecture. And here begins my interaction with our reading this week in Historic Preservation.

In the book Historic Preservation in Chapter Seven there was discussion about the historic reconstruction of Fallingwater, specifically the book discussed the paint sampling for conservation, I was shocked that Fallingwater was not mentioned for its more dramatic restoration efforts, specifically the famed cantilever balcony striated over the waterfall. The legend told, and it is purely anecdotal to my knowledge, is that after construction of the famous balcony, the engineers refused to remove the supports holding up the extreme ends of the balcony. Upon hearing this news Wright was so furious that he immediately left his office, went to the construction site and removed the piers himself. The balcony stood on its own, and did for many, many years. In the 1990s concern began to grow over the balcony’s decline—and when I say decline, I literally mean that it began to sag, droop, go down.

I believe that it was late in the ‘90s, when I was in high school, that the debate broke over whether it was right to right wright’s balcony, or whether it should be allowed to decompose according to natural order. As I recall, there were actually those who believed that natural order should be allowed to take its course. For me, for a few years, believing that Fallingwater was the pinnacle of architecture, this debate and trouble was quite central to my life. I watched as the preservationists and the environmentalists and the engineers and the architects fought over what I truly believed to be a part of myself. It was painful, I was actually distraught that anyone could be so careless with such a grand memory of mine. There was also a considerable amount of discussion over what era to reconstruct and decorate the house, and so forth. There was a small contingent who even believed that the piers should be rebuilt and inserted beneath the balcony ends. In the end, the balcony was saved, hoisted by cranes from the other side of the house, the old concrete largely removed, the steel girders and rebar replaced (as I recall) and the balcony refinished and repainted, assumedly with the appropriate colors. And I believe in 2002, the house opened for tours.

That little story was free. In it however, there were some strong connection with the reading from this week. Fallingwater is now—having been restored—in a state of conservation. That is, parts of it have been re-engineered to a modern standard, and it now must be tended to. Which raised the idea in my head that these practices of preservation, restoration, reconstruction, and conservation are not—and possibly never are—practiced singularly. They are, as most practices  mental or material, a rich tapestry of interaction. A preserved site would not be preserved long without conservation. A restored site is not likely to be completed entirely with original materials, there will be an element of reconstruction involved, and materials, despite using the same, are processed in modern fashions. Similarly, when it comes to restoring building without original plans, our modern world turns to computer-aided software rather than pencil and ink. Despite the modern touches and technology—that I believe greatly enhance the process and imagination and recreation—preservation is rich and fascinating.

Here’s a link to Western Pennsylvania Conservancy’s Fallingwater restoration page.

My Wiki contributions may be found at:
Boise Wikipedia page under Culture, the section about Boise City Department of Arts and History
and
Boise Wiki, Garden City page, as well as some edits on the Chinden Blvd. page

For the Wiki Project I wrote on two different subjects, driven in part by content already available and in part based on information that I had available at the time. Overall the process was rather exacerbating, for several reasons. What I had initially planned on writing, and had already written for the most part, was not applicable to both wikis. Too, the great disparity between the two wikis editorial styles, ease of access, tools for editing, forms for finishing and editability would have made even the same article vastly different between the two. Finally, there were the issues unique to each wiki that were significant enough to make it such that even if the article or addition were written the same, it would have to be altered significantly enough to adapt to each. This last issue, fortunately could actually aid in avoiding plagiarism. For these reasons, the project was time consuming and frustrating, I will discuss each a little more in depth.

Initially, I had planned on writing about the Boise Department of Arts and History (BDA&H), creating a page on each wiki. I actually performed some research, and wrote the greater part of the article that I planned on submitting, before I dug too deep on either wiki. In retrospect, I would reverse this order, searching each wiki thoroughly to see if it exists. What I found was that the page for BDA&H actually existed at the Boise Wiki, and some of the content was conspicuously close to what I had written. Because of this, it was also not editable enough to make it a valid edit for the project. I then went to Wikipedia, where I assumed I would be able to create a new page for the department. After performing a search for it on Wikipedia, I did a quick find on the text of the Boise page to see if it was mentioned there. It was not. Upon this discovery, I planned on just copying my text onto a new page template, inserting the appropriate markups for references, and calling it good. What I found was more frustrating.

Wikipedia does not allow new pages for businesses or organizations unless they are considered “significant.” By Wikipedia standards, the department is not a significant organization. I turned to plan B which was to use what I had written as an addition to the Boise Wikipedia page. Most of what I had written, while unique, was not well adapted thematically to the Boise page, could be adjusted to fit under the “Culture” heading. My original article had bullet points, headings, and some content that concerned itself with things that had already been mentioned in the Wikipedia article, due to this I had to alter the structure and flow of my original work. I removed the bullet points, opting for a comma delimited list that fit better within the flow of the existing work. Before editing the page, I thoroughly read through the talk page to determine if there had been any discussion concerning my topic and there had not. Strangely, there has been little discussion on the subject of the Boise Wikipedia page in over two years. After reading the talk, I began the editing process.

I consider myself relatively tech savvy, when I want to be, and I am not a beginner in working with internet applications, however, Wikipedia is an entirely different monster with entirely different markup and usage. This was lesson number one as I approached the editing portion of the assignment. I worked quickly through the tutorials, but it was still a considerable amount of effort toward simply adding 300 words to an article.  Once I did begin editing, I found it useful, though somewhat time consuming, to use more skilled authors tags to encode pop outs for references. In the end, I spent the bulk of this assignment attempting to understand Wikipedia better from the backend. For this reason it was a frustrating assignment. If Wikipedia is not a method to further my career as a historian, or even really as a public historian, I feel as though it was time wasted. If it were universal code and markup that I could apply to more internet applications, it may have had some merit, but in the end it felt frustrating and not like time well spent. And with the Boise Wikipedia page so neglected of late, there was no notice or discussion of my changes.

Wikipedia finished, I turned my attention toward the Boise Wiki. I chose to write a small page on Garden City and its history, as it is relatively new and Boise and Garden City were one and the same until 1949. On the Boise Wiki what I found was less moderation, less “fancy coding”, which in turn led to less fancy pages. On the Boise Wiki I was able to copy and paste my work without a lot of effort and even hyperlinks created in MSWord copied without a problem. The experience was far more efficient, or at least less cumbersome.

Having trudged through the wiki authoring experience, I would summarize by saying that while there is a place for this consensus-based interaction and an attempt at establishing facts, I also believe that if it will not advance my career, I will likely spend little time on it. It appears to be a vault of trivialities that may be helpful for filling out a crossword, but for serious and penetrating research and rogation, it is impractical. Wikipedia, while it looks nice, the amount of knowledge that one would have to keep to just write a simple article and format it neatly, seems to interfere with the message that the article is conveying. Because of this, I wonder who it is that has time to worry about all the technicalities, and whether they have substantive knowledge about the subject on which they are writing.

Before this assignment, I had no idea how many Wikis existed online.  I had heard of Wikipedia, but that was about it.  As both a student and an educator, I was not fond of Wikipedia.  Fearful of misrepresentations, falsehoods, and lack of depth, I rarely used Wikipedia when researching topics.  I constantly reminded my students to utilize reputable sources when conducting research.  Inevitably, one of my students would ask about Wikipedia; my answer was always something along the lines of “You can’t trust the information on Wikipedia, because anyone can edit Wikipedia pages,” or “use the links on the bottom of the page to do your own research.”  After going through the process of creating a Wikipedia page, I have gained a sense of respect for this online encyclopedia.  I will still tell my students to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, as all researchers should approach any source; but, I will stop haranguing the use of Wikipedia as a source.

I spent a few hours clicking through Wikipedia pages, reading the “talk” portions, and seriously wondering if I would ever find a topic worth editing.  Dr. Madsen-Brooks had sufficiently scared me from creating a new Wikipedia page, so I began searching for a “stub” article.  I eventually stumbled across the Wikipedia “page” on the Nevada caucuses.  I say “page” because this article was the epitome of a Wikipedia “stub.”  The entire article read “The Nevada caucuses are held every four years to determine whom Nevada’s delegates will support in choosing Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.  Since 2008, the Nevada caucuses have been scheduled early in the nomination process.”  As is, this article was, in all reality, completely useless.  I set out to remedy this and began extensively researching the Nevada caucuses.  The updated version, a complete article, can be viewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_caucuses.

In modeled my Nevada caucuses Wikipedia article on the Iowa caucuses page in order to legitimize the article.  I actually posted this information onto the “talk” page in hopes of deterring Wikipedia editors from deleting my article entirely.  As for style and content, I strived to copy the Iowa caucuses page as closely as possible.  The two pages now have similar subsections and look relatively the same.  Creating a Wikipedia article is much harder than it seems.  I thought I would be able copy and paste my article from Microsoft Word and be done within a matter of a few clicks.  I was sadly mistaken.  After much confusion, I ended up opening the Iowa caucuses “edit” page next the Nevada caucuses “edit” page and trying to mirror the symbols as best I could.  Once I began writing in “Wikipedia text language,” I grasped certain things rather quickly; for example, “[[]]” internally links words to other Wikipedia pages.  Creating references and citations, on the other, was much more difficult.  After about two and a half hours of adding “Wikipedia text language” to my article, I was ready to publish.  The links worked and the article looked professional.  I keep checking the article and “talk” page for the Nevada caucuses; so far, no one has edited or deleted the article.

Based off of this experience, Dr. Madsen-Brooks’ explanations of Wikipedia culture, and reading numerous “talk” pages, I now realize that Wikipedia is a fairly reputable source.  Why anyone in their right mind would try and change Wikipedia pages just to add lies and misconceptions is beyond me.  I also realize that many individuals, mostly young, white, males that have nothing better to do, constantly police Wikipedia to fix postings that fail to express general consensus regarding specific issues.  This experience has given me a newfound faith in the information that exists on Wikipedia.  I will no longer harangue my students and colleagues for using Wikipedia.

I had much less apprehension about posting to the Boise Wiki.  I wrote my article on the Boise Architecture Project, a local, student-based project I recently discovered.  Seeing as the Boise Wiki is a local Wiki meant to benefit the greater community, I strived to write accessibly.  Rather than posting a huge chunk of information, I decided to break the information up into readable sections that would entice Boise Wiki users to read the majority of the post.  My Boise Architecture Project article can be found at https://boise.localwiki.org/Boise_Architecture_Project.  At first, I found the Boise Wiki very user friendly.  Initially, I copied my article from Microsoft Word and simply pasted it into the Boise Wiki; this worked perfectly fine.  After browsing through other entries on the Boise Wiki, I realized that most of the entries contained pictures, which prompted me to search for Creative Commons pictures that would tie in with my article.  I found three pictures that I felt complemented the information I posted about the Boise Architecture Project, and proceeded to try and paste them into the Boise Wiki.  This process was extremely frustrating, because there is no usable formatting button.  I tried to format the pictures for about thirty minutes before giving up and simply placing the photos in between paragraphs.  Besides this frustration, the Boise Wiki was fairly easy to use.  My only advice for future Boise Wiki and Wikipedia editors would be to begin as soon as possible because, inevitably, there will be issues you need to conquer.

New York Times article:Post Office Buildings With Character, and Maybe a Sale Price

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/arts/design/preservationists-fight-postal-service-over-sales.html?ref=design&_r=0

The readings this week were extremely informative. I immensely enjoyed the readings, but the Tyler book provided almost an overload of information, especially for someone unfamiliar with the topic. What I gathered from the readings is that preserving our history is a complicated process with a lot of different players. Since the book presented so much new information to me, and because of my ignorance regarding all of the agencies and laws, I hesitate to argue a point this week. There is an abundance of information that needs to be understood in order to comprehend what historic preservation entails and how it operates in the U.S., and I am still a baby novice when it comes to this comprehension.

Some questions that arose for me during the readings were about the ideas of progress. Perceptions of progress seem to be at the root of whether a building is preserved, and in what ways that preservation is handled. Is progress mutually exclusive from preservation, and will there always be people who feel that an old building isn’t worth quite as much as a new one? I also questioned whether all the guidelines, procedures, and boards help or hinder historic preservation? Would comprehensive legislation be more effective? In looking at Boise, we still have a lot of work to do in terms of preservation. I can say that a city department is currently working on preserving the Central Addition and a house on River Street. Local activist Jon Bertram has been coordinating effectively with the V.A. to preserve the oldest building on Fort Boise, but this is not enough. The 1970s was a bad time for Boise and little historic gems are still disappearing all the time from our neighborhoods.

Concepts that Tyler touched upon that stood out for me were his assertion that “Preservationists need to recognize that the preservation of historic buildings should include not only the physical structure, but also the history of the place.” I think this is a profound concept, and one I don’t see manifested frequently. The concept of contextualism was also very compelling, and perhaps the agreement can be made that contextualism provides for aesthetically pleasing and more well-functioning neighborhoods. However, no matter how one feels about preservation there is still a need to engage and educate the public regarding history. Although agreement may not be the outcome, public education and engagement will least lead us to a more thoughtful dialogue on the issues.

America is a country that likes new things.  We like new faster cars, new and better technology, and new buildings with all the conveniences that can be added.  The downside of this love of the new is that many beautiful and historic places are lost in this mad rush to “new and improved”.  The Eastman Building in Boise is one example.  It was scheduled to be torn down, ignored, fell into disrepair, and then burned to the ground.  Replacing it for 20+ years was a lovely hole in the ground.  How is that progress?  Downtown Boise did not need another mall, which is what was supposed to replace the Eastman.  Nothing remains of the once vibrant Chinese community that lived in Boise.  The buildings that housed them are long gone along with anything that could be learned from visiting them.  The Basque culture, on the other hand, managed to preserve many of its important sites.  Many people recognized the significance of the Basque history in Boise.  Because they did people can visit the Basque Museum and Cultural Center and see how this unique population lived and played in Boise in the 19th and 20s^th centuries.  Acknowledging and understanding why a building or site is important is the first step toward preservation.

The thought of Mt.Vernon or Independence Hall being torn down is chilling.  It would be like tearing down Notre Dame to build a mall.   While many sites have been preserved due to the interest and diligence of the communities involved, there are many more that need attention.  In this city alone there are many buildings that are subject to destruction in the name of progress and most in Boise don’t know or care.  While the situation has improved from the 1960s era of plastic replacements, it is still not at a level that keeps historic buildings safe.  If the tide had truly changed then all historic sites would be fully funded and repaired.  The public likes the idea of preservation, but not the realities.   History is often learned through research at a site.  Digging at the pueblo sites in New Mexico and Arizona has been invaluable to providing knowledge of the indigenous people of the southwest.  Had those sites been lost through looting or neglect or the need for a new parking lot then the history of a people would also have been lost.  What we build today is so temporary we have a name for the massive homes that are thrown up in a month: McMansions.  Being able to visit, see, and touch a piece of our past is vital to understanding that past.  Writing about an object is great, but being able to put your hands on it brings it to life.

I loved reading about how other cultures deal with their past.  I found in fascinating to read about how different nations view preservation.  Japan’s rebuilding of the Ise Shrine every 20 years is a great way to preserve the history of a building and the reason for its being while at the same time making sure that it can still be used.  I am going to have to research it online and find out when they will be tearing the old building down and putting a new one right next door.

One question that I do have is to what era does a building get restored?  How does that choice get made and how do we preserve the other histories of a site?

Historic preservation has a diverse, convoluted, and rich history.  I appreciated the author’s introduction to this varied field.  Tyler explains the increasingly important role historic preservation has played in American society while maintaining that “it is our duty as a society and as members of our own local communities to protect and preserve our heritage.”  Without this firm founding, his arguments would seem rather subjective; however, it is clear that Tyler only wishes to raise awareness about the field of historic preservation in order to better society as a whole.  As with most movements in society, historic preservation began as a grassroots movement.  Ever since this founding, infighting, bureaucracy, and individual interests have plagued the field.

In “Preservationists Are Un-American,” Clem Labine attacks the American spirit of opportunism.  In boiling all of American history down to capitalism and consumerism, Labine fails to grasp the diverse, rich history of the United States.    Labine must have a rather narrow view of American history if he truly believes preservation is un-American.  Preservationists in America, the West included, must strive to preserve all aspects of our nation’s history and culture.  Manifest Destiny is as much a part of American history as Republicanism and Individualism.  Buildings, paintings, pamphlets, the list goes on and on, from all aspects of America’s history should be preserved.  America is so much more than a “use it up and move on” society, the mere existence of preservationists counters this argument.  Recognizing the need to preserve “our built heritage because it represents who we are as people” includes preserving frontier homes, homesteads, and other edifices that were built as direct results of American opportunism, consumerism, and Manifest Destiny.  To preserve a homestead log cabin and fail to explain the history behind the building, the prevailing social norms that allowed the building to come into existent, and the frontier spirit led the settler to build where they did would be an injustice to the people.  Preservationists must protect and preserve the building along with its history, or preservation fails to be a service to the public, an “applied history.”

Coming from an educational background, I was particularly interested in the benefits of preservation from an education standpoint.  Tyler beat around the bush for a while when trying to explain that the more an individual is engaged with subject matter, the more they will learn, and the more they will retain.  I wish he would have delved deeper into the idea of “edutainment.”  On the other hand, Tyler gave a great explanation of “living history,” including its many forms, functions, and benefits.  People of all ages can learn simply through cultural (historical) immersion and experience.

After reading the differing views on urban revitalization and facadism, I had many questions.  How are city leaders supposed to deal with historical preservation while also dealing with intense poverty, degrading buildings, poor health and a plethora of other issues plaguing inner cities.  Don’t cities have a duty to maintain public health? What about the decades of asbestos insulated buildings?  What duty, if any, does a city have to ensure that gentrification does not occur when urban revitalization is successful?  Why are businesses attacked for preserving facades while building thriving backdrops?  If a business is forced to stay within the confines of a century old building, who is to say that business that can afford to maintain the facades in the first place will want to inhabit those buildings?  Preservationists need to realize that businesses will do things to benefit the community, including preserving culture and history, if they are able to thrive and continue to operate efficiently.  In the end, isn’t preserving a historic building’s facade better than destroying the building entirely?

Tyler’s discussion about bureaucracy, government oversight, and legislation.  The federal government enacted specific acts in the 20th century in hopes of encouraging  historic preservation.  Some of theses acts were very successful, take the National Park Service for example.  The National Park Service was protected and preserved numerous sites that were seen as important to our nation’s history after its founding in 1916.  Most of these acts, however, had great ideas, but lacked teeth with which to follow through with the ideas comprised within them.  Take the National Register of Historic Places for example.  The National Register’s rights are restricted to identifying places for evaluation, encouraging friendly activities, and providing lists for review.  The National Register cannot restrict rights, guarantee funds, stop development, or provide tax benefits.  A final example lies in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation which was given legislative teeth with which to act, but individuals must jump through numerous bureaucratic loopholes in order to pass Section 106 Review.  Thankfully, preservation is more clear-cut (not perfectly of course) at the state and local level.  As with most things, the state and local community better understand the community, culture, and history and are therefore better able to engage in historic preservation.  As Tyler states, “only at the local level can historic properties be regulated and protected through legal ordinances.”

 

Reading the first few chapters of Historic Preservation really shocked me, specifically the second one. I had no idea Independence Hall was saved from demolition, a scary thought. Then again incidents such as that happen today. Norman Tyler stated in the introduction that Americans in the last few decades have become aware of the importance of our historic structures (11). However, when we live in a city where a large portion of downtown’s history was destroyed to make room for modern buildings, it’s hard to see his point. Boise’s example is not unique either. In Northern California, the small town of Coloma ,where gold was discovered in 1849, relies solely on dedicated volunteers. Many of the buildings are neglected within the area, and for a time it seemed Coloma was going to decay and be forgotten. Thanks to volunteers the town is still a tourist attraction and historic park. A building near Coloma called the Bailey Mansion along CA Highway 49 is neglected and has a sign on the fence that says “Save the Bailey Mansion.” The windows are boarded up, and the building looks like it could fall apart. Maybe a reason for this is, as Tyler pointed out, a lack of understanding as to the importance of the building. Yes, knowing what occurred within a building is an important part of history, however many buildings whose histories are unknown should not simply be torn down. So I have a hard time seeing how Americans have moved towards respecting their historic buildings when cities across the country have undergone demolishing historic buildings to create space for a  shopping mall, or something similar. Maybe there is more respect now than there was before, since in the 19th century the wilderness was the focus, but it still seems there is not enough respect shown to our historic buildings.

As the blog on Preservation Nation showed, many sites in Boise are in danger of being demolished, and almost all of those listed have been neglected to some degree. That only strengthened my opinion that Tyler’s statement seemed a bit false. How many people in Boise even know about those buildings, or even care? More specifically, how many young people know or care? However, there are times when demolition is necessary, but many of the buildings on the list, specifically the old courthouse, should be cared for. It is hard to expect people to save a building, no matter how old, if the significance of the buildings seems unimportant. In that regards, Tyler is correct because without a significant purpose, it’s just another building to many people. Tyler brought up another point about architecture. The architecture of the building is historic in itself because certain styles represented certain times. Even though a building may have been unimportant inside, outside it reveals  historical significance. For that reason alone many buildings should not be torn down.

I did appreciate that Tyler mentioned the Presidio, a site I have visited many times, and its important to the city of San Francisco. It’s a beautiful location where the citizens of the city can enjoy themselves in a historic environment. It should serve as an example, and hopefully it already has.