Category: Uncategorized

When my boyfriend and I planned our Spring Break trip to Colorado the reasons were not about historic preservation or historic districts, but that is what we got to experience in so many ways.

First, we attended a family wedding held at The Stanley Hotel in Estes Park. The hotel opened in 1909 and was built by F.O. Stanley and his wife, Flora, (Stanley Steamer automobiles) when they came to Colorado because he had tuberculosis. The hotel is a member of the National Trust’s Historic Hotels of America, in 1977 was entered into the National Register of Historic Places and was later designated an Historic District as its own entity, not as a section of a town.

The rooms were furnished with beautiful antiques. The most visible upgrades of modern living were things like telephones, table lamps, the sprinkler system, the bathrooms and flat-screen TVs. We were “treated” all day everyday to watching and hearing many ghost tours  passing through the lobby and hallways. At night we encountered several paranormal investigators rigged out with digital voice recorders and night vision cameras…

One morning we drove up into the Rocky Mountain National Park where we saw the location of the Little Horseshoe Camp, the first CCC Camp west of the Mississippi which housed what was called the Woodpecker Army. They rode to their work sites in red sight-seeing vehicles. In Estes Park there was a small but really interesting museum about the Stanley family, the hotel and the Steamer automobiles.

Our other Colorado destination was back down the road in Boulder. We stayed at the Hotel Boulderado which also opened in 1909, has membership in the National Trust’s Historic Hotels of America and is on the National Register of Historic Places. It is located in Boulder’s Downtown Historic District. While my boyfriend attended a conference at the University of Colorado I got to wander around a couple of Boulder’s several Historic Districts which they started designating in 1976. According to a pamphlet I read that as early as 1980 Boulder won an award from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the urban environmental design of their pedestrian mall.

The Pearl Street pedestrian mall centers on the 1930’s Art Deco County Courthouse. In that area I noticed that all the businesses were locally owned, no chains or nationally recognized names. When I did see a Starbuck’s I realized I was in a fringe area outside of the actual Historic District. The architecture of the store fronts was not all of one era, but everything was certainly well-maintained and newer buildings were not built higher than those with historic facades. There were signs here and there with historic information, lots of benches, some sculpture, a fountain where kids could play, and a large kiosk with visitor information pamphlets.

I walked around a residential neighborhood that had some highlighted homes and churches. Again there were all different styles of architecture. The churches all appeared to have additions or extra building, many with a modern look, but blending in with the older original buildings. Many of the houses looked from the outside like single-family homes, but had 2 or more mailboxes which led me to think lots of students from the university lived in the area. One of the oldest elementary schools in Boulder was in this area. It’s still used with many additions to the back of it.

On our way out of town before heading to the airport we stopped at the Boulder Historical Museum. It’s in an old house that was originally a vacation home for a family from the East Coast. It was fun to walk through and think about some of our discussions about museums. Their display on Native Americans started with the coming of white people. They had some very hands on exhibits about mining, but sparse explanations about how some of the equipment was used. Then in the next room it was totally hands OFF where the telephone switchboard, old radio and gramophone were concerned.

One thing I really liked especially about the Downtown Historic District of Boulder was that people did seem to realize what a treasure they had. All the people I talked to in stores, restaurants and the hotel seemed incredibly proud to work in such a unique part of their town.

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?

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?

Can a museum save a city? yes.

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 18^th 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 18^th 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.

 

 

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 18^th 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.

 

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!

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.

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.

 

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.

I grow ever more annoyed with Timothy Luke’s chapter on botanical gardens. I had originally written a post about his treatment of the Holocaust museums, but I decided (after our class discussion) that his thoughts about the gardens particularly bothered me. He argues that “they are historically variable constructs that serve the cultural needs of variously evolving museum institutions and their audiences.” (p.126) This I agree with. Botanical Gardens are variable depending on when they were established and how they were curated over time, and they do serve cultural needs. Where I start to have one of those “eyebrow raising” moments comes when he starts going into the first/second nature arguments, and says “a spectatular image image of nature is fabricated,” and “rare plants can be cast as…an always abundant nature in artifice.” (127)

My problems with these statements come from the fact that it seems that Luke is leaving out something quite important to any cultural institution– the Mission Statement. Any institution with a mission statement is going to be working within it (if it isn’t, there’s other issues that need to be addressed.). He seems to believe that if someone wants to see nature, they should just go into the thick of things and see real nature. That, however, isn’t the mission of these gardens. Some places have a mission that only includes local flora. Other places, like so many Japanese gardens, is to promote well-being and ethnic understanding.

Luke seems to only present one side of the story when it comes to these locations. He doesn’t take into account that the whole goal of many of these cultural places is to transport someone to a different place and/or time, which would be impossible to do without the proper tools. While he seems to enjoy looking at museums, he is severely limited by his exclusion of evidence that doesn’t seem to fit into his highly critical and political scope.