Rethinking Historic Preservation
Historic preservation of the built environment is an overlooked, but critical component in the 'rise of a creative class'.
Richard Florida's book, The Rise of the Creative Class, has received
considerable press in the last few months. Florida's "creativity index" is based
on his theory that the presence of creative people leads to urban economic development,
and he has brought visibility to the idea that the presence of artists is linked
to a larger economic vitality and job growth. This is an important insight,
but there also should be a greater recognition of some related issues:
- That access to art is pervasive: one simply needs to be educated to see, feel, hear, smell and/or taste "art";
- That millions of Americans are informal artists, creating art every day; and
- That artistic contributions to society at large are not limited to the "creative class."
Thus, Florida's work skims over the visual and tangible fabric of what makes those cities appealing to artists in the first place. In many cases, that fabric--"the built environment"--is the infrastructure of buildings, streets, parks and public and private spaces that make a place feel distinctive from others. That distinctiveness is perceived by those who live, work and play in those environments, and to the extent that it has drawn young college graduates and empty nesters to settle in previously unfashionable urban neighborhoods, it has helped to keep cities socio-economically and racially integrated.
This awareness of surrounding space is sometimes considered to fall within the purview of the field of historic preservation. However, historic preservation is often dismissed as being elitist, concerned with "dead white men's houses" or maintaining museum-quality facilities commemorating the seemingly irrelevant. And, admittedly, the early history of historic preservation in the United States was almost exclusively devoted to the commemoration of dead white men.
In the year 2003, however, this compartmentalization of preservation does everyone a disservice. A better way to define historic preservation--short of developing a new name for it--is the promotion of an awareness of the variety and distinctiveness of the elements within the built environment that have existed for a number of years. For example, these elements might include the cliff-like wall of Michigan Avenue in Chicago; they might also include the small geometric ornament on the front porch of a house or the entrance of an Art Deco office building in Manhattan.
We need to think about what contribution "the built environment" can offer to informal arts activities and to those who don't think of themselves as artists or members of the "creative class." For example, Sadie Thorson is an African American woman who is a regular attendee at a south side Chicago quilting guild that meets in a local park. She tells of how she is always looking for inspiration:
"It's a big world out there and quilters can get a lot out of it. Every day you see colors, you see patterns and after a while you start to see things and pick them out. I was coming down the street over here and saw the patterns in the street -- I found my next quilt!"
This woman typifies the ways in which people can benefit from an awareness of "the built environment." However, large numbers of people are largely unable to verbalize exactly why individual spaces feel so good to be in, or to look at. One reason for this inability to verbalize is that in the United States, for example, a visual education has largely disappeared from the public schools. And if human beings can't articulate in words how things affect them, they tend to discount the importance of that effect.
There is a rich visual vocabulary that can be taught, and that can enhance even the daily experience of walking down the street. Through such an education in "the built environment," many people would be better able to perceive, enjoy and be inspired by the quality of the spaces, facades, streets and vistas around them. Once the value of daily creativity is recognized--whether in quilting, or woodcarving, or painting--the visual and tangible fabric of what makes those cities appealing to both informal artists and the creative class will occupy a more respected role in civic life.
Martha Frish, AICP, teaches Real Estate Development in the School of the Art Institute of Chicago's Historic Preservation Program. She holds an M.A. in Historic Preservation Planning from Cornell and an M.S. in Non-Profit Management from New York University. Rebecca Severson works as a public interest anthropologist at The Field Museum. She was the lead ethnographer for the recently finished, Informal Arts: Finding Cohesion, Capacity and Other Cultural Benefits in Unexpected Places.
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
There are currently no posts in this category.
Planetizen picks
Contribute
- Friday Funny: New York vs Boston, Which is the Better Sports Town?
- Who to Follow on Twitter for Your Transportation News Fix
- Muscling Out the Car in NYC
- Calgary Experiments With Crowdsourcing Its Budget
- Zoning to Protect Mom & Pops on the Upper West Side
- America's Third World Infrastructure
- Dancing on the Grave of Redevelopment
- Successful DC Bikeshare Program Heading for the Suburbs
- Urban Revitalization: Baby Steps or the Magic Bullet?
- Mapping Energy Consumption, Block-by-Block
Request for Proposals (RFP) for Corridor Redevelopment Plan
City of Auburn, Alabama
Feb 02, 2012
Senior Defense Official to Lead Dialogue on Next Rounds of BRAC and Budget Cuts
International Economic Development Council
Feb 02, 2012
BAC Live Online Information Sessions February 8
Boston Architectural College
Feb 02, 2012
VERDEXCHANGE 2012 Conference Demystifies Trillion Dollar Green Energy Economy
VerdeXchange
Feb 01, 2012
www.flickr.com
|
Preservation-based revitalization
is really the only strategy that tends to work for center cities. Long before Richard Florida's book came out, people figured this out.
The sad thing about it is that most of the tools and techniques were figured out by the mid-1970s (such as creating revolving fund to purchase threatened properties and get them into the hands of people that care), in places like Savannah and Pittsburgh. (See books such as The Living City by Roberta Gratz, published in 1991, or her Cities back from the Edge, published in 1999[?].)
Reading The Living City today is as disheartening as it is invigorating -- especially the section that discusses the work of the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation -- because what it means is that while what works has been known for some time, people still seem to believe in the big projects, stadia, and the like, and proceed full force with demolition of what really matters (big campaigns for demolition of historic properties are ongoing in cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, and Baltimore).
Meanwhile, the knowledge of what works continues to be ignored. Even in cities like Washington and New York, where the lessons should be known from what is happening within those cities.
E.g., Harlem is being revitalized by people buying and restoring properties, not so much by pumping money into community development corporations and building suburban style shopping centers.
Richard Layman
preservation-based revitalization advocate, Washington, DC
Image of the City
Taking stock of one's visual perceptions is indeed lacking at a fundamental level. Kevin Lynch's "The Image of the City" should be required reading, along with Jane Jacobs, Holly Whyte and John Stilgoe - teaching the value of everyday things in our lives. James Kunstler provides the reason: We have become numb to what our environs are supposed to look like, but we deserve better than what we get. These are the ideas I try to get across in my discussion of design guidelines for what I call "non-designated historic neighborhoods"...in other words - your neighborhood, wherever or whatever it might be.
Hist.Pres. and Planning
Thank you for exploring this topic. As a planner who implemented the historic preservation (and design) ordinance for the City of Santa Fe, I appreciate the intersection the authors draw between preserving historic buildings (less so, styles, however), promoting urban economic development and greater awareness of urban design (i.e. the built environment).
In that job, I was particularly concerned about protecting historic streetscapes as much as preserving individual structures. Toward that, a board member and I saw the need to develop guidelines for yard walls and fences that addressed proposals for inappropriately high or historically "incorrect" yard walls and fences, usually desired for the legitimate desire for privacy. But, often the rationale was based on a misunderstanding or missapplication of historic compound architecture found in some of the city's historic districts, but certainly not all. We increasingly saw the need to encourage yard walls and fences that more appropriately reflect the various historic fabric of neighborhoods here in the face of increasing proposals to add height or tall walls to homes where previously none existed. Too often, high walls are proposed in areas which were never historic compounds that are an attribute in some historic neighborhoods here. Anyway, hooray for more awareness about the built environment AS WE BUILD IT and its effect and contribution on how we lived and will live! More education is needed to raise this awareness. I like to believe we helped further this cause by developing the yard wall and fence guidelines.
Making the old new again
It is interesting to hear the same old arguments again for and against the preservation of our architectural beginnings, of the places we made when the land was new.
In another life, I helped survey the little hotels that would be today's SOBE a.k.a. The Miami Beach Architectural District. Forlorn as they were--though prized for their capacity to shelter nearly infinitely extraordinary amounts of income, they were home to a community of urban transplants, primarily Jewish people, whose traditions were expressed in the windows of the small shops along Washington and Collins avenues. The shops could have been in New York or Prague or Paris. People walked everywhere. People knew each other. It was home.
What they did not have, it seems to me now, was a property valuation and improvement system that cared as much about the quality of their lives as the developmental and stylistic history of their homes.
Today, the knowable community that was South Beach is gone, replaced by $5.00 coffees, impassible sidewalks, alarm systems and brokers of every description. Price is an affect, value an existential joke. Maybe, it's time we stop thinking altogether before we kill something else with our good intentions and the greed that follows.
Better, not Bigger....
The question of "historic preservation vs tear-down and redevelop" reminds me of the debate whether to build "a large park vs several smaller ones".
A large park creates a travel demand only met with greater transporation infrastructure. A multiplicity of small parks reduces these infrastructure requirements, reducing distances between home and recreation site; more easily met by walking, bicycling and via mass transit, with greater potential to influence adjacent development.
Thus, 'exclusive' historic preservation, like a large park, limits development potential, while incurring the high costs and impacts of transportation demand.
Bigger, is not necessarily better.
cultivating awareness of the built environment
Great piece! I'm responding to its call to acknowledge "the ways in which people can benefit from an awareness of 'the built environment'" - and its assertion that "large numbers of people are largely unable to verbalize exactly why individual spaces feel so good to be in, or to look at."
At Project for Public Spaces, a nonprofit planning/education organization, we address these issues in our placemaking workshops and through a "place diagram" that helps people to look at the built environment in terms of four major qualities: access & linkages; comfort & image; uses & activites; and sociability - as well as a number of tangible and intangible qualities that relate to them. E.g. people might describe a spaces as "fun" or "real" - and those intangibles can be quantified by things like property values or the level of local business ownership.
If you're interested in more, click here:
http://pps.org/topics/gps/gr_place_feat
Dilapidated
I would not argue against your point, Mr. Resta, except to say that older neighborhoods by themselves are not desirable, but require the help of people. And people moved into old buildings initially because they were inexpensive. (Please don’t forgot that many large cities that have excellent old buildings are being ignored…Detroit, for example, has excellent old buildings that are become…dilapidated…for the sake of new housing and suburban office parks on the fringe.) I have not yet been to "Philly," however, I could safely assume, if it is anything like Chicago (my hometown), it has an infusion of new structures. In fact, I'm sure of it, as--most--old buildings are not adequate as office buildings.
To your point that these structures are widely sought after, this is true, in part, because these structures were built during a time of craftsmanship and not because of anyone's particular yearning for old buildings. Hence, these structures are superior to the average suburban home in terms of construction and design. Unfortunately, the deciding factor in neighborhood revitalization and restoration of older structures is race and not quality buildings. (My point in my last diatribe.) One needs only to visit the huge swath of land on the south side of Chicago to see architectural gems go largely ignored while less significant buildings on the city’s north side are fought over. It will be very clear to you then that race matters.
My point was that historic preservation is overbearing and not necessary for saving buildings that should not be saved. If the building in question is located in a desirable location for an office building, then that office building should be built, for, if we do not build office buildings...they will be built in the suburbs, further eroding the delicate jobs-housing balance. Of course, I am biased in favor of cities and cities cannot, I repeat, survive as long people keep fighting new--more dense--development if it means losing some old, dilapidated structures But, by all means, save the good buildings. Just realize all old buildings are not, by definition, good
Neighborhoods as if people mattered
Frisch and Severson write, "In many cases, that fabric--"the built environment"--is the infrastructure of buildings, streets, parks and public and private spaces that make a place feel distinctive from others. That distinctiveness is perceived by those who live, work and play in those environments, and to the extent that it has drawn young college graduates and empty nesters to settle in previously unfashionable urban neighborhoods, it has helped to keep cities socio-economically and racially integrated."
I take that as saying that older built environments (not limited to 'preservation' showcases a.k.a. 'dead white men's houses')continue to appeal to people for a number of reasons.
Jane Jacobs, in The Life and Death of Great American Cities (Random House, NY, 1961) writes:
Age of buildings, in relation to usefulness or desirability, is an extremely relative thing. Nothing in a vital city district seems too old to be chosen for use by those who have choice -- or to have its' place taken, finally, by something new. And this usefulness of the old is not simply a matter of architectural distinction or charm . . . In successful districts, old buildings "filter up." . . . Some people, for instance, prefer more space for the money (or equal space for less money). P. 193
A mix of housing a wide variety of people can afford, a sense of place in neighborhood, and a walkable scale with nearby amenities has always been a winning combination for a fair number of people.
old doesn't mean dilapidated
"Furthermore, the built environment precludes that things must constantly be rebuilt. Otherwise, we will have a stale, outmoded city of dilapidated structures--which no one will want no matter how "historic" they may be."
In a city with plenty of buildings between 200 and 250 years old and a building older than 150 years on just about every block downtown I can say for sure that an abundance of historic buildings doesn't equate to "dilapidated structures" that no one wants.
In fact, our oldest neighborhoods: Queen Village, Society Hill, and Old City boast the highest home values in the city. With 200 year old townhomes fetching the same $500,000 (and in many cases more) as those built 5 years ago.
The same goes for 120 year old office buildings and factories. Everywhere they are being converted into lofts and commanding the highest prices the market has.
I'm not extolling expensive housing here. I'm just pointing out that the demand for historic housing far oustrips the supply and like the saying goes about beachfront property . . . "they ain't makin' anymore of it!"
Jim Resta
- Philadelphia
Rethink it
Historic preservation has become an elitist art form for those who abhor anything modern or contemporary. As someone within the young, creative class, I can honestly say that I would prefer the inner city over any suburb, but not because of some nostalgic notion of the built environment.
Furthermore, the built environment precludes that things must constantly be rebuilt. Otherwise, we will have a stale, outmoded city of dilapidated structures--which no one will want no matter how "historic" they may be.
The street wall on S. Michigan is great because of the great buildings by great architects (and not because they are historic), yet that doesn't mean that we should hold it in contempt for the next 100 years. Some of the buildings should to be replaced.
As a member of the creative class, I would hate to be told by someone of the boomer generation that my new form of "art" is not suitable or appropriate for S. Michigan Ave or any other section of the city. I'm not a proponent of tearing everything down either.
Case in point, I was opposed to seeing the Stateway Gardens come down. They are historic in every sense of the word, yet no one in the historic preservation community batted an eye. I would have saved the structures by adding a series of buildings of different sizes--all contemporary--while rebuilding and reconfiguring the space within the existing structures. We could have tripled the density and created a city within the city for people of all races and incomes, including the currently, displaced residents. Unfortunately, we are condemned to repeat history by ignoring the needs of the poor and whipping away the historic wrongs of whites for the sake of progress...
...Yet we must preserve the real "historic" structures. [sigh]Let's rethink "historic" preservation and not just give it a new name!
Thanks for supporting "everyday" art
Re: Rethinking Historic Preservation
I live in Richmond, Virginia, a city planning to build massive performing arts center across the street from its new massive convention center. Meanwhile, small and medium-sized performance spaces and visual arts spaces and support for low-key everyday artists or experimental arts (with small audiences) are not supported by local government, economic development organizations and/or granting agencies. The city tears down buildings with cool architectural features for this progress and accompanying parking decks. Fortunately, artists persevere showing work in coffee shops and shoestring galleries; and local musicians (who can't sell 1000-5000 tickets) play in cramped venues and back porches all over town.
Your article will also help me in my work for the state coordinating the microenterprise program. We have a sizable number of microentrepreneurs who are knitters, wood craftspeople, and other artistic types. I will share your article (and the Informal Arts article) with my colleagues in the Virginia Main Street Program.
Finally, thanks for showing another reason why Richard Florida's 15 minutes of fame should have ended about 12 minutes ago.