Some preservation writing

I tend to write a fair amount on national e-lists on preservation and commercial district revitalization. Sometimes I put it in the blog, sometimes not. This piece is part of a longer thread, where I over-focused on designation within the National Register of Historic Places, which doesn't do much except with regard to federal government actions.

--------
Historic designation is probably the only strategy for maintaining neighborhood viability in the face of continued outmigration and the failure of municipal services.

I think I was focused on your discussion of NR designation which I don't think is enough.

I think it is local designation that matters most. Because all NR does is protect you from federal undertakings. To stabilize neighborhoods you need design review and demolition protection for all undertakings, which National Register designation doesn't provide, unless your state or local laws kick in such review in NR designated areas.

The Capitol Hill Historic District learned this the hard way in the mid-1970s, when a church demolished some well-loved buildings, claiming economic hardship vis-a-vis maintenance. This led to the creation of DC specific historic preservation legislation which is quite strong--for places and buildings that are designated.

In fact, I think that preservation (except that in a city like Detroit you don't have a lot to work with, unlike say Royal Oak or Ferndale or Birmingham or Dearborn) is the only way for declining neighborhoods in center cities and inner ring suburbs to stabilize and improve in the face of continued disinvestment.

The lamentably out of print _Changing Places_ by Willkie and newly announced Scully Prize winner Richard Moe excellently describes the value of preservation in revitalizing center city commercial districts and neighborhoods. Another tome that is particularly excellent, the book that I say if you're only going to read one book on revitalization, then read this one, is _Cities: Back from the Edge_ by Roberta Gratz. (If you want you can also read her earlier book _The Living City_.)

Frankly, I think that historic preservation is the only sustainable strategy for urban revitalization around. If you want proof, just look at almost any urban renewal project from the 1950s-1980s. Likely now they are being rebuilt or torn down. Meanwhile, historic neighborhoods and commercial districts, especially those that are designated, in both strong market and weak market cities, continue to improve.

I used to paralyze myself thinking about how to fix Detroit (I lived there off and on til I was about 11), until I realized that you can't fix Detroit--at the city-wide level--at least not at the beginning. You have to focus on this at the neighborhood level.

There is no question that in DC, historic preservationists stabilized the city by living in and improving neighborhoods, all the while trends favored outmigration. Of course, DC preservationists had a lot to work with--great building stock and relatively dense neighborhoods--Detroit isn't similarly blessed. But DC maintained its population for the most part through 1970. But the riots, and later home rule and the degradation of city services fueled faster outmigration of the middle class in particular (black and white).

I think that preservationists don't get enough credit for saving DC. OTOH, at the same time, this is leading to a change in the city towards being more wealthy and white. This is a pretty complicated process that I am not going to discuss in this post...

Plus, I think one of the downsides about creating strong historic preservation groups at the neighborhood level is that at one level it encourages parochialism (I write a lot about what I call the tyranny of neighborhood parochialism) and it fails to help support advocacy on a city-wide basis for city-wide policies and practices.

Still, I find it ironic that there is tremendous pushback on the creation of new historic districts in DC today, given the success of preservation. In part this is because I believe we preservationists haven't been doing a good job about articulating the link between great neighborhoods and historic preservation and quality of life.

And we have been not too good at advocacy, community organizing, and "campaigning" when we attempt to create new historic districts.

Plus, the key historic preservationists are aging, and for the most part, their beliefs about urban improvement and policy aren't keeping up with the demands and realities of the 21st Century. E.g., I am composing a piece about this that I expect that the Capitol Hill Restoration Society won't publish in their newsletter (I am a member) because I think that CHRS is in danger of becoming a pro-car advocacy organization, rather than an organization committed to maintaining and extending quality of life defined around the urban character of their place in the city.

Preservation is more than pretty buildings (although I joke that I like buildings more than people). It's about placemaking and livability and quality of life.

For the 21st Century, DC's competitive advantage centers in large part on non-automobile based mobility. As the suburbs experience increasing congestion, DC's transit infrastructure and pedestrian and bicycling supportive urban design makes getting around the city easier than getting around the suburbs. Furthermore, as population stabilizes and increases, more neighborhoods are getting more retail and service amenities. (Cue "Main Street" revitalization programs...)

In "short," I think that historic preservation as a revitalization "solution" is more than merely winning National Register designation, but it is definitely likely the only solution for declining neighborhoods and declining cities, especially in weak markets.