This coming week I will be lecturing about Main Street, a National Trust for Historic Preservation initiative that began in the 1970s as a way to help preserve historic downtowns throughout America in communities of every size. This was in the era when suburban shopping malls had become the centerpiece of American life, drawing attention and dollars away from the smaller shops and services of the old downtowns.
not quite a 30,000 foot view but you get the idea
The invention of Main Street by my dear friend Mary Means marks for me a major shift in historic preservation, the shift toward a pragmatic approach to economics. The first shift took place in the 1960s when a half-century of community efforts to save historic residential neighborhoods became a vital part not only of municipal preservation ordinances, notably New York City in 1965, but also the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.
Georgetown, arguably the first historic district not designed for tourism
Historic districts have a history that goes back to the early 20th century, and the first to be legislated – Charleston and New Orleans – did it to help control a tourist economy that was threatening to kill the golden goose. A wave of other historic districts followed in the 1940s and 1950s but it wasn’t until Georgetown in 1950 and Beacon Hill in 1955 that historic districts actually became community planning tools dealing not with tourism but the basic economics of residential neighborhoods.
Now, the immediate impulses that led to historic districts were the massive government programs of urban renewal and highway construction that were decimating cities and towns, but these threats were only countered in communities that had already organized around their built environment. For me it marks an important departure from the curatorial model that previously held sway.
Greenwich Village. A really long long story.
Main Street took an even more radical step by reducing the traditional preservationist focus on architectural design to a mere 25% of the program, focusing equally on Organization, Events, and Economic Restructuring. Not only that, but the design piece was even less curatorial because the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties had not yet been codified. The goal was to save buildings but Mary and the others knew that would only happen if they made economic sense.and that was before sidewalk cafes, so you had to be creative
Also in the 1970s, the first historic preservation tax credits appeared, helping to address an imbalance (mostly in finance) between old and new buildings in terms of commercial real estate development. This trend toward economic pragmatism and community organization took a further step in the 1980s as large government subsidies for real estate development became extinct. The early 1980s were the era of the public-private partnership.
this is where I enter the story – 25 years before this picture
I began my career 33 years ago Monday working on the very first heritage area in the United States. Like Main Street, traditional historic preservation was only 25% of the goal, along with Natural Area Conservation, Recreation, and Economic Development. Now historic preservation was taking on the massive de-industrialization affecting the economy. It was the brainchild of my first boss, Jerry Adelmann and it was bold. We held a conference in Joliet in 1984 when the city had 23% unemployment. We saw the future – accurately as it turns out – and saw the value of our historic built environment to that future.
I’m so old I have literally been a museum piece – albeit one that “isn’t about museums”
The heritage area thing took off big time – there were over 40 across the country in 20 years time. The public-private partnership aspect worked very well in an era of diminishing government resources and of course still does. Like historic districts and Main Streets, it also prioritized the community’s role in self-organization for its own improvement, on its own terms. Then my mentor, Jerry Adelmann, took his heritage area idea to China, and I followed.
this is the Weishan North Gate (1390) that burned a year ago. It is now rebuilt. Yunnan.
See, it turns out that the pragmatic approach to the development of our built environment developed by “historic preservationists” over a half century was eminently transferable . Why? Not complicated. You identify the resources and assets of a place, determine how they function in an evolving economy, create vibrant sustainable models, and then scale them. The last part is the hardest, but time has proven the sustainability of our model.
choose your poison
I’m not saying that there aren’t big massive developments that ignore these principles. They are everywhere. They are generally less sustainable, but the real difference is community. See all that stuff above about historic districts and Main Streets and heritage areas has a component of community control. Even more importantly, heritage development insures that MORE MONEY stays in the local community. It doesn’t go flying off to some faraway corporate HQ.
maybe you can ‘splain this to the MI and WI legislators who either A) don’t understand economics, or B) are being paid to send your money out of your local economy.
I’m very fortunate I was able to participate in, contribute to, and chronicle much of this fascinating half-century and I look forward to sharing it in Indiana next week!