In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

290 Old Sacramento, a twenty-eight-acre National Historic Site nestled between Interstate 5 and the banks of the Sacramento River, reflects the evolution of urban environmental politics and the historic preservation movement. Home to a thriving business district in the mid- to late nineteenth century, the district slid into a traditional skid row that, by the middle of the twentieth century, seemed an ideal candidate for slum clearance and urban renewal. That the district survived is testament to the tenacity and vision of a variety of individuals who, far before their time, recognized that history and historic structures could be a valuable tool in the economic revitalization of a city. The bulldozers stopped at Second Street, and a new understanding of historic preservation, which would only become mainstream forty years later, was born. Preserving the Inner City Sacramento’s foray into historic preservation in Old Sacramento in the 1950s and 1960s puts it in the vanguard of the national historic preservation movement. Prior to passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the federal government limited its involvement in preservation to a few specific sites that had an emphasis on archaeology or national glory. Even as individual cities in the late nineteenth century became aware of the threat to colonial-era structures from rapid CHAPTER 14 The Invention of Old Sacramento A PAST FOR THE FUTURE Lee M. A. Simpson and Lisa C. Prince Here is a unique opportunity to completely transform the heart of a city . . . to clear away the debris of yesteryear and build for tomorrow. —Sacramento Redevelopment Agency, 1962 The City of Sacramento recognizes the importance of its historic and cultural resources, which creates [sic] a distinct sense of place for residents and visitors. . . . Preservation and adaptive re-use of historic structures also promotes sustainability. —Sacramento 2030 General Plan the invention of old sacramento 291 development, no effort was made to protect entire districts. Lacking any cohesive vision or legal mechanisms for protection, the nation had only private initiatives to protect the Old Statehouse in Boston, the Betsy Ross house in Philadelphia, and the Fraunces Tavern, site of Washington’s Farewell Address, in New York.1 The restoration of Williamsburg, Virginia, in the 1920s represents the first effort at district-wide preservation in the United States. Yet, this brilliant undertaking financed by John D. Rockefeller Jr., with its emphasis on establishing a place that would attract tourist dollars, did little to further understanding of the value of historic preservation as a tool for urban growth and development or to recognize historic structures as an important reflection of human interaction with the environment . Rockefeller had little interest in preservation beyond its ability to educate Americans to be good citizens. He argued that the importance of Williamsburg lay in “the lesson it teaches of the patriotism, high purpose, and unselfish devotion of our forefathers to the common good.”2 As the twentieth century progressed, American cities pursued a growth model that emphasized development of new areas and the abandonment of older industrial sectors. By the middle of the century, these aging cores entered a period of crisis met with the innovative concept of urban renewal. The slash-and-burn philosophy of renewal, however, posited that cities could be revitalized only by demolition of old and obsolete buildings, especially when they appeared to impede construction of modern transportation infrastructure or profitable commercial ventures. As thousands of structures and historic areas were razed through urban renewal , urban Americans came slowly to embrace historic preservation as a way to hold on to a sense of place and identity and as a tool to revitalize cities’ aging cores. Unlike European cities, where structures are permitted to sit uninhabited for years before they are adaptively reused, Americans viewed older structures as derelict and worthy only of demolition. The federal government encouraged such thinking well into the 1970s with financial support of wholesale razing of neighborhoods and only limited backing of structural rehabilitation through tax credits.3 Passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966 represented a direct challenge to the excesses of urban renewal and marked the federal government’s recognition that the nation’s architectural heritage was worthy of protection. Through listing on the National Register of Historic Places, inner cities now had a new tool and a new ally in their efforts to halt wholesale destruction. The register innovatively recognized both individual structures and entire districts; yet, its emphasis on freezing districts in a specific period of historical significance...

Share