We Need to Talk (and to Listen)

The historic preservation movement is in a time of reflection. The 50th anniversary of New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Law was celebrated on April 19, 2015, and the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is October 15, 2016. The half-century anniversaries of these two legal tools for preservation—one municipal, the other federal—creates an inflection point—a time to reflect about where we are and to try to see our way into the future.¹

It is in this context that many institutions, including the National Trust; the University of Pennsylvania; the University of Massachusetts–Amherst; and Morven Park in Leesburg, Virginia; to name a few, have been bringing people together to talk about the present state—and the future—of this field we currently call historic preservation. Because of the series of essays I wrote on “Why Old Places Matter”, I’ve been privileged to participate in several of these gatherings. Now I’ve been asked to share the main themes that emerged from the different discussions as a way of opening the conversation for readers of this issue of Forum Journal.

I’ve heard a few key words and phrases that I think will be helpful for readers to ponder as they read this issue: inclusiveness, livability, sustainability, democratization, obstacles, complexity, partnerships. From almost everyone, I’ve also gotten a strong sense that we need to talk—and to listen. Preservationists seem hungry not only to talk about the future of preservation and its role in our society, but also to push for change. On the one hand, there’s the sense that preservation is under attack, whether from Ed Glaeser and his largely unreadable but highly influential book Triumph of the City to the many historic preservation commissions that face a backlash every time they try to designate a new historic district.

At the same time, pent up frustrations are spurring preservationists to demand solutions to longstanding issues within the field—to push for the reconsideration of the application of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards; to question the usefulness of the idea of the “period of significance”; and to move past the obstacle of meeting the criteria of “integrity,” which is viewed as an impediment to the designation of places significant to African-American, Hispanic, LGBTQ, Native American and other underrepresented communities.

These anniversaries also present a rare, perhaps once-in-a-generation, chance to think much more openly and broadly. How would we envision the role of preservation 50 years from now? How can we open our present-day minds to a different future? How can we better utilize old places to fulfill fundamental human needs? What can we do to open people’s eyes to the potential of older and historic places? Clearly we need—and want—not only to talk but to create a more effective and meaningful preservation movement.

In May 2015, through the generosity of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the National Trust convened a group of people at Kykuit, in Pocantico Hills, New York, to talk—while we listened. The invitees included a writer and journalist, affordable housing advocate, restaurateur, developer, architect, artist, academics, developers of artists’ spaces, and advocates for public housing, among others. The idea was to hear from people who work with old places but who do not necessarily consider themselves to be professional preservationists.

From the moment the participants met, they shared a palpable sense of excitement about interacting with each other and talking about these issues—and they became enthusiastic about the possibilities inherent in preservation. Rather than summarize the ideas, I’d like to share quotes from the participants that capture many of the key concepts:

“Preservation can make people’s lives richer—it is a way to tell stories and resonate at the experiential level.” Nathaniel Popkin, journalist, author, editor, film writer, historian and critic

“As for users, people love the old buildings.” Nadine Maleh, executive director, Institute for Public Architecture

“We always do direct market surveys before starting a new project. When we ask, ‘Do you want a new...