introduction to public history

There is a direct correlation between public history and architectural preservation.  They form a relationship that is mutually dependent based on accuracy, revitalization, and public interest.  In his book Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities, author Andrew Hurley uses North St. Louis, Missouri as a case study to show just how essential public history is to urban renewal and neighborhood revitalization.   Though the case study was intriguing, especially when considering the collaboration between public historians and public archeologists, but it’s Hurley’s explanation of who or what a public historian is that really deserves another look.

It is essential to state that until the twentieth century all history was public.  Recorded by both men and women who took a personal interest into their societal, familial, and political pasts, history was for the people until a shift occurred placing the social science firmly in the hands of “professionals”.    According to the author, public history, stemmed from academia, is for the collective memory of the colloquial population.  A return to what history once was.  Hurley says that as early as the 1970’s historians realized they “could contribute most effectively to the creation of useful public history by serving as facilitators and guide people toward self-authored accounts of their past,” (Hurley, page 35-36).  It was out of this school of thought that public initiative projects began to appear nationwide and became exceedingly popular in principle.  In some instances, as with an industrial waterfront in Portland, Maine, the work of one became the interest of many.  One woman began an initiative to restore a dilapidated church that was once a stop along the Underground Railroad, public interest grew until the entire district was deemed historical and further digging was done into the city’s African American history (53).

Public history is vital to preservation.  These programs promoting society involvement in memory keeps populations connected to their interwoven collective past facilitated by the aide of an expert.  What public historians needs to remember however, is that what may be seen as important by the collective, may not be considered worthy by those in power.

What I am left wondering after reading this book, is: with given the broad nature of audiences that public historians have to address, the vast amount of people to pull interest from, why is the work of the public historian downgraded in some ways by academia?  Is it not the occupation of the historian to keep public record of events past?

Beyond Preservation is a book where Andrew Hurley explains the history of urban preservation. He talks about preservation’s early history and the reason behind it and also what faults they had. Hurley further explains where things are headed with the preservation movement that is going on across the country. One important thing that that he contrasts is the historic preservation of urban neighborhoods and the history of the neighborhoods. He also goes into how preservation can even divide a community while preserving it at the same time.

In the beginning of Hurley’s book he goes into what set off the revitalization movement that the country went through. Fixing up and reusing an old building rather than just tearing it down and rebuilding was found to be more aesthetically pleasing but also a way for the community to keep an image of it’s history. Because this became so popular, both the Federal government and state governments created laws and programs to make incentives for people to fix up and re-purpose old building/districts/neighborhoods rather than tearing it all down and than rebuilding it.

This is where the divide came in, communities were inadvertently becoming divided as they were being restored. Restoring and re-purposing of buildings was for profit in the beginning and so investors did what they could as long as there was room for profit. This would lead neighborhoods to be divided in the fact that old shabby buildings/neighborhoods would be next to newly fixed up historic buildings/districts and would divide the people by economic and class standings. Also the revitalization didn’t always benefit everyone in the area.

The conflict that arises amid the revitalization movement is that what should be restored. Even though some things are old it doesn’t mean that it should be restored. There should and needs to be a reason and some history that makes it worth saving. This is addressed in the early years by Federal and local laws setting a standard on what constitutes a historic area that is worth saving. “Of particular importance to the fate of inner-city neighborhoods was the creation of the National Register of Historic Places”. (pg 9) This was not the first thing that help deem what was important and worth saving but it was extremely important on many levels.

Hurley goes into what can happen if things remain the same when it comes to revitalization of urban neighborhoods. Hurley’s idea that many people are needed in order to not just preserve the community but also revitalize it in a positive way is a challenging one. Finding a balance between so many people is difficult but also necessary in order for positive steps to be made for inner cities. Historians, archaeologists and the public are all needed and in balance to do this. The future of urban renewal and revitalization of neighborhoods is difficult but necessary in order to save historic area’s identities and also the area in general. The question remains though, are there some areas despite their history that are just not worth saving, and if so can that ever change?

A major theme in Hurley’s book is the notion of intent with regard to historic preservation/revitalization.  Although it may be obvious to the public historian that it is not best practice to act with profit-making as the primary intention, Hurley points out that profitability and consumerism have overpowered the traditional didactic intentions of preservation (179).  He also mentions that it is not necessarily a bad thing to repurpose historical buildings to be contemporarily-relevant and provide an economic boost, adaptive reuse as he puts it, but such actions must be thoughtfully construed so as not to alienate the surrounding community.  Hurley demonstrates throughout his book how historic preservation and revitalization can be used as a means for social and/or material gain of one division within communities over another.  A good example of pursuing historic preservation with bad intent can be seen in the story of the Over-the-Rhine area of Cincinnati in the years after World War II up through the 1970s.  The area contained historical architecture dating from the 19^th century, but had become impoverished and gentrified.  When it came time that such architecture was deemed necessary to preserve, city officials desired to revitalize the historic buildings to bring in yuppies, however, the residents at the time staunchly opposed the plans for their dispossession and the project failed miserably (28-9).

Not surprisingly, Hurley also gives examples of how some public historians overcame such adversity.  Take for instance Arthur Ziegler and James Van Trump in Pittsburgh just after World War II.  Ziegler and Van Trump invested in the Landmark Foundation which they started and subsequently handed over to the community itself to fund historic home preservation projects on an individual level.  Since the community controlled how the architecture was to be preserved, they made sure the existing tenants could afford to stay by establishing the revitalized buildings as low-income residences (195).  The project was successful in preserving the previously decaying historic architecture, and did so in a way that maintained the local status quo.

Based on the previous examples, the best way to avoid such alienation within a community is through direct involvement of the community itself in preservation at an all-inclusive grassroots level.  A great local example of this is the Detroit Shoreway Community Development Organization, which is in the process of revitalizing their diverse neighborhoods that have suffered from gentrification in the past, and preserving its historical theatre district in a way that will benefit the community in the foreseeable future.

In my opinion Hurley advances the public historian’s craft by reinforcing a most basic aspect of public history, and that is to always keep in mind what is in the best interest of the entire community today and in the foreseeable future through the analysis of that community’s past history.  Hurley also implies that the public historian has the role, and arguably purpose, of acting as an agent of fostering inclusive community involvement.  Therefore I pose the following question:  In the context of today’s ailing economy and subsequent emphasis on financial sustenance, how can public historians best promote community-inclusivity and commitment in its public history while remaining true to a didactic purpose that does not give in to consumerism?

In Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities, Andrew Hurley chronicles his and others’ experiences to show the evolution of historic preservation as used as a method to revitalize urban neighborhoods.  He then reflects on these experiences to show the benefits, shortcomings, methods, and areas were improvement is needed in order to compile a set of proposed guidelines for this form of public history.  Hurley stresses the potential that intertwining these two seemingly unrelated subjects – urban revitalization and historic preservation – can have for strengthening communities and mitigating social contentions.  However, in order to successfully achieve these and other positive outcomes, communities must avoid the prevailing method of freezing an area or building in time, but instead connect the past with the present (180).  Furthermore, a balance must be maintained between professional public historians and members of the community (95-96; 180-83).

Hurley’s suggestion of balance applies to more than the above mentioned groups.  His overarching theme is the necessity of “shared authority” between archeologists, professional historians, environmentalists, community development incorporations and the community itself.  Archaeologists have a specific expertise that help to recover lost relics that can help tell a part of a community’s history.  Also, they process of exhuming artifacts in front of community members can help cultivate a sense of belonging to the project of historic investigation and interpretation (188).  Professional historians are able to steer historic interpretation toward a more methodological approach.  By suggesting that empirical evidence be relied upon and that some questions be left open, members of the community can come to a consensus over their history (175-76).  Because the natural environment has an impact on cities and their inhabitants, it is important to incorporate it into historic interpretation.  Better environmental practices can come out of people’s understanding, and hopefully appreciation, of this impact (120-121; 144).  The goals of community-development corporations are to provide housing, help neighborhood economic development and recovery, and aid in community revival.  When working with public historians, CDCs can meet these goals using urban preservation (97).  Their work and connections help By involving the community, urban preservation projects are far more successful when the community is directly involved.  Community members can offer oral histories and communicate to preservationists the direction toward which they want their neighborhood to go (105-09)

Hurley asks that historic preservation for the purpose of urban revitalization take advantage of the budding cooperations between different professional institutions and communities.   By incorporating the perspectives of multiple groups, historic places receive an interpretation that helps strengthen a community’s sense of cohesiveness, is meaningful for outsiders, and can be useful for future natural and urban revitalization and preservation projects.  Is it possible that even when urban revitalization is not the primary agenda, public historians can use these same methods in their work in museums, city curation projects, and digital humanities?

The Cost of Revitalization

Andrew Hurley’s book Beyond Preservation discusses the history of preservation and revitalization in urban areas.  The different methods over the years have resulted in some major successes but there have also been failures.  There’s no perfect formula or set methodology for a successful revitalization.  However Hurley points out that financial capital and opinionated objectives of those instituting the revitalization process are key factors in the drive for change.

One of the subjects that is discussed is the issue of poverty in an area targeted for revitalization.  In the push to “clean up” the area, often times the current residents are ignored, completely forgotten or discriminated against in the process soon after they are forced out of their homes.  “The Flats” area of downtown Cleveland used forced eviction and removal of slums as well as abandoned and seedy businesses as a way in order to kick start a rebirth of the area.  The Flats sought to remove their unsafe slums and create safe environments.  They built or converted existing structures into new housing and pushed for businesses to set up shop with hopes of bringing in new capital, renewed interest, and a new breed of residence to the area.

Their target population were those from the suburbs that frequent the restaurants or who work in downtown/warehouse district area. Yet this population does not want to live here.  Many of these dwellings lay vacant.  There are residents who would not want to in this area, they are of the lower working class.  However the rather expensive price for such the small size of these residential units has been the major detouring factor.  This idea of appealing to the “9 to 5″ downtown office worker to live in the area has not only been a failure in The Flats, but for much of the revitalization in downtown Cleveland.  Why then, won’t the prices of the housing units be lowered to allow more of the core transient population to live in the area?  I personally would love to live near downtown, but I cannot a $200,000 abode that could be compared in size to a college dorm room. Why does this notion of ignoring the population with the want to inhabit of an urban area sole because they are deemed “undesirable” still persist when there is no one else wanting to do so?

Andrew Hurley’s book Beyond Preservation is a great guide to historic preservation in urban areas. Every community is different, but there are certain principles that can be used. Hurley emphasizes the “importance of tailoring implementation as well as interpretive strategies to particular neighborhood resources and contexts” (p. 99). Hurley claims that “social inclusivity” should be a main goal in preservation projects, and authority should be shared among groups in the community (p. 180). Popular themes should be chosen for topics, and planning should be conducted at the grass-roots level (p. 181). Consensus should be found among conflicting perspectives about the community’s historical narratives (p. 182). There are many sources that can be utilized, such as oral history. Interviews are a great way to find information that one might not find anywhere else, and interviews also involve individuals in the community that might not otherwise be involved (p. 187). Archeological excavations are another great way to unearth information and involve the community. Local grassroots organizations should be involved, and one group should have a leading position. Community workshops are another great way to create community involvement according to Hurley (p. 189).

Historic preservation can be used for different reasons. Economic purposes and raising property values can be main objectives for some, which also can cause gentrification. Tourism to historic sites is another way to provide income for a community. Some simply want to bring old buildings to back to life. Others want to feel pride for their community’s history and find a common identity. People commonly feel linked by their history, and this creates closer community bonds. Some communities focus on one aspect or another, but a balance is needed (p. 31). Successful projects can cause economic growth, community understanding, feelings of stewardship, and the fostering of diversity. At other times, projects can create high property values, the displacement of many, and gentrification (p. 192). Hurley states that main issues that should be of importance include “addressing the scars of racial discard, utilizing university resources effectively, balancing skill transfer and product delivery, and wrestling with conflicting perspectives on the past” (p. 94).

Hurley mentions that it can be difficult to choose what to preserve (p. 119). The fact that nature can change an atmosphere and social patterns in a community is a good point (p. 131). Environmentalists and preservationists for historical purposes do not always see eye to eye or work together. The examples for the interaction of the two groups were interesting. It seems that there are cases when this collaboration could be beneficial.

Another interesting point that Hurley makes is about the collaboration between scholars and the community. Scholars can have great tools for finding facts and conclusions for interpretation, but they cannot exert the same control that they would normally hold in an academic setting (p. 147). Scholars can also help put facts into context. The relationship is beneficial but can need work to flow smoothly.

Hurly makes valuable points for public historians working in an urban setting. He takes care to demonstrate that settings contain differences that need to be considered when planning for historic preservation projects. Hurley gives advice on many different areas that one might encounter during a project, such as community relations and ways of finding evidence. He demonstrates that historic preservation can help a community in diverse ways if done properly. Hurley’s argument does seem to be a bit weak in explaining what should be preserved and what a community should focus on in the research of their past. This varies greatly, but what are some recommendations for guidelines on what history should be research and preserved in a diverse neighborhood?

D.A.R.ing Renovations

While reading Andrew Hurley’s Beyond Preservation I was torn about which side of the revitalizing renovation movements was the proper path. Do I believe in spending immense time, effort and money to complete a project without receiving some kind of return? Not with something as stressful as renovations! Nor do I think that it is fair to force residents from their neighborhoods with “planned gentrification.” I grew up in a beautiful historic suburb that was settled in 1702. My mother was on the board of the Junior Women’s League, with one of their goals being to preserve historic homes, and I am also a D.A.R.. So by my nature, I am drawn to historic neighborhoods and love to see areas revitalized and in most cases to achieve the desired beautification that requires some selectivity on how these areas should be used.

Throughout any renovation, you seek to upgrade the current stasis. I remember growing up when my mother organized a large fundraiser to rejuvenate a street of row houses in an area bordering a lower income neighborhood. The project was to turn the long-term renters into homeowners much like Hurley discusses in his book. An agreement was made with the renters that when work was complete they could purchase the homes at the value from before renovations since all the materials and labor was to be donated. Much of the donations and efforts came from those of the wealthier families for they tended to be the most connected to local history and pride. The project went well at first until the town reassessed property values that year and property taxes jumped and many of the original families could not afford to stay in the neighborhood.

During college I lived in SE Ohio, and a favorite area of mine to visit was a spot outside of town where the community had truly taken pride and interest into their history. Outside of Plains Ohio there is an old coal camp. Consisting of maybe a dozen little houses built by one of the coal companies for quick cheap housing. In many places these remnants have been neglected and torn down, but the Athens area is very strong on local pride. The little gravel street out in the woods along the river with just six houses on each side and what was the big “Company Store” at the end has been transformed into a showcase of community pride with small locally owned cafes serving foods from local farms and stores selling crafts from local artists. It is a wonderful example public interest saving unique historic areas.

Through my own experiences I feel that in more densely populated areas where you have a wider diversities of social standings, that it will be “the gentry” who have the strongest sense of residential pride and there for make the efforts to save areas and can lead to exclusivity. Small towns everywhere have always shown me immense local pride and consistently amaze me with how much local history every person knows and is more then willing to share with you! Never having lived in a city, my question to others would be for your understanding of community pride. I feel that this is the strongest link to any effort one might make when trying to get something done for the neighborhood.

Andrew Hurley’s book Beyond Preservation: Using History to Revitalize Inner Cities touches on many issues in preserving history in urban cities. An issue that anyone can see in most cities is the idea to tear down old and ran down buildings or save them and find new uses for the old buildings. The environmental problems can occur from when old factories that are no longer used left behind hazardous material that the city or the new tenants of the land has no knowledge on how to deal with the situation.

Hurley proposes that community members working with organization make plans to deal with such a situation. Ideas that have been used in situation are turning a ran down building into a public space that will benefit the community. In order for this kind of plan to work the community must be fully committed to the idea. Sadly, many hazardous building and spaces are in lower-class neighborhoods in the urban cities. Many historians want to save historically significant sites even though they have a negative environmental impact. Such an example is the River des Peres, which was a impressive feat of engineering in the 1920s to the 1930s was converted into a clean water way and recreation sites were built along he man made river. Before the river was a collection of dirty water, waste and other materials from the community. The community called the river the River Despair.

These types of situations can be seen within our own communities. There are many ran down factories in Cleveland that could be converted into  usable space for public or private use. The question is do you think it is worth the resources, such as historical and environmental surveys, to save a old ran down building?

Historic Preservation must be executed with purpose in order to be truly successful. Beyond Preservation illuminates that the purpose, or rather purposes, must be collective. Preservation is often done for the sake of the building, for consumerism, or for neighborhood improvement. But each of those reasons is exclusive. When combined, Hurley argues, preservation can go beyond simply keeping a building or area intact, but build community and build memory. Memory is key for Hurley, and truly, it is key for any preservationist. Not just individual memory, but the construction of a collective memory in neighborhoods and cities.

Collecting the multiple stories of an area is important. To tell only one story, as Hurley has said, makes it hard for all in a community to relate because it excludes. How many people in Cleveland can really relate to the kind of life lived on Millionaire’s Row? By enabling people to relate to the past, it opens up ideas for the future. People like to learn about people who are like them, or the kind of people they descended from. Broadening historical perspective allows more people to participate. Hurley talks about using oral history and the memories found there to build the future. There is potential in the past.

Even broadening the historical perspective is not fool-proof by any means, and runs the risk of pushing out lower-income groups from historic areas. I visited Old German Village in Columbus, Ohio once, and there they did a good job of keeping a fairly broad perspective. It began as an ethnic area for factory workers who migrated from Germany.  Today it is a residential neighborhood, with a Visitor’s Center, a museum, and a welcoming attitude which encourages tourists  to walk around. Most of the village is filled with German cottages. But rather than keep the focus of the neighborhood on the German background, there were Victorian houses scattered about. They date later than the cottages, but are included in the story of German Village as it changed over time, even in the Visitor’s Center. When the area was rescued in the 1960s, it was a slum neighborhood. Today, many of the tiny cottages are worth over $1 million. Despite keeping a fairly broad historical perspective, the neighborhood was not able to include any of its residents from the 1960s, who were pushed out to other areas. But Hurley describes places which make the inclusion of residents a focal point of preservation, and in some ways have worked and have potential to work.

In Cleveland, though a large majority of the population was not alive, people “remember” Millionaire’s Row, or times when Public Square was filled with people shopping at Tower City. Even I “remember” these things.  A walk down Euclid Avenue or a drive through the neighborhoods often affords views of a number of historic buildings, which draw us back to thoughts of the “good old days.” And disappointment in what Cleveland is today follows for many. I, on the other hand, see great potential in these beautiful buildings. My question for the class is this: how can we in Cleveland use or change the collective memory of the city to encourage preservation? In other words, what is one way we might we apply Hurley’s principles and ideas about using the past to shape our future in our city?

In Andrew Hurley’s book Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities, he stresses the importance of community involvement when using public history to help advance revitalization of inner-city neighborhoods without creating resentment among the residents. One way to do this is to ask the right questions in order to gain involvement from the community and also have the outcome/answers benefit all parties involved.

Michael Frisch believed that in order for public history to be useful in preservation efforts the idea of “shared authority” was fundamental.  “Shared authority” is the theory that the ideas and concerns of scholars, designers, and audiences must all be considered when undertaking preservation projects. One of the main reasons behind this theory was that in order for the community not to end up resenting or resisting these efforts, their input was vital.

So, deciding how and where to begin meant asking the right questions to everyone involved. Not only the direct questions related to oral histories or artifacts, but also questions regarding the goals, design, participants, interpretation, presentation, and the desired final outcomes.

This turns out to be a very complicated undertaking. The ideal goal of public history based preservation projects is often to revitalize a neighborhood without displacing the existing community. The role of professional public historians is vital in that they can provide guidance, which will help deter community organizations from being too sentimental and provide them with research tools and techniques. The role of the community is to help define what they would like the outcomes to be, and provide invaluable insight into the reality of the neighborhood that many history professionals might view as inconsequential.

One good example of using “shared authority” and asking the right questions is the Place Matters organization in New York City. Rather than deciding what sites were historically significant and then proceeding from there, they distributed questionnaires to the public and asked them what sites they deemed significant. They then proceeded to facilitate restoration based on the answers to their questions.

Place Matters is only one example of many possible ways to use shared authority to engage the community in revitalization projects, but the concept is complex, and every situation requires a unique approach. So the question becomes, where do you begin to identify the right questions and approach in order to shape the scope of a public history revitalization program?