Something--a building, a landscape, an object--can be significant regardless of class. That, I think, is probably a given--but the fact is that in practice, preservation has always tilted toward the buildings associated with the rich and famous. Class always has to matter because it's always playing some role in what happened and what will happen. That doesn't mean there isn't value in mansion houses, or that there isn't beauty in high style architecture. It does mean that, over and over again, when old workers' housing is demolished to make room for something bigger and "better" and anyone resists on the grounds of preservation, there is a repeated public refrain of "it's not like George Washington slept there." Well, maybe he didn't--and if the thing was built in the 20th century, how could he have?--but does it really matter?
Significance can mean different things to different people. I don't think that it's wrong to consider significance--but it's misguided to attach significance only to the "biggest," "best," "oldest," etc. The everyday significance of the places that formed the backdrops for lives that pass almost unrecorded are at least as important, and in too many cases are one of the only records we have for who lived in a place and what they did. There's a line in Heinrich Heine's
Die Harzreise where he says that, because an old woman had spent so much of her life before a particular carved cupboard and had so many thoughts and feelings in its presence, that a part of a human soul had entered into the cupboard. That has always spoken to me on the question of what makes something significant.
Certainly, you can't write a NR nomination based on that. But I do think it's worth having in mind when thinking about significance.
I think progress has been made toward recognizing significance in something more than the buildings of the rich and famous, but especially on local levels we have a long way to go. Not just among people involved with historical societies and local preservation groups--some are fixated on the mansion houses, others aren't, but often residents themselves will fall into thinking that nobody could possibly care about their houses and their neighborhoods because "nobody important lived here" or "they're just regular houses." That really isn't the story preservation should be telling.
------------------------------
Ashley Fallon
Wyandotte, MI and Hamtramck, MI
a.fallon.91@gmail.com------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 02-11-2019 17:08
From: Kurtis Hord
Subject: What makes a property significant?
"The importance of preserving history through conservation of historic buildings is so obvious to me it is almost hard to defend it. These buildings and structures are the best kind of artifact, because we are able to live and work in them as they were intended, whether a mansion or a cottage, a commercial building on Main Street or a barn. Because of this, though, they are among the most vulnerable of artifacts. And they deserve the best interpretation, care, and respect possible."
Ginny, We are in agreement on the self-evident merits of conservation/preservation, but that might be the only thing we have in common. From my perspective as homeless, and transgender: class is very important. This perspective has allowed me to see and experience many blindspots in the preservation community. I will expand on this further in an original post so we don't hi-jack Barbara's thread with debates on intersectionality. I wanted to offer my perspective to help her to consider other merits beyond "significance" or novelty. Honoring the sacrifice of the lungs and tendons of those who rendered the materials, and toiled to create the building are the primary motivation for myself.
"I don't give a damn about class!" -Spoken from a true place of privilege.
------------------------------
------------------------------
Kurtis Hord: Architectural design / Lime putty masonry / Pattern making / European guild-influenced roofing
tradroofing.com / (412) 228-0241
all honor to god / the meek and humble shall inherit the earth
Original Message:
Sent: 02-11-2019 16:12
From: Ginny MacKenzie-Magan
Subject: What makes a property significant?
With regard to Kurt's and others' thoughts about SIGNIFICANCE as a valid qualifier for listing – or for architectural and historic preservation in general – I believe the word/concept is hugely open to interpretation, and that each property's "significance" is unique.
Significance is a combination of so much, both architectural and cultural. Some years ago I completed a HRS of a small, northern California village the same age as the state, involving 80 buildings. Looking back at my thought processes for declaration of eligibility for each, my criteria were varied and numerous – some qualities outweighing others, but each contributing in subtle and myriad ways, to the whole.
The subject was, and in many ways remains, a rural, agricultural, mostly working-class village. Each Significance Statement is different, each nuanced as much as the people involved in the resource's life -- from its inception to the present. To be honest, I am not sure what even defines classism in the context of this discussion.
The importance of preserving history through conservation of historic buildings is so obvious to me it is almost hard to defend it. These buildings and structures are the best kind of artifact, because we are able to live and work in them as they were intended, whether a mansion or a cottage, a commercial building on Main Street or a barn. Because of this, though, they are among the most vulnerable of artifacts. And they deserve the best interpretation, care, and respect possible.
I don't give a damn about class!
------------------------------
Ginny MacKenzie-Magan
Tomales CA
Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2019 15:10
From: Meg Dunn
Subject: What makes a property significant?
I really resonate with your comments, Kurtis. I struggle with the fact that without being able to offer a historic designation, we don't really have any other way to encourage reuse of buildings. (I know Portland has their deconstruction rule, but Fort Collins doesn't seem interested in doing anything similar. There is a recycle rule for building materials, but it's not enforced at all for single family residential demolitions, and for larger projects I hear only about 20% of materials are recycled.)
It seems to me like building reuse (and to a lesser extent building material reuse) should be a huge component in LEED certification. But I haven't gotten the impression that that's the case.
------------------------------
Meg Dunn
Fort Collins CO
Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2019 04:43
From: Kurtis Hord
Subject: What makes a property significant?
significance is so classist. and not important. the thing ultimately that makes old buildings significant is their durability, and nobility of the materials and methods used to construct them... from a sustainability standpoint: lime putty mortars and masonry have an extreme life cycle, and low impact if they must be dismantled. the timber as well, since sourced from old growth forrest; is now priceless. the collective knowledge of the builders that created these things pre-oil. their human sacrifice in terms of tendons and lungs. honor that.
------------------------------
------------------------------
Kurtis Hord: Architectural design / Lime putty masonry / Pattern making / European guild-influenced roofing
tradroofing.com / (412) 228-0241
all honor to god / the meek and humble shall inherit the earth
Original Message:
Sent: 01-30-2019 17:00
From: Barbara Howard
Subject: What makes a property significant?
I'm conducting research that will dispel a myth about a historic property most people believe to be the first of its kind. Although the property is important for other reasons, it wasn't the first - it was simply marketed as such (very successfully). The same can be said of many historic properties for which significance has been claimed because they are thought to be the "biggest" or "last" or "only."
While mulling how often we assume "first" equals "significant" in the world of preservation, I've become sensitive (perhaps overly so) to other claims of "firsts" shown to be untrue or taken out of context. In some cases, claims of significant work are clearly tied to outright deceptions or attempts to steal or trivialize the work of others (see for example the scientific firsts of Rosalind Franklin or Evelyn Berezin). In a world where storytelling, exaggerations, and successful marketing can create an illusion of significance to even the most reliable researchers, we often get it wrong and amplify/disseminate the deception.
So, getting back to the very basics of our field, and setting aside the National Park Service's criteria and explanations in Bulletin 15 (at least for a moment), I would love to get a sense of what Forum members believe (in your heart, mind, and/or soul) makes a place "significant"? How often does "first," "last," "biggest," and "only" factor into significance for you? And, how do we document significance in a world where "truths" aren't always factual?
------------------------------
Barbara Howard
Stonebridge Learning, LLC
Minneapolis MN
------------------------------