Talk:Historic preservation/Archive 1

How to organize & interrelate heritage topics?
These topics, although interrelated, are not well integrated on Wikipedia. What is their hierarchical relationship and how should they be organized? Often multiple terms are used for the same activity with slight national variations. Should parallel topics exist? Which are the main topics?

UK/Europe | U.S.
 * heritage conservation | historic preservation
 * heritage management | cultural resources management
 * conservation area | historic district

Other
 * building restoration

Tous ensemble 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that a solution maybe to simply write sections for each area. 'Historic Preservation in the United States', 'Heritage Conservation in the United Kingdom', etc &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Article needs improvement in scholarly rigor with more divisions
While covering a lot of useful ground, the overall organization of the historic preservation article is haphazard. There are major concepts which are not properly cited. In addition, historic preservation is a field at least as broad as architecture and certainly as deserving of sub-topics. For instance, the topic on historic preservation should introduce the subject and then lead the reader to the following sub-topics:


 * History of historic preservation
 * Historic preservation theory (e.g., Ruskin vs. Viollet-le-Duc)
 * Interpreting significance (e.g., National Register criteria, "grade" criteria used in the U.K., values [historic, cultural, aesthetic])
 * Recording and documentation (methods to research the history and current state of a property or landscape)
 * Legal and regulatory issues (this section should cover local historic districts)
 * Interventions (e.g., descriptions of restoration, rehabilitation, preservation, renovation, etc.; planning for interventions; assessment of changes)
 * Historic preservation planning (e.g., overlap of urban/regional planning and preservation)
 * Academic training (e.g., schools, programs)

There are likely other important categories that I have missed.

Lastly, this article does have a definite U.S. bias. The term "historic preservation" to describe the field is also U.S.-centric as the rest of the world tends to use the phrase "heritage conservation." The article should use both terms as synonyms for activities under a common rubric.

Tous ensemble 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the US "conservation" is dealing with art, whereas preservation is dealing with buildings and sites. They are not synonyms in regard to the topic. &mdash; Linnwood 06:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, this is not necessarily true. In the U.S., "architectural conservation" is the application of intervention theory and material science to immovable objects--typically buildings. In all other English-speaking countries other than the U.S., architectural conservation subsumes the broader planning/policy/regulatory aspects of historic preservation and becomes a synonym. In general, the Europeans/Canadians/Australians have a better set of terms for dealing with the built environment and cultural landscapes. "Architectural conservation" is the term used to specifically relate to buildings/cultural landscapes while "heritage conservation" is a broader rubric that includes museums, book preservation, etc. The problem with the term "historic preservation" is that it strongly implies that the goal is to stop change, not manage it. In addition, "historic preservation" isn't even grammatically correct--it should be "historical preservation." Regardless, this article should recognize that "historic preservation" is a term only broadly used in the U.S. and that other countries use "architectural conservation" and "heritage conservation" to mean the same thing. In this sense, non-English speaking countries use "cultural patrimony." My point is that this article is extremely U.S.-centric in its focus (other than the section on Canadian approaches). It would be silly to have separate pages for each country's terms even though the activities undertaken are essentially the same. Tous ensemble 14:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For a perspective at how cultural heritage terms are related, take a look at the UK Archival Thesaurus for how the terms "heritage conservation" and "architectural conservation" are related as well as other, associated terms. Note that nowhere does the phrase "historic preservation" occur (although "preservation" is represented as an approach to interventions). Leave it to the English to be proper about their terms! We Americans done forgot how it aint right to use ungrammatical terms. ;-) Tous ensemble 15:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What you say maybe true, though my point still stands that in the United States when one says "conservation" they are talking about  art (i.e. painting, sculpture) and when one says "preservation" they are talking about buildings and sites (i.e. gardens and skyscrapers). My point is not to say that the article should be U.S.-centric, but rather that these diffrences of terminology need to be made clear. Let us not place value that one country has a " better set of terms." &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We Americans done forgot how it aint right to use ungrammatical terms on purpose. 'Historic preservation' is being used by politicians to tweak our zoning laws, and it can be a political hot potato. In my city, the politicians insist on vague ordinances so that they can make things up as they go. Preservation activists also support fuzzy terminology. It allows them to be bullies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.14.16 (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2007

3rd paragraph
"Creative reuse of historic structures remains at issue today." This seems rather vague, I'm not sure what exactly remains 'at issue' about creative reuse. Perhaps it should be made a bit more clear or deleted.

[followup comment] I believe what the author is referring to is the preferential adaptive use of existing buildings in lieu of new construction, which is controversal in some circles.

Also, is the author really asserting that creative reuse of obsolete structures didn't occur until the 4th century A.D. in Europe???

2rd paragraph
I disagree with the secnd paragraph. Historic preservation is not an "economic tool". The entire paragraph is something an advocate would write. It is not neutral.

''[followup comment] The most commonly held perspective in planning today is that historic preservation is a community and economic development tool. Most comprehensive plans and government and foundations grants are contingent upon the linkage of preservation and economic development. Many studies abound on the economic benefits of preservation. See: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's summary of available studies on the economic benefits of historic preservation.''

[reply] The ACHP is a biased advocacy group. The studies they cite were institutionally funded and authored by advocates. There is substantial anecdotal evidence that involuntary historic preservation damages property values, damages urban aesthetics and quality of life, and poisons community relations; but no institution has sought to publicize the problems. However, I concede that historic preservation is considered by planners to be an economic development tool. It's in their tool bag along with giant fiberglass Paul Bunyons, palaces made of corn, and casino barges decorated like paddlewheel boats.

[reply] Working in the planning field, there is no doubt that historic preservation is an economic development tool. Like tax subsidies, job training, eminent domain and anything else, sometimes it is effective and sometimes it is not. One example of preeservation being tied to economic development is the The Main Street USA program. Run by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, this program has helped hundreds of main streets throughout the country. Another example - there are tax credits for historic preservation that are directly linked to job creation.

Despite the previous comment, universities have studied the economic advantages and disadvantegous of historic preservation. The majority of studies show that a historic district improves property values. (There is also a group of studies that could not find a noticable affect.) Maybe one or two studies at the most found that property values increased more slowly than comparable neighborhoods after historic preservation. No studies to date (or at least that I am aware of) have shown a decrease in property values associated with historic districts.

Universities have also studied the economic benefits of prservation on a state wide level. Specifically, there are a number of ways historic preservation is directly tied to economic development. 1) Money spent on historic rehabilitiation 2) Heritage tourism (money spent by tourists at hotels, restaurants, etc) 3) Main Street activity. Doshwa 18:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[reply] Encouraging commercial property owners to adopt a common architectural theme could probably be considered an economic development tool, and there have been some successes; but often, historic preservation ordinances are used to prevent development. These ordinances tend to pop up after an area is economically rebounding, and the motivation of the advocates is to prevent change and minimize density, not jump start the economy. When historic districts are proposed, the majority of the affected property owners are almost always in opposition, and they know far better than any university student what the affect on values is. The cost/benefit equation for large cities with a scarcity of land vs. small towns with cheap land values is as different as night and day, and it allows any study's author to pre-select the relults he's looking for.

[reply] Generally, designating historic districts is not the economic development tool, rather it is used to protect historic resources or prevent neighborhood character from changing, etc. Other parts of historic preservation programs are tools for economic development. (Main Street programs are the best example).

Also, the comment that most neighbors are opposed to historic district nominations is inaccurate. For example, to be considered for a historic district in San Francisco, two thirds of residents must sign a petition asking for it.

The relationship between price and historic preservation is a little bit complicated. Some aspects of nomination dampen values (some people will not want to move in if they can not do what they want). Other aspects increase value (Some people will be more likely to buy and or renovate in a neighborhood if they know their neighbors can not make ugly changes. Others like the status of living in a historic neighborhood.) Overall, there is very clear evidence that historic districts increase (or at the very least do not decrease) home values.

Despite the disparaging remarks above, the studies are not conducted by university students, but rather by teams of professional researchers.

The first generation of studies about the effects of designation on price were relatively crude, they just looked at how prices in a few neighborhoods changed. (Perhaps the earlier anonymous comment could be true in this case) Later generation studies are much more complicated, paring neighborhoods with similar undesignated neighborhoods, in large scale nationwide studies.

Doshwa 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1st paragraph
It should be clarified that in common usage, "historic preservation" is used by some to refer to architectural conservation and is used by others to refer to creative adaptive reuse.

''[followup comment] Technically speaking, in the United States, the broadest definition of historic preservation is the creative management of the older immovable, built environment. Both definitions proffered above are actually both subsets of the larger whole.''

Comment about merging Cultural Heritage and Historic Preservation
The merging of these two topics does not make sense. Cultural Heritage is a noun and historic preservation is a verb. When one engages in historic preservation, the most commonly accepted definition is that decision making and interventions are being made to that affect the immoveable, built cultural heritage. Cultural Heritage is too broad a term to be adequately described by Historic Preservation.

Article US-centric
This article is very US-centric. It uses American terminology and largely discusses American examples. Worldwide, many other terms are used. In the UK, the term historic preservation is not used much: heritage management would probably be the equivalent term. I am sure that other countries have their own terms. We need to find some way of reflecting this diversity: at the moment the article is not much use for readers from outside the US.--Stonemad GB 10:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Section on Canadian approaches to heritage conservation added. Hope this helps! --Dalejarvis 16:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Zoning POVishness?
"In the United States, cultural resistance towards any kind of zoning as a form of intrusive interference, slowed the formation of preservation trusts with a government connection" unless cited, seems a bit point of viewish ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)