Monday, November 30, 2009

Thoughts on making preservation and sustainability matter.

Tomorrow evening, a group of community leaders will officially meet for the first time to discuss the possibility of forming a new nonprofit aimed specifically at achieving historic preservation goals in Floyd County. For those interested, the meeting is at 7:30 pm at the Cardinal Ritter House, 1218 E. Oak Street, in New Albany.

As discussion around the topic has increased, a document has been circulated outlining some thoughts presented at the National Trust's annual Forum Luncheon by Donovan Rypkema, an economist well respected for his interest and research in preservation. Those thoughts, available at his blog here, challenge his audience to change attitudes about preservation by changing its focus from one of history to one of heritage, that is, less about bricks and mortar and more about the culture surrounding their creation and use.

Though I may quibble with a few details and word choices, it's a viewpoint I largely share.

Those who know me well know that, after much mind changing, nail biting, and a few beers to settle down, I'm in the process of applying to graduate school as an MA student in Cultural Sustainability. As a part of that process, I was asked to provide a brief biographical sketch highlighting how I came to be interested in such matters. Since it was involvement in New Albany that mostly drove me to it, New Albany, and its personal but universal challenges, quickly became the topic.

An excerpt from that biographical essay is below. I certainly can't claim the depth of knowledge or talent that Rypkema demonstrates but I was struck by our somewhat similar themes. Readers will notice that both neighborhood revitalization and historic preservation receive mention. They are topics that I do not separate. It's my hope that these initial thoughts, both from Rypkema and me, will help to encourage the blending of the two in the ongoing conversation.

Readers are of course encouraged to share their thoughts as well.

I am a neighborhood activist in New Albany, Indiana, a city of approximately 37,000 along the banks of the Ohio River that was once the largest, most prosperous in the state.

About the city, a downriver 1850’s newspaper in Evansville said: "the glory of New Albany is in her construction of magnificent steamers. In this noble art her mechanics stand unrivaled. She is second only to Pittsburgh in the number of tons launched from her shores; but in the size of her boats, their models and strength, beauty and finish, she has no rival. The mechanics that have framed the Shotwell and Eclipse, and given them their grace, beauty, and speed, may challenge the world."

Today, much of the infrastructure and building stock created to support steamer construction and related industries still exist, representing a standard of public investment and private entrepreneurship not often replicated in contemporary small cities. The mechanics and craftspeople that created and utilized them, however, have largely vanished along with the vibrant culture their activities generated. A friend jokingly refers to it as an open-air museum. If so, it’s a museum whose programming has been woefully insufficient for decades.

That was the problem with which several others and I started a few years ago. After a year of individual study and research, I was lucky enough to begin making connections with regional community development leaders, sharing knowledge and beginning to identify the cohorts of my more private community within the larger, more public whole. They in turn provided access to an even broader contingent of consultants, a national network of professionals affiliated with NeighborWorks America, a Washington, DC, based nonprofit organization “created by Congress to provide financial support, technical assistance, and training for community-based revitalization efforts.” That access culminated in my participation in a national pilot program for place-based training that brought the NeighborWorks Community and Neighborhood Revitalization Professional Certificate curriculum to the Louisville, KY, metro area. It was as part of that training that I became familiar with the Healthy Neighborhoods approach to community revitalization.

The Healthy Neighborhoods approach seeks to establish neighborhoods (or communities) of choice, places where it makes economic sense to invest time, money, and energy; where neighbors have the capacity to successfully manage day-to-day issues; and where they have confidence in their investments and their futures.

The methodology involves focusing on four primary factors as defined by David Boehlke, a major proponent of the approach:

Image: In an asset-oriented strategy that builds both household and neighborhood equity, it is important to promote a positive identity. That for older neighborhoods to compete successfully, they need to draw on their assets and tell their unique stories (for example, historic homes, urban parks, and so on). Residents and outsiders will see the neighborhood as attractive.

Markets: Each neighborhood has a unique market niche. All investments must reinforce the housing market and increase home values. Investment in one property improves the value of all properties within the neighborhood.

Physical conditions: We need to target outcomes, not outputs, because numbers don’t tell the story. Outcomes measure whether the neighborhood is improving as a place for residents to invest and to build equity and neighborly connections.

Social connections (neighborhood management): Prospective homeowners and residents – not community development corporations, government agencies, or other funders – are the most important neighborhood decision makers. Traditional approaches often subsidize households with the greatest needs and provide housing as an end itself. Instead, we need to work to create and improve social connections by engaging residents in their neighborhood and community.

In essence, each of these factors deals with a notion of value— a sense of worth that can be experienced individually, shared with others, and promoted for the greater good. While Healthy Neighborhood outcomes are often discussed and measured using the type of market-based language most often associated with real estate, the ideas of believing and belonging are central to their resident-driven success. It’s that understanding that helped my initial exposure to cultural sustainability make sense.

As mentioned previously, the physical bones of my geographic community are largely intact. We, along with many other similar cities and towns, enjoy the type of built environment that those with New Urbanist leanings are currently investing millions to recreate under the guises of Smart Growth and environmental sustainability. Historic preservationists have also taken an interest in the structures that have long provided us a sense of place, more recently tying their efforts, too, to wider ranging environmental concerns via concepts of adaptive reuse.

Those interests are certainly important if we’re to make the most of the limited natural and financial resources available to us. Simply put, they will help allow us to continue living. What’s missing from those respective equations, however, is the less tangible but more important proposition of what constitutes “living” in the experiential sense. Though the relationship between people and their built environment is one of mutual impact and can serve to inform legacy, a community’s culture is not limited to products. As such, it’s not the products themselves but rather the endeavor to create the products out of a shared understanding of and desire for potential benefit that’s key to cooperatively striving for betterment.

It’s that type of camaraderie, that shared belief in the possibility of the better - whether it takes the form of preserving the old or initiating the new - that forms the basis of community and culture and allows us to sustain ourselves in new and not-so-new meaningful ways.

Artist, author, and copywriter Hugh McLeod said, “The market for something to believe in is infinite.” From firsthand experience, I know that to be a tough market. But it’s not so much the mechanics and craftspeople themselves that have been missing from my neighborhood but the passion, creativity, and general spirit they brought to the place. Fostering belief in those assets, both within the community and as a marketing function directed toward external audiences, is the problem I have now as revitalization efforts move forward.

8 comments:

The New Albanian said...

Like I've said before, I'm not the best writer at my own blog.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

That's bullshit, but thanks anyway.

Hopefully we get some other responses.

bayernfan said...

Reading your essay reminded me of something that seems to be deficient in alot of the talk around New Albany regarding its future and the redevelopment of not only the downtown, but the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown. It's something that Mike Schubert said a couple of times during my class with him...

Neighborhoods are not just a collection of deficiencies. We can try to solve what's wrong or build on neighborhood strengths.

Too often, so many in this community focus on the problems when we need to focus on what's right. Some things, like people ignoring ordinances (or lack of enforcement of those ordinances) cannot be overlooked. But there are an awful lot of good things going on and it's up to those of us who give a damn to build on the good things.

His definition of a healthy neighborhood is also worth mentioning.

"A place where it makes economic and emotional sense for people to invest their time, energy and resources."

Simple, but very true.

The New Albanian said...

I believe we saw a preliminary example of some of these issues at the last Develop New Albany meeting.

DNA was being asked to pledge $500 toward the soccer field at Ritter Park (it is a project being pursued by the Midtown Neighborhood group), and I'll say only that there was opposition on the part of a couple of preservationists in attendance.

And yet, we have been asked (and approved) other grants intended specifically for bricks and mortar historic structures.

I'm not making more of this than it's worth, and it was approved, but I believe it shines a light on a potential conflict between preservationists who're thinking about buildings alone, and those thinking about buildings in the context of neighborhoods and urban zones, which is the gist of what (I believe) BG is saying here.

Currently there are more than one bricks and mortar targets for fundraising in the absence of governmental money: We need to save the Annex, save Coyle, build a fire engine museum ... and I'm in favor of all of it.

I'm also going to be forced to be realistic and suggest that with so many targets, we may come up dry. And, I'm becoming more interested in the human capital in a neighborhood context.

How do we balance/reconcile these?

Preservationists

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Two ideas:

1. More educational programming centered around not only the preservation of buildings themselves but the histories of the neighborhoods-- storytelling that invokes a sense of place, understanding of attitude, and hopefully pride. It could help put preservation in context, make it more accessible, and provide a feeling of being a part of something larger than one's self or one property.

2. Preservation activities could be rolled into other initiatives-- trades related job training, for instance. It could also be made a partner in something like the NSP, contributing to that overall effort by helping to fund the rehab of nearby but NSP-ineligible homes. If $700K is possible for one home a la the Ritter House, perhaps some is available for multiple homes.

By the same token (legalities would have to be checked) perhaps some of the mortgage subsidies potentially offered as part of the NSP could be extended to purchases of the preservationist rehabbed homes.

That could help make "preservationists" be seen as partners in joint accomplishment rather than just as judges of others. Whether that characterization is fair or not, it's out there.

You're correct in thinking that one of my overall concerns is getting "neighborhood revitalization" and "historic preservation" working in the same general direction. I don't think they are currently.

In very general terms that means looking at preservation activities through a Healthy Neighborhood lens and establishing priorities accordingly, making preservation more of a community building tool.

I don't expect names and serial numbers or anything, but it would be interesting to know what objections were made to the soccer field and how they, if they were, tied to thoughts on preservation.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Or, more simply put, keep in mind that building is a verb.

TedF said...

Culture, heritage, preservation, sustainability, conservation, environmentalism, revitalization, being green… they’re all terms that have more relevance today than they ever have before. We hear them every day.

I am a preservationist. There’s nothing I’m more passionate about. And it does mean more than just saving a building to me. There’s a sweet spot somewhere that I think can be reached – between advocacy, building stock preservation, education, trade skill development and all the other causes/terms mentioned above. There’s an important window of opportunity due to the convergence of economic and environmental issues.

That being said, it’s an ideal time for preservationists to huddle up and talk about the future. New faces, new directions, and new collaborations are needed. I will be there Tues and I hope many others come as well.

Thanks for posting on this topic Jeff.

edward parish said...

Thanks to Jeff and Roger for the education on said subject over the past 36 hours. Keep it up.