Week Six: Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities

Preface: Introduction and Objectives

    Originally designed as a method to revitalize inner cities, preservation and historic districts find themselves doing more harm than good to local residents. Andrew Hurley, author of Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities seeks to help readers understand how historic preservation could be better weaponized in the attempt to revive inner city areas; Inner city neighborhoods can be turned into assets when subjected to public interpretation at the grassroots level (Hurley, ix). Hurley shows his work by creating a collection of examples that deal in public archaeology, addressing each narrative from "the trenches" understanding each project as innovations in the realm of public history (Hurley, x-xi). To me, this is similar to the Hungerford School project, where local leaders want to revive the property to become an economic center that will pour back into the community rather than a site that removes material value from the community. 

Preservation in the Inner City

    Following the ending of the Second World War, urban cities sought to revitalize and revive the intercity to promote a new generation of economic growth. Hurley explains that historic preservation did what urban renewal could not: restore economic viability of cities. Due to this, historical preservation is normally looked at through an economic view rather than a perspective concerning heritage, community roots, and the protection of cultural landmarks (Hurley, 2). The chapter seeks to understand how the differences between revitalization and preservation has become thinner and thinner, sacrificing the goal to create a constructive dialogue on the memorialization of urban identity. 

    The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was created in response to the growing notion of what Hurley described as the market's attack on history, exampled in Charleston and Santa Fe in the creation of historic districts. Historic districts did two things: they created an architectural identity, but at the same time, create a social elitism with Anglo Saxons at the top (Hurley, 5-7). The result was "planned gentrification," or the market selling of desirable properties that eventually forced locals out of their areas by driving up prices. The importance of the the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is that it wasn't a act to inspire preservation or promote economic equality, but rather it was to halt the architectural destruction of American heritage (Hurley, 8-11). 

    The intention of the the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was dictated by Congress as the removal of property as "relics," but instead as functional assets to ordinary needs of public populations. Alongside the baby boom and suburban revival in the 1950s and 1960s, many families and parents were uninterested in the revival of property leading to the economic revival in terms of business and tourism of the 1970s; Heritage tourism became the central motivation for the revival and revitalization of older properties (Hurley, 12-15). Preservation in the inner city, as Hurley suggests, has a complicated relationship and dynamic with market exchanges. Public history as a field must promote the economic upbringing as well as the communal identity that is agreed upon by active participants within the neighborhood. This directly reflects onto the Hungerford School project, understanding the area as a matter of gentrification on the basis of capital gain whilst eliminating the communities' voice; The creation of I-75 and further selling of property contributes to the market desire that opposes public memory.