Michael binder, Air Force Declassification Office
Proposal Type
Open to discussion; perhaps Point-Counterpoint?
Seeking
- Seeking Additional Presenters
- Seeking Specific Expertise
- Seeking General Feedback and Interest
Related Topics
- Government Historians
- Material Culture
- Preservation
Abstract
Whether a historic building gets preserved or demolished often rests on the historic context on which its significance is evaluated. If the right context is chosen, the building may be saved, or at least documented for posterity. If the wrong context — a pile of rubble may be the result, despite a truly high level of significance. Examples of truly significant buildings biting the dust argue for repairing the process by which these historic properties are judged worthy of preservation, in physical form or on paper.
Description
We’re all probably familiar with at least one example of a former historic building — emphasis on “former” — which is no longer around. And we may know of some still-extant structure which might not be long for this world (the National Trust for Historic Preservation makes a living off these structures!). Why those former historic buildings are but memories, and why those threatened structures may join that club, are often a product of a poorly crafted historic context (wrong time period, wrong building functions, etc.). Suggestions for the repair of the process by which historic contexts are prepared and used to evaluate significance is the ultimate goal of this proposed session.
I know several examples of “lost” buildings from my field of Cold War history, and I seek offers of assistance/participation from historians familiar with demolished historic properties from other eras, from historians who would like to contribute to the refinement of this proposal, or even from historians who disagree with my thesis.
If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to pass along someone’s contact information confidentially, please get in contact directly: Michael Binder, [email protected]
All feedback and offers of assistance should be submitted by July 1, 2018. If you have general ideas or feedback to share, please feel free to use the comments feature below.
Hi Michael,
I enjoyed reading your proposal. I’m also interested in how “value” in monuments and historic buildings is created and how they’re sometimes deemed of no value and subsequently reduced to rubble. Not sure if you had a chance to go through the other proposals, but I posted mine under “On Archiving Rubble.” I think there is potential for us to collaborate on a joint topic proposal. Let me know if you’d be interested!
Leen
Yes, great connection here! And although it heads in quite a different direction from the “rubble” link, you might also have a look at Jennifer Betsworth’s proposal about repairing and updating National Register nominations, since it seems like there’s some synergy with the questions you’re asking about the processes by which we assess significance and preservation-worthiness.
I contacted Jennifer, and may team with her for a joint proposal. Thanks for the suggestion.
This is an important topic for preservationist to tackle. Although, it would be great to keep all physical historic buildings, it is just not plausible. Everything in humanity will died, and buildings are simply no different. There is much to learn from demolished edifices. What could have been done to exhaust the means to keep these structures from the rubble? What is deemed preservation-worthy and why? Nice topic. Needed discussion.
Thank you for your feedback. No offers to team with me as lead, but I think I may be able to join up with another proposer. Note that, while most buildings do die, I am trying to make sure that the most significant ones get the most attention, which is something that too often does not happen.
This looks like an excellent topic and I agree with the connections to the proposals mentioned in the other comments. Because historic properties can be evaluated within any number of historic contexts, is it that we aren’t choosing to emphasize the one that might resonate with the general public or the individuals who can affect demolition? Does that choice then become a marketing decision, too? How does that choice contrast with calls to tell the whole story or to better democratize preservation programs? For example, National Register listing only requires demonstrating significance within one area of significance, and for some preparers that might mean taking the easy road to completing the documentation. This might be especially true if the preparer is not familiar with the process or is preparing their first nomination. The resulting document may only tell part of the story and perhaps not the one that will help save the property. All good questions as we learn to balance various goals within preservation.
Thank you for your feedback. Yes, historic properties can be evaluated within several historic contexts, but most often there is one that will lend the maximum significance to a particular property, and the “right” historian is the one who can identify, and apply, that singularly relevant historic context.
Hi, Michael,
I think you bring up a really interesting point. The American tradition of preserving military history is usually placed into the context of battlefield preservation, which in many ways predates historic-district style preservation. I’d love to see an examination of the overlapping historic preservation and open space movements. More to my wheelhouse, I’m passionate about connecting objects to place, but because of how Americans tends to fight wars, military history objects tend to be quite separated from place. Would you be interested in going the direction of a further examination of how war is preserved in objects vs. buildings?