Historic Preservation in Rural Communities

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

Historic Preservation in Rural Communities There are many differences between urban and rural communities in the United States that make each place unique. Urban communities have larger populations and typically have more resources than do rural communities. Rural communities are able to build capital from industries that urban communities cannot. Both urban and rural communities have a history and a culture yet each one’s heritage is unique to only them. With such diversity among communities it is easy to see how complicated it is to provide programs and policy to suite everyones needs. Achieving meaningful historic preservation policy is no exception. What this report hopes to uncover is whether or not the unique qualities of a rural life may in fact increase the difficulty faced by rural communities as they seek to achieve their preservation goals. Several programs and organizations are dedicated to helping communities of all types preserve their heritage, but are these resources equally as useful for rural communities as they are for urban communities?

This paper will explore some of the unique challenges faced by rural communities as they seek to preserve their cultural heritage. It will also look at the relationships between rural community leaders and preservation policy officials. However, understanding how rural communities allocate their available resources to historic or cultural preservation, and the significance members place on doing so, will be this report’s primary focus. Several secondary sources of literature written by historic preservation and community development professionals, as well as literature from geographers and real estate professionals, were reviewed in order to collect the information for this report.

Several themes have surfaced in the literature. The themes are: the effects of preservation policy and land use laws on a rural community’s ability to meet their historic preservation needs, variances in support for preservation efforts by locals, tourists and officials, issues of economic development, and limited resources. Some of the themes may overlap in some respects but for the most part are clearly defined. These themes will be presented in greater detail in the following sections. There where three common questions asked by the authors as well. The questions were: what do citizens of rural communities want to do about preserving their culture and heritage, what do visitors expect from a rural community regarding heritage tourism, and should federal and state governments be doing more to better serve rural communities through

February, 2015!

1

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

preservation policy. Many of the authors seemed to agree that federal and state governments are not being sensitive to the unique needs of rural communities when it comes to supplying preservation resources and law and that it can be difficult for rural community members to agree on what must be done for the betterment of their town.

Rural community leaders who wish to promote greater awareness and secure needed assistance for the conservation and preservation of their local historical resources might find the information in this report to be useful. This information would also benefit federal and state preservation officials and lawmakers in their efforts to broaden their reach to include landscapes and traditions held dear by many rural communities who might otherwise be lacking the resources to successfully and sustainably preserve their history.

Preservation Policy and Land Use Laws The most widely occurring theme among the articles had to do with the influence preservation policy and land use laws have on a community’s decision making process.

Restrictions and incentives offered by government preservation programs along with those of local planning and zoning codes dictate the direction that a community will move with their historic preservation projects. In both urban and rural locations, local planning officials use zoning ordinances to control how the land is is to be used. This can work in favor of or against historic properties depending on how communities value their historic properties compared to how they value other types of property. Economic development often is the deciding factor for how land will be used in rural communities and will be discussed in a later section.

Rebecca S. Schoen writes that historic preservation in itself should be treated as a form of land use during policy discussions.1 She argues, for example, that current rural policy in the region of Central Appalachia fails to meet a community’s needs when it looks at agriculture and manufacturing as the only areas to focus policy efforts.2 Schoen says "success must be defined in

1

Rebecca S. Schoen, “Confronting the Appalachian Breakdown: Historic Preservation Law in Appalachia and the Potential Benefits of Historic Preservation for Rural Communities,” West Virginia Law Review Vol. 110 (2007): 1306.

2

Ibid, 1311.

February, 2015!

2

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

ways that are specific to rural communities." 3 Including local opinion in policy would require a change in the way policy in the Appalachians are handled because most of the community development policy, including preservation policy, is administered from the federal level with little consultation from locals.

Many federal preservation policies are created to protect and promote America’s historic resources. One well known federal program that honors and documents historic properties is the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). However, a number of authors explicitly question the usefulness of the program as an effective tool for helping rural community’s preserve their cultural and historic resources.4 Given the intangible nature of many rural resources, National Register evaluation of a site or object for designation purposes is not adequate or is not practiced in such a way to take into consideration many of the unique features of a rural landscape. 5 This is because they rely on a site being able to portray historic significance through its material. David W. Morgan and others say that the NRHP fails to acknowledge common heritage markers for the everyday people.6 The NRHP is applicable to only a very select list of properties, usually those belonging to private individuals with money.7 Additionally, as there appear to be relatively few NRHP designated properties in rural areas, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) section 106 review protection does not benefit many rural communities.8 An issue that historic preservation programs have had with preserving rural landscapes and their vernacular structures is the problem of classification and authentication. The very nature of vernacular landscapes and buildings represent a community’s ability to remain dynamic and

3

Ibid, 1318.

4

Cresswell, and Gareth, “Place, Persistance, and Practice,” 392-413.; Glaser, “Beyond the Boom/Bust Cycle,” 218-226.; Morgan, Morgan, and Barrett, “Finding a Place,” 706-718.

5

Cresswell, and Gareth, “Place, Persistance, and Practice,” 392-413.; Glaser, “Beyond the Boom/Bust Cycle,” 218-226.

6

David W. Morgan, Nancy I. M. Morgan, and Brenda Barrett, “Finding a Place for the Common Place: Hurricane Katrina, Communities, and Preservation Law,” American Anthropologist Vol. 108, No. 4: 706.

7

Ibid, 711.

8

Leah S. Glaser, “Beyond the Boom/Bust Cycle.” The Western Historical Quarterly Vol. 41, No. 2 (2010): 222.

February, 2015!

3

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

adaptive in the face of change. Therefore it can be difficult to pick a time period to commemorate a vernacular landscape or building. Surveying and nominating vernacular buildings is difficult because the terminology used to explain vernacular design is not adequate and there are no uniform standards in place for doing so. 9 Unlike established architectural styles of building, vernacular structures have hundreds of different variations making it very hard to categorize and compare buildings. It is even more difficult to categorize and compare historic landscapes in accordance with established preservation programs; only a few rural landscapes have been officially recognized and categorized as rural historic landscapes in the NRHP.10 A large part of rural culture is found in their tradition and folk arts, the conservation of which is quite different from that of buildings and landscapes. Hyojung Cho refers to these types of heritage resources as intangible and points out the difficulties the federal government faces when encouraging conservation of these resources at the state, local and private level.11 Federal intangible heritage conservation is still in its infancy compared to federal programs and policies that are in place for tangible heritage conservation. Because of this, there are not sufficient resources available for the federal government to adequately represent advocates and constituents of intangible heritage conservation.12 Therefore minimal federal support is available for the conservation of folk traditions in rural communities. Most of the authors suggest that the best way to achieve preservation goals for rural communities is through local civil engagement.

After all, no one is quite as familiar with a community’s historic resources as the community itself.

9

Arnold R. Alanen, “Considering the Ordinary: Vernacular Landscapes in Small Towns and Rural Areas,” In Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America, eds. Arnold R. Alanen, and Robert Z. Melnick, 112.

10

Ibid, 115.

11

Hyojung Cho, “Public Policy and Political Dynamics of Heritage Conservation in the United States,” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society Vol. 43 (2013): 66.

12

Ibid, 65.

February, 2015!

4

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

Support Another way in which this topic can be viewed is from the standpoint of support. Local historic preservation will always have supporters and non supporters between different residents, between residents and visitors, and between residents and government programs.

Resident vs. Resident Support In many rural communities there can be a fraction among the residents who support economic development than preserve irreplaceable historic resources and those who find that it is more important to preserve those resources at any cost. Some residents are skeptical that the preservation and marketing of their average, everyday lives would bring much needed money to their communities. Therefore it becomes very important to engage citizens in conversation so that everyones questions and concerns may be addressed.

Resident vs. Tourist Support Support from visitors plays a significant role in historic preservation when communities decide that heritage tourism is to be a factor in their preservation efforts. If this is the case, studies must be done to determine what tourists are looking for in order to maximize effectiveness of the historic resources as an economy booster. One way to do this is to develop an understanding of a community’s sense of place. A common question among many of the authors on the subject of rural historic preservation seeks to discover what it is that attracts people to rural areas. If planners and community leaders were to have an understanding of what draws people to a place and keeps them there, they might have more success when developing preservation plans for their community. There are few articles that study local peoples’ ideas about rural places13, two authors who have studied this topic are Amanda J. Walker and Robert L. Ryan. Their reports discuss the issue of how New England residents viewed their community’s sense of place and what it was to them that made their communities feel rural. Through the use of surveys and interviews with residents, home builders, and city planners of the rural town of Monmouth, Maine, Walker and Ryan were able to determine some of the physical elements of a place that 13

Amanda J. Walker and Ryan, Robert L., “Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: A Maine case study,” Landscape and Urban Planning Vol. 86 (2008): 142.

February, 2015!

5

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

most signifies a rural feel for the participants. The authors also asked participants to explain why they chose certain elements as being more significantly rural in feel than others. The results of their study found that, among all three categories of people interviewed, in general, water features and other natural landscapes such as forests and prairie invoked the strongest sense of a rural feel. 14 The study shows that historic built or cultural features like old barns and fences ranked the lowest for conjuring up a sense of rural place, right after agricultural landscapes.15 Relatively speaking, the authors found that long term residents ranked cultural features as being more important to maintain the rural feel of a place than were short term residents, even though they still thought water and natural features were the most important. 16 These findings suggest a division between the elements newer residents or visitors might deem important to preserve versus the elements long time residents feel should be preserved. This split in points of view must be addressed in order for a community to make the best possible preservation choices for both parties.

Resident vs. Government Support When a rural community happens to have local historical resources that are also significant on a state or national level, they are more likely to receive technical and financial support beyond whats available locally. The rural Missouri town of Arrow Rock, in addition to it’s local heritage resources, has connections with an area wide historical resource, the Santa Fe Trail. Because of the town’s connection to a larger historical icon, they were able to gain state recognition and much needed support to preserve many historic buildings in their community. Arrow Rock boasts one of the earliest examples of a historic resource in Missouri, the Huston Tavern, that is owned by the state, but managed by a local historical organization.17 Sometimes state and federal programs are not equipped to offer the same amount of benefit for both urban and rural communities. Each type of community carries with it unique 14

Ibid, 144.

15

Ibid, 144.

16

Ibid, 145.

17

Timothy E. Baumann, “An Historical Perspective of Civic Engagement and Interpreting Cultural Diversity in Arrow Rock, Missouri,” Historical Archeology Vol. 45 No. 1 (2011): 117.

February, 2015!

6

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

requirements and varying amounts of local resources. In order for a state or federal program to be able to meet the needs of such diverse communities it must be flexible with its rules and regulations. Regional planning and real estate professionals Hamin, Steere, and Sweetser did a study to try to determine the degree of flexibility the Massachusetts state Community Preservation Act (CPA) has had for both the state’s urban and rural communities.18 The CPA was designed to allow individual communities to tax themselves to gain funds for community development projects, after which point they would receive matching funds from the state. 19 Historic preservation was one of four categories communities could spend their CPA funding on along with housing, open space, and recreation. Out of the total number of CPA projects combined, 17% of the funding was allocated to historic preservation.20 The authors of the study wanted to find out if urban and rural communities were receiving equal benefit from the CPA program in the measures that were most appropriate for them. Overall they found that “[i]n designing policies, state governments are frequently more oriented toward urban areas and urban voters than rural voters and have often worked at cross-purposes to local rural planning.”21 The reason for this disparity seems to lie in the often complex nature of state policy which requires recipients to already have significant funds and expertise available to them to implement parts of the state programs, something which many rural communities do not have.22

Economic Development One of the most important elements in rural historic preservation is that of economics and community development. Economic stimulus and heritage tourism seem to be the driving forces

18

Elizabeth M. Hamin, Margaret Ounsworth Steere, and Wendy Sweetser, “Implementing Growth Management: The Community Preservation Act,” Journal of Planning Education and Research Vol. 25 (2006):1-13 19

Ibid, 1.

20

Ibid, 8.

21

Ibid, 5.

22

Ibid, 5.

February, 2015!

7

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

behind many rural historic preservation efforts.23 When a small, rural community faces an economic decline, such as from the loss of its main industry, finding a way to bring back money into the community becomes top priority. If it can be shown that the preservation of historic properties can be equally as or more financially beneficial to the community as are other methods of capital building, the chances for preservation increase. This is true for many of the steel manufacturing towns in rural Pennsylvania where communities had to learn to deal with the loss of their primary form of capital building.24 Author Anne Farrissee writes that if a town can preserve its sense of place while simultaneously offering tourists a memorable experience, both the town and the visitors will benefit.25 It is not unheard of for a community to receive up to 65% of their total restoration funding from heritage tourism. 26 Archeologist Timothy E. Baumann examines the declining community of Arrow Rock, Missouri which made a conscious effort to revive its economy and identity in the early 20th century through heritage tourism. Preservation began when community leaders from the local chapter of the National Old Trails Road Association and the Daughter of the American Revolution established a museum in a local hotel tavern in hopes of drawing visitors to their town by displaying Arrow Rock’s connection with the historic Santa Fe Trail.27 Other events and sites were soon included as part of the attractions and since 1970, over 150,000 visitors have been coming to visit Arrow Rock each year. 28 Baumann suggests that the fame and economic gain from heritage tourism in Arrow Rock was so important to the community that “[i]f it were

23

Alanen, “Considering the Ordinary,“ 119; Baumann, “Historical Perspective,” 114; Dyen, “Routs to Roots,” 20; Farrissee, “ Heritage Tourism,” 101-107; Mason, “Economics,” 1-52; Muller, “Industrial Preservationʼs Legacy,” 36-37; Rypkema, et al., “Measuring,” 19-20; Schoen, “Confronting,” 1321-1368; Tipson, “Putting the History,” 294-295; Wells, “Public Folklore,” 5-18.

24

Edward K. Muller, “Industrial Preservationʼs Legacy,” Pennsylvania Legacies Vol. 6, No. 2 (November 2006): 36-37.

25

Anne Farrissee, “Heritage Tourism: Telling the Rest of the Story.” The Georgia Historical Quarterly Vol. 83, No. 1 (Spring 1999): 106.

26

Alanen, “Considering the Ordinary,” 120.

27

Baumann, “Historical Perspective,” 116.

28

Ibid, 121.

February, 2015!

8

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

not for the historic preservation efforts of its townspeople, Arrow Rock would likely not exist into the 21st century.”29 Often a community can become so focused on preserving a cohesive visual representation of their past by protecting iconic structures that they can loose sight of the historic contributions of the not so exemplary buildings. Because of this mindset, communities may adopt local preservation policy that does not accurately portray their heritage. David F. Tipson sums up the situation: “[t]he unfortunate reality is that sites that are highly contrived, poorly preserved, and explicitly directed at public taste may do more to promote the values espoused in historic preservation ordinances than would rigorous preservation efforts.”30 This also explains why some preservation ordinances tend to be geared towards the indirect benefits of preservation, such as increased patronage of nearby shops from tourists, than sound historical preservation. 31 For example, early historic district clauses created by local leaders and local governments of the City of Charleston, NC required the preservation of a look or feel of a whole town rather than the historical integrity of individual buildings or districts.32 So even though ordinances are developed under the guise of historic preservation, the main goal is to keep the town attractive for new residents and tourists. To achieve this goal many nonconforming old structures will be torn down and replaced with new buildings that mimic the feel of the desirable older buildings.

Tipson observes that: It is nearly impossible to find a historic preservation case or ordinance that does not insist on the importance of preserving the harmonious character of the district or the necessity that alterations to the district be "appropriate." Yet it is equally difficult to find any reasoned explanation of the theory behind this idea. Nor is one likely to find any reference to the fact that the current "harmony" of a historic district may in fact be the result of selective demolition. [. . .] For those who support preservation for its aesthetic and economic benefits, perhaps no theoretical explanation is necessary. For

29

Ibid, 116.

30

David F. Tipson, “Putting the History Back in Historic Preservation,” The Urban Lawyer Vol. 36, No. 2 (2004): 290.

31

Ibid, 294.

32

Ibid, 295.

February, 2015!

9

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

more rigorous preservationists and historians, however, the unexamined concept of the harmonious environment should be troubling. 33

From Tipson’s and other authors’ observations it appears that it is all too easy for a community to lose sight of the historical importance of preservation efforts in favor of creating an almost Disney Land like atmosphere to attract tourists and their money. Additionally, ordinances geared towards visual uniformity fail to consider the non tangible cultural attributes of a community such as craftsmanship, camaraderie, folklore, and traditions.

Even though many rural preservation projects would flounder without financial support from heritage tourism, it is questionable whether tourist centric preservation results in the accurate portrayal of a community’s heritage. Fortunately, heritage tourists are starting to seek a more honest history from the communities they visit, they’re looking for a much more people centric experience. 34 Much of the success in turning Arrow Rock into a tourist destination was centered around the telling of the history of the white settlers, what Farrisee refers to as the “famous dead white man syndrome.”35 Statistically, only 1% of the tourist population that visited Arrow Rock were African American. 36 The low numbers of African Americans that chose to visit Arrow Rock was not due to an absence of African American history in Arrow Rock, but the failure of historic preservationists to include their presence in historic interpretations for visitors.

The African American presence in Arrow Rock has historically been of great significance, and that this part of Arrow Rock’s history had been left out is a major oversight on the part of preservationists.37 Eventually, after the success of the heritage tourism industry in Arrow Rock, this oversight was corrected, paving the way for Arrow Rock to include the stories of their other overlooked groups such as Native Americans and women.

33

Ibid, 299-300.

34

Farrissee, “ Heritage Tourism,” 102.

35

Ibid, 102.

36

Baumann, “Historical Perspective,” 122.

37

Ibid, 122.

February, 2015!

10

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

Available Resources There are three categories of resources a community must consider when seeking to preserve their history; the type and amount of their unique historic assets, the technical and financial resources that are available to them through organized preservation programs, and the amount of local economic and volunteer power at their disposal.

Historic Resources The type and amount of historic resources that a community has will dictate which preservation programs will be most effective and how much technical and financial resources will be required to preserve them. There are typically two types of historic resources that a community may posses, tangible resources such as buildings, objects and landscapes, and intangible resources such as tradition, folk songs, festivals, church groups, etc.

Government Resources Government resources are found at the federal, state, and local levels. Many of these resources can be used in both rural and urban communities but there are a few which are exclusive to either one or the other. Government preservation resources that are applicable only to rural communities will be presented in this section of the report.

The National Register of Historic Places is one federal resource available to communities looking for preservation resources. The purpose and effectiveness of this program has been discussed in previous sections of this report and will not be repeated here. Other federal programs include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) section 106 stipulation which requires any federal agency wishing to undertake a project must first asses how the proposed project might affect any historic properties that are either listed or eligible to be listed in the NRHP. National Parks have been used on occasion as a tool for preserving rural landscapes, but there has been some debate as to the lack of attention given to historical accuracy.38 Heritage Areas and Heritage Corridors are a more recent national preservation tool that include not only the themed historic preservation of significant lands and corridors such as railways, mining

38

Alanen, “Considering the Ordinary,� 127-128.

February, 2015!

11

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

towns, etc., but also the preservation of areas for environmental protection and recreational purposes.39 An example of a cultural interpretation resource that is available only to small, rural towns is the Museum on Main Street (MoMS) project. The Museum on Main Street project is “a special collaboration between the Smithsonian Institution, state humanities councils, and rural historical organizations.”40 This program tries to foster local resources and local uniqueness to tell an area’s story of how it contributes to American history as a whole. This project was initiated and facilitated by both federal (Smithsonian Institute) and state organizations. It is a good example of how federal and state involvement in interpreting and celebrating local rural history can be a success.

Land trusts are a local and state level preservation tool that are sometimes used by rural communities and are most popular in East Coast communities. Land Trust Alliance, and the American Farmland Trust, created in the 1980s offer non-financial support to parties interested in using land trusts as a way to preserve historic landscapes.41 Thirty three percent of Historic Landscapes and 16% of cultural sites are protected using land trusts.42 Organizations purchase the land outright and transfer ownership to the government. They employ the use of conservation easements. Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) are used as part of the conservation easements so that landowners don’t loose profits on the loss of right to develop their land, but they are complicated to set up between developers and landowners and is only done by local governments that know what they’re doing. These are most often used to protect farmland from the encroachment of seasonal home building and urbanization.

Local Resources

39

Ibid, 138-139.

40

Robbie Davis, “Public History in Small-Town America: Twenty Years of Museum on Main Street.” The Public Historian Vol. 36, No. 4 (November 2014): 41

Alanen, “Considering the Ordinary,” 124.

42

Ibid, 124.

February, 2015!

12

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

Often, without the assistance from outside sources, towns and communities are faced with achieving their preservation goals on their own. Local resources include any local funding that can be raised or donated by individuals and businesses, aid from local non government preservation organizations and programs, and volunteer time donated by residents. Examples of of local resources being put to good use can be found in the small Midwestern community of Embarrass, Minnesota. Embarrass is known for its surviving Finish heritage with hundreds of examples of traditional Finish buildings and landscapes. In 1987 Embarrass was selected by the National Trust as one of sixteen sites to be represented through photograph as part of the story of emigrant communities in America. 43 Alanen’s article doesn’t mention anything about the community receiving state or federal support for preserving their historic resources aside from the recognition from the National Trust. 44 It is commendable what the community has been able to achieve on its own. Interested community members of Embarrass created a historical society of volunteers to promote the city’s Finish heritage through workshops, fairs, and a cultural center for visitors to learn more about their history. The historical society also seeks to restore and preserve several endangered buildings within their community, using only the support of local money and volunteers. Because the preservation efforts of the community of Embarrass are fueled only by local resources, they are limited by their rural economy and small, aging population.45

43

Ibid, 122-123.

44

Ibid, 122-123.

45

Ibid, 122-123.

February, 2015!

13

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

Summary of Findings Economic Development Support

Available Resources Preservation Policy & Land Use Laws

22% 35%

13%

30%

Image 1: Piechart representing the significance of each of the four common themes discussed in the literature in relation to each other.

Explanation of Visual This visual depicts the relationship between the four common themes found among the articles read for this topic. It is important to understand this relationship to determine the weight each theme carries for the influence it exerts on historic preservation in rural communities. Not surprisingly, the theme of Preservation Policy and Land Use Laws was most widely discussed by the authors as having the greatest influence on rural preservation efforts. On the other hand, it was quite surprising to find that the theme of Available Resources was discussed by the fewest number of authors, as it is the historic resources of rural communities themselves that are the focus of this report as a whole. This suggests that the authors felt that the decisions of community leaders and preservation policy officials play a very important role in the outcome of rural historic preservation efforts and therefore policy makers have a serious responsibility to February, 2015!

14

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

rural communities. The laws and programs preservation officials create will significantly affect the success of a rural community to meet their preservation goals. The findings from image 1 also suggest that authors were not as concerned with the resources that were available to rural communities. Rural communities can do a lot with the resources they have at their disposal and other factors are more influential to the success or failure of their preservation efforts.

Gaps in the Literature For the most part, the authors of the articles have been quite thorough about the topic of rural historic preservation from almost every angel. It was difficult for me to find any gaps in their literature. One area from the literature that was a left a little vague and would have benefited from a bit more elaboration was the concept of ‘sense of place.’ Sense of place was mentioned by a handful of the authors but they seemed to fall short of giving a detailed explanation of how this concept could be used for historic preservation. In the two articles by Ryan, one with Walker, sense of place was used as a term do describe how the citizens of rural New England communities perceive the rural-ness of where they live but did not tie the concept into preservation. Schoen talked of sense of place as something that was important to the overall feel of a community and something that should be preserved, but she mentions the phrase only once and does not elaborate on what is meant by it. Rural historic preservation literature would benefit from a more operationalized meaning of ‘sense of place’ to be able to have a clearer conversation about the benefits of this concept for rural communities.

Additional Research This report presented a general overview of the many factors affecting rural community preservation efforts. The articles that were reviewed, with few exceptions, dealt mostly with the theoretical underpinnings of rural preservation policy. For a more in depth look at the statistical of rural historic preservation data, further study should be done to determine the hard numbers associated with the various aspects of rural preservation. For example, research to find the percentage of federal and state historic property designations that occur in rural versus urban settings would provide tangible evidence of any disparities among the distribution of government

February, 2015!

15

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

preservation resources. Determining the degree to which these designated sites benefit local citizens would further shed light on the effectiveness of these programs for rural communities since preservation policy seems to be of such great importance for the outcomes of rural preservation projects. Benefits would be determined by how satisfied local citizens are with the level of protection and promotion the designated sites have received. This research would provide statistics on the success of federal and state historic designation and preservation programs as determined by the people who are most affected by such programs.

This proposed research would involve combing through listings of NRHP designated properties and listings of other state and federally designated historic properties to determine the percentage of the total located in rural communities. The more difficult part of this research would be drafting and conducting surveys with the residents of the communities who have the largest concentration of designated historic properties to try and gauge their overall level of satisfaction with the results of historic designation. The gathering of data could be performed by undergraduate students of historic preservation and could be published as a research report with the findings from the study. Professionals could use this data to add to their more theoretical articles about rural historic preservation.

February, 2015!

16

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

Annotated Bibliography Alanen, Arnold R. “Considering the Ordinary: Vernacular Landscapes in Small Towns and Rural Areas.” In Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America, edited by Arnold R. Alanen, and Robert Z. Melnick, 112-142. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, (March 2, 2000).

Alanen demonstrates that the dynamic nature of rural building and landscaping makes it difficult to categorize sites for preservation efforts. The article gives a series of examples of preservation efforts on the local, state, and federal level. Themes of support, preservation and land use law and available resources are covered in this article. Alanen’s purpose for this article is to demonstrate various ways rural communities can approach preservation and some of the unique needs they may face along the way. Alanen points out that federal programs have historically fallen short of meeting the unique needs of rural communities. but have been modifying their laws and programs to try and rectify this problem. The article explores how the different desires of residents within a community can make preservation efforts difficult.

Baumann, Timothy E. “An Historical Perspective of Civic Engagement and Interpreting Cultural Diversity in Arrow Rock, Missouri.” Historical Archeology Vol. 45 No. 1 (2011): 114-134. Accessed January 21, 2015. doi:10.2307/23070207.

Baumann’s article is a case study of the community of Arrow Rock, Michigan. The article focuses on grassroots local preservation efforts initiated as a means to expand the economy.

Special attention is given to the changing focus of preservation in Arrow Rock beginning with a desire to increase the economy and later growing to include the history of the various minority groups living in Arrow Rock. Baumann argues that civil engagement is the best way to sustainably approach preservation efforts in a small, rural community. The article explores all four of the common themes I’ve discovered among all the articles: support, preservation and land use laws, available resources, and economic development. Baumann works at the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archeology.

Cresswell, Tim and Hoskins, Gareth. “Place, Persistence, and Practice: Evaluating Historical Significance at Angel Island, San Francisco, and Maxwell Street, Chicago.”

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98, no. 2 (June, 2008): 392-413.

Accessed October 20, 2014 doi: 10.2307/25515127.

Using the National Register of Historic Places nomination of Angel Island, San Francisco and Maxwell Street, Chicago as case studies, Tim Cresswell and Gareth Hoskins explore how government agencies responsible for reviewing National Register applications use the materiality of a place as a measure of significance when making their decision. Cresswell and Hoskins use analysis of designation criteria and accreditation guidelines, interviews and correspondence with advocates of both locations to write this article. This article covers the theme of preservation and local land use laws. They argue that materiality trump other, less tangible considerations such as February, 2015!

17

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

place significance when preservation authorities review properties to be placed in the National Register. For example, the communities fighting to have Maxwell Street listed in the Register feel that they were unfairly denied just because their place wasn’t as materially rich as Angel Island. Angel Island and Maxwell each represent a different region of the United States and will provide great comparison of preservationist thoughts and behaviors across the country. Cresswell and Hoskins are part of the Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, at the University of London.

Hamin, Elizabeth M., Steere, Margaret Ounsworth, and Sweetser, Wendy. “Implementing Growth Management: The Community Preservation Act.” Journal of Planning Education and Research Vol. 25 (2006):1-13. Accessed January 22, 2015. doi: 10.1177/0739456X05285145 2006.

This article examines the response of several communities throughout the state of Massachusetts to the Community Preservation Act (CPA) on community development and heritage preservation. The authors surveyed members of both urban and rural towns who voted on the CPA as well as members of two non-voting towns. The surveys were followed with open-ended phone interviews the results of which were coded for analysis. Two major findings of the report under the theme of preservation and land use laws, concluded that rural community members felt that the government and the press were not the best groups to help solve local problems, and that most of the programs developed by the government were designed to aid urban communities more so than rural ones. Elizabeth M. Hamin is Assistant Professor of Regional Planning and Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning Department of the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Margaret Ounsworth is Associate at Bonz and Company, Inc. a real estate advisory firm located in Boston. Ounsworth has her M.A. in regional Planning from the University of Massachusetts - Amherst.

Morgan, David W., Morgan, Nancy I. M., and Barrett, Brenda. “Finding a Place for the Common Place: Hurricane Katrina, Communities, and Preservation Law.” American Anthropologist Vol. 108, No. 4 (December 2006): 706-718. Accessed January 20, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4496513? sid=21105299122641&uid=4&uid=2&uid=3739256&uid=3739736.

This is a really heartfelt article that advocates for the recognition of common, everyday sites and traditions as important cultural and heritage elements that should be preserved. The authors cover the themes of support and preservation and land use law. The main point of the article underlines the failure of the National Register of Historic Places eligibility to include common cultural elements that are perhaps more important to the community than the types of sites that are traditionally listed in the National Register. David W. Morgan works for the Center for Preservation Technology and Training, is a member of the National Park Service in Natchitoches, L.A. Nancy I. M. Morgan works at the Care River National Historic Area in Natchitoches, L.A.

February, 2015!

18

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

Brenda Barrett works for the National Historic Area Program through the National parks Service in Washington D.C. Muller, Edward K. “Industrial Preservation’s Legacy.” Pennsylvania Legacies Vol. 6, No. 2 (November 2006): 36-37. Accessed January 20, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/discover/ 10.2307/27765067?sid=21105299122641&uid=4&uid=2&uid=3739256&uid=3739736.

Muller’s article covers the themes of support, economic development, and preservation and land use laws. Using post-industrial towns of rural Pennsylvania as examples, Muller points out that the community members of these post-industrial towns fear that they have lost their traditional way of life and there are no resources available to them to help preserve the disappearing structures and landscapes that serve as a visual reminder of how things used to be. Typically federal and state preservation programs have not looked favorably on preserving industrial sites, and Muller’s article is propaganda proposing a sea-change in government thinking to begin including such sites in their preservation programs. Although the article is nine years old, it is still relevant as changes to government programs and the public adoption of such programs is usually slow. Edward K. Muller is Professor of History and director of Urban Studies at the University of Pittsburg. He is also chair of the board of trustees of the Rivers of Steel National heritage Area in South West Pennsylvania.

Ryan, Robert L. “Comparing the attitudes of local residents, planners, and developers about preserving rural character in New England.” Landscape and Urban Planning Vol. 75 (2006): 5-22. Accessed January 22, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.10.005.

Ryan analyzes self administered surveys he provided to New England home builders, planners, and residents that contain photos of various types of rural landscapes to try and determine a pattern for what each group considered to be a rural sense of place. Participants were asked to write explanations for their responses as to why they chose the photos they did. The results were recorded and analyzed. Ryan found that all three groups determined landscape elements such as fields and forest to be more important for creating a rural feel than were structural elements like old barns and farmhouses. The article covers the themes of support, and preservation and land use law. Robert L. Ryan is Associate Professor in the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at the University of Massachusetts - Amherst. He has a PhD in Natural Resources, a M.A. in Landscape Architecture and a M.A. in Urban Planning from the University of Massachusetts. His research is focused on psychology.

Schoen, Rebecca S. “Confronting the Appalachian Breakdown: Historic Preservation Law in Appalachia and the Potential Benefits of Historic Preservation for Rural Communities.”

West Virginia Law Review Vol. 110 (2007): 1303-1372.

Sense of place and local, civic engagement are the main topics of this article. It also covers three of the four themes I’ve identified as being common among many of the articles; economic development, support, preservation and land use laws. Schoen highlights ways in which local,

February, 2015!

19

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

state, and federal governments can help rural Appalachian communities with their historic preservation efforts. Her intention with this article is to demonstrate the unique historic preservation needs rural communities have and the best ways they can be met.

Tipson, David F. “Putting the History Back in Historic Preservation.” The Urban Lawyer Vol. 36, No. 2 (2004): 289-316.

The themes of economic development, support, and preservation policy and land use laws are covered in this article. Tipson looks at the shortcomings of federal preservation policy for meeting the needs of communities. His purpose is to express changes that must happen to make federal preservation programs more applicable to broader community needs instead of just a few individual sites or structures that benefit only a few people. He claims that preservation policy should be more concerned with the public and being inclusive instead of exclusive.

Bibliography Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. “Protecting Historic Properties: A Citizen’s Guide to Section 106 Review.” n.d. Accessed on February 9, 2015. http://www.achp.gov/docs/ CitizenGuide.pdf.

Cho, Hyojung. “Public Policy and Political Dynamics of Heritage Conservation in the United States.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society Vol. 43 (2013): 58–70.

Accessed January 21, 2015. doi: 10.1080/10632921.2013.768160.

Davis, Robbie. “Public History in Small-Town America: Twenty Years of Museum on Main Street.” The Public Historian Vol. 36, No. 4 (November 2014): 51-70. Accessed January 22, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/tph.2014.36.4.51? uid=3739736&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105299875361.

Dyen, Doris J. “Routs to Roots: Searching for the Streetlife of Memory.” The Journal of American Folklore Vol. 119, No. 471 (Winter 2006): 19-29. Accessed January 20, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4137780? sid=21105299854871&uid=2&uid=3739736&uid=3739256&uid=4.

Erikson, Patricia Pierce. “Welcome to This House: A Century of Maka People Honoring Identity and Negotiating Cultural Tourism.” Ethnohistory Vol. 50, No. 3 (2003): 523-547.

February, 2015!

20

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

Farrissee, Anne. “Heritage Tourism: Telling the Rest of the Story.” The Georgia Historical Quarterly Vol. 83, No. 1 (Spring 1999): 101-107. Accessed on January 20, 2015. http:// www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40584005? sid=21105299122641&uid=4&uid=3739256&uid=3739736&uid=2.

Filene, Benjamin. “Passionate Histories: ‘Outsider’ History-Makers and What They Teach Us. The Public Historian Vol. 34, No. 1 (Winter 2012): 11-33. Accessed January 21, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/tph.2012.34.1.11? uid=3739736&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105299122641.

Fowler, Don D. “Cultural Resources Management.” Advances in Archeological Method and Theory Vol. 5 (1982): 1-50. Accessed October 19, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/discover/ 10.2307/20210052?sid=21105299122641&uid=3739256&uid=3739736&uid=2&uid=4.

Glaser, Leah S. “Beyond the Boom/Bust Cycle.” The Western Historical Quarterly Vol. 41, No. 2 (2010): 218-226. Accessed on October 19, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/ westhistquar.41.2.0218? uid=3739736&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105299122641.

Lopez, Lisa Junkin. “At the Heart of the Community.” Public History News Vol. 34, No. 4 (September 2014): 1-4. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://ncph.org/cms/wp-content/ uploads/2014-September-Newsletter-Web1.pdf.

Mason, Randall. “Economics and Historic Preservation: A Guide and Review of the Literature.”

Paper prepared for The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, Washington D.C., September 2005. Accessed February 6, 2015. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/ research/files/reports/2005/9/metropolitanpolicy%20mason/20050926_preservation.pdf.

Mitchell, Nora J. “Considering the Authenticity of Cultural Landscapes.” APT Bulletin Vol. 39, No. 2/3 (2008): 25-31. Accessed on January 21, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/discover/ 10.2307/25433948?sid=21105299122641&uid=2&uid=3739736&uid=3739256&uid=4.

National Council on Public History. “What is Public History?” Indiana University-Purdue

February, 2015!

21

Peggy Anderson Arch 4671 Historic Preservation!

University, Indianapolis, 2015. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://ncph.org/cms/what-ispublic-history/.

National Parks Service. “Silos and Smoke Stacks: National Heritage Area.” Copyright 2015.

Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.silosandsmokestacks.org/ National Park Service, “National Heritage Areas: Heritage Areas 101,” Published April, 2012.

Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.nps.gov/heritageareas/FAQ/InfoSheet_NHAs %20in%20brief.pdf National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Main Street Center. “What is Main Street.”

Copyright 2015. Accessed on February 9, 2015. http://www.preservationnation.org/mainstreet/about-main-street/#.VNj0UrDF9kk.

Rypkema, Donovan, Cheong, Caroline, and Mason, Randall. “Measuring Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation.” A report presented to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington D.C., November, 2011.

Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Services. “Museum on Main Street.” Copyright 2014. Accessed on February 9, 2015. http://www.museumonmainstreet.org/.

Stepenoff, Bonnie. “Wild Lands and Wonders: Preserving Nature and Culture in National Parks.” In Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice, edited by Richard Longstreth, 91-105. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.

Walker, Amanda J. and Ryan, Robert L. “Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: A Maine case study.” Landscape and Urban Planning Vol. 86 (2008): 141-152. Accessed January 22, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.02.001.

Wells, Patricia Atkinson. “Public Folklore in the Twenty-First Century: New Challenges for the Discipline.” The Journal of American Folklore Vol. 119, No. 471 (2006): 5-18. Accessed January 20, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137779.

February, 2015!

22