Preservation and Change: Survey of Attitudes and Opinions in the Historic Preservation Field

Preservation and Change Survey of Attitudes and Opinions in the Historic Preservation Field Report of Findings

Urban Heritage Project/PennPraxis Randall Mason Senior Fellow/Professor

Kaitlyn Levesque Research Associate

With the support of The 1772 Foundation March 2022

Acknowledgments The 1772 Foundation provided financial support to create and carry out the survey on which this report is based. The Foundation exercised no control over the content or type of the questions, nor over the interpretations contained in this report.

We thank Mary Anthony, executive director of the 1772 Foundation for her support. She and several other individuals participated in a 2019 symposium on the future of the historic preservation out of which the idea for this survey emerged. The symposium, organized

by Patrice Frey and Randy Mason, was also supported by The 1772 Foundation and the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate Program in Historic Preservation.

Finally, we thank the small group of fellow professionals from around the country who betatested the survey and the more than 2,000 historic preservation professionals and volunteers who contributed their ideas and opinions through the survey.

For question about this report or the full data set please contact the authors: Randall Mason, rfmason@design.upenn.edu Kaitlyn Levesque, kaitlynl@sas.upenn.edu

Table of Contents Executive Summary

4

1. Introduction and Goals

5

2. Design of the Survey

7

3. Survey Participants

9

4. Headline Results

13

5. Results for Selected Questions Current Focus of the Field The Stories Preserved: What is Represented?

Priority Issues Attitudes Toward Change Bias + Diversity Are We All Preservationists?

Motivations Partnerships + Alliances Existing Policies

14 14 17 19 21 24 27 28 30 32

6. Last Word

35

Appendices Invitation Text The Survey

37 37 38

Executive Summary The goal of historic preservation is frequently framed as “managing change” of historic buildings and places. With increasing regularity, the notion of how the historic preservation field “manages change” of its own practices, assumptions, institutions, and policies has been raised. What kinds of change do preservationists have in mind? What gaps exist between current practices and the exigencies of the moment (or the future)?

To address that abiding question, this report offers a snapshot of attitudes toward change in the historic preservation field, built from the opinions of over 2,000 people connected to the historic preservation community of practice who participated in a survey distributed in late 2020–early 2021.

The survey queried the opinions and experiences of preservation professionals on a variety of topics: which of the issues facing the field are highest priority; the effectiveness of public policies; the role partnerships play for the preservation field; and the diversity of those working in the preservation field. Responses from a couple dozen multiple-choice and Likertscale questions are presented below; narrative responses to a series of qualitative questions will be the subject of a subsequent report.

A few key findings emerge from the details: •

The need for substantial change is a matter of consensus—something greater than the gradual evolution that has characterized the field following the institutionalization of historic preservation in the 1960s;

•

Deep divides exist within the preservation community around issues of change—related in complex ways to generational change, the inertia and path-dependence of established ways of thinking about and doing preservation, or what we discern as “traditional” and “progressive” mindsets;

•

Pressures for change are exerted by both internal dynamics in the field and from external forces;

•

Imperatives for change relate to many facets of preservation, including: the diversity of people working in the field, the effectiveness of leadership, the kind of partnerships to be forged, and the role of intangible heritage as a driver of the field.

The goal of this report is to continue conversations taking place in and around the preservation field, and open up new fronts of thinking. We don’t attempt to draw any conclusions about preservation or preservationists. Rather, this exploration is meant to document opinions and attitudes in the current moment and advance critical self-reflection in all corners of the community of practice devoted to heritage, preservation, and their important functions in contemporary American society.

4

1. Introduction and Goals American society and culture have undergone significant change in recent generations, to say the least. Culture wars, deep political divisions, alarming economic disparity, reinterpretation of the country’s history, and ecological and publichealth crises dominate the moment. The culture of the country’s preservation field is likewise under pressure to change, from multiple directions: intellectual and design critique; popular opinion; economics and financing; governance. There seems to be a growing consensus around the need for historic preservation to change in order to be effective or gain (or even keep) relevance.

Practically, how, how quickly and how profoundly must the preservation field change in order to thrive and to serve the larger society?

This project probes these big questions. The data gleaned from the survey will serve the preservation field by documenting current attitudes in and about the field. The intention of this project is asking preservation professionals what they think about the current state of the field and attitudes to change of various kind, listening carefully to them, and presenting the results back to inform debates ongoing in many corners of the preservation field.

It is hoped that findings reported here will shed useful light on any number of decisions we face collectively and individually: What strategic ideas, innovations, and investments should we plan? What should be the direction of our core institutions? How does one build support for a new project, partnership, or policy idea? Is preservation becoming more or less effective in its work? Who should lead, and what partners and colleagues will help advance, preservation goals? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the field, and if there are gaps, how might they be filled? We envision this project helping professionals gain perspective on the field as a whole and position themselves and

their organizations to practice, make change, and lead with renewed purpose.

This survey was designed to create an objectively reported foundation of data on professional attitudes and opinions to use as an input to build strategies for the future of the historic preservation field. Stated simply, the project goal is posing the question, “What do rank-and-file preservationists think about change?” We wish to contribute to ongoing debates in the field by documenting what the field currently thinks, knows, and practices.

Therefore we collected data on attitudes and opinions from a range of perspectives: practitioners, public officials, foundation professionals, professionals working in closely allied fields, and other citizens involved in historic preservation. We asked about change in many aspects of the field’s work: the people who work in the field, public policies, canonical practices, partnerships and alliances, and priority issues. And we asked about change already happening and what could be pursued in the future.

More practically, the survey goals included: •

Documenting in some measure what preservationists actually think, believe, and value about: ―

The strengths and weaknesses of historic preservation field, seen from inside and outside the field, regarding the current situation and the near future;

―

The current status of preservation’s influence, effectiveness, aspirations and “culture” as a self-defining community of practice;

―

The barriers and opportunities looking ahead for the preservation field and its organizations, ranging from public policies to public opinions to lack of diversity.

5

•

•

Creating a foundation of data on professional outlooks, opinions, and attitudes to the kinds of change that are already being debated Contributing to ongoing discussions about the evolution and reform of the preservation field—particularly those aimed at increasing the relevance and effectiveness of historic preservation as a force in contemporary society.

This is an academic research project. Our intention has been to elicit how preservation professionals are responding to change, and map out what they are collectively thinking about the future and the field’s priorities looking forward. It is not an exercise in advocacy, nor is it carried out for or on behalf of any organization. As individuals, we authors have our own attitudes toward change in the field; we’ve consciously tried to bracket them out of the report or otherwise be transparent about our assumptions.

As authors of this report and designers of the project, we aim to be reflective of our own biases— based on our positions employed by a university; engagement in teaching, research, and practice of

historic preservation; and through the lenses of our own personal and professional identities.

Because participants were asked about some controversial and difficult issues, some measure of defensiveness or other push-back was expected. Indeed there was criticism of the survey itself (including its very existence, the need for it, and how some questions were framed).

We acknowledge these points of criticism. Yet, overwhelmingly, participants responded in the spirit in which the survey was designed: to understand the collective mind and future trajectory of preservation.

This report will, we hope, engender more and better-informed debate on future changes in preservation discourse, practice, policy, investment, and education. We ask everyone to take this opportunity to consider the prospects of the whole field (not only one’s own corner of it), reflect on preservation’s potential to serve society broadly, and respectfully advocate for the changes we each deem best.

6

2. Design of the Survey The survey sought opinions about the state of the historic preservation field, prospects for future change, and where its practitioners and advocates think it is headed. In addressing change, we wanted to build a broad picture of the field: who are preservationists, what do they do, how do they think about their work, and what future questions do they think are worth asking?

The project proceeds from the assumptions that: •

historic preservation reflects contemporary society;

•

therefore some measure of change in how preservation is practiced is inevitable and desirable as societies change;

•

•

historic preservation seeks relevance and influence in the public sphere over contemporary decisions about the built environment, the interpretation of history, and heritage-making as a process in modern society; and, increasing historic preservation’s societal relevance and enlarging its future prospects should be supported by thoughtful, constructive critique.

The project also assumes there is a coherent “historic preservation field” and that we could reach a reasonably representative sample of folks who are connected with historic preservation by communicating directly with preservation-related organizations and encouraging snowball sampling.

In other words, this survey is not based on a statistically tested representative sample, nor was it executed by a market research firm. Once the question panel was designed and beta-tested, we relied on a handful of national organizations, our own network of professional contacts, and the power of social media to disseminate our request

widely and among broader networks. Though targeted to preservationist-identifying audiences, we welcomed responses from those identifying otherwise and working in allied and adjacent fields like architecture, history, or real-estate development.

The main hypothesis underlying the study is that pressures for change in the historic preservation field are multi-directional, driven by a range of different factors (internal and external to the field), and are getting more intense. We included questions pursuant to a few sub-hypotheses of this, concerning: •

attitudes about the changing focus of preservation in an era of renewed culture wars;

•

the attention paid to buildings as a focus of preservation work, weighed against the opportunities to center on intangible aspects of heritage;

•

links between historic preservation and social justice, environmental conservation, and public health fields;

•

the efficacy of the prevailing preservation policies.

The survey instrument itself is included in the appendices. Once the panel of questions was composed and edited for length, the digital survey was formatted in Qualtrics, and beta-tested. To solicit responses, a brief description and hyperlink (see page 37) was circulated through formal and informal professional networks of the historic preservation field. Results from many of the quantitative-response questions are analyzed below; the full list of survey questions are attached in the appendices (see page 38). Voluminous results from qualitative-response questions are not analyzed in detail in this report; they will form the

7

substance of a subsequent report, pending further analysis. We are reporting the data with as much transparency and objectivity as possible, and aim to be very clear where we are voicing our own analyses.

The design of the survey includes a mix of questions framed around easily quantified responses (multiple-choice and Likert-scale questions), open-ended qualitative responses, and respondents’ self-reporting of demographic and other personal data. No inferential statistics were applied to seek correlation or other measures of relatedness among variables; we simply rely on descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations to sort and report data and responses back to the field to advance our collective and individual discernment and decision-making about the future of the field. (If other researchers wish to analyze the data in other ways, we welcome partnerships to do that.)

To conclude this section about the design of the survey, we acknowledge a few limitations and biases in addition to those noted above: •

Since the survey responses were voluntary, and uncompensated labor is not unlimited, the length of the survey (reported to be at least 15 minutes as much as 45 minutes) introduces a bias toward those willing to invest uncompensated time.

•

The survey was conducted in English only; participation required access to a computer or smart phone.

•

As noted above, this post-survey analysis and report is limited to the quantitative responses in the survey. A second publication will report on the qualitative survey responses, based on coding of the extensive narrative replies to open-ended questions.

•

The 1772 Foundation provided financial support to create and carry out the survey. They exercised no control over the content or type of the questions, nor over the interpretations contained in this report.

•

The authors solicited a small, diverse group of preservation professionals to beta-test initial drafts of the survey and offer feedback on the final design; we incorporated some of this advice, which benefited the project substantially. The design and content of the project remain the sole responsibility of the authors.

•

Researchers’ institutional affiliations, previous work, and other information is accessible here for Levesque and here for Mason. PennPraxis is a 501c3 nonprofit organization associated with the University of Pennsylvania’s Weitzman School of Design.

8

3. Survey Participants The survey yielded 2,009 unique responses, of whom about 1,250 completed the full survey.

(Different questions brought different numbers of responses.)

•

As a group, the respondents are a poor representation of racial and ethnic diversity: nearly 80% identify as white, non-Hispanic (as compared to 60.1% of the national population).

Just 6.3% of respondents identify as Black or African American (compared to 13.4% of the national population); 0.63% identify as American Indian or Alaska Native (compared to 2.4% of the national population) (Figure 3.1).

•

Age cohorts lean toward middle-aged: approximately 33% between 50-64; 30% between 35-49; about 18% are in both the 18-34 and 65+ age groups (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.1: % of US population and survey respondents by race and ethnicity.

White Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Hispanic or Latino

Figure 3.2: % of US population and survey respondents by age.

65+

50-64

35-49

US Population

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

18-34

Survey Respondents

9

Figure 3.3: % of US population and survey respondents by educational obtainment. < 9th grade 9th-12th grade High school/ GED Associate’s Degree/ Some College Bachelor’s Degree

US Population

•

The gender identities of the respondents are about two-thirds female, one-third male.

•

The respondents are very highly educated: more than three-quarters have a graduate or professional degree (compared to about 12% in the national population). Less than 2% of respondents completed their education at high school/GED level (Figure 3.3).

•

•

About 44% of respondents have been involved in historic preservation for twenty years or more. Just over 20% have been involved for fewer than five years.

25

20

15

10

5

0

Graduate or Professional Degree

Survey Respondents

•

More than a third are employed in the public sector; about a quarter work in the private sector and a quarter in the nonprofit sector; about 15% identify as volunteers.

•

The geographical distribution of respondents is broad but uneven (Figures 3.4 and 3.5).

•

55% of respondents work primarily in cities; about 20% in rural places; 25% in suburban or “other” contexts.

•

About 75% of respondents report being members of a preservation organization.

About 45% of respondents “always” think of themselves as “preservationists”; an additional 32% of respondents “usually” choose to identify as “preservationists”

10

Figure 3.4: Density map showing the general location of survey respondents across the US.

11

Figure 3.5: % of US population and survey respondents by state.

US Population

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 0%

Survey Respondents

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

12

4. Headline Results •

There are deep divides in the preservation field regarding attitudes to change within the field and in terms of how the preservation field relates to American society and culture writ large.

•

Change is needed in order to compete for resources and public attention and in order for the preservation field to thrive. Among many potential aspects of change, responses signaled particular need for: ―

changing attitudes (to be less inwardly focused, more outwardly engaged);

―

changing objects of the field’s work (engaged more with intangible forms of heritage);

―

better resolution of the friction between new interpretations and uses of the past and the inertia of older interpretations;

―

changing the makeup of preservationist ranks (to be more diverse racially and ethnically);

―

changing policies (there are moderate levels of dissatisfaction with current public policies); and,

―

an overall impatience about effecting change.

•

Traditionalist and progressive cohorts disagree on how, how much, and how quickly the preservation field must change. The mindsets of two cohorts generally differentiate along generational lines, which in turn align with traditionalist notions of stay-the-course, pathdependent attitudes (celebrating the inherited policies and culture of the 1960s-80s), and a progressive notion that the field should be dedicated to deeper reform and respond more quickly to transformations in larger society.

•

The field is lacking in diversity (as compared to the US population), though there is an awareness of and some progress toward greater diversity in the community of practice.

•

Current policies serve the purposes of preservation adequately; a plurality of respondents call for faster, deeper rethinking of policies.

13

5. Results for Selected Questions Current Focus of the Field Question 3.2: How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the focus of the preservation field?

•

The core of preservation work is saving, protecting and restoring old buildings.

•

The goal of historic preservation is community well-being.

•

Intangible forms of heritage (stories, traditions, memories, journeys) should become the focus of historic preservation.

•

Preservation has branched out too far beyond its focus on the physical protection of select properties.

This question explores the foundations and core purposes of the contemporary historic preservation field (as a prelude to understanding the challenges faced by the field). The question choices and responses reflect the mix among curatorial, community, and cultural (intangible) drivers at work behind preservationists’ attitudes. This question explores the status of material treatment of buildings as the core of the preservation enterprise, and queries how strong the interest is in shifting focus more broadly on matters of community wellbeing, identity, and intangible forms of heritage.

In other words, is building preservation properly regarded as the end goal of preservation efforts, or a means to other ends? Because this is not an either-or prospect, we framed the question as a response to the above four intersecting statements.

Collectively, respondents agree that buildings and the material treatment of buildings remain central to the field—but they are of mixed mind on how dominant or exclusive a concern this should be (Figure 5.1).

•

A large majority feel that old buildings should remain the core preservation concern (85% answered “strongly agree” or “agree”). This suggests that a this consensus currently remains strong in the field.

•

Somewhat at odds with the consensus noted in the previous point, strong support is given to branching out further to include other forms of heritage (a 56% majority feel intangible should become the focus). An even larger 66% majority regard the field not having branched out far enough.

•

The notion that preservation’s goal is “community well-being” gained the very substantial consensus of an 83% majority (a combination of the “strongly agree” and “agree” responses). Community well-being as a goal calls on contributions of both tangible and intangible forms of heritage. And it foregrounds an area of shared ground among traditionalist and progressive camps.

These different drivers at work in the field, while not mutually exclusive, suggest quite different strategies for directing the future of the field. In the complexity of these responses, we discern the outlines of two cohorts making up the overall preservation community of practice: one “traditionalist” cohort doubling down on material, curatorial expertise applied to specific sites, and another “progressive” cohort searching for additional (material or non-material) means of pursuing community and social goals. The mindsets

14

of these two distinct cohorts are also distinguished by devotion to modes of practice drawn from the past (the traditionalists) versus devotion to addressing more directly the needs of the present

(the progressives). As discussed throughout this report, these cohorts and the impulses behind them may be distinct but not mutually exclusive.

Figure 5.1: How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the focus of the preservation field?

The core of preservation work is saving, protecting, and restoring old buildings.

The goal of historic preservation is community wellbeing

Intangible forms of heritage (stories, traditions, memories, journeys) should become the focus of historic preservation.

Preservation has branched out too far beyond its focus on the physical protection of select properties.

Strongly agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly disagree

Strongly agree Agree Unsure Disagree

50

40

30

20

10

0

50

40

30

20

10

0

Strongly disagree

Percentage of responses

15

Figure 5.2: A breakdown of how each age bracket responded to question 3.2 "How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the focus of the preservation field?"

The core of preservation work is saving, protecting, and restoring old buildings.

The goal of historic preservation is community wellbeing

Intangible forms of heritage (stories, traditions, memories, journeys) should become the focus of historic preservation.

Preservation has branched out too far beyond its focus on the physical protection of select properties.

65 or older

50 - 64

35 - 49

Age

18 - 34

65 or older

50 - 64

35 - 49

0 10

75

50

25

0

0 10

75

50

25

0

18 - 34

Percentage of Responses How strongly do you agree or disagree?

Strongly Agree

Agree

Unsure

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

16

The Stories Preserved: What is Represented?

Question 3.3: How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the stories represented in preservation?

•

The stories represented by historic preservation sites, listings, and other interpretations are incomplete and outdated.

•

Stories based in intangible heritage and cultural practices are well represented.

•

Stories should explore the past critically, being introspective and inclusionary of all Americans.

•

Stories should focus on celebrating the finest achievements of the past.

Responses to this question reveal elevated expectations about updating and increasing the diversity of narratives represented by historic preservation. Probing levels of satisfaction about where things are at the moment, we heard calls for a wider range of stories and for critical and self-reflective thinking. One of the leading points of stress about preservation is this lag between current (and ever changing)

expectations about public memory (especially among the more outspoken and progressive folks who see memory as a lever on social change) and what is represented in past and current preservation work (Figure 5.3). This time lag presents preservation practice with a constant challenge—between enshrining architecturally particular moments in time (what we think of as the “period of significance”) and more quickly evolving

Figure 5.3: How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the stories represented in preservation?

Stories based in intangible heritage and cultural practices are well represented.

Stories should explore the past critically, being introspective and inclusionary of all Americans.

Stories should focus on celebrating the finest achievements of the past.

The stories represented by historic preservation sites, listings, and other interpretations are incomplete and outdated.

Strongly agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly disagree

Strongly agree Agree Unsure Disagree

60

40

20

0

60

40

20

0

Strongly disagree

Percentage of responses

17

interpretations of history and uses of the past by scholars, artists and the public alike.

•

("strongly agree" or "agree"), representing the traditionalist core; 55% "disagree" or "strongly disagree", indicating that a majority of respondents support the field’s responsibility to be critical, not just celebratory; the 22% “unsure” result indicates a substantial uncertainty about the direction of change.

60% of respondents “strongly agree” that stories should be critical, introspective and inclusive; an extraordinary 92.5% “strongly agree” or “agree”; the clarity and strength of this aspiration is reinforced by the very small “unsure” response (4%)—the lowest in the survey.

•

66% “disagree” or “strongly disagree” that stories rooted in intangible heritage/practices are “well represented”; this reinforces responses to Question 3.2 about the need to center the field more on intangible heritage.

•

When it comes to “celebrating finest achievements of the past,” 22% promote this

Overall, the responses to Question 3.3 paint a field impatient for progressive change, wanting to realign the narratives of preservation with those valued by contemporary culture but still uncertain about prospects for change. Which is to say, it’s a field aware of the perceived gap between what has been preserved and what’s valued today.

Figure 5.4: A breakdown of how each age bracket responded to question 3.3 "How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the stories represented in preservation?"

Stories based in intangible heritage and cultural practices are well represented.

Stories should explore the past critically, being introspective and inclusionary of all Americans.

Stories should focus on celebrating the finest achievements of the past.

The stories represented by historic preservation sites, listings, and other interpretations are incomplete and outdated.

65 or older

50 - 64

35 - 49

Age

18 - 34

65 or older

50 - 64

35 - 49

10 0

75

50

25

0

10 0

75

50

25

0

18 - 34

Percentage of Responses How strongly do you agree or disagree?

Strongly Agree

Agree

Unsure

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

18

Priority Issues Question 3.4: What are the most important issues facing the historic preservation field today?

This question (Table 5.1) asks more openly about which issues should take priority for the field at the moment. The 12 choices evoke deeper, strategic issues rather than everyday practical concerns.

They are meant to be fairly specific but are not mutually exclusive. As a panel, they were designed to cover a broad range of possibilities, including facets of current practice; concerns internal to the field (over which we presumably could

exercise more control); and external pressures and opportunities (more the prospect of the society at large, less susceptible to our particular work but ostensibly still relevant to our work).

The first insight from these responses is that the historic preservation field is grappling with many issues—not just a consensus 2-3. The challenges drawing the field’s attention are varied and not

Table 5.1: What are the most important issues facing the historic preservation field today?

Issue

Selection

Barriers to professional entry are too high

2.80%

Bias toward white, western, cisgender, and/or male perspectives

7.20%

The climate crisis

7.38%

Contemporary society is only interested in the present

6.68%

The field focuses too much on buildings and historic fabric

3.26%

The field is insular and elitist

6.04%

Lack of forward-thinking leadership

8.65%

Lack of public financing of projects, subsidies, and incentives

17.95%

Lack of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity

13.58%

Lack of support from Federal policy

6.48%

Preservation standards are inflexible and outdated

11.27%

Racism and white supremacy are endemic to preservation policy and practice

4.46%

Other

4.25%

Participants were allowed to select up to three issues.

19

Figure 5.5: A breakdown of how each age bracket responded to question 3.4 "What are the most important issues facing the historic preservation field today? (Choose no more than three)" Barriers to professional entry are too high

Age:

Bias toward white, western, cisgender, and/ or male perspectives

18-34

35-49

50-64

64 or older

The climate crisis Contemporary society is only interested in the present The field focuses too much on buildings and historic fabric The field is insular and elitist Lack of forwardthinking leadership Lack of public financing of projects, subsidies, and incentives Lack of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity Lack of support from Federal policy Preservation standards are inflexible and outdated Racism and white supremacy are endemic to preservation policy and practice

20

15

10

5

0

Other

Percentage of each ageofbracket selected each issue Percentage age by that responses

easily commensurable; any changes for the field as a whole will have to reckon with these complexities.

The small fraction of “Other” responses suggests that the specific set of 12 issues is itself accounts pretty well for the field’s sense of priority issues.

The top four priority issues for respondents were: •

Public financing for preservation: This is a longstanding and abiding issue, of course, notwithstanding the major shifts in national politics recently.

•

Lack of diversity: This signals growing impatience about the lack of diversity among those who work in preservation. It is likely fueled by rising protests society-wide around structural racism, the white supremacy bound up in many institutions and practices, and the slow pace of diversity and inclusion reform.

•

Preservation standards are inflexible or outdated: in other words, the way preservation is implemented through policies—official and in the professional culture—are out of sync with current thinking and need reform.

•

Lack of forward-thinking leadership: This blanket appraisal of the whole field should be a wake-up call to those with leadership stakes in any preservation organization.

These four issues, taken together, would constitute an acute challenge for any preservation organization—presenting both structural, external issues beyond the ability of one organization to change (but nevertheless demanding some response), as well as issues that could be addressed immediately and practically as internal matters.

Finally, it is worth noting that eight other issue choices (beyond the top four) got >100 votes (more than about 2.5% of responses). These are substantial concerns, in other words, even if they don’t rise to the collective top of the priority list.

They include hot-button issues within the field and in the larger society—for instance, gender and racial biases, consequent lack of diversity in who works in and leads the preservation field, and the challenges and uncertainties presented by the climate crisis.

20

Attitudes Toward Change Question 3.6: Recently there have been many calls for change within the preservation field. Which statement best describes your sense of what change, if any, is needed?

This question acknowledges the current moment of change faced by the historic preservation field (and indeed, American society and culture as a whole) and tries to gauge how eager or reluctant those in the field are to embrace change as a general prospect. Whereas Question 3.4 asked respondents to weigh a variety of fairly specific, empirical issues, Question 3.6 cuts through the complexity of issues to seek responses to singular change-statements reflecting overall attitude to future change in the field. The five possible responses were organized around degrees of change—from very little to a great deal. The five choices offered were: •

No change is needed; the field is functioning well and as designed.

•

No change is needed to preservation practices, but communication about preservation to the general public should be improved.

•

Some updating of preservation policies and concepts is needed to meet the field’s established goals in contemporary contexts.

•

Historic preservation ideas, institutions, and concepts need basic rethinking.

•

The historic preservation field needs to be dismantled, thoroughly rethought, and rebuilt.

More than a third of respondents—37%—call for basic rethinking or dismantling of the preservation field: the deepest extent of change. An additional 47% of respondents—nearly half—feel “some updating” is needed to meet contemporary challenges. Thus, 84% of respondents express a desire for at least moderate change in the field as a whole. These data represent a clear mandate for change and a very significant plurality in favor of far-reaching change in the historic preservation field (Figure 5.6).

Figure 5.6: Recently there have been many calls for change within the preservation field.

Which statement best describes your sense of what change, if any, is needed?

No change is needed.

No direct change, but better communication to public.

Needs updating for contemporary contexts.

Needs basic rethinking.

40

30

20

10

0

Needs complete rethinking.

Percentage of responses

21

Figure 5.7: A breakdown of how each age bracket responded to question 3.6 " Which statement best describes your sense of what change, if any, is needed [in the preservation field]?"

65 or older

64

35

49

18

34

10 0

75

0

25

50

Age

50

Percentage of Responses Percentage of responses What change is needed in the preservation field?

No change is needed

No direct change, but better communication to public

Needs updating for contemporary contexts

Needs basic rethinking

Needs complete rethinking

Figure 5.8: A breakdown of how each preservation identity group responded to question 3.6 " Which statement best describes your sense of what change, if any, is needed [in the preservation field]?"

Usually

Sometimes

Rarely

10 0

75

25

50

Never

0

Do you think of yourself as a preservationist?

Always

Percentage ofresponses responses Percentage of What change is needed in the preservation field?

No change is needed

No direct change, but better communication to public

Needs updating for contemporary contexts

Needs basic rethinking

Needs complete rethinking

22

Looking for further perspective on attitudes to each of the five change-statements, we sorted responses within each category by age cohort and by the degree to which respondents self-identify as “preservationist” or not.

Regarding age, the general pattern is that those most supportive of deeper change trend younger; the oldest cohort is least supportive of deep change. The proportion of those selecting the middle choice (“needs updating”) within each age cohort was remarkably similar. The small fraction of those who agree that “no change is needed” is quite evenly distributed across the four age cohorts (Figure 5.7).

The strong middle response “needs updating” predominates in nearly all five of the selfidentification categories. From “always” through

“rarely”, there is a clear pattern: those with a stronger identification with “preservationist” feel less urgency about deep change in their field.

Very substantial fractions of those “always” or “usually” identifying as preservationists—the selfidentified core of the field—were very supportive of deep change. The combination of “needs basic rethinking” and “needs complete rethinking” increases from about 30% with “always” to about 60% with “rarely.” Attitudes for those in the “never” category break the pattern, however: those calling for the deepest change (“needs basic rethinking” and “needs complete rethinking”) is roughly the same percentage as those in “always.” The connection between self-identification and attitude to change thus does not follow a consistent pattern (Figure 5.8).

23

Bias + Diversity Question 6.2: How strongly do you agree with the following statements [about bias and diversity in historic preservation]?

•

The people active in the preservation field are diverse.

•

The preservation field is inclusive.

•

Preservation is relevant to the general public.

•

Historic preservation has a bias toward affluent, white narratives and leaders.

•

Historic preservation has a bias toward cisgender male narratives and leaders.

•

In recent years, the preservation field has taken direct action to uplift underrepresented narratives.

•

In recent years, the preservation field has taken direct action to employ and support practitioners from underrepresented backgrounds.

•

The very name of the field, the words “historic preservation” presents a barrier to gaining more support, partnerships and relevance.

This question gauged the degree to which respondents agreed or disagreed with a series of eight statements about bias, diversity, and inclusion in the historic preservation field. The choices were structured as positive statements and were meant to raise controversial issues in the least prejudicial ways possible.

Three clear themes seem discernible here: first, that the work of diversifying who participates in the field is a significant issue; second, that changes in the field are underway and making some progress; and third, the results evident so far are not sufficient (Figure 5.9).

When asked (in Question 6.4) whether their own work had “shifted over the past year in response to racial justice movements,” the majority of respondents reported “no” (55%; though a share these stated that their work has always encompassed this). The fact that the majority of respondents have not seen a shift seems to reinforce the notion that change in response to grand social movements has a long way yet to go even if it is being discernibly felt within the preservation field.

Cross-tabbing these results by age (with each bar totaling to 100% of each response to each question) reveals a clear if subtle generational dynamic: with the youngest cohort more dissatisfied with progress to date and eager for change; the oldest cohort somewhat more satisfied with the status quo

and not as insistent on change (Figure 5.10). One wouldn’t come away from analyzing these data thinking age explains attitudes very well. There is notable mixing of attitudes to most questions in all age cohorts.

One part of Question 6.2 queried respondents about the way the field is named—“historic preservation”—probing an issue that has been raised frequently over the last 10-15 years about whether the historic preservation field should be named or branded differently (“heritage conservation” is a frequently offered alternative).

The underlying problem this would address is that “preservation,” in the public mind, is associated with opposition to any change—whereas, in practice, historic preservation is very much engaged with managing, incentivizing and implementing certain kinds of change to the historic built environment.

The data collected on this issue reflect quite evenly divided attitudes over whether the name “historic preservation” is a barrier to doing the necessary work of changing the field: roughly a third in agreement with name change; a third opposed to change; and a third unsure. The responses were quite consistent vis-à-vis age of respondent: older respondents were more likely to disagree with the need for a name change; younger respondents were more likely to agree.

24

Figure 5.9: How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about diversity and inclusion?

Historic preservation has a bias toward affluent, white narratives and leaders.

Preservation is relevant to the general public.

The people active in the preservation field are diverse.

The preservation field is inclusive.

Strongly agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly disagree

Strongly agree Agree Unsure Disagree

50

40

30

20

10

0

50

40

30

20

10

0

Strongly disagree

Historic preservation has a bias toward cisgender male narratives and leaders.

In recent years, the preservation field has taken direct action to employ and support practitioners from underrepresented backgrounds.

In recent years, the preservation field has taken direct action to uplift underrepresented narratives.

The very name of the field, the words “historic preservation” presents a barrier to gaining more support, partnerships and relevance.

Strongly agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly disagree

Strongly agree Agree Unsure Disagree

60

40

20

0

60

40

20

0

Strongly disagree

Percentage of responses

25

Figure 5.10: A breakdown of how each age bracket responded to question 6.2 "How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about diversity and inclusion?"

Historic preservation has a bias toward affluent, white narratives and leaders.

Preservation is relevant to the general public.

The people active in the preservation field are diverse.

The preservation field is inclusive.

Historic preservation has a bias toward cisgender male narratives and leaders.

In recent years, the preservation field has taken direct action to employ and support practitioners from underrepresented backgrounds.

In recent years, the preservation field has taken direct action to uplift underrepresented narratives.

The very name of the field, the words “historic preservation” presents a barrier to gaining more support, partnerships and relevance.

65 or older

50 - 64

35 - 49

18 - 34

65 or older

50 - 64

35 - 49

Age

18 - 34

65 or older

50 - 64

35 - 49

18 - 34

65 or older

50 - 64

35 - 49

0 10

75

50

25

0

0 10

75

50

25

0

18 - 34

Percentage of Responses How strongly do you agree or disagree?

Strongly Agree

Agree

Unsure

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

26

Are We All Preservationists?

Question 2.7: Do you think of yourself as a preservationist?

Early in the sequence of survey questions, respondents were asked succinctly whether they self-identified as a preservationist—there were Likert-scale degrees of affiliation, not a simple yes/ no. Such a question indicates how, on balance, individuals commensurate a large number of personal, structural, and ideological issues into a proxy “measure” of affiliation to the field through individual, positive choice of a professional label.

A strong plurality—45%—report “always” identifying as a preservationist; another 32% “usually.”

Sometimes, rarely, and never (combined) account for less than a quarter of responses. Nearly fourfifths of the respondents, in other words, embrace the label “preservationist.” Cross-tabs with age cohorts yielded no consistent pattern.

Figure 5.11: Do you think of yourself as a preservationist?

Always

Usually

Sometimes

Rarely

40

30

20

10

0

Never

Percentage of Responses Percentage of responses

Figure 5.12:A breakdown of how each age bracket responded to question 2.7, " Do you think of yourself as a preservationist?"

10

0

75

50

25

0

Age

65 or older

Percentage of Responses Do you think of yourself as a preservationist?

Always

Usually

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

27

Motivations Question 2.2: What motivates your personal connection to historic preservation?

This question about the many motivations behind preservation work was posed first in the survey to start by tacitly mapping the field as broadly as

possible—as an extensive professional field with a large number of possible, valid, nonexclusive motivations. The fourteen individual motivations

Table 5.2: What motivates your personal connection to historic preservation?

Motivation

Selection

The beauty of historic architecture

11.26%

Bringing under-represented, invisible histories to light

6.74%

The economic benefits of preservation

6.15%

Ethical responsibility to save places for future generations

8.90%

The feeling of community enjoyed by people who believe in and practice preservation

2.43%

Furthering racial, social, economic, and ecological justice

4.65%

Managing change of the built environment

6.36%

Personal connections to an historic place

3.26%

Preserving historic places as a shared, public resource

12.43%

Preserving intangible heritage and cultural practices

5.49%

The practical argument that reusing buildings is wiser than demolishing and building new

12.21%

Reckoning with and commemorating difficult aspects of American history

3.03%

Sharing the stories associated with historic places

8.19%

Strengthening existing communities

8.09%

Other

0.81%

Participants were allowed to select up to four motivations.

28

listed are effectively a list of arguments that preservationists can and do articulate to identify their professional purpose, to convince nonpreservationists of the value of the work, to justify investment, and more (Table 5.2). In other words, they are an attempt to map the broad range of professional interests, advocacy arguments, and preservation rationales.

A few themes stand out from the distribution of responses: the direct results of preserving buildings are compelling (protecting beauty, practicality of reuse); the public, collective, more indirect benefits of preservation (historic places as shared public resources, inter-generational ethical responsibilities, strengthened communities) are also

strong motivations for respondents. These points of consensus, or at least substantial shared ground, are the basis on which stronger coalitions and rationales around preservation can be built.

The substantial votes for this wide range of motivations conveys the message of how broad a concern and practice historic preservation is and provides evidence that economic, social justice, and other community-building drivers should have a strong presence in any future scenarios for the preservation field.

Apparently, the list was regarded as pretty comprehensive, as the “other” category got very few responses (less than 1%).

29

Partnerships + Alliances Question 4.2: To increase the effectiveness of historic preservation in the future, which of the following fields should take priority as preservation organizations work to build partnerships?

This question more openly asked about partnerships or allyships that should be pursued in the future to extend the reach of historic preservation in the public mind (Figure 5.13). Given the intersectional and cross-sectoral nature of many issues that span preservation and other fields, respondents were invited to choose multiples (up to three, unranked choices), in effect ranking a top cohort from the total set of 11 choices (plus “other”).

The top four priorities for future partnershipbuilding are fields focused on larger scales and social-environmental sectors (that is, not cultural sectors but rather fields directed to some sort of property regulation, development or investment):

•

community development/housing

•

sustainability and environmental protection

•

economic development

•

urban planning/design.

For each of these areas, one can point to successful alliances, partnerships, shared interests, and collaborations that already exist. (Some of them long-standing—Main Street, RTCs, LIHTCs, zoning overlays.) The takeaway is that partnerships should link preservation to larger urbanistic and social practices—as opposed to drilling down deeper with other cultural practices. Since starting points exist in each of the identified propriety areas, one can

Figure 5.13: To increase the effectiveness of historic preservation in the future, which of the following fields should take priority as preservation organizations work to build partnerships?

Community development + housing Sustainability + environmental protection Economic development Urban design + planning Building trades

Architectural design Tourism promotion Land conservation Public art Other

Participants were allowed to select up to three fields.

15

10

5

0

Public health

Percentage of responses

30

assume that the imperative is giving these starting points more visibility, emphasis, and investment.

There is a lot to build upon, but it is fair to say that historic preservation has not centered on these kinds of alliances in favor of making a case for the need for a distinct, insular historic preservation field.

The survey also posed a series of questions exploring connections between preservation and some allied fields that have been suggested in terms of theory and research—public health, sustainability/climate change, and racial/economic justice. The survey foregrounded these three areas based on trends in the professional and academic literature to argue that preservation makes for healthier communities (in a variety of senses) and that preservation is fundamentally and strongly aligned with environmental conservation (and its extensions into sustainability and climate change debates).

Asking more specifically in Question 4.5, “is the work of historic preservation currently engaged

with sustainability, resilience, and the climate crisis?,” a large majority say historic preservation is closely or somewhat engaged with sustainability, resilience, climate change issues already (~70%— 9% closely engaged, 60% somewhat). The message is that change has already happened (and/or that long-standing philosophical common ground joining preservation and environmental conservation has been realized in some ways)—in other words, we have some legacy to build upon.

When it comes to public health, the picture is much less clear. Question 4.3 asked, in parallel to the structure of 4.5, “at present how well is the work of historic preservation related to public health?”

Only a third of respondents (~36%) regarded the two fields as somewhat or closely related; 39% somewhat or totally unrelated; with a high number of “unsure” responses (26%). In qualitative comments, some respondents expressed puzzlement about why the survey was asking even the question about public health, presuming the two fields to be unrelated.

31

Existing Policies The subject of fundamental change in the historic preservation field requires direct questioning of public policies. Since regulation of historic properties occupies a lot of the professional space for the field—and since the public mind seems fairly obsessed with regulatory aspects of preservation (to the exclusion of other facets of preservation practice)—the survey queried respondents about attitudes to the principal policies operative in dayto-day practice.

Of the major Federal policies, respondents were asked how frequently they use the policies in their individual work (Figure 5.14): •

As expected, there is a great deal of direct use of NRHP criteria and the Sec’s Standards;

•

Significant pluralities (over a third) use 106 and the RTC programs.

Despite the politically decentralized governance structures in the US, Federal policies and guidance in preservation still has a great deal of influence.

In particular, National Register of Historic Places criteria (often incorporated into local-level regulations) and Secretary of Interior’s Standards.

Both are matters of constant debate in the field, yet have bred such a high degree of path-dependence and inertia that substantial reforms have eluded those critiquing the policies and advocating fundamental reform. One hopes this map of attitudes can amplify and advance the ongoing conversations about revising and remaking the dominant public policies in the field.

When asked about the effectiveness of these Federal policies (tacitly, how urgently they need to be changed), there are mixed attitudes and high levels of “unsure” responses (Figure 5.15).

Figure 5.14: Do you regularly refer to the following Federal preservation policies in your work?

Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Programs

National Register of Historic Places criteria

No

Sometimes

Yes

NEPA

NHPA Section 106

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

Section 4(f) DOT Act

No

Sometimes

Yes

No

Sometimes

60

40

20

0

60

40

20

0

Yes

Percentage of responses

32

Figure 5.15: How would you characterize the effectiveness of the following preservation policies?

Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Programs

National Register of Historic Places criteria

NHPA Section 106

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

Is no longer relevant and should not be used

Unsure Needs some minor revisions Appropriate and shouldn’t be changed

Is no longer relevant and should not be used

Unsure Needs some minor revisions

50

40

30

20

10

0

50

40

30

20

10

0

Appropriate and shouldn’t be changed

Percentage of responses

•

Most numerous responses call for minor change.

•

For NRHP, Sec’s Standards and the RTC, a quarter or more respondents (between 24-29%) call for “significant” revision—a deeper analysis of these responses is warranted.

Question 5.4, the final question in the series about existing policies and their effectiveness, asked "How would you characterize the effectiveness of the local and state policies that most frequently shape your work?" Because local policies can

change markedly and idiosyncratically from one jurisdiction to another, we bracketed those as variables, and simply asked for a reaction about “effectiveness.”

The need for significant revision is heard more clearly for local policies—44% of respondents call for “significant revisions,” an additional 38% call for “minor revisions,” and the percentage of “unsure” is notably lower (14%) than for Federal policy effectiveness (Figure 5.16).

33

Figure 5.16: How would you characterize the effectiveness of the local and state policies that most frequently shape your work?

Are no longer relevant and should not be used

Need significant revisions

Unsure

Need some minor revisions

40

30

20

10

0

Appropriate and should not be changed

Percentage of responses

34

6. Last Word This Changeful Moment It is clear that change in the direction, priorities, and makeup of the historic preservation field is a central and profound concern for both professionals and organizations. Some of these changes are already underway, of course, and more are on the horizon. These concerns about change are prompted by the society’s questioning of some basic assumptions and practices of the preservation field; by forces affecting the entire preservation field (not just one’s own work and organization); and by the uncertainties, pressures, dislocations, and, just as worrisome, inaction in the face of this questioning we heard expressed in these survey responses.

What kinds of change are regarded as most urgent? Those aimed at public policies, advocacy strategies, and educational programs are often invoked, but ultimately they aren’t the most important points of leverage for long-term increases in historic preservation’s relevance to society. The crux of change, as we read in these survey responses, is who is involved in preservation.

The data presented here reflect the current state of thinking of preservation’s community of practice at a critical moment. While opinions vary about the kinds, degrees, and pace of desired change, there is no denying some fundamental consensus about embracing deep change in the face of such a watershed moment.

The data sketch a picture of a large, energized cohort of preservationists seeing themselves as part of a field aspiring to have greater impact on society and communities, but increasingly concerned about the field’s future trajectory. These progressive preservationists form a substantial plurality of respondents; they work alongside another cohort of preservationists still very focused on advocating and reinforcing traditionalist attitudes, a legacy of the great institutionalization of the 1960s and 70s. Traditional preservationists are being challenged by emergent pluralities of progressive preservationists and their commitment to reform the assumptions, ways, means, and membership of the field.

Going forward, one can expect these two substantial cohorts competing to remake—or keep—the preservation field according to their vision. Which feels very much like a decision to “adapt or restore” some place we value greatly. Short of speculating about who will prevail on which issues, we want to foreground some larger insights in the survey’s 2,000 responses: •

On many of the specific issues we queried, majorities are already calling for change;

•

Generational shift is part of what’s reflected in the responses here, but it’s not the whole story; there are generational and ideological divides that intersect and don’t fully explain one another;

35

•

The field is not sufficiently diverse, and while the gaps and lags are being acknowledged, they are not being sufficiently addressed;

•

Leadership, funding prospects, and societal relevance of the preservation field seem uncertain.

This report aims to present the survey data and responses as objectively as possible. We do, though, believe that in light of these calls for change, all parts of the historic preservation community of practice should contribute to shaping it. We all should commit to planting and cultivating seeds of constructive critique, look anew at the effectiveness of preservation, purposefully include new contributors and collaborators in the work, open dialogues that honestly put differences on the table, and venture ideas for engaging society on its own terms (not professionally self-serving terms).

We will continue re-examining our own work along these lines, while we also continue reflecting on the opinions and attitudes of the 2,000 colleagues who participated in this study.

We invite others to reflect on this feedback as well. Stay tuned in 2022 for additional data reports and opinion pieces based on this survey and the questions it raises.

RM and KL

36

Appendices Invitation Text This brief survey (approximately 15 minutes in length) explores the composition of the historic preservation field, how the field is changing, and how effective the field is in light of contemporary needs and emergent issues. Your responses will help our research team understand the changing community around historic preservation (practitioners, advocates, supporters as well as skeptics) by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the current field and probing ideas about changes that to be pursued in the future.

Results of the survey will be shared in future publications that will be freely available on the PennPraxis website. Thank you for taking the time to share your experiences and opinions about historic preservation and its effectiveness.

This survey is a project of PennPraxis’ Urban Heritage Project, and is supported by the 1772 Foundation.

Randall Mason, Senior Fellow/Associate Professor: rfmason@design.upenn.edu Kaitlyn Levesque, Research Associate: kaitlynl@sas.upenn.edu

37

The Survey

This first section (1 of 6) asks participants to reflect on their personal connections to the historic preservation field.

What motivates your personal connection to historic preservation?

Please read the whole list and select no more than four.

Reckoning with and commemorating difficult aspects of American history Ethical responsibility to save places for future generations The economic benefits of preservation Bringing under-represented, invisible histories to light Personal connections to an historic place The beauty of historic architecture Furthering racial, social, economic, and ecological justice Managing change of the built environment Sharing the stories associated with historic places The practical argument that reusing buildings is wiser than demolishing and building new Strengthening existing communities Preserving intangible heritage and cultural practices Preserving historic places as a shared, public resource The feeling of community enjoyed by people who believe in and practice preservation Other:

What best describes your role in the historic preservation field?

Please read the whole list and select no more than three.

Activist/Advocate Consultant Community member Designer Developer Educator

38

What best describes your role in the historic preservation field?

Please read the whole list and select no more than three.

Activist/Advocate Consultant Community member Designer Developer Educator Government staff Nonprofit staff Owner of historic property Related professional whose work intersects with preservation (public historian, planner etc.)

Steward, interpreter, or tour guide for historic property Tradesperson Other:

When you describe historic preservation to someone unfamiliar with it, what key words do you use?

What level of Historic Preservation training have you received?

I have earned a preservation degree I have completed preservation course work I have attended preservation workshops/ conferences I have on the job training I am self-educated

What have you been challenged to learn in practice that your training has not prepared you for?

39

What have you been challenged to learn in practice that your training has not prepared you for?

Do you think of yourself as a preservationist?

Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never

How do you prefer to describe the work that you do / your professional role and why?

Status/ Relevance This section (2 of 6) asks participants to evaluate the status and relevance of the historic preservation field

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the focus of the preservation field?

Strongly agree

Agree

Unsure

Disagree

Strongly disagree

The core of preservation work is saving, protecting and restoring old buildings.

The goal of historic preservation is community well-being.

Intangible forms of heritage (stories, traditions, memories, journeys) should become the focus of historic preservation.

40

Status/ Relevance This section (2 of 6) asks participants to evaluate the status and relevance of the historic preservation field

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the focus of the preservation field?

Strongly agree

Agree

Unsure

Disagree

Strongly disagree

The core of preservation work is saving, protecting and restoring old buildings.

The goal of historic preservation is community well-being.

Intangible forms of heritage (stories, traditions, memories, journeys) should become the focus of historic preservation.

Preservation has branched out too far beyond its focus on the physical protection of select properties.

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the stories represented in preservation?

Strongly agree

Agree

Unsure

Disagree

Strongly disagree

The stories represented by historic preservation sites, listings, and other interpretations are incomplete and outdated.

Stories based in intangible heritage and cultural practices are well represented.

Stories should explore the past critically, being introspective and inclusionary of all Americans.

Stories should focus on celebrating the finest achievements of the past.

What are the most important issues facing the historic

41

What are the most important issues facing the historic preservation field today?

Please choose no more than three.

Contemporary society is only interested in the present Preservation standards are inflexible and outdated The field focuses too much on buildings and historic fabric Racism and white supremacy are endemic to preservation policy and practice Barriers to professional entry are too high Bias toward white, western, cisgender, and/or male perspectives Lack of public financing of projects, subsidies, and incentives The climate crisis Lack of support from Federal policy The field is insular and elitist Lack of forward-thinking leadership Lack of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity Other:

If you could do one thing to make historic preservation more relevant to the general public, what would it be?

Recently there have been many calls for change within the preservation field. Which statement best describes your sense of what change, if any, is needed?

No change is needed, the field is functioning well and as designed.

No change is needed to preservation practices, but communication about preservation to the general public should be improved.

Some updating of preservation policies and concepts is needed to meet the field’s established goals in contemporary contexts.

Historic preservation ideas, institutions, and concepts need basic rethinking.

The historic preservation field needs to be dismantled, thoroughly rethought, and rebuilt.

42

Partnerships This section (3 of 6) asks participants to assess partnerships, both existing and potential, between historic preservation and other fields.

To increase the effectiveness of historic preservation in the future, which of the following fields should take priority as preservation organizations work to build partnerships? Please choose no more than three.

Architectural design Building trades Economic development Community development and housing Land conservation Public art K-12 education Public health Sustainability and environmental protection Tourism promotion Urban design and planning Other:

In your opinion, at present how well is the work of historic preservation related to public health?

Closely related Somewhat related Unsure Somewhat unrelated Totally unrelated

Please give an example of how historic preservation and public health are already or can be better related.

43

Please give an example of how historic preservation and public health are already or can be better related.

In your opinion, is the work of historic preservation currently engaged with sustainability, resilience, and the climate crisis?

Closely engaged Somewhat engaged Unsure Somewhat disengaged Totally disengaged

Please give an example of how historic preservation and sustainability, resilience and the climate crisis are already or can be better engaged.

In your opinion, is the work of historic preservation currently engaged with movements for racial and economic justice?

Closely engaged Somewhat engaged Unsure Somewhat disengaged Totally disengaged

Please give an example of how historic preservation and movements for racial and economic justice are already or can be better engaged.

44

Regulations This section (4 of 6) asks participants to assess historic preservation’s relationship to regulations and policies.

Do you regularly refer to the following Federal preservation policies in your work?

Yes Yes

Sometimes Sometimes

No No

National Register of Historic Places criteria Secretary of the Interior’s Standards NHPA Section 106 Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program NEPA Section 4(f) DOT Act

How would you characterize the effectiveness of these Federal policies?

Appropriate and shouldn’t be changed

Needs some minor revisions

Unsure

Needs significant revisions

Is no longer relevant and should not be used

National Register of Historic Places criteria Secretary of the Interior’s Standards NHPA section 106 Historic Tax Credit Program

How would you characterize the effectiveness of the local and state policies that most frequently shape your work?

Appropriate and shouldn’t be changed

45

How would you characterize the effectiveness of the local and state policies that most frequently shape your work?

Appropriate and shouldn’t be changed Need some minor revisions Unsure Need significant revisions Are no longer relevant and should not be used

Diversity/ Inclusion This section (5 of 6) asks participants to assess historic preservation in the areas of diversity and inclusion.

How strongly do you agree with the following statements?

Strongly agree

Agree

Unsure

Disagree

Strongly disagree

The people active in the preservation field are diverse.

The preservation field is inclusive.

Preservation is relevant to the general public.

Historic preservation has a bias toward affluent, white narratives and leaders.

Historic preservation has a bias toward cisgender male narratives and leaders.

In recent years, the preservation field has taken direct action to uplift underrepresented narratives.

In recent years, the preservation field has taken direct action to employ and support practitioners from underrepresented backgrounds.

The very name of the field, the words “historic preservation” presents a barrier to gaining more support, partnerships and relevance.

This year, racial justice movements following the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor (among others) have

46

This year, racial justice movements following the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor (among others) have

provoked deep reflection and debate about white supremacy and race in American society. How should the historic preservation field respond?

Has your work shifted over the past year in response to racial justice movements?

Yes No

If applicable, please share how your work has shifted over the past year in response to racial justice movements.

How can historic preservation organizations better measure progress toward greater diversity and inclusion?

What did we miss?

Tell us anything else you’d like to share about the current status and future relevance of the historic preservation field/movement.

47

Demographic Information Collecting anonymous demographic information helps ensure responses are representative of a diversity of perspectives. We appreciate your time and thank you for completing this final section (6 of 6)!

What is the zip code of your primary residence?

What is your age?

Under 18 18 - 34 35 - 49 50 - 64 65 or older

What is your gender identity?

Female Male Genderqueer/Gender non-conforming Not listed: Prefer not to answer

Which of the following would you use to describe your race or ethnic background?

Select all that apply.

White Black or African American

48

Which of the following would you use to describe your race or ethnic background?

Select all that apply.

White Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Hispanic or Latino Not listed: Prefer not to answer

What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed? < than 9th grade 9th-12th grade High school Graduate or GED Associate’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree Graduate or Professional Degree Prefer not to answer

What is your primary engagement with historic preservation?

Employment in the private sector Employment in the public sector Employment in the nonprofit sector Volunteer

How long have you worked/volunteered in the preservation field?

0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 20+ years

49

How long have you worked/volunteered in the preservation field?

0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 20+ years

In which geographic communities do you primarily work/volunteer?

Urban Rural Suburban Other

What is the approximate number of full-time employees at the organization with which you are primarily engaged?

0-2 3-10 11-20 21-50 51-100 100+ Don't know Does not apply

Are you a member of any preservation organizations?

Yes No

Please list any preservation organizations of which you are a member.

50

Please list any preservation organizations of which you are a member.

If you would like to be informed about the results of this survey, please enter your email address below. (It will not be linked to your survey responses, which will remain anonymous.)

Powered by Qualtrics

51