This year is the 50th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act, ground-breaking legislation that created the federal historic preservation program and the beginnings of a national historic preservation partnership. As with all anniversaries, the preservation field has been contemplating the anniversary for the last couple years and is also attempting to envision the future. A number of articles and books have been released on the topic, and as part of reconsidering what my role can and should be in this field, my first couple scribblings touched on the topic; they can be found here and here.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) recently requested “input” on their ideas to improve the National Historic Preservation Program. As part of that effort, they released a “collection of ideas for further action” requesting us all to consider the following questions by October 17:
- Which of the ideas are good, and which are not worth further development?
- What are the highest priority items?
- What needs immediate attention, and what might be a long-term goal?
- How might a particular idea be implemented?
- What is missing?
In short, their collection of ideas is condensed into the following three Goals, each with corresponding Strategies and Ideas:
- Engage all Americans in the national historic preservation program.
- Enhance and sustain the national historic preservation program.
- Improve the effectiveness of the national historic preservation program.
In and of themselves, the Goals are far too broad to be useful (or inspiring), though they surprisingly align with some of my hopes for the future of preservation. The substance of the paper comes in the Strategies and Ideas collected within. The 15 Strategies, which include “Be an Inspiration” and “Invest in Preservation Education,” are all respectable. The Ideas, which include 82 (!!) concepts related to building partnerships and improving policies, reflect much of what has been written by others over the last year, and include things that have been said for decades.
I appreciate the ACHP’s effort to voice their hope for the future of preservation. The Strategies follow fairly well the mandate given to the ACHP by the National Historic Preservation Act (54 USC 304102), from providing leadership to supporting needed research to investing in preservation education. But the Ideas are not what one might consider new or ground-breaking. Any that are marginally innovative (e.g., recognition of intangible heritage, actual protection of TCPs and sacred sites, establishing national education goals, and research into naturalized heritage landscapes) are hidden, poorly defined, and overly limited in scope.
This effort (and similar efforts by other preservation voices) reverently look to With Heritage So Rich (1966) as their model. The seminal report documented the status of historic preservation at that moment and provided the recommendations that became the National Historic Preservation Act. It also provided six very well-defined ideas or elements to be addressed through a National Plan of Action:
- Affirm a comprehensive statement of national preservation policy.
- Establishment of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, providing leadership for agencies and working with state/local governments, public/private groups, and the general public.
- Expand the National Register program to inventory and to catalogue communities, areas, structures, sites and objects; federal program of assistance to states/localities; federal public information.
- Added authority and funding for federal acquisition of threatened buildings/sites and to support expansion of urban renewal (HUD) to permit acquisition of historic buildings.
- Federal loans/grants/aid to expand state/local programs.
- Federal aid to the National Trust for Historic Preservation to assist with private investment.
We’ve come a long way since 1966, but not nearly far enough. I hope the ACHP and other preservation voices can document another National Plan of Action that addresses the shortfalls of the last fifty years and sets us on a more collaborative journey for the future.
I’m struggling with my response to this request, but will eventually link it here. I encourage you to review the ACHP request for comments and respond as you see fit by October 17.
Update 10/26/2016: An additional post on this topic can be found here, and my response to the ACHP is found split into three posts here, here, and here.