Criticisms+and+Barriers

=National Register of Historic Places: Criticisms and Barriers=



[|VII. Notes]
 ====

I. Introduction
In order to examine some of the criticism of and barriers to historic preservation on federal, state and local levels, it is helpful to have a timeline of the genesis and evolution historic preservation as it exists today (Section II). For decades, a contentious issue among the experts in the field of historic preservation lies in the ambiguous definition of the term "significant", which is used within the criteria for the evaluation of potential historic landmarks/places (Sections III and IV). To get a feel of the where historic preservation fits into the 2.0 Internet, Section V provides links podcasts and other web communities that touch on this subject.

[|Back to Top]



II. National Park Service Timeline [|1]
Yellowstone National Park was established as the world's first official national park through the **Yellowstone National Park Act** of 1872. Through the act, Yellowstone was placed under control of the **Secretary of the Interior**, setting the precedent for the placement of future natural reserves under federal jurisdiction.
 * 1872**



When President Theodore Roosevelt signed the **Antiquities Act** of 1906, this act authorized Presidents to [|"proclaim and reserve 'historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest' on lands owned or controlled by the United States as 'national monuments.'"] It was this act that has resulted in nearly a quarter of the National Park Systems existent today.
 * 1906**

While there were 14 national parks, 21 national monuments, and 2 reservations under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior by 1916, a unified organization for the operation of these entities had not been established. To remedy this, the Act to Establish the **National Park Service (Organic Act)** was passed. With this act, all existing parks were placed under the management of the National Park Service.
 * 1916**

During this year, various monuments and parks that had been maintained by various other organizations were transferred to the **National Park Service**, resulting in a single national system of parklands and reshaping the primary mission of the Naitional Park Service, which became focused through its newly established responsibility for historic ares and historic preservation. [|"The reorganization was one of the most significant events in the evolution of the National Park System."]
 * 1933**



The **Preservation of Historic Sites Act** of 1935 (usually referred to as simply "**The Historic Sites Act** of 1935") established the preservation of historic sites, buildings and objects for public use as a National policy. The **Historic Sites Survey**, the **Historic American Building Survey** (HABS), the **Historic American Engineering Record** (HAER), and the **National Historic Landmarks Program** all eventually came into existence as a result of the Historic Sites Act.
 * 1935**

The 10-year program, **Mission 66**, was initiated by the National Park Service to expand the NPS's visitor services by the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Park Service in 1966. The program had far-reaching goals and National Park System as we know it today is a result of Mission 66. Briefly, Mission 66 was a federally-sponsored program aimed at improving the conditions of the national parks, which had become deteriorated as a result of a dramatic increase of park visitors after World War II. The National Park Service spent more than $1 billion on infrastructure and other improvements to the national parks in existence at during this decade. Approximately 100 Visitor Centers were developed as a new concept in order to standardize services to the federal parks' visitors.
 * 1955-1966**

The **Bureau of Outdoor Recreation** was established in 1962, assuming the responsibility for recreation planning and assistance for national park systems, and absorbing some of the National Park Services staff and monies. In 1978, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation was reconstituted as the **Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service**, and by 1981 the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service was dismantled entirely.
 * 1962**

The **Wilderness Act** of 1964 created the legal definition of wilderness in the United States as "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." This act protected approximately 9 million acres of federal land and established a **National Wilderness Preservation System** that would administer the wilderness area in a manner that would leave them unimpaired for the use and enjoyment of the public. To be considered a wilderness area, Congress must pass an act declaring the area as such, and once a wilderness area has been added to the National Wilderness Preservation System, the area's protection and boundaries cannot be changed without another act of Congress.
 * 1964**



The demand of outdoor recreation activities had expanded very rapidly. To provide the facilities to meet the public's demand created a great financial burden on park agencies. To assist the park agencies, in 1965, Congress passed the **Land and Water Conservation Fund** to assist eligible governmental agencies in establishing new park areas. The Land and Water Conservation Fund provides grants for 50% of the cost for the acquisition/development of outdoor recreation sites and facilities. A portion of the money in the fund comes from fees charged at existing parks, while surplus property sales, motorboat fuel taxes, and other sources provided additional funds. At this time, the fund was administered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and remained so until 1978 when the National Park Service took over this function.
 * 1965**

It was due to the public concern that so many of the nation's historical resources were not receiving the attention they deserved that the **National Historic Preservation Act** of 1966 was passed. The NHPA created the **National Register of Historic Places**, the list of **National Historic Landmarks** and the posts of **State Historic Preservation Officers**. The act expanded the role of Federal efforts to preserve the nationals historical resources, which role had begun by the National Antiquities Act of 1906. The NHPA diffused federal power over historic preservation to the states, who, in turn, were encouraged to diffuse power further to the localities. In addition, historic preservation criteria were broadened to include sites with no national historic significance. The NHPA also placed all historical parks on the National Register of Historic Places. Subsequent amendments to the NHPA have strengthened and expanded the act, and the resulting NHPA is the basis of America's historical preservation policy today.
 * 1966**

"Wild and Scenic Rivers are designated under the authority of the **Wild and Scenic Rivers Act** of 1968 to protect outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other values and to preserve the river in its free-flowing condition. There are three classes of protected rivers: Wild, Scenic, and Recreational."
 * 1968**

The **National Trails System** is the network of scenic, historic, and recreation trails created by the **National Trails System Act of 1968**.
 * 1968**

The **Volunteers in the Parks Act of 1969** authorized the Secretary of the Interior to establish a "volunteers in the parks" program, allowing the National Park to utilize volunteer help and services
 * 1969**

The United States basic charger for environmental protection was created by the **National Environmental Policy Act of 1969**. The act affected the National Park Service since it required all federal agencies [|"to carry out their functions in a way that avoid or minimize environmental degradation and required them to conduct planning with studies of potential environmental impact for all development projects. In addition, the planning process would be open for public input. The new environmental legislation significantly increased the complexity of the Service's resource management in the parks."]
 * 1969**

With the **General Authorities Act of 1970**, Congress amended the role of the National Park System to include areas managed for strictly recreational purposes. Previously, most recreational areas had been excluded.
 * 1970**

The **Endangered Species Act of 1973** and other environmental legislation of the 1960s and 1970s increased the role of science in park management, in that the act required federal agencies to ensure that their activities would not jeopardize the existence of any endangered or threatened plants or animals, or the critical habitats of any such plants or animals.
 * 1973**

The **Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978**, set a precedence for encouraging the protection of national parks from external threats.
 * 1978**

Up until the **Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979** archaeological sites and objects in the United States had very little protection. This act defined archaeological sites and objects more completely and established penalties for their destruction or theft.
 * 1979**

The **Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980** added more than 47 million acres to the National Park System, more than doubling the size of the national park system.
 * 1980**

While there were laws already in place forbidding the excavation of Native American graves and removal of human and ceremonial remains
 * 1990**

The **Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990** directed museums, including those withing the National Park Service, to return Native American remains to the their cultural descendants for reburial.
 * 1990**

In 1992 hundreds of experts participated in a conference in to honor the National Park Service's 75th anniversary. The conference addressed the current and future status of the National Park Service. The report that resulted from this conference became known as the **Vail Agenda**.
 * 1992**

National Park Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (or the Omnibus Act) "[directed] the National Park Service to use a broad program of the highest-quality science and information in managing and protecting units of the national park system...[and to continue] its efforts to systematically inventory and monitor park resources to establish baseline information and provide information to park decision makers about the long-term trends in the condition of park resources."
 * 1998**

[|Back to Top]





III. **National Historic Landmarks Criteria for Evaluation**
The criteria for properties designated on the National Register are derived from [|Federal Code §36: Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 65: National Historic Landmarks Program]. The National Park Service website provides a summary of the more pertinent criteria as follows:

> //A property being nominated to the National Register may also merit consideration for potential designation as a National Historic Landmark. Such consideration is dependent upon the stringent application of the following distinct set of criteria (found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 65).// >

> > > **//National Historic Landmarks Criteria//** > //The quality of national significance is ascribed to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality in illu////strating or interpreting the heritage of the United States in history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture and that possess a high degree of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and://

>> //1. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to, and are identified with, or that outstandingly represent, th////e broad national patterns of United States history and from which an understanding and appreciation of those patterns may be gained; or//

>> //2. That are associated importantly with the lives of persons nationally significant in the history of the United States; or//

>> //3. That represent some great idea or ideal of the American people; or//

>> //4. That embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen exceptionally valuable for a study of a period, style or method of construction, or that represent a significant, distinctive and exceptional entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or//

>> //5. That are composed of integral parts of the environment not sufficiently significant by reason of historical association or artistic merit to warrant individual recognition but collectively compose an entity of exceptional historical or artistic significance, or outstandingly commemorate or illustrate a way of life or culture; or//

>> //6. That have yielded or may be likely to yield information of major scientific importance by revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation over large areas of the United States. Such sites are those which have yielded, or which may reasonably be expected to yield, data affecting theories, concepts and ideas to a major degree.//

> **//National Historic Landmark Exclusions//** > //Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings and properties that have achieved significance within the past fifty years are not eligible for designation. If such properties fall within the following categories they may, nevertheless, be found to qualify://

>> //1. A religious property deriving its primary national significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or//

>> //2. A building or structure removed from its original location but which is nationally significant primarily for its architectural merit, or for association with persons or events of transcendent importance in the nation's history and the association consequential; or//

>> //3. A site of a building or structure no longer standing but the person or event associated with it is of transcendent importance in the nation's history and the association consequential; or//

>> //4. A birthplace, grave or burial if it is of a historical figure of transcendent national significance and no other appropriate site, building, or structure directly associated with the productive life of that person exists; or//

>> //5. A cemetery that derives its primary national significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, or from an exceptionally distinctive design or an exceptionally significant event; or//

>> //6. A reconstructed building or ensemble of buildings of extraordinary national significance when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other buildings or structures with the same association have survived; or//

>> //7. A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own national historical significance; or//

>> //8. A property achieving national significance within the past 50 years if it is of extraordinary national importance.//

> //**Comparing the National Historic Landmarks Criteria and the National Register Criteria**// > //In general, the instructions for preparing a National Register nomination and the guidelines stated in this bulletin for applying the National Register Criteria also apply to Landmark nominations and the use of the Landmark criteria. While there are specific distinctions discussed below, Parts IV and V of this bulletin apply equally to National Register listings and Landmark nominations. That is, the categories of historic properties are defined the same way; historic contexts are identified similarly; and comparative evaluation is carried out on the same principles enumerated in Part V.//

> //There are some differences between National Register and National Historic Landmarks Criteria. The following is an explanation of how each Landmark Criterion compares with its National Register Criteria counterpart://

> //**Criterion l**// > //This Criterion relates to National Register Criterion A. Both cover properties associated with events. The Landmark Criterion, however, requires that the events associated with the property be outstandingly represented by that property and that the property be related to the broad national patterns of U.S. history. Thus, the quality of the property to convey and interpret its meaning must be of a higher order and must relate to national themes rather than the narrower context of State or local themes.//

> //**Criterion 2**// > //This Criterion relates to National Register Criterion B. Both cover properties associated with significant people. The Landmark Criterion differs in that it specifies that the association of a person to the property in question be an important one and that the person associated with the property be of national significance.//

> //**Criterion 3**// > //This Criterion has no counterpart among the National Register Criteria. It is rarely, if ever, used alone. While not a landmark at present, the Liberty Bell is an object that might be considered under this Criterion. The application of this Criterion obviously requires the most careful scrutiny and would apply only in rare instances involving ideas and ideals of the highest order.//

> //**Criterion 4**// > //This Criterion relates to National Register Criterion C. Its intent is to qualify exceptionally important works of architecture or collective elements of architecture extraordinarily significant as an ensemble, such as a historic district. Note that the language is more restrictive than that of the National Register Criterion in requiring that a candidate in architecture be "a specimen exceptionally valuable for the study of a period, style, or method of construction" rather than simply embodying distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. With regard to historic districts, the Landmarks Criterion requires an entity that is distinctive and exceptional. Unlike National Register Criterion C, this Criterion will not qualify the works of a master, per se, but only such works which are exceptional or extraordinary. Artistic value is considered only in the context of history's judgment in order to avoid current conflicts of taste.//

> //**Criterion 5**// > //This Criterion does not have a strict counterpart among the National Register Criteria. It may seem redundant of the latter part of Landmark Criterion 4. It is meant to cover collective entities such as Greenfield Village and historic districts like New Bedford, Massachusetts, which qualify for their collective association with a nationally significant event, movement, or broad pattern of national development.//

> //**Criterion 6**// > //The National Register counterpart of this is Criterion D. Criterion 6 was developed specifically to recognize archaeological sites. All such sites must address this Criterion. The following are the qualifications that distinguish this Criterion from its National Register counterpart: the information yielded or likely to be yielded must be of major scientific importance by revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation over large areas of the United States. Such sites should be expected to yield data affecting theories, concepts, and ideas to a major degree.//

> //The data recovered or expected to be recovered must make a major contribution to the existing corpus of information. Potentially recoverable data must be likely to revolutionize or substantially modify a major theme in history or prehistory, resolve a substantial historical or anthropological debate, or close a serious gap in a major theme of U. S. history or prehistory.//

> **//Exclusions and Exceptions to the Exclusions//** > //This section of the National Historic Landmarks Criteria has its counterpart in the National Register's "Criteria Considerations." The most abundant difference between them is the addition of the qualifiers "national," "exceptional," or "extraordinary" before the word significance. Other than this, the following are the most notable distinctions://

> **//Exclusion 2//** > //Buildings moved from their original location, qualify only if one of two conditions are met: 1) the building is nationally significant for architecture, or 2) the persons or events with which they are associated are of transcendent national significance and the association is consequential.//

> //Transcendent significance means an order of importance higher than that which would ordinarily qualify a person or event to be nationally significant. A consequential association is a relationship to a building that had an evident impact on events, rather than a connection that was incidental and passing.//

> **//Exclusion 3//** > //This pertains to the site of a structure no longer standing. There is no counterpart to this exclusion in the National Register Criteria. In order for such a property to qualify for Landmark designation it must meet the second condition cited for Exclusion 2.//

> **//Exclusion 4//** > //This exclusion relates to Criteria Consideration C of the National Register Criteria. The only difference is that a burial place qualifies for Landmark designation only if, in addition to other factors, the person buried is of transcendent national importance.//

> //When evaluating properties at the national level for designation as a National Historic Landmark, please refer to the National Historic Landmarks outline, History and Prehistory in the National Park System and the National Historic Landmarks Program, 1987. For more information about the National Historic Landmarks program, please write to Department of the Interior, National Park Service, History Division, 1849 C St. NW, #2280, Washington, DC 20240.//

[|Back to Top]



IV. Who Decides What is Significant?
> **//"The preservationists talk of buildings as if they were just there, like craters on the moon."//** > **//--[|Bruce Ramsey, Seattle Times Editorial Columnist]//**

//A Prime Example of the Layman's Debate Over Significance//
Seattle provides a prime example of the conflicting emotions of citizens when it comes to historic preservation. By way of background, the city of Seattle [|has long been considered a "boomtown"], and in the last decade technology companies (such as Microsoft, Google, Amazon.com, and AT&T Wireless), biomedical companies (such as Philips, Boston Scientific, and ZymoGenetics), and, of course, the locally headquartered Starbucks have resulted in a dramatic increase of new populations within the city limits. In fact, between 1990 and 2000, the population of Seattle increased by nearly fifty thousand citizens ([|Wikipedia: Seattle, Washington]).

In her July 12, 2007 article, "[|Let's not get Hysterical About Historic Preservation]," Seattle Times Editorial Columnist, Lynne Varner poses the question, "But do I really need government to provide me with a sense of nostalgia? Two examples of government spending, one local and one federal, have me wondering what price we're willing to pay to cling to a bit of the past." Varner speculates that, "Maybe it is because America is still a relatively new country that we can't bear to get rid of the old. We love choo-choo trains and our tax dollars ensure there will always be one steaming along." The recent City Council proposal to consider 38 downtown Seattle buildings as historic, as well a possible additional 56 buildings within the near future becomes the focus of Varner's article. She provides the following commentary regarding this issue:

> //I love old buildings as much as anyone. When I pass the turn-of-the-century wharves on the central waterfront or the Central Building on Third Avenue and Columbia — all nominees for landmark designation — — I see right into the soul of this city. But how much nostalgia becomes too much? Containing our enthusiasm to designate anything older than ourselves — for example, the brick box that is the Seattle Labor Temple at 2800 First Ave. — could mean more dollars available for law enforcement and our schools.//

> //Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, chairman of the Urban Planning and Development Committee, is practically a historic landmark. His father led the battle to preserve Pike Place Market, and the adjacent park bears his name. Understandably, the younger Steinbrueck wants to hold the line against what he describes as "the rapid rise of new high-rises" erasing our past.//

> //But more than 50 buildings downtown already are Seattle landmarks. Adding a few more makes sense — but a few dozen?//

> //Steinbrueck is more compelling when he points out that 10 of the nominees are apartment buildings. Landmarking the structures will deter developers from creating fancy, market-rate condos and keep some affordable housing in the city.//

> //We're willing to dig deep in our collective pocket to hear the train whistle or have the opportunity to wander through beautiful old buildings. I like these links to the past. But we're hungering for a kind of nostalgia government can ill afford.//

> //I have moved around on this issue of nostalgia. I want government efforts to hold onto some of the past. But I don't want to go overboard.//

> //Keep subsidizing the train but shrink the allotment. Save a few buildings. But don't save all of them. Historical preservation is a good thing. Hysterical preservation is not.//

Two weeks following Varner's editorial, Bruce Ramsey, another Seattle Times Editorial Columnist wrote the article, "[|The Landmark You Save Belongs to Someone Else]." Ramsey concedes that while he personally likes old buildings, "I remind myself, however, that every property has an owner who has money and hope invested in it, holds responsibility for it and has rights over it. These buildings are not mine." Ramsey highlights one of the 38 downtown Seattle buildings being considered for preservation located at 1 Highland Drive on Queen Anne Hill. This building, the Treat House, circa 1905, is a four-story, 18,000-square-foot home that, over the years, was divided into 15 apartments. The Treat House's wooden exterior was replaced with brick in the late 1940s and in the 1970s stained-glass windows were added.

Current owners of the Treat House, Rueben and Jennifer Calixto believe that these alterations spoil the building as a historical landmark, but Seattle's City officials disagree. Quoting Karen Gordon, the Seattle's preservation officer, Ramsey writes, "'Buildings are not museum pieces....They can change and maintain their significance.' And that may be so: Significance is in the mind."

Ramsey continues:

> //The city intervened in May 2005 when Calixto was about to complete a sale for $8.75 million — a price that assumed the construction of 55 to 65 units, with parking. That is now forbidden. As a landmark, the Treat House may not have its exterior altered (including the bricks) without permission of the Seattle Landmarks Board. According to the city's appraisal, this lowered the property's value to $2.77 million.//

> //Six million dollars, and probably more by now, has been denied the owner. "This was going to be our retirement," says Calixto, who has moved to California and feels not much appreciated by his old Seattle neighbors.//

> //"A lot of the neighbors walking by had dogs that pooped in our yard," he says. "I was the one who cleaned that up."//

> //So feels one owner. Art Skolnik, the former Seattle preservation officer who represented Calixto at city hearings, now aims to organize the owners of the 38 downtown properties under consideration for landmark status. Skolnik argues that cities should provide incentives to owners of historic buildings, and that landmark status should be voluntary.//

> //Councilman Peter Steinbrueck disagrees. "There are deeper values here," he says. As for compensation, he notes that owners of landmark property downtown — but not Queen Anne — can sell development rights. It is not full compensation, but Seattle's law does not require full compensation. It requires only that the owner be allowed a reasonable return — and the city determines what that is.//

In response to Varner's and Ramsey's editorials, Lauren McCroskey, an architectural historian/project manager for the Army Corps of Engineers in Seattle and chair of the King County Landmarks Commission, wrote a letter to the Seattle Times entitled, "History's Blueprint," which offers the following contrasting opinions:

> //Setting an arbitrary standard for preserving historic buildings is elitist decision-making about what is important and meaningful about our past. It also denies us the opportunity to be fully educated about who and what have imprinted our landscapes. Property ownership is temporary; history is not.//

> //Real history is about complete disclosure, and the past is captured in many formats — high-style, aesthetic buildings being only one.//

> //Modest buildings have stories too, and sometimes those stories are greater than their bricks and mortar. Even esteemed historic places hundreds of years old can be humble.//

> //Examine a piazza in Italy and you begin to see that the individual pieces are often remarkably common. But assembled as a whole, these buildings create remarkable and vibrant envelopes where modern people work and play, and the tourism dollars they draw have built robust economies. Many Americans — and it appears, some in Seattle — lack this ability to coexist with the past.//

> //A mere sprinkling of historic oddities throughout a landscape of transient modern buildings is not historic preservation, nor is it good stewardship of our heritage. Those who would sieve out what they believe to be "lesser" buildings will leave us with a weak and incomplete record of Seattle's rich history.//

> //Future generations deserve more than this selective view of how our cities originated and who contributed to the larger story.//

> //A city that touts diversity, tolerance and environmental sustainability should extend those same principles to its curation of history as reflected in the built environment.//

> //Historic buildings are diverse by nature. Some project high drama and ornate fabric, others tell their stories in modest clothes. Some are ordinary, and the history they embody sometimes unglamorous or unpleasant. But isn't that the point if you want to be honest about your past?//

> //No historic preservationist believes that every older structure can or should be saved, but don't we owe the future a balanced accounting of the past and the forces and ideals that have shaped it?//



Knute Berger, columnist for Crosscut Seattle, addressed this topic in his article, "Seattle is a City Flush with Forgetting":

> //Historic preservation is tough in boomtowns. The story of the West is the story of blank-slate mentality. It's when everyone is future-focused, and the past takes a back seat, if it's not forgotten or erased entirely. Explorers imagined urban grids on rugged wilderness areas. White settlers moved into "empty" Indian land and transformed "nothing" into "something." Newcomers displaced old settlers by building bigger cities and scoffed at their discomfort with progress as the disease of nostalgia.// ¤ ¤ ¤ > //The battle between new blood and old bones continues. For many people, Seattle can't be transformed fast enough. Old Ballard? Raze it for eco-friendly urban density. Pioneer Square? Build more housing to create a real neighborhood. The Alaskan Way Viaduct? Tear down all vestiges of the auto age and prepare for mass transit and tolled roads. Fisherman's Terminal? It would make a great place for yachts. The Kingdome? Blow it up. Downtown? Let the shining towers rise.// ¤ ¤ ¤ > //The discussion about historic preservation needs to be broadened. It's more than the "soul" that is the Pike Place Market or the fight for a tacky Ballard Denny's. The Department of Neighborhoods has completed a survey of downtown buildings and structures and has recommended 37 for landmark status. City Council member Peter Steinbrueck says, "This is the largest preservation effort undertaken in Seattle since the Pike Place Market was saved."//

> //The sweeping move has caught many property owners by surprise, and no doubt for some it will be inconvenient, for others it might advance an agenda. But casting a wide net has the advantage of sparking broader conversation.//

> //Should all those buildings and structures be preserved? Did the city identify everything that is truly important? Who gains and who loses?//

> //The effort helps take the discussion of Seattle's history and heritage out of the ghetto of historic zones and helps us recognize that the past is part of the weave of the entire city. It's long past time to get preservation debate out from under the pressure of a single wrecking ball threatening a specific music hall or monorail or Methodist church. The preservation movement needs to come out of its defensive crouch and argue for the advantages of remembering rather than forgetting. That's not easy, says Coll Thrush. "There's fear that if we remember, we won't move on, that we'll go back." Of course, no one is arguing to go back. It's a question of what values we carry forward.//

> //Council member Jean Godden, whose onetime newspaper column was for years an arbiter of Seattle culture, says that "Seattle needs its past — it's what binds us together, what makes us distinctive, and what keeps us from becoming just another megalopolis." Of course, it would be nice not to become any kind of megalopolis at all, but certainly one with a grounded sense of its identity is far better than a market-driven berserker with a bad case of Alzheimer's.//

The issue of historic preservation brings out complex emotions in people, many of which are centered around the notion of, "What is historically significant?" and "Who decides?" The articles above illustrate this debate from the point of view of the layman. However, this debate on the "significance" also plagues archaeological and historical experts.



//The Experts' Debate Over Significance//
By no means am I an expert on historic preservation, so in reviewing some of the professional journals that have included articles exploring the issue of "significance", I know there are many more articles I could have consulted to educate myself on this issue. For the purposes of this wiki, I consulted back issues of the following professional journals: [|American Antiquity], [|American Association for State and Local History (AASLH) History News], [|The Public Historian], and [|Real Estate Economics].

It seems that the dialog on the issue of significance began heating up in the 1970s. J. Meredith Neil, in his article, "Is There a Historian in the House? The Curious Case of Historic Preservation," (1980) points out that most "professionally trained historians have had little influence on the developing historic preservation movement in the United States. Traditionally, American historians have been, with a few exceptions, visually illiterate. The emphasis in their training has been overwhelmingly on documentary materials," (32). As a consequence, Neil suggests that "have had little to tell preservationists, either because they did not have appropriate training, or because they had no interest in American topics," (32). Neil continues:

//Who, then, served as experts for preservationists? They have come from a wide variety of backgrounds: law, museology, urban planning, and many others. But the single most influential profession has been architecture. Beginning with the Historic American Buildings Survey in the 1930s, architects interested in traditional styles and finding modernist architecture uncogenial, found a way to apply their training by working with those who wished to restore or rehabilitate existing buildings rather than erect new ones. And while historians tend to work in libraries and classrooms, architects know how to deal with the public, working with clients, contractors, and municipal building and zoning officials. Understandably enough, therefore, preservationists have relied far more commonly on architects than on historians for professional guidance.//

> //¤ ¤ ¤//

> //Given this source of expertise, it should be no surprise to find that preservationists are far more sophisticated in their handling of architectural elements than in their ability to distinguish historical values. The historical point in preservation, as Kevin Lynch put it in his admirably lucid book, What Time Is This Place? (1972), "is not simply the saving of old things but the maintaining of a response to those things. This response can be transmitted, lost, or modified."...And, as Gail Brooks noted in her response to Larry Tise's article, "the issue is how to measure historical significance and what value to assign to it." (1980). It may surprise you, as it did me, how rarely and inadequately that issue is addressed by preservationists. The most influential preservationist periodicals in the nation, the monthly Preservation News and the bimonthly Historic Preservation, both published by the National Trust, almost never include any articles that could be called historiographical. In the past five years, there have been too few discussions of historiographical questions for even the most loyal readers of those magazines to gain any clear understanding of even the questions, let alone acquire plausible answers. (32-33)//

In 1980, Timothy C. Klinger and L. Mark Raab wrote an article in response another article authored earlier that year. Klinger and Raab's article, "Archaeological Significance and the National Register: A Response to Barnes, Briggs and Neilsen," specifically examines the National Register of Historic Places criteria requiring "significance" and the lack of specificity as to the definition of significance.

> //Barnes et al, raise a number of points relating to the National Register of Historic Places, only some of which are relevant to our initial discussion of archaeological significance in 1977. Archaeological significance can be supported by any of the four Register criteria, not only by the single criterion presented by Barnes et al. The role and initiative of all archaeologists in the decision-making process leading to significance determinations cannot be underestimated.//

> //¤ ¤ ¤//

> //The Register criteria rightly provide an open-ended, flexible structure for the process of assessing significance. This mechanism is loosely formulated, and lacking in archaeological substance. Who then must take the initiative to see that significance determinations are archaeologically meaningful? Clearly, this is the responsibility of archaeologists inside and outside of government, if useful ends are to be served by significance determinations. We should not be misled into thinking that the Register criteria, or federal regulations that require their use, will motivate adequate work without the application of a large measure of archaeological creativity....The failure of cultural resource management archaeologists to appreciate this fact results in the superficial, scientifically debilitated approaches to significance that we discussed in our 1977 paper.//

> //¤ ¤ ¤//

> //Keeping up with the Federal Register, being able to identify what one is reading (e.g., proposed rules, interim regulations, final regulations, guidelines), and using what is read in an appropriate way are skills demanded of all of us." (554-555)//

An article written in 1983 entitled, "Epistemology of the Significance Concept," by Joseph A. Tainter and G. John Lucas documents the evolution of the criteria for placement on the National Register, concluding that "It is difficult to understand how the writers of such regulations could have expected a smoothly working historic preservation system to emerge from such vague, tautological language," (710). Tainter and Lucas criticize the fact that by there being a "notion of significance" as a criteria for sites placed on the National Register "rests on the assumption that significance is an inherent characteristic: a cultural property either possesses or lacks it," (719).

Tainter and Lucas posit that:

> //The notion of significance as an essential characteristic of cultural resources falls squarely within the empiricist-positivist tradition. Significance, as applied to historic properties, was apparently meant to be taken as a "primitive" term, whose meaning the formulators of the laws and regulations believed would be self-evident on the basis of experience. And just as the physical phenomena of the universe, in the empiricist-positivist view, are believed to be characterized by inherent, immutable qualities that give rise to knowledge, so cultural properties are seen as possessing or lacking an inherent, immutable quality, significance, that gives rise to our understanding of their importance. Thus. significance, in the empiricist-positivist view. will be present in a cultural property rather than in the mind of the observer. This is clearlv the thrust of the legislation and regulations quoted above.//

> //Given its derivation from the empiricist-positivist tradition. this view of significance must stand with that tradition in undergoing the scrutiny that is a normal element of philosophical debate. The empiricist-positivist position, as we shall show, can be faulted on a variety of grounds.//

> //¤ ¤ ¤//

> //To begin with, the empiricist-positivist view assumes that experiences are, or can be. "objective." Thus, the perception of meaning should be the same to all (or at least all who have the proper training and/or instrumentation). The meaning to be perceived in phenomena should be evident regardless of the perspective/biases of the observer. What is more, this meaning should not change through time. Science, in this view, should be based upon data and evidence reported in a theory-neutral observation language. In such a language "the meaning of observational terms is fixed independently of their connection with theoretical systems" (quoting Feyerabend 1962:41). (712-713)//

Tainter and Lucas suggest that National Register eligibility criteria can not be improved as long as significance "continues to be viewed as inherent and immutable," (715). They admit that they are not able to give any specific suggestions on what the improved criteria might consist of within the scope of their paper, but state that it is their hope that their paper would stimulate "preservationists to consider whether these or other proposals would be useful, effective, and practical," (715). Optimistically, Tainter and Lucas conclude that, "The first step in this direction, for which the present paper has been written, will be accomplished when every cultural resource manager is aware of the flaws and dangers in the concept. and when we consciously form our resource evaluations in recognition of the more obvious pitfalls that significance presents," (717).

The lack of a specific definition of significance has been addressed over and over by experts in the field of history and/or preservation and/or archeology. Depending on the author, there may or may not be a frustration over the lack of specificity, there may or may not be a calculated reason for the lack of specificity, there may or may not be a need for a more specific definition, there may or may not be a better system for implementing historic preservation on a federal, national or state level, etc.

For an idea of the depth and scope of the discussions had within the professional literature, refer to Frederick L. Briuer and Clay Mathers' 196-page report "Trends and Patterns in Cultural Resource Significance: An Historical Perspective and Annotated Bibliography." [|The abstract to this report provides the following description]:

> //This publication offers a broad, analytical review of the literature concerned with the challenging subject of evaluating cultural resource significance. This review of significance includes two main sections: (a) and Annotated Bibliography (consisting mostly of peer-reviewed literature), and (b) an Analysis Section (devoted to tracing historical trends in archaeological method and theory). The literature summarized here is extensive and is not accessible widely to the archaeological and cultural resource management (CRM) communities. After analyzing a wide range of publications, 21 major themes or concepts were established to characterize the breadth of archaeological views and ideas about significance. A review of each theme was undertaken, including both a discussion and a graphical presentation of trends through time. Systematic indexing and cross-referencing of publications, authors, and significance themes have also been carried out to assist users in locating references of special interest. The concluding section offers some suggestions and insights into the future direction of significance evaluation with respect to the work unit and within CRM generally. Particular emphasis is placed on the opportunities to develop more holistic management strategies, to make greater use of new approaches and technologies, and to use more explicit evaluation methods.//

Below I've listed a few of the articles I came across while browsing professional journals addressing preservation.

//Articles of Interest Regarding the Concept of Significance in Historical Preservation: Chronologically Ordered//
Klinger, Timothy C. and L. Mark Raab. "Archaeological Significance and the National Register: A Response to Barnes, Briggs and Neilsen." __American Antiquity__ 45.3 (**1980**): 554-557. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 22 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.jstor.org]>.

Tainter, Joseph A. and G. John Lucas. "Epistemology of the Significance Concept." __American Antiquity__ 48.4 (**1983**): 707-719. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 16 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.jstor.org]>.

LeBlanc, Steven A. "On the Importance of the National Register of Historic Places." __American Antiquity__ 48.2 (**1983**): 358-359. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 16 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.jstor.org]>.

Glassow, Michael A. "Comments on Tainter and Lucas's "Epistemology of the Significance Concept." __American Antiquity__ 50.4 (**1985**): 879-880. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 16 Oct. 2007

Rogers, Jerry L. "Fulfilling Its Mandate: The National Park Service and Historic Preservation." __The Public Historian__ 9.2 (**1987**): 143-146. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 21 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.jstor.org]>.


 * "The National Register of Historic Places: A Personal Perspective on the First Twenty Years." __The Public Historian__ 9.2 (**1987**): 90-104. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 22 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.jstor.org]>.

Hertfelder, Eric. "The National Park Service and Historic Preservation: Historic Preservation Beyond Smokey the Bear." __The Public Historian__ 9.2 (**1987**): 135-142. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 21 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.jstor.org]>.

Butler, William B. "Significance and Other Frustrations in the CRM Process." __American Antiquity__ 52.4 (**1987**): 820-829. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 16 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.jstor.org]>.

Briuer, Frederick L. and Clay Mathers. __Trends and Patterns in Cultural Resource Significance: An Historical Perspective and Annotated Bibliography__. Technical Report EL-97-5. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Apr **1997**. 1-196. 26 Oct 2009 <[|http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel97-5.pdf]>.

Coulson, N. Edward and Michael L. Lahr. "Gracing the Land of Elvis and Beale Street: Historic Designation and Property Values in Memphis." __Real Estate Economics__ 33.3 (**2005**): 487-507. EBSCOHost: Business Source Premier. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 22 Oct. 2007 <[|http://ebscohost.com/]>.

Durel, John and Nowery Dural. "A golden age for historic properties." __AASLH History News__ 62 (**2007**) 7-16.

[|Back to Top]





V. Historic Preservation 2.0
This section explores what is going on in [|Web 2.0] as far as discussion of historic preservation goes.

In the blog, Prairie Mod: The Art of Living in the Modern World, the author, "Erban" comments on the afterword of the book __Building a Legacy__, by Frank Lloyd Wright’s granddaughter, Elizabeth Wright Ingraham:

> //Preservation should take us into a productive future rather than attempt to hold on to the past as a model for the present. The difficultly with historic preservation has always been that people reject the present in favor of the past while attempting to replicate the past in an effort to improve the quality of life. (quoting Elizabeth Wright Ingraham)//

> //For us contributors to the PrairieMod blog, these words strike a chord. It’s a keen observation that motivates us to understand the principles FLLW espoused, yet reinterpret them in a way that's relevant to our 21st century lifestyles. While the preservation of Mr. Wright's structures is essential to our American culture and heritage, let's discover how their significance can inform the way in which we live today. ("Rethinking Historic Preservation"; 20 Feb 2006)//

In an [|August 13, 2007 Bottomline Rewind podcast] (6 min., 11 sec.), host Lara Jones interviews architect, Allen Roberts, to discuss the process of creating a historic preservation plan in Salt Lake City.

The April 1, 2007 Aspire podcast "[|Historic Preservation vs. New Development in History]" (6:00-26:37) features 2 individuals, Suzanne and Douglas, talking about historic preservation and how historic sites relate to future developments. London's Great Fire of 1666 is a central theme of this discussion, which the podcasters present as an opportunity to improve the city using more modern building materials and designs rather than rebuild London as it was prior to the Great Fire in such a way that the city's character was still preserved. Other examples presented are the building of Vienna's ring road system (1859), which meant the sacrifice of the city's historic fortification walls and the building of Paris' radial grand boulevards in the 1860's, which development forced forced tenants out of their homes. The speakers pose the difficult questions of "what do you keep, and what do you throw away?" and "how do you know what will be of value in the future?"

The August 11, 2007 (1 min., 21 sec) podcast, "[|Tulalip Tribes] Seek Designation for Cama Beach" by Amy Radil briefly addresses the fact that the Tulalip tribes are currently trying to get part of the beach at [|Camano Island (a large island in Puget Sound)] added to the National Register of Historic Places, an act that might interfere with a state park that is planned to be placed at this same site.

The July 26, 2007 podcast, "[|Historic Preservation, Memory and The Future of Seattle]" (53 min., 59 sec.) the issue of designating dozens of Seattle's downtown buildings as historic landmarks has provoked a lot of debate: > //In the Seattle Times, Lynne Varner questions whether the city can afford to indulge the costly 'nostalgia' of historic preservation. On the other side, Knute Berger of Crosscut.com says that the 'preservation movement needs to come out of its defensive crouch and argue for the advantages of remembering rather than forgetting.' What are the reasons for (and against) preserving historic buildings, and other windows into Seattle's past? Where did the idea of historic preservation originate in the first place? What's behind the debate over preservation in Seattle today? Today we take a closer look at historic preservation, memory, myth and nostalgia with an eye to the future of Seattle.//

The the Video Blog, [|Historic Homeworks: Reports from the Field] (started in July 2006) features videos on historic preservation methods, materials and projects. Topics covered had included [|timber framing], [|exterior painting], and [|clapboard repair].

The podcast "Crossing an Ideological Line on Preservation" (8 min., 58 sec.) (August 2, 2007) by Matt Stiles features his discussion with Mike Snyder, Houston Chronicles urban affairs reporter. The topic at hand was the citywide historic preservation of Houston, and specifically about the efforts to preserve the Old Six Ward and River Oaks Shopping Center. Commenters to the podcast's introduction show that emotions on this issue run strong. One example of a commenter comes from "Don" on August 3, 2007:

> //Why the need? Because speculators who do not live in the OSW buy a house, tear it down, then put the empty lot on the market hoping to sell at a higher price to a townhouse developer. In the meantime, the neighborhood has been jumping through hoops to move houses to save them. I'm not talking about a dilapidated house, I am talking restored house.//

> //Only 16% of the neighborhood was opposed to this, and most of those were new construction or outside investors. This has been a 30 year process, most neighborhoods would not be able to muster the longevity, and internal support to do this. There have been three petitions showing support for this, and a "level of support" card sent by the City of Houston to every homeowner to determine if they were opposed, didn't care, or support the initiative.//

> //There are a number of things unique to this neighborhood that others lack. 1) a TIRZ; 2) a VERY active neighborhood association; 3) a large collection of homes over 100 years old; 4) the largest number of Protected Historic Landmark homes in the City of Houston; 5) support from the Greater Houston Builders Association; and 6) Municipal, State and National recognition of the efforts put forth.//

> //To think this was just done lightly, and without thought or planning does a tremendous disservice to those who have worked toward this for decades.//

On YouTube, the preservepreserve Channel features a video, "[|Preserve Education]," uploaded on June 1, 2007 showing Liz Safanda of the Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley, IL at the historic Beith House in St. Charles, IL., educating children about historic preservation.

Another YouTube video uploaded on March 29, 2007, "[|National Historic Register: Petzold Building]" features the story of Richard Petzold and the Petzold building, which is the only commercial building on the national historic register in Oregon City. The process for getting onto the register in the first place is also covered in this video.

[|Back to Top]





VI. Works Consulted
Berger, Knute. "Seattle is a City Flush with Forgetting." __Crosscut Seattle__. 16 July 2007. 26 Oct 2007 <[|http://www.crosscut.com/mossback/5149/Seattle is a city flush with forgetting/]>.

Briuer, Frederick L. and Clay Mathers. __Trends and Patterns in Cultural Resource Significance: An Historical Perspective and Annotated Bibliography__. Technical Report EL-97-5. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Apr 1997. 1-196. 26 Oct 2009 <[|http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel97-5.pdf>.]

Butler, William B. "Significance and Other Frustrations in the CRM Process." __American Antiquity__ 52.4 (1987): 820-829. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 16 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.jstor.org]>.

Coulson, N. Edward and Michael L. Lahr. "Gracing the Land of Elvis and Beale Street: Historic Designation and Property Values in Memphis." __Real Estate Economics__ 33.3 (2005): 487-507. EBSCOHost: Business Source Premier. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 22 Oct. 2007 <[|http://ebscohost.com/]>.

"DNR Outdoor Recreation: Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)." __Indiana Department of Natural Resources Website__. 2007. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 25 Oct 2007 <[|http://www.in.gov/dnr/outdoor/grants/lwcf.html]>.

Durel, John and Nowery Dural. "A golden age for historic properties." __AASLH History News__ 62 (2007) 7-16.

Erban. "Rethinking Historic Preservation." [Weblog entry.] __Prairie Mod: The Art of Living in the Modern World__. Prairie Modern. 20 Feb 2006. <[|http://prairiemod.typepad.com/prairiemod/2006/02/rethinking_hist.html]>. 25 Sept 2007.

Glassow, Michael A. "Comments on Tainter and Lucas's "Epistemology of the Significance Concept." __American Antiquity__ 50.4 (1985): 879-880. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 16 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.jstor.org]>.

French, Christine Madrid. "What is Mission 66?." __Mission 66: Modern Architecture in the National Parks__. 25 Oct 2007 <[|http://www.mission66.com/mission.html]>.

Hertfelder, Eric. "The National Park Service and Historic Preservation: Historic Preservation Beyond Smokey the Bear." __The Public Historian__ 9.2 (1987): 135-142. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 21 Oct. 2007<[|http://www.jstor.org]>.

__Historic Homeworks: Reports from the Field__. Video Blog. 2007. 26 Oct 2007 <[|http://historichomeworks.wordpress.com/]>.

"Historic Preservation, Memory and The Future of Seattle." __Podcast. Weekday__. 26 July 2007. KUOW Puget Sound Public Radio. 25 Oct 2007 <[|http://www.kuow.org/defaultProgram.asp?ID=13148]>.

"Historic Preservation vs. New Development in History." Podcast. __Aspire: It's the Show that is all About the Built and Imagined Environment__. 1 Apr 2007. Szilverwolf LLC. 25 Oct 2007 <[|http://szilverwolf.com/aspire2007season3.html]>.

Jones, Lara. "Dollars and Sensibilities of Historic Preservation." Podcast. __Bottomline Rewind__. 13 Aug 2007. KCPW Public Radio, Salt Lake City. 25 Oct 2007 <[|https://www.middayutah.org/article/4151]>.

Klinger, Timothy C. and L. Mark Raab. "Archaeological Significance and the National Register: A Response to Barnes, Briggs and Neilsen." __American Antiquity__ 45.3 (1980): 554-557. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 22 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.jstor.org]>.

Lavalley, Amy. "Submerged History; Archaeologists and Divers Would Like to See Lake Michigan shipwrecks Protected by More than the Water that Sank Them :[ALL Edition]." __The Post - Tribune__ [Gary, Ind.] 9 Oct. 2005,B1. Indiana Newsstand. ProQuest. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 22 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.proquest.com/]>.

LeBlanc, Steven A. "On the Importance of the National Register of Historic Places." __American Antiquity__ 48.2 (1983): 358-359. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 16 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.jstor.org]>.

McCroskey, Lauren. "History's Blueprint." Letter. __Seattle Times Online Edition__. 4 Aug 2007. 26 Oct 2007 <[|http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=satrdr04&date=20070804>.]

Mumford, Lou. "Closer to History; Niles Designation Would Allow Federal Tax Credits for Restoration." __South Bend Tribune__ [South Bend, Ind.] 28 Jan. 2007,1. Indiana Newsstand. ProQuest. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 22 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.proquest.com/]>.

"National Historic Preservation Act." __Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia__. 2007. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 25 Oct 2007 <[|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Historic_Preservation_Act]>.

"National Park System Timeline (Annotated)." __NPS.gov__. National Park Service. 25 Oct 2007 <[|http://www.nps.gov/history/history/hisnps/NPSHistory/timeline_annotated.htm]>.

Neil, J. Meredith. "Is There a Historian in the House? The Curious Case of Historic Preservation." __The Public Historian__ 2.2 (1980): 30-38. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 16 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.jstor.org]>.

"Preservation Education." __YouTube.com__. 01 June 2007. preservepreserve Channel. 26 Oct 2007 <[|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chZCmrQsX7I]>.

Radil, Amy. "Tulalip Tribes Seek Designation for Cama Beach." Podcast. __Local News Highlights__. 11 Aug 2007. KUOW Puget Sound Public Radio. 25 Oct 2007 <[|http://www.kuow.org/defaultProgram.asp?ID=13264]>.

Ramsey, Bruce. "The Landmark You Save Belongs to Someone Else." Editorial. __Seattle Times Online Edition__. 27 July 2007. 26 Oct 2007 <[|http://o.seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003804222_rams25.html>.]

Rodriguez, Rosa Salter. "Buildings `Historic' When They Turn 50 :[Final Edition]." __The Journal Gazette__ [Ft. Wayne, Ind.] 12 Aug. 2007,2F. Indiana Newsstand. ProQuest. Indiana Newsstand. ProQuest. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 22 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.proquest.com/]>.

Rogers, Jerry L. "Fulfilling Its Mandate: The National Park Service and Historic Preservation." __The Public Historian__ 9.2 (1987): 143-146. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 21 Oct. 2007 < [|http://www.jstor.org]>.

> •"The National Register of Historic Places: A Personal Perspective on the First Twenty Years." __The Public Historian__ 9.2 (1987): 90-104. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 22 Oct. 2007 < [|http://www.jstor.org]>.

Saltzman, James D.. "Don't Believe the Hysterical Preservationists." __THE FREEMAN: Ideas on Liberty__ 45.7. (1995). 16 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4230]>.

Scarlett, Stefanie. "Landmark Decisions: What Makes a Structure Relevant :[Final Edition]." __The Journal Gazette__ [Ft. Wayne, Ind.] 15 Sep. 2007,1D. Indiana Newsstand. ProQuest. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 22 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.proquest.com/]>.

"Seattle Population Demographics: Population Trends: Size & Growth." __Department of Planning and Development__. 2005. Seattle.gov. 27 Oct 2007 <[|http://tinyurl.com/359rch]>.

"Seattle Washington." __Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia__. 2007. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 26 Oct 2007 <[|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle>.]

"Section IX: Summary of the National Historic Landmarks Criteria for Evaluation." __NPS.gov__. 2007. National Park Service. 25 Oct 2007. <[|http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_9.htm>.]

Stiles, Matt. "Crossing an Ideological Line on Preservation." Podcast. __Newswatch: City Hall__. 2 Aug 2007. Chron.com. 25 Oct 2007 <[|http://blogs.chron.com/cityhall/archives/2007/08/draft_preservat.html]>.

Sulok, Nancy. "Indiana Aims to Save Old Bridges ; Structures Given 'Select' Classification Will Receive Priority for Funding, Repairs." __South Bend Tribune__ [South Bend, Ind.] 8 Feb. 2007,1. Indiana Newsstand. ProQuest. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 22 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.proquest.com/]>.

Tainter, Joseph A. and G. John Lucas. "Epistemology of the Significance Concept." __American Antiquity__ 48.4 (1983): 707-719. JSTOR. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 16 Oct. 2007 < [|http://www.jstor.org]>.

Varner, Lynne. "Let's not get Hysterical About Historic Preservation." Editorial. __Seattle Times Online Edition__. 12 July 2007. 26 Oct 2007 <[|http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lynnevarner/2003793503_lynne18.html]>.

Wedner, Diane. "A Landmark Deal; Savvy Homeowners can use `Historic' Status to get a Tax Break :[HOME EDITION]." __Los Angeles Times__ [Los Angeles, Calif.] 15 Apr. 2007,K.1. ProQuest. Indiana Newsstand. ProQuest. University Library, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis. 22 Oct. 2007 <[|http://www.proquest.com/]>.

Wikman, Carl. "National Historic Register: Petzold Building." __YouTube.com__. 29 Mar 2007. videodudecarl Channel. 6 Oct 2007 <[|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM4HEXpHsw8]>.

"Wild and Scenic Rivers." __National Landscape Conservation System__. 2007. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 25 Oct 2007 <[|http://www.blm.gov/nlcs/rivers/index.html]>.

"Wilderness Act." __Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia__. 2007. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. 25 Oct 2007 <[|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act]>.

[|Back to Top]



**VII. Notes**
 1. The following sources were used to create this timeline: (1) "DNR Outdoor Recreation: Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)," __Indiana Department of Natural Resources Website__; (2) "What is Mission 66?," __Mission 66: Modern Architecture in the National Parks__; (3) "National Historic Preservation Act," __Wikipedia__; (4) "National Park System Timeline (Annotated)," __NPS.gov__; (5) "Wild and Scenic Rivers," __National Landscape Conservation System__; and (6) "Wilderness Act." __Wikipedia__.

[|Back to Top]


 * Primary Author of this Wiki Page: Lisa Wynn**