The Planner and the Preservationist
University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons
Departmental Papers (City and Regional Planning) Department of City and Regional Planning
April 1984
The Planner and the Preservationist
Eugenie L. Birch University of Pennsylvania, [email protected]
Douglas Roby Metropolitan Transit Authority
Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/cplan_papers
Birch, Eugenie L. and Roby, Douglas, "The Planner and the Preservationist" (1984). Departmental Papers (City and Regional Planning). 33. https://repository.upenn.edu/cplan_papers/33
Reprinted from Journal of the American Planning Association, Volume 50, Issue 2, April 1984, pages 194-207.
The author, Dr. Eugenie L. Birch, asserts her right to include this material in ScholarlyCommons@Penn.
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/cplan_papers/33 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Planner and the Preservationist
Abstract In many ways the planning and historic preservation movements have had similar but separate patterns of institutional development. Although the planning profession is older and more refined than the preservation effort, their shared concern for the quality of the built environment has made them natural allies in promoting conservation practices in American metropolitan areas. At times, differing objectives have marred their mutual cooperative endeavors; but on the whole, they have developed an important symbiotic relationship that has served to strengthen both professions.
Comments Reprinted from Journal of the American Planning Association, Volume 50, Issue 2, April 1984, pages 194-207.
The author, Dr. Eugenie L. Birch, asserts her right to include this material in ScholarlyCommons@Penn.
This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/cplan_papers/33 - 37 - The Planner and the Preservationist
An Uneasy Alliance
Eugenie Ladner Birch and Douglass Roby
In many ways the planning and historic preservation movements have had similar but separate patlems of institutional development. Although the planning profession is older and more refined than the preservation effort, their shared concern for the quality of the built environment has made them Aatwal allies in promoting con servation practices in American metropolitan areas. At times, differing objectives have marred their mutual cooperative endeavors; but on the whole, they have de veloped an important symbiotic relationship that has served to strengthen both professions. , "Historic preservation as a distinct kind of urban plan tion. In 1982, however, the association suspended the ning is relatively recent in origin," asserted Wayne O. group for nonperformance.3 Attoe in Introduction to Planning, a definitive textbook Several factors have produced modem planners' am I published in 1979. In fact, he maintained, "Historic bivalence to historic preservation. Historically, the ~ preservation. .. remains a troublesome aspect of urban planning and preservation movements have pursued planning." Nonetheless, he concluded, "historic pres distinct goals, served different populations, and expe ervation can be integrated into comprehensive urban rienced dissimilar patterns of organizational growth. In planning practice.") recent years, however, the two groups have moved Not all contemporary accounts of planning practice closer together. Their growing cooperation has hinged agreed with Attoe's statements. Some did not consider on two interrelated items: .each movement's evolving preservation important at all. The latest version of the definition of its function in American society, and the profession's familiar green handbook (also published changing nature of public-sector involvement in urban in 1979), The Practice of Local Government Planning, development. barely mentioned the field. The third edition of Urban In the first instance, planners and preservationists LAnd Use Planning, by F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., and Edward have moved. closer to each otherthrough the redefinition J. Kaiser, appearing in the same year, made no reference of their respective missions. In the past fifty years, many to it despite its analysis of other modem concems.2 planners have slowly narrowed their focus from analysis The stance of the American Planning Association of regional and citywide trends to concentration on which grants professional credentials to planners-re neighborhood efforts. During the same period, the flected that dichotomy. Only in October 1980 did the pre:servationists have broadened their agenda to include APA admit a historic preservation division intoits ranks, the conservation of urban districts and neighborhoods allowing it to join transportation, environmental pro as well as isolated, individual structures. Although nei tection, and urban design as a legitimate planning func- ther group has lost sight of its own origins, both have established grounds for mutual agreement and sup portive ventures. The implications of their merging in terests are best illustrated in their joint partigpation in Birch, an associatt proftssor ofurban planning at Hunttr Colltgt, selected government activities. has writttn about tht history of proftssional dtvtlopment and At the municipal level, increased attention to con has contributtd prroiously 10 tht Jownal. Sht now is co-editor of tht book rtvilW S.tction for tht Journal. Roby, dirtctor of servation efforts has provided a framework for their optrations IInalysis with tht Mttropolitan Transit Authority in cooperation. By 1982, for example, 832 cities had en Ntw York City, holds II doctorllte in history from Harvllrd and acted preservation laws incorporating provisions for a masltr's dtgrtt in urblln planning. from Hunttr Colltgt. Ht zoning protection, districting, and transfer of devel 4 collllborllttd on this articlt when ht WIIS a Public Strvice Ftllow opment rights-areas of traditional planning interest. in Hunter's Graduate Program of Urban Planning. Furthermore, a growing body of federal and local case
194 APA JOURNAL - 38 - law--eulminating in the landmark Grand Central de They were to present prescriptions or master plans for cision. Pmn unITal Transporta'ion 17. Nt'W York City (438 improving city life. To that end they appraised urban U.S. 1978}-strengthened. the legal basis for this use systems, especially circulation and recreation facilities, of the police power. a factor not lost on the planners. and n!Structured metropolitan centers to create long III reality. federal government initiatives have con range schemes for civic order. Later they added. im tributed. most substantially to joint efforts by planners portant implementation devices. Their most successfuJ and preservationists. t:>im:t funding. new administrative effortswere the zoning ordinanceand the capital budget. practices. and tax reforms have been the main feat\1re In the first three decades of the twentieth century, plan· of national planning-preservation activities. For ex ners would refine and codify theirmovement. ultimately ample. a 1980 study of funding practices under the setting up professional qualifying aiteria; create a solid Urban Development Action Grants administered by the base of citizen support; and mobilize sufficient political U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development strength to make planning a legitimate municipal con revealed. that HUD had spent about 43 percent of its cern exercised through the permanent local planning funds on rehabilitation, much of which involved. pres commission and planning department. By 1927. four ervation. (Rehabilitation dated from 1954, when the hundred American towns had incorporated some fonn Housing Act and succeeding urban legislation autho of planning in their operations.· rized such expenditures.) Funding for rehabilitation of Although essentially local in focus, the planning historic properties dated. from the 1966 Model Oties movement would be highly organized on the national Act.' Additional impetus came from the passage of the level. By 1934, it had three representative organizations, National Historic Preservation Act (1966), which es the American Institute of Planners. the American S0 tablished important intergovernmental bureaucratic ciety of Planning Officials, and the American Planning links; and insertion of key provisions in the Transpor and Ovic Association. Membership in the (onner two tation Act (1966) and the National Environmental Pro groups was dominated by white, maJe professionals. tection Act (1969), both of which required federal ad while the latter had a larger female representation in ministrators to take s~al care to proted historic sites. its membership, which consisted largely of citizen vol Finally, the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and its subsequent Wlteers.' amendments made adaptive reuse (the recycling ofolder On the whole, the planning movement-with its buildings formerly considend obsolete) economically am.algam of professionals. including architects, engi viable and provided an alternative to clearance neers, lawyers, and real estate agents. and its diverse and-demolition schemes often employed by planners base of citizen support. including politicians. business in urban development. men. and volunteer civic activists-insinuated. itseU into lbrough these devices, historic preservation slowly American municipal life rapidly and efficiently. became an important item in the urban agenda. By In contrast, the preservation movement had a slower. 1980, planners and preservationists united to promote narrower growth pattern. Motivated by desires to common interests. Their merger was only partial, how "Americanize" immigrants by showing them historical ever. for each shared reservations about the others' landmarks or to rescue important monuments from de actions. Nonetheless, they had forged a fragile, if un struction in the wave of new construction that char· easy, alliance. This paper documents the growth of that acterized the period, individuals, often women, orga alliance, highlighting the steps leading to its achieve nized local effortsto preserve significant structures. Oc ment and outlining ~Ived areas. casionally those effortsattracted. national attention, such as the successful mid-nineteenth-century battle led by The early years: Progressive era the Mount Vernon Ladies Association to prevent George to the New De.1 Washington's home from falling into the hands of real estate speculators; but more often, they remained pa At their inceptions, the planning and ~ation rochial.' movements had very little in common, despite their like planners, presenationists came from varied, shared progressive roots. Although both wt're reponses usually upper·incom.e backgrounds. They came from to late nineteenth-<:entury urbanization and industrial patriotically based national groups such as the Daugh ization. they differed in thrust. in organizational style, ters of the American Revolution. interest associations and in their views of the relationship benoteen the public such as the (Theodore) Roosevelt Memorial Association. and private sectors. local civic and municipal art supporters, and assorted. While the planners had reformist. rationalist origins, professions, including architeetural history, museum the preservationists had patriotic. romantic roots. and antiquarian societies. Unlike planners, however, Shortly after 1909, the year when the first National the preservationists did not have an immediately de Conference on City Planning and the Congestion of finable product. Their approach was to organize simple, Cities convened and the landmark Chicago Plan was reactive responses to rescue threatened individual issued. planners had a clear vision of their mission. structures or sites of historic importance. Anyone in-
SPRING 1984 195 - 39 -
terested could participate; no credentials were required. planner to answer these questions went unheeded, the ~ They had no specialized methods except to use rather professionals engaged did create a battery of legal de broad criteria for determining the historic (and later the vices to meet the modem needs of the museum-city, aesthetic) legitimacy of the buildings concerned. They including the legal demarcation of the area as a historic did not artirulate a generally applicable set of profes district. 10 sional concerns, for in their early years they had no As Williamsburg attracted nationwide attention, equivalent to the master plan, zoning ordinance, or preservationists in other towns modeled their efforts on capital budget. Although they welcomed public-sector the Virginia experience. They also were faced with the involvement to finance the purchase and maintenance problem of integrating historic zones into working mu of specific sites-particularly after the 1906 passage of nicipalities, not museum towns. In the larger cities with the Antiquities Act and its expansion in 1916 through a more resistant urban structure, this type of planning the creation of the National Park Service-they did not would be refined. have a clear·rut vision for continuous, comprehensive, The case ofCharleston, South Carolina, is illustrative or systematic procedures to enhance preservation. Fur and represents a significant step in the evolution of the thennore, coming from elite backgrounds, they were planning·preservation alliance. In Charleston, three inclined to consider their activities as primarily philan major tools of the planning-preservation effort-sur· thropic, properly pertaining to the private sector. veying, zoning, and financing-were developed. As Lacking the missionary zeal of their planning coun with most evolutionary efforts, they were nol created terparts, the preservationists were less eager organizers. systematically but were invented to meet current needs. Although some activists had created a few associations, In 1931, after a lengthy campaign by the privately such as the American Scenic and Historic Society (in organized Society for the Preservation of Old Dwellings, corporated in New York in 1895) and the Society for founded in 1920 by real estate agent Susan P. Frost, the Preservation of New England Antiquities (organized the city government designated eighty acres of down fifteen years later in Boston), their efforts emphasized town land as a special zoning district where exterior communications, not professional development. and alteration and new construction were subject to restric remained regional, not national, in focus. The only na tions. Advised by Pittsburgh planner and zoning expert tional professional involvement that occurred in the Morris Knowles, who set the Old City District bound "...... , period took place in the American Institute of Architects' aries, the city established administrative procedures in intermittent preservation conunittees, which unsyste corporating the city planning and zoning commissions matically established acceptable style authentication and and a newly appointed Board of Architectural Review. restoration techniques for historic buildings.9 In a coordinated effort, the society financed restoration In those early years, the planners and the preser in the area using a revolving fund to purchase and vationists had few fonnallinks. Except for sharing oc renovate the district's dwellings, which then were sold casional common concerns, such as joint sponsorship or rented on the open market. Ten years later, in 1941, of the Federal City project in Washington, they had planning consultant Frederick Law Olmsted recom little to contribute to each other. After 1925 that mutual mended an additional refinement to the program, a independence would change. At that time, two projects, citywide architectural survey that was undertaken with the restoration of Williamsburg, Virginia (1924), aI!d Carnegie Foundation funding by the Carolina Art As the establishment of the Old City District in Charleston, sociation. That survey remained the community's basic S.c. (1931), began a new era of planner-preservationist reference through two enlargements of the district, only cooperation. to be replaced by an updated version thirty years later." The relationship between planning and preservation Although the Old City District designation repre in Williamsburg was subtle. The town had an elegant sented a new level in cooperation between planners seventeenth-century plan based on Le Notre's Versailles and preservationists, this pioneering effort had definite and Wren's postfire London reconstruction project, and limitations. In a bid to secure the support of the area's when local minister William Goodwin and financier commercial interests, for example, the professionals ex John D. Rockefeller began to collaborate in 1924, they cluded businesses from the district's restrictions. In ad originally intended to restore individual buildings. As dition, in keeping with contemporary practice, they jus Work progressed, however, they slowly shifted their tified. their work in terms of elimination of the slums focus to the whole of colonial Williamsburg. Ultimately, that characterized the area (which, incidentally, was they authorized the reconstruction of its entire urban the setting of Dubose Heyward's regional classic Porgy, fabric, including streets and open spaces. Soon, twen the inspiration for George Gershwin's Porgy and Bess). tieth·centwy problems began to demand their attention: They simply did not include today's issues of displace where would the thousands ofvisitors stay; how would ment, relocation, and gentrification in their calcula they circulate through the reconstruction; and most im tions.J2 portant, how would the restored district be protected? Over the years, the Charleston model would be rep Although Rockef~Uer's 1928 suggestion to hire a city licated in only a few cities, notably New Orleans, Lou-
'96 APA JOURNAL - 40 - isiana, ..nd Monterey, California, but the district des 1949 and subsequent amending I~lation. planners ign..tion and its protective devices would not be em adopted the standard "write-down" formula. They ployed widely until several decades later. Instead the designated urban renewal an!:as and condemned and movements continued on the largely separate courses cleared land to provide sites for entrepreneurs to de of development set years earlier. Planners, whose real velop according to municipal comprehensive plans.13 interests lay in regulating new construction, resource They aimed to renew the economic lives of declining allocation, transportation, and population dispersion. central cities. concentrated on the housing. slum dearance, and gar The early cou.rse of urban lft\ewal in New Haven. den city programs embodied in the New Deal activities Connecticut. exemplifies this model. A small city of of the Public Works Administration, the Federal Hous only about 130,000 inhabitants, endowed with a major ing Administration, the National Resources Boarcl and university and a beautiful town green dating from the the Resettlement Administration. There they proudly seventeenth century, New Haven had been dissatisfied created public housing developments, model subdivi with its situation f~ most of the twentieth century. sion standards, state land use plans, and greenbelt Too close to New York to compete culturally, over towns. Sharing in the federal largess, the preserv.. shadowed economically and politically by Hartford, tionists promoted site-specific activities, namely the re losing population and commerce to the wealthier sub cording of the nation's representative architecture urbs, and alarmed by the concentration of poor mi through the Historic American Buildings Survey and norities in decaying older neighborhoods, New Haven the designation, purchase, and maintenance of land had aU the problems ofdozens ofold cities ofthe north marks by an expanded National Parle Sfivice. That work east.U The only thing that made New Haven different contributed wtifonn evaluative criteria to conservation was the aggressiveness with which it tried to apply practices. EssentiaUy, both groups neglected the local diverse planning nostrums to those ills. As early as urban district focus. 1910 it had a park plan by Gilbert and Olmsted; in Despite the neglect of larger urban preservation issues 1941 the new City Planning Commission hired Maurice during the New Deal, the framework for a planning/ Rotival to produce a comprehensive plan stressing preservation alliance was in place at the end of the highway improvements. period. At its base was the professional expertise pres Although nothing much came ofeither of those plans, ervationists had gained by adapting techniques from the city was clearly predisposed to accept seU-improve planners and architects. As can be seen from the Wil ment schemes. In 1953 the electorate confirmed that liamsburg and Charleston examples, preservationists predisposition when it made Richard Lee mayor on the were forced by the scope of urban projects to enlarge basis of his campaign platform to bring urban renewal their vision and make their work systematic. They to the city.13 Vowing to rid the downtown of its Oak adopted a three-pronged approach to their work, in Street slum. to restore central business functions, and corporating methods for artieuJating and administering to improve access to the core from the suburbs, Lee districts, standards for declaring sites worthy of con hired young lawyer Edward Logue to spearhead the servation, and formulas for creative financing. activity as the city's first development administrator. "Clear and rebuild" were Lee's orders to Logue, an adept fund-raiser who turned the trickle of federal Planning and preservation in the middle funding into a torrent. (By 1967 New Haven would years: Postwar to the sixties receive $790 per capita in urban renewal funds; New York Cty had received $42 per capita.)I' The federally sponsored. New Deal initiatives would Under the tee-Logue administration, renewalists continue to influence the planning and preservation transformed the downtown. They leveled the Oak Street movements in the two decades after the Second World slum and replaced it with a shopping mall and parking War. Consequently, they would continue in their sep garage. They joined the city to the suburbs with a six arate stances. As both groups matured and regularly lane connector to the Connecticut Turnpike. Hailed in re-evaluated their activities, however, they began in contemporary professional journals and the popular ternal restructuring effortsthat would lead to a merging press, New Haven, for a few short years, seemed to of interests by the end of.the period. provide a successful model for the nation's plannersY With the end of the war, planners were caught up City after city incorporated its method. By 1962, 588 in managingsuburbani.zation and urban renewal. Slum communities had projects, and Federal Urban Renewal clearance, new construction, highway planning. and Administrator William Slayton predicted that by 1964, the revitalization of central business districts became 750 cities would be engaged in more than fifteen primary professional concerns. "Conservation" and hundred projects.11 In efforts to achieve their ends, the "preservation" were rarely part of the practitioner's urban renewalists-usuaIly a coalition of planner.;, local vocabulary. Fueled by $10 billion in federal funds ap politicians, journalists, and business and civic leaders propriated by the Housing and Slum Clearance Act of justified the wholesale destruction of large sites, re 4
SPRJNC 1984 197 r - 41 - I
gardless of the viability of individuaJ parcels, a rationale need for urban revitalization in its well-received Better that would be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court de Philadelphia Exhibition of 1947. Two other groups, the cision handed down in 1954 in 8mn"n 17. Pllrk~r (348 Independence Hall Association and the City Center U.S. 26, 75 S. Ct. 98, 99). In that case, the plaintiff, an Residents' Association, added a preservation dimension owner of a successful Washington, D.C., department as they launched their own limited but successful cam store located in the Southwest Urban Renewal Area paigns to encourage conservation. When the Housing argued that his property was not blighted and therefore and Slum Oearance Act was passed in 1949, the city not eligible for condemnation under the "write-down" was well prepared to take advantage of it. Ultimately process. Using the widest possible interpretation of two agencies, the City Planning Commission, headed public purpose, the court rejected his plea. It argued by Edmund Bacon, and the Redevelopment Agency, that health and safety were not the only constitutional chaired by William F. Rafsky, worked closely to co tests of public purpose and that the attractiveness of a ordinate a short-tenn development strategy with the whole area might be construed as serving the general longer-range comprehensive plan. Their major thrusts public interest, thus upholding current clearance prac were to conserve the central business disbict, toembark tices." By that judgment, the court left the way open on a residential renewal program to upgrade the slums for renewer.; to seize and write down land almost any and prevent deterioration in good neighborhoods, to where. rationalize transportation, and to encourage industry.11 Although most communities followed the standard As in New Haven, a rnajorportion of the plan focused urban renewal pattern as illustrated in New }-! wen, on clear3flce and new construction, particularly for the some exceptions did exist. In Boston, for example, the Penn Center project, which combined office, recreation, new government center plan, while focusing on new commercial, and transportation functions. But an im construction, did incorporate eighteenth- and nine portant secondary effort, restoration of Society Hill, the teenth-century buildings into its design. Professional city's colonial, residential core, employed preservation guidance from planners Frederick Adams, John Howard, and rehabilitation more widely than had been custom and Roland Greeley and architects I. M. Pei and Walter ary under standard renewal schemes. Endowed with Whitehall had led t~ a national competition for down hundreds of eighteenth-century residential structures town reconstruction. The 250 entrants were required that were in an advanced state of blight, as well as a to consider two national shrines, the Old State House picturesque but aowded and inefficient food market, and Faneuil Hall-Quincy Market, and several adjacent the neighborhood was a perfect site for renewal. Des streets as an "inseparable part of the design ensemble," ignated as a "key residential belt," the hundred-acre although they were outside the project boundaries. site was a critical component of a citywide housing Within the boundaries, the nineteenth-century Sears scheme. After moving the food market to a new dis Crescent was not given such firm protection. None tribution center, the city designated the district as an theless, the winning entry submitted by Kallmann, urban renewal area to include construction of three McKinnell, and Knowles preserved the structure.10 high~rise apartment towers--eontroversial but finan (Even in New Haven, plans would involve conservation, cially necessary-selective demolition, and public and as in the case of the award-winning Wooster Square private rehabilitation of historic townhouses. Its aim project, a 235-acre scheme to retain and rehabilitate a was not to achieve "restored replicas ... but archi 11 nineteenth-eentury working-class neighborhood. ) tectural hannony" in the rebuilding and remodeling of In Philadelphia, however, the planners of urban re "an attractive residential community with modem con newal created the most significant example of preser venient living accommodations in towering apartments vation of the period. like New Haven, Philadelphia and small houses."u had a tradition of activity in civic improvement dating Although a highly visible and successful example of back to the early twentieth century. Its park system, its the melding of urban renewal and preservation, the city-beautiful-inspired. Fairmont (Benjamin Franklin) project remained a minor part of the total project costs Parkway, and its militant housing association indicate of the Philadelphia program. By the mid-1960s. it con the latent sympathy that would later be exhibited in a stituted only 12 percent of the city's net project costs high degree of popular receptivity to dty planning and and commanded only 13 percent of the federal grants redevelopment in the postwar era. Well aware of the to the city. In contrast, large-scale reconstruction efforts dangers of central city deterioration that characterized like Market Street East (a shopping mall) and Eastwick so many cities of the period, Philadelphia's civic leaders (new housing construction) were receiving much higher had been among the earliest in the nation to attempt percentages of the total resources. Z4 Thus while the to reverse the situation. As early as 1943, an enlightened Society Hill project received more than its share of na tnunicipal refono effort had vested the city planning tional media attention, it did not represent the prevailing COmmission with a generous budget to undertake a model for urban renewal.1s Nonetheless, it did serve long-range capital budgeting program; a few years later, as a brilliant testimony to a new approach to preser~ the Citizens' Council on City Planning articulated the vation and planning.
'98 APA JOURNAl.. - 42 -
Of COl.1ne, u in the other enrnples of the planning rolls grew from a handful in 1947 to 640 in 1952, to preservation alliance, Society Hill had its limitations. 1,684 in 1956, to 4,000 in 1962. Its most significant In the opinion of some planners, the displamnent of growth 0C0ln'ed in the next decade, however, when the area's low-income residents and the homogeneity the trust began to have a larger impact. By the end or of the replacement population (primarily white, upper the :wventies, it had expanded to 42,000 members.29 income groups) was a perversion of urban renewal pur Armed with a more broadly defined mission, the poses.2' For their part, the preservationists aitidzed the organization embarked on a course of proselytizing and visual intrusion of the modern apartment towers and professional development. Following a pattern used. a questioned. the design of some new townhouses.21 All generation earlier by planners, the bust wooed. foun in all. however. Society Hill. protected. by traditional dation support to finance those activities. (Where plan zoning devices, demonstrated that the two groups could ners relied on money from the Sage and Rockefeller cooperate and benefit from the use Qf renewal powers fortunes, the preservationists benefited. from the Mellon and funds to restore a neighborhood. wealth.) With this financial security, the trust used the While the planners were engaged. in urban renewal same techniques as ASPO had employed. yeaI'5 earlier. activities, the preservationists began to pump energy It sponsored "circuit-riding" experts to give advice to into their movement. They were driven to organize by local groups. It offered short courses in preservation • desire to concentrate the fragmentary elements of administration. It revised and simplified. survey instru their own constituency. And after 1949 they would ments in order to encourage data collection. It developed gain more moIn.entum in the face ofinnumerable thruts a literature through publication of Historic PrtSVf112tion. from urban renewal administrators whose heavy a bimonthly joumal, and later PrtSVf112tion Ntws. a tab handed clearance programs tended to be insensitive to loid newspaper. It organized movies and exhibits, such preservation concerns. In 1948 Ii small group of ar as the 1958 "Architecture Worth Saving" at New York chitects. architectural historians, museum curators. City's Museum of Modem Art, and it published text landmarks conservators, andothen formed the National books like Historic PrtW'T1lJtion lAw by Jacob H. Mor Trust for Historic Preservation. modeled on similar Eu rison. ropean associations. Congressionally chartered and ~ the movement expanded.. model preservation funded through private donations, dues, and large doses projects proliferilted.. Enc:ouraged by the trust, $event of foundation aid, the bust had multiple jobs: an ac cities used zoning techniques employed. in Charleston quisition function allowing for the purchase and and the urban renewal model from Philadelphia. maintenance of property; a cooununications role giving Among them were Boston, Savannah, Richmond, technical advice to local groups. publia,ti005, and spe Providence. Bethlehem (pa.), and Pittsburgh. cial research; and a professional development capacity Savannah stands out as an example of that work. encompassing ~fining aiteria for building evaluation Relatively undamaged. by the Civil War and bypassed and aeating educational training programs.1I by the early twentieth-century economic development Except for its acquisition powen, the trust would that transformed other Southern cities, this city of function in a capacity for presenrationists similar to the 118,000 possessed a large stock of exemplary but highly role the earlier American Institute of Planners and deteriorated. antebellum architecture arranged. in a American Society of Planning Officials served. for plan unique eighteenth-eentury plan that was characterized. ners. Consequently. the postwar decades featurrd a by attractive, regularly placed. residential squares. In significant restructuring of the preservation movement. the early 19505, twin threats of downtown modem Under the trust's pragmatic leadership. the vt!r"f defi iution and suburban expansion menaced this resource. nition of preservation changed. dramatically. In only a While transportation planners proposed to drive a wid few years, the organization gained.. broiId acceptance ened street through one of the city's most beautiful that preservable projects would include more than his squares and actually replaced the Old City Market with toric buildings or objed:s. Its expanded. vision, built on a multilevel parking garage, private wred::ers demol the Charleston aperience, added the COl\5ftYation of ished eighteenth-century houses to scavenge used bricks disbicts embodying values of local and state as well as to face out-of-town tract dwellings. Rising to meet the national importance. It extended acceptable time periods challenge, local preseorvationists, led mainly by women, allowing for Victorian and twentieth~twy conbi responded. in 1954 with the aeation of the Historic butions. And above all, it moved from a ~Iaxed in Savannah Foundation to raise public support for mu sistence on museum purity preervation toward accep nicipal conservation. Although moderately successful tance of adaptive reuse techniques. For example, in in its early years, it was constantly strapped for funds 1951 the trust would endorse the activities of Historic and became a more substantial influence only after Georgetown that saved that district's older buildings arousing the interest of local bankers led by a young from demolition by renovation and economic exploi investor, Leopold Adler D. Under his leadership, the tation. These views began to broaden the support base group devised a three-pronged. preservation strategy: of the movement. Measured. in trust membership, the an architectunl survey; a campaign for a historic district SntlN(; 198-4 '99 - 43 - designation, protected by zoning; and the creation of cost and slow progress of massive demolition, he called a revolving rehabilitation fund. Intimately the group for scrapping the whole program." I"'""" achieved its aims. It completed the survey of a 2¥1 square-mile area in 1968. Five yeaJS later city legislation Planning and preservation in the later protected it with a historic zoning district designation, years: The alliance meshes the largest in the nation. And thegroupraised. $200,000 for its revolving fund, which, with sophisticated man Intimately, the new wave of oiticism accelerated agement, it used to establish lines of credit in the local changes in national legislation and planning practice, banks, thereby multiplying its value. Besides those ef for federal ad.minj.strators themselves constantly ad forts, in 1962 the city government incorporated a six justedthe priorities ofthe programs. For example, plan teen-acre residential restoration project, the TroupTrust, ning studies were appropriated more generously and into its urban renewal program. In succeeding years, allowed for more thorough investigation of neighbor· the city sponsored two other urban renewal designations hood dynamics and potential rehabilitation strategies. in the district, including one to restore the riverfront.lO Under this rubric, several studies were undertaken. The While the preservation movement was beginning to ~aTler Tow~nd Urban Rentwal Area (Boston), Historic grow, the planners were facing a oisis in their history. PrestTValion Plan for a Central Neighborhood Rentwll/ In the late 19405, a number of younger practitioners, Area (Savannah), and The Negro Housing Problem: A including Martin Meyerson, F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., and Program for Philadelphia exemplify the technique. Those others, had begun to challenge the teachings of their reports underscored the historic or residential values predecessors. They attacked the profession's reliance of the areas in question and led the way to conservation on the comprehensive plan: they questioned the validity efforts. Charles Abrams, author of the Philadelphia of planning decisions made without citizen participa study, reflected this sentiment: tion; and they disputed current urban renewal tech niques that were based on clearance and wholesale American neighborhoods include the good and the replanning ofexisting disbirn without reference to local miserable. But housing conditions should not be culture and historic values. They were joined by other the sole detenninant of what deserves to stay or critics who objected to the cost and output of urban to be tom down.. .. Demolition of a functioning renewal programs. neighborhood. ... disrupts associations and in The literature of the period would reflect those con- stitutions, destroys what people have added to the ~ eems. In 1956, Meyerson, at that time a University of neighborhood. and the attributes that drew them J4 Pennsylvania planning professor and vice president of there in the first place. the American CounciJ to Improve Our Neighborhoods One of the best of these was written in Providence (a Ford Foundation-funded group fostering local en when the Urban Renewal Administration granted vironment improvement), startled his colleagues with $50,000 for a joint City Planning Commission-Provi~ his keynote address at the 1956 annual AIP convention, dence Preservation Society study of a 380-acre area on in which he challenged them to engage in pulse-taking the site of that city's original seventeenth-century set and review activities. Aiming to bring "planning and tlement. The resulting 200-page report, released after policy closer together," he urged them to monitor almost three years of investigation, demonstrated a shorter-range, narrowly gauged community concerns. careful blend of historic preservation and city planning TItis was a major link toward forging the planning procedures. Its authors divided it into three parts: an preservationist alliance because it called on planners to overview of American preservation; a collection of rec connect planning theory with project planning.J1 It ommended survey and evaluation techniques; and a would be.a short conceptual step to neighborhood. comprehensive development plan combining recom planning advocated in the following deeade. mendations for urban renewal, historic district demar Others added to the Meyerson presaiption and called cation and protection, and long-range planning. Oted for a re-evaluation of planning values. Jane Jacobs' The by the American Institute of Architects in 1960 "as a Death lind Ufe of Great AmeriClln Cities (1962), Herbert major contributor to American architecture, to com Cans' The Urban Villagers (1962), "A Choice Theory munity planning and to civic design:' it was reissued of Planning"(1962) by Paul Davidoff and Thomas A. in 1967 by HUD, which by that time was begiruUng Reiner, and Davidoff's later piece "Advocacy and Plu to increase its support of conservation and rehabilitation ralism in Planning" (1965) all cautioned practitioners activities. HUD was so motivated because in the five to be more aware of the diverse, smaller-scale building years since the report's publication, much had been blocks of planning and more appreciative of the beauty accomplished to demonstrate the success of historic and functionalism of existing neighborhood. organi- area.renewal undertaken as part of a total urban plan ,.- zation.Jl Finally, Martin Anden;on, in the Federal Bull ning and development effort. A historic district protected. dour (1964), provided planners with evidence of the by historic zoning covered about a third of the area, failure of the clearance strategy. Documenting the high and the recommended 120-acre renewal area had been
200 APA JOURNAL - 44 - ..
"....~o ,._ ..e,., ~e!e ~
N
BCALE 2000 L_-'-__--II feet
..• •
:l:t::~::::~~:j~::~~,~,~,el1 8"· a :~==:t:::t::::JF-~r---1rwr.. tu'tIl.. 8t.
PRO,lECT ••••••••• UN!
TYPES or RENEWAL AREAS
liliiii Clear.Dcl
I:>~« ~ Co••er".Uoa Figure 1. The ilward-winning College Hill pl.J.n in Providence, Rhode 1s1.r.nd (1967), feiltured iI major st.Jlement on preserv..tion ilnd incorporated extensive conservation ilreOilS in the master plan. - 45 - incorporated (with its historic protection provisions in portant achievement. however. was the passage of the tact) into the larger East Side Project. encompassing National Historic Preservation Act in 1966. 343 contiguous aaes in the dty.u Other cities. partic Preceded by numerous supportive studies. such as ularly in New England. followed suit. Among the no the Ford Foundation-funded With Heritage So Rich, and table ones were Newburyport and New Bedford. Mas endorsements from President Lyndon B. Johnson. the sachusetts.l6 law made preservation a public concern and provided The planning studies were matched with new con a means for integrating preservation activities into the $&Vation-based programs. which. over time. would government bureaucracy.&O capture increasing amounts of federal funding. The Like the planners of a generation earlier who had Community Renewal Program. enacted in 1959 but not gained public approval of the master plan. the pres operational until the mid-sixties. called for local gov ervationists invented their own device. the National ernments to study and schedule small-scale. non Register of Historic Places. This federal list recognized demolition projects. Implementation for the program structures and districts of local and state importance came hom newly passed code enforcement and below and provided minimal protection for them by requiring market rehabilitation loan programs.37 San Francisco. federal review of any government activity threatening (or example. began its highly successful FACE (Federally them. Assisted Code Enforcement) program after passage of Supplementing the extant national historic landmark this legislation. As the City Planning Department se system. the contents of the National Register were lected target areas, it frequently included. neighborhoods drawn from an intricate recommendation system. With scheduled for massive redevelopment for the combined. 50 percent matching funds from the federal govern inspection and loan .program. By 1976 it had spent ment, states and localities were to undertake surveys about $23 million to rehabilitate about ten thousand to establish nominees according to standards developed housing units, a figure that contrasted favorably with by the U.S. Department of the Interior. States were the 512 million dollar price tag ofa single slum clearance responsible for making nominations. (Most created. bu project that provided far fewer standard dwellings.H reaucratic units headed by state presetVation officers The culmination of the new thrust came in the late for that purpose.) The idea caught on quickly. In 1972. 19605 with passage of two revolutionary programs: the only six years after its institution. the register had 3.500 Demonstration and Metropolitan Development Ad: of entries. and ten years later it would have fifteen thou 1966 (Model Gties) and the Neighborhood Develop· sand.4I By 1980 all fifty states had established per ment Program of 1968. Both called for communities to manent preservation offices. U focus their resources in carefully selected neighbor One reason for the success of the program was the hoods. While the fitst rep~ted an important in dramatic increase in federal funding for these activities. novation in integrating social welfare activities with The Department of the Interior planning and survey physical planning. the second provided new operating allocations rose from 582.000 in 1969 to 52.2 million procedures, including annual funding and incremental three years later-a twenty-five-fold increase.·3 planning. The effects of both would finalize planners' The 1966 act also contained another crucial provision. acceptance of an approach employing short-range. less the so-called. "Section 106" review power. It gave this than-dtywide solutions emphasizing rehabilitative mandate: measures.39 This dramatic revision in planning meth odology offered a sharp contrast to procedures reliant ... [F}ederal agencies shall prior to the approval on long-term. comprehensive visions and massive of the expenditure of any federal funds or prior neighborhood clearance and redevelopment schemes. to the issuance of any license. .. take into account The new approach appealed to planners for a variety the effect of the undertaking on any district. site. of reasons. To some it was philosophically attractive building, structure or object that is included or because it included an appredation of neighborhood eligible for inclusion in the National Register." values. To others it was economically alluring because it offereda more cost..effective means ofdoing business. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. a pres Its overriding value was that it allowed practitioners to identially appointed board. was vested with a final re deal with urban problems in smaller units and to reap view power. Although the provision included no way immediate and visible results. to prevent the execution of such projects. it. like its While planners were enmeshed in their internal re· counterpart. the environmental impact statement man structuring. the preservationists continued to be active date of the National Environmental Protection Act, had in expanding their influence. By the mid-1960s they the power to delay or to open the questions to adju assumed an aggressive lobbying posture. partirularly dication after Advisory Council comment. in the federal arena. Amazingly alert to potential op While the preservationists were involved in those portunities, they forged new alliances and successfully activities. the planners' emphasis on rehabilitation con promoted their interests in transportation, environ tinued to gain momentum, reaching its logical conclu I mental. housing. and tax legislation. Their most im- sion in the multifaceted neighborhood movement of 202 APA JOURNAL - 46 - the seventies. In the process, federal urban policy would In that environment the planners and the preser be transformed from reliance on large-scale renewal vationists sealed their dose, yet uneasy, alliance. Seem projects heavily laced with new construction to locally ingly, the effort, labeled "neighborhood preservation" based community stabilization programs premised on by the former and "neighborhood conservation" by the conservation and rehabilitation. Occurring in less than latter, united. them. It was bolstered by more than two ten years, that transfonnation had several distinct steps. hundred federal programs offering direct financial aid First, the 1968 passage of the Neighborhood Devel and technical information. It was made legitimate by opment Program, while designed to promote efficiency the creation in 1976 of the National Historic Preser by allowing for annual funding of partially planned vation Fund, which authorized dramatically increased projects, had another, more important effect: favoring funding supported by Treasury income derived from rehabilitation. Second, new development formulas the lease of mineral rights on public lands. And it was such as the Federal Home Loan Bank Board's experi encouraged by influential indirect benefits contained in mental residential rehabilitation program, Neighbor the Tax Refonn Act of 1976, amended in 1978 and hood Housing Services Oater incorporated into HUD 1981, favoring rehabilitation of certified historic prop activities as the Neighborhood Preservation Program), erties. As the movement exploded, terms like "adaptive provided impetus by designing coordinated local self reuse," "area preservation," and "neighborhood revi conservation effortswith government programs in code talization" became common currency to planner and enforcement and capital facilities investment and pri preservationist alike. Article after article in the Journal vate-sedor, market-rate loans. Finally, the 1974 Hous of Housing Architectural Record and other publications ing and Community Development Act and its 1977 testified to the success of their joint endeavors. The amendments bolstered the neighborhood approach Victorian District (Savannah), Old Town (Baltimore), through several new or expanded devices. Its required Hoboken, Georgetown, Alexandria, Pioneer Square Housing Assistance Plan mandated citywide neigh (Seattle), Long Wharf (Boston), Galveston, Santa Fe, borhood quality evaluations and required the targeting and South Street Seaport became representative and ofspecific neighborhoods for improvement. Its funding desirable models of urban redevelopment.47 of community development grants, Section 8 housing In addition, educators of both fields began to seek assistance and Section 312 rehabilitation loans aimed ways of training their respective students in the joint to accomplish those ends. The creation of the Urban methods. Planners whose first degree programs dated Development Action Grant. which had neighborhood from the·1930s incorporated preservation materials into revitalization as one of its two objectives, in 1977, and their curriculums. At the University of lllinois, for ex the formulation of the Neighborhood Strategy Areas ample, the Department of Urban and Regional Planning program a year later more definitively linked the hous devoted its continuing professional education program ing rehabilitation and rental assistance programs to other in 1977 to historic preservation themes!! PreselVa concentrated local revitalization.t5 tionists, who had a much shorter educational history HUD's emphasis on conservation was in keeping with and far (ewer degree programs than their planning changing tastes. Disparate events of the mid-seventies counterparts, nonetheless instructed their students in the oil shortage, the Bicentennial celebratio~ the en many planning techniques. Arthur P. Ziegler's textbook vironmental movement-had made Americans more Historic Preservation in Inner City Areas informed them appreciative than ever of the richness of their natural about zoning. easements, and funding techniques, while and man-made resources. The well-crafted, well-located Columbia University professor James Marston Fitch's housing units of yesteryear fell into that category. Fur manual American Building taught students how to dis- 49 thermore, economic considerations-prices for used tinguish worthy architecture. • houses rose less than prices of new construction-also Finally, it was not unusual for planners to become played an important part as some prospective buyers deeply involved in preservation work, as did New Jersey purchased homes in previously negleded territories, practitioner Jack R. Stockvis. Before his 1981 appoint the bypassed older central city neighborhoods. This ment as deputy to HUD's assistant secretary for com trend, which by the end of the decade affected more munity planning and development, Stockvis was project than half the nation's cities, was quickly named. "urban manager of the Paterson (New Jersey) Great Falls His gentrification" because of the nature of its participants: toric District, administered from the city's Department young. well-educated, relatively affluent professionals. of Community Development. He had come to that po. While HUD supported. neighborhood conservation, it sition from Jersey City, where as executive director of also used UDAG funds to encourage downtown re the Jersey City Historic District he had helped initiate development incorporating historic properties. The the city's back-to-the-city brownstone movement, an highly publicized success of such projects, notably the effort that received national publicity.5o Faneuil Hall-Quincy Market scheme of developer James Yet all was not perfect in the alliance. Tom by dif Rouse, stimulated planners to employ federal funding ferent values set within their professions, planners and and tax relief techniques to encourage private-sector preservationists questioned the results. While both interest in this area of economic development. 46 groups agreed that the aesthetic and economic benefits SPRING 1984 '03 - 47 - of their output could be dramatic, they also had major Carter, in a last-ditch effort to balance the budget. had complaints. In some instances the planners decried the begun to chip away at their $55 million budget while 5 continued displacement of indigenous populations in· leaving HUD appropriations intact. ! Under the Reagan evitably outpriced in many improved neighborhoods; administration they faced an even more difficult situ in other cases, preservationists objected that emphasis ation. After a presidential request in 1980 for zero on economic development destroyed the authenticity funding, they successfully battled for $26 million for of restored sectors. Otherareas ofdisagreement centered the Historic Preservation Fund. In the three succeeding on costs, appropriate reuse, degree of preservation, al years, that scenario reappeared; yet the preservationists' location of federal funds, and selection of potential sites strenuous lobbying yielded a successful outcome and and clients.51 A typical dispute occ:urred. around the their funding stayed at the same level.56 Pikes Place Market project in Seattle, Washington. The As the two groups fought for survival, some of the focus ofa decade·long battle, it ultimately was restored. underlying differences between them became more ap but not before the topic became an issue in a citywide parent. The stance ofeach on a key Reagan urban policy, election.5z the enterprise zone, exemplifies the rift. While both Nonetheless. by the beginning or the eighties. an basically supported the effort, each also had reservations alliance had been forged. Each group had an effect on that, on examination, N!vealed. disregard ordeep-seated. the other. The preservationists had a greatly expanded distrust of the other's goals. The planners believed that vision of their functions. They had moved from the the enterprise zone proposals should be amended. to single-minded pursuit of limited objectives centered on enable their coordination with community block grant protection of specific monuments to conservation of districts, to eliminate the limit on the number of zones. whole neighborhoods-residential, commercial, and and to balance the amount of labor and capital-intensive even industrial. They shaped a systematic approach to businesses eligible for favorable tax treatment embodied their work incorporating the surveying, evaluation, dis in the legislation. They never addressed preservation 5 trieting. and zoning tools of the planner. They had issues in their comments. ] In the preservationists' fought successfully for participation in major federal judgment, the laws needed. substantial revision to pre programs ranging from community development to vent the loss of hard-fought conservation gains of the open space. And finally, they had developed a sub previous decade. While, like the planners, they pleaded stantial following, "'demonstrating their strong popular for unlimited designation of the zones, their rationale l base ofsupport. likewise, the planners had drawn ben was different. They feared that the small number of efits from the alliance. They made adaptive reuse, nar proposed area designations would foster such inter rower neighborhood projects, and conservation of ex municipal competition that cities would waive their isting community structures major goals of their work preservation laws in their rush to prove to the federal and carefully integrated them into their longer-range government that they merited. the award. Instead, the mission of creating comprehensive plans to direct urban preservationists called for strict and specific measures growth and development. Thus as the 19805 opened of protection, including a requirement that the z.ones the two groups worked together to promote common be surveyed to identify and register properties eligible goals. for the National Register." Despite the downturn, the legacy of their shared ac complishments left an important mark on the American Planning and preservation under the New landscape. Whole cities, districts, neighborhoods, and Federalism: The alliance survives individual buildings in hundreds of localities were pro tected and adapted. for modem use through the efforts With the advent of the Reagan administration and of these professionals. FurthermoN!. while the practice its limited vision of urban assistance, the alliance of planning has been enriched by the contributions of threatened. to crumble. When funds became scarce the the preservationists, the planners have added their own two groups devoted their time and energy to survival, techniques to conservation efforts.59 As suggested by not alliance-building. At this time, planners faced a New York Metropolitan APA chapter President George debacle as federal aid to cities declined by 12 percent. Raymond, planners have the unique evaluative skills much of which was subtracted from planning pro to aid incommunity preservation decisions.,.o That thesis grams.!J Allocations for community block grants and was borne out in August 1983, when Dean Maais, Section 8 housing were slashed.. ~awide planning director of the city planning department of San Fran assistance, the "701" program, and Section 312 reha cisco, unveiled a daring plan to direct the growth of bilitation loans were eliminated.. The Urban Develop the city's downtown. Central to the program were pro ment Block Grants, threatened with extinction, were visions for block-by·block protection of almost 500 his saved only after a furious fight, and even then funds torically significant buildings in five architectural con were reduced by one-third.54 The preservationists faced. servation districts. Thus the alliance, uneasy as it is, more substantial cuts. As early as 1979 President Jimmy has encouraged. a new vision of the desirable urban 204 APA JOURNAL - 48 - Conservation District Boundary I Retain Essentially Intact II Retain Allow Modification III Encourage Retention: Allow Replacement IV Encourage Retention o 1200, FEET Allow Replacement: Contributory Building Proposed C-3 District Boundary RMZ Fisure 2. Sixteen ye..rs aher the Pro"idence plan, the Downtown Plan for S.n francisco incorporated many ACres of consen..tion district in the centrill Are.. of the city, iln .urion that merited the ..ttention of the press throughout the country. - 49 - scene and is forging a permanent heritage for the nation. of California ~, 1969), 119-120,530; Eliubeth Mills Brown, Preservationists have played their part particularly in N~ Hallm: A Guide toArthileetuTt and Urban rksign (New ~ven. the aesthetic area by identifying and publicizing sig Conn.: Y&!e University Press, 1976), 1-19; U.S. Dep~ent of nificant buildings, neighborhoods, and cities. Planners Housing and Urb.1n Development, Urlu/" Rt"twal Noln (Wash ington: U.s. Government Printing Offi~. July-August 1966). have contributed their skills in providing legal and ad 16. Fred Powledge, Modtl City, A Tut of Amtriell" Ubtralism: Dlle ministrative conservation techniques and integrating the TMD"'s EIJarts to Rtbllild Itself (New York: Simon .lind Schuster. programs into general schemes directing urban devel 1970),69. opment. On the whole, their cooperative efforts have 11. M.lIlJ HOllUl\.lln, "Symbolic Belb in [)ixweU," ArchitUlllrll1 forum ~dirlg, yielded positive results. 125, 1 (1966): 54-59; A. "A City Thill5.J.vts," AmericlI" City 81 (1966): 94-95; Vincmt ScuDy, "The Threilt and Promise ofUrb.ln Rl!developmmtin New Hilven," Zodiac 17(1961): 171 Authors' note 15; "Whi.t Un Happen When a Whole City Gets Behind 01 FIX The authon wish to thlInk several ~Ie who aided them in de Up," HOllse IIl1d Home 20(1961): 150-54. A fewye.llJ'S later, Peter vMping this paper UId whos. helpful aiticism is most lppt"Kialed, Manis and Martin Rein would leU another side of the story, the esp«UIly Dennis E. G&.Ie and Carole Rifkind and the anonymous sodaI wotkKS view, in c;memmll5 of Sodlll Rtfomr: Prrotrry IIlld referees who read eil1lier dnfts. CAmmll"ityAClio" i" the Ullited Stll/el (New York: Atherton Press, 1969), 11-86, 173-76. 18. Anderson. The feder,,1 Bill/dour, 175. Notes 19. Don.ild Hagmin, Public P/"""I"8,,1td CA"trol of Urbllll IIl1d Lalld I, Wayne O. Attor, "Historic Pres.ervation," inllltrodllction to Urban DnJdopmellt (St. Paul, Minn.: Wesl Publishing Company, 1973). 1'1."lIi"g. ed. Anthony J. c.tanese and J.lIIMS C. Snyder (New 496.663. Yotk: M<.Craw-Hill, 1979), 297. 20. rnderid: Adams, John Howard. U\d Roland Grffi~, coosult.>nb. 2. Frank So et aI., The PrIIeticc ofWclll ~",mrnl P/lln"i"8 (Wash Gowmmtllt Center BostOIl (Boston: Boston Oly P~nning Board. ington: Internationill City Mlnagemenl Assodttion, 1979), 316 1959); Boston Redevelopment Authority, A Dt7wntow" for I'eoplt; 18,340; F. Stuart Ouopin, Jr" and Edwud J.IWsrr, Urba" La"d A Ctnerlll Pllln for the er"lrlll BlISinen District (Boston, 1960); Use PI.,,"i"g (l1Tbana: University 01 Il1inois Press, 1979). The Boston Society 01 Archil@cts,Bosloll Architecturt (Umbridg~: 3. 5.J.nford A. Youkills, interview with author, October 1981; You MIT Prr$s, 1971); Lawrmce B. Andenon, A Competilion to !kltel kllis, "Historic Prrservation Division. American PliInning Iu "11 Mehitu/ for the Ntw City H"II (Boston, 1960). tociation." Octobef 1980; YoukiIis, "Born-Again Preservationisb," 21, Mary Homman, Wooster Silllllre Design (New Haven, Conn.: New Plllnni"g 46, 10 (1980): 20-22- H.lVft\ Redenlopmmt Agency, 1965). 4. Stephen N, Dennis, ed., Directory of Alntriellll PrtseTvlJtion CAm 22. CON 2.6 APA lOURNAL 50 - AmmCllIIIMtitNt~ ~t Plwalism in PWuUng, h /ovmal of tM of Pf.nMTS Jarobs. HUD'sStdion 312 Proznrlll (WiI5hif1gton: U.S. 31. 4 (1965); 331-38. Printing Offi~, 1978); Donald B. ROStnthal, "Neighborhood 33. Anderson, Th~ F~dtr.1 8vl/dour. Sttitt~ Artas, HUD's New Initiative in Neighborhood Revi 34. Chester Rapkin. Tn~ St.wr Tqwnu-nd Utll.n Rtnrw.1 A,~.; An t.I..1iz.ation:' /Ollmlll of HOllsing 35, 3 (1978); 120-22. AlUiysiJ 01 tnt fcollomit. Fil,"d.L 'lid Commvllity FlICtotS Th.t 46. For disoasion of \hi$ point _ Dmnis E. G.ale, "Middle Oass Willlnflvnu:~tht Ftllsib,1ity of Rtsilkntill kMunll (Boston: Baston SfttJtmtr\t in Older Urban Neighborhoods," 10lltxlll of tht Allln'_ Rakvdopmetlt Authority, 1962); Clurles Amms. Tht NtgTO iclllI PJitlllling ABocUllion 45. 3 (1979): 293-304; Peter D. S.I.Iins. Hol/Sin! Problem: A Profr.m fOT Phjladt/pnill (PhiJlldelphia, 1966); 'The Umits of Genf:l'i.5ation." N9I Yori; "'/f.itS 5, 4 (1979); 3 Owles Abrams, Tht City Is tht Fnmtitr (New York: f-Wper and 12; Roy Brown, "Historic Preserviltion Promotes Profits. Wide Row, 1965). 315-17. spread Reluibilil.l.liOll:' /ollm.l of Housin! 37, 10 (1980): 513 35. Providence City Plan Commission, CoUtgt Hill: A DtmOMtT"tlon 17; Advbory Council on Historic Preserviltion, Th~ eo",triblltion Study of HistorU: Arta Rtlltw.l (Providence, R.I.: CoUege Hill PI'fSII, of Historic PrtU't'Vlllioll 10 Utb.", Rttlit.lization (Wa5hington: U.S. 1967). Govmunent Prinli1lg O~, 1979). 36. PAul J. MtCinley, HNewbwypor1 and iI New Kind of Urban 47. For txAlrlpie _ lAd H. Shiva-, "Norfolk HilS Succnsful EJI· Rmt-~" Old Timt Nnv Ellg/,"d 61, 4 (1971): 111-15; U.s. ptritnct with t.ooaJ Loans for Rehabilil.l.bon and COlUttViition." Deputmtnt of Housing and Urmn Ot-Ytlopmmt. "Prolile of I. JOllnud of H(llISing 31. 5 (1974): 223-25; Ron.akl A. RtaSO, "Prr5 aty. New BtdfonL" Hovs;'.g .nd Uri'.n Dtwlopllltl'lt NDtn trVillion of. Washington Neighborhood." 10","111 01 H(luillK 31. (Wl.5hington: U.s. Govunmtnt Printing Office, SqMtmbrM)c 9 (1974); 403-413; P.trick Gndy, "Tampa Includes Neighborhood lobe!" 1967): 1-10; "PrtSt'l'Vation of Historic Site of Wh.aling In Preservation in its Community Dev~lopment Progracn:'jol/ttllll dustry Goal of 314 Demonstration Grant:' JOl/mal 01 HOl/sj"'g of HOl/sillg 32, 5 (1975): 224-26; Carol D. Shall, "Historic Pres 22, 10 (1965): 545. ervation .nd Community Development,"jol/r7IlIl of HOl/sillg 33, 37. fat fwther W~tionwe HenryJ. AMon. SIIt//tt .IIlISIIMidits; 5 (1976): 230-33; Ann E. Petty, "Historic P~ationWilhout Who Bvufi/s fro'" F~dn'd H01I5illg Polirin! (W.uhington: The Rtloation. Savl.llJ\olh Rebuilds iI V"1Ctori.an DIstrict." /ollm"l of Brookinp Institute, 1972). HollSing 35, 8 (1978); 422-23. 38. Abn lKObs, AUkillg PI,"lilg Wort (OUClIgo: Amtrian Sr:JcXty 48. l..kh1.an F. BJm AI'Id John Quinn.~, H~uric Prtstr»atjqn, Sttting of Planning Officials. 1978), 120. Ltgisl./ioll IIlId Ttdll.iql/ts (U.w..n.a, ro.: BureilU of PWming Rt 39. Ernest R. AlewIder, "PlanningRoiesand Context:' in IntTOdl/dicm search, 1977). /0 Urb.n PI.lllling. ed. Catanese and Snyder, 121-22. 49. Arthur P. Ziegler, Hisloric Prtsnv.tiOIl In 11I1I~r City Art.s, A 40. Mulloy, Th~ History of tht NII/ion./ Tnul, 89-120. M.III/.1 of PrICtict (pittsburgh, Pa.: Obet Park AS50ciues, 1974); U. TM N.tioll./ ~/tr of Hisrork PllCn (Wasl\ington: u.s. Gov J~ Mars;ton Filch.AmmCllll Bllilding: Tht H~(lri",' ForetJ thlll erruntnt Printing Of6~, 1972); Robert L Monl.l.gue and Tony Sh.ptd It (New York: Sdlocken Books, 1973); ~er, Historic P. Wmm, Pllllllm, fOT Prt5C'tXltWn (OUClIgo: Amtricl.ll SocXty Pmtrwtilm: GlratDrillt Miztwgtmtnt of tM BI/ilt fmriloonJllt'llt (N of PWming Offil::Ws, 1964). York: McGraw-HilI. 1982). 42. Tl\l$t Hi$toric Prenviltion, Dinctory, i. Nationl..l fO!" 50. "Planner Appointed ill HUD:' APA Ntws 16.9 (1981): 3. 43. Mulloy, Tht H~ory of tht NlltWIIII/ Tnu/, 264. 51. 8an'y Checkowl.Y, "Preservation is I. Verb." in Historic Prtsn 44. Eighty-ninth Congress, Nlltion.1 Historic Prtu-t'Vlltion Act of 1966, v.tion, ed. Blair and Quinn, 9-16. Titl~ I, sec. 106 (Public law 89·665). 52. Laurie Olin. Brt.11I (III tht Mirror: Stllltll'S Skid ~.d Commllnity 45. FOI" iI fuller di5cu$sioll of these chMlges_ "NOP, Neighbothood (Stattle, 1972), 19. Ot-Yeloprntnt ProgrAm: New Approach to UrbMl Rtriew.l.l:' JOImfII/ of HOlism, 25. 11 (1968): 128-29; Jack Bryl.ll,. "NDP in 53. Abo, PI/Illnillg. Jallu&ry 1983. 7-8. Rt"Vitw,~ /(llImal of Hofl5ing 28, 2 (1971): 65-69; James Biddle, 54. "Battle fOl" the Budget:' Prt$tTl1ll/ion NnltS 21, 5 (1980); I, 4. "Historic PT'tstrviition.H /oumal of Housill! 28, 5 (1971): 219 55. ld.. 227; Nittion.l.l ~tk)fl of Housing and Rtdtveloprntnl Of 56. ''House Okays Funds: TI.X ~t5 F~ Litnits," Prtsnt!lItioll NaI! fidIb, "Myths and Rulitits of Urban Renewill," JOl/nud of HOl/Sillg 24,8 (August 1983); 2; "HouseObys 'Critical' List." Prtu-t'VaJio'" 30,4 (1973); 170-78; "Housing. A New 'HAP' Program:' /(lum./ Ntw5 25, tt (November 1983); 1. of Hovsillg 31, 8 (1974); 354-362; Robrrt W. Mitlfin. "Neigh· 57. "APA Testifies 011 Enterprist' Zones:' MA Ntws 16, 9 borhood Preservation and Conservation: The Issues, the Param (1981): 1, 3. ettr5.. the Options:' 101lm.1 of HollSing 32. 3 (1975): 120-21; 58. "Enterprise Zones Debates:' Prt5C'tXllion NtwS 23. 5 (1982): 5. Roger S. Ahlbnndt Jr. and Pilul C Brophy, -Ntighbothood 59. "A New Guid~ to Regu1iIting Old BWldings:' API. Nt1D5 18, Housing~"lovtxlllofHf1Ilsillg33.1(1976): 36-39; Sheryl 6/7 (1983): 3; Richard ~ PrrpIlring' His/uric PrtsmllltKm J. I..incotn. "Neighborhood Conservation AI'Id Housing. RehabiJ Ordillllllct (OUClIgo: API.. 1983). il.l.tion is the Hidden Dim~in 1977 Ltgblation:' 10vm.1 of 60. George Raymond. letter to the editor, Tht Ntw yort Tilllt5. 8 July HOI/5ing 34, 11 (1977): 558-563; Norman Gliclanan and SU5I.n 1983, 1, A15. SPRING 1984 207 .