Wallace's (Section III)

In this section of his book, the author examines the way of historic preservation development through the prism of various trends, organizations and the government/public involvement.
In presenting the development of historic preservation as a science and movement, as well, the author describes how, after the era, which was premised on the aristocratic (elite) view of the past, historic preservation attained public attention. First groups, which received their development at the end the nineteenth century and continued before the WWII, differed by their structure and approach. There were those, who advocated for “preserving of tangible remains,” by saving actual historic properties; those, who dreamt of the “golden days” of the power of their ancestors in certain old city centers (Charleston); there were, of course capitalists and entrepreneurs (Rockefeller’s Williamsburg). Finally, there were representatives of the art nouveaux with their ideas of “independent culture” (pp. 181-83). However, analyzes the author, although the involvement of the government, inserted certain funds into various projects, lots of property, especially in1960s, was subjected to a re-development and industrialization.
After that period, preservation approached a new era of “adaptive reuse”, which was looking for “recycling” of the old buildings that could be utilized for business/public usage (p. 189). It assisted to prevent destruction of historical objects and helped legalizing the system of preservation. But the appearance of a “new urban gentry” brought a class distinction; in pursuit for the tax break, wealthy buyers pushed away established communities and historical landmarks, as in the case of a legal battle over NYC Grand Central Station, for example.
But, as continues the author, the healthy pragmatism soon overcame the historical significance and now we see the cases of renovation old plants, offices and buildings (“facadism”). Partly, it happened because the reach corporations saw economical avenues in preserving the past rather than social. Displacement continues, but what does the author suggest? It appears that “historic preservation can survive without corporate backing” (p. 209) only in conjunction with populace activity and non-profit organizations. What should be added to this list are legal entities and scholarly professionals; I, however, second the author’s statements that the issues should be addressed with more resources and consider more adequate redistribution of commodities.
In the second part of this section, the author continues debates on “property vs. preservation” issue. Various acts were adopted, both pros and cons, when finally it came to the conclusion as to what to call “historic” (p. 231). Should it be a cultural diversity, or a rejuvenation of the minority sites or abandonment of old buildings in favor to the modern ones? The solution came with the idea of “economic revitalization of the cities”, which should assist poor and enrich the housing projects, hence the plans for improvement, rather than preservation. Finally, the environmentalists came along, thus producing an alliance with preservationists helping them in broader regulation of the land use and protection. And although the author questions on permanence of this alliance, which is widely diverse in goals, this is the way the author sees the future.

Point of interest: Florida’s Bureau of Historic Preservation “provides architectural technical assistance to the public on historic rehabilitation projects, provides architectural support for all Bureau programs (especially important in the review of grant applications), reviews applications for federal tax credits for the rehabilitation of historic properties, reviews applications for ad valorem tax relief projects in communities not qualified to review locally, and administers the Florida Main Street Program (downtown area).” http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/