An Athenæum
of Philadelphia Symposium
December 4 - 5, 1998
An Athenæum
of Philadelphia Symposium
December 4 - 5, 1998
In 1949, on the eve of the mid-century,
there was no national register of historic places, there were no state
historic preservation officers, there were only a handful of historic districts,
all locally designated. The National Trust for Historic Preservation had
just been created, to receive and hold historic properties for the benefit
of the public. In 1949, historic preservation was synonymous with House
Museums.
In 1999, on the eve of the millennium, there is a federal register of historic places listing more that a hundred thousand buildings. Every state has a historic preservation officer. There are hundreds of historic districts, designated at the federal, state and local levels. There are also designated heritage areas, cultural landscapes, industrial corridors, scenic rivers and scenic highways. What is recognized and designated as being of historic, architectural and cultural significance has expanded vastly; geometrically. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is 50 years old and focused on supporting this huge network of preservation initiatives and involving the American public in the activity of historic preservation. It has a collection of 20 historic properties, but they aren’t all houses and they are referred to as historic sites. In 1999, historic preservation is not synonymous with House Museums.
You may agree or disagree with this position. But from my perspective as an historic preservationist involved in the operation of house museums, I believe it to be true. Tonight, I’d like to spend some time explaining why I think this to be the case, why I think it is enormously wasteful, and how I think it needs to be addressed.
It is important to recognize that Historic Preservation in the United States, for all the progress that may have been made in the last thirty years, is still far from being embraced as an ethic by the American Public. The simplest measure of this is the level of membership in the National Trust , our country’s only national, private, non-profit Historic preservation organization. At approximately 280,000, the trusts membership represents roughly one tenth of one percent of our population of some 260 million. A discomforting comparison is the membership in the English National Trust, whose 2.5 million members constitute nearly five percent of England’s population of 55 million. Granted, the English National Trust’s mission embraces the preservation of open lands, which here in America is dealt with by separate land and conservation trusts, whose members, if counted, would increase the numbers just quoted considerably. But the fact remains that, if the interest in preserving historic buildings can be gauged by the number of Americans willing to commit $20 to the leading spokes-organization for that issue, there is much work to be done.
There are many reasons for this. The field of historic preservation is relatively new, and, because, as an endeavor, it is so often ignored, combated or defeated, its protagonists, we preservationists, are often militant and off-putting. Americans value their private property rights deeply, and remain resistant to regulatory efforts, which the preservation process necessarily entails. Americans are extraordinarily diverse, but what has been preserved in our country so far, is not. America’s built patrimony is not ancient, and significance, for many, is associated with great age, as in the venerable monuments of other, older cultures. Since we don’t have anything really old, then new is better, and new has become self-perpetuating. We have not, except perhaps in the south, in the Civil War, experienced the total loss of our built environment and felt firsthand the impact that had on our collective memory. And too, preservation has been advanced in this country primarily by a privileged intelligentsia, so many have deemed it elitist and not for them . A long list of reasons to deal with. With this in mind, let’s turn to house museums, and where they fit into the preservation picture.
Think of the taxonomy of buildings, with House Museums as the genus in the Kingdom of the Built Environment. The species would be mansion, row house or ranch house. But how would one characterize the descending levels of Phylum, Class, Order, and Family? Are House Museums Family, Historic Sites: Order preserved buildings?
Or are they family; Historic Sites, Order; Museums? While this is confusing to think about, it is useful because I think it reveals, when you wrestle with it, that House Museums are first and foremost houses - buildings - not museums. But I think the culture of House Museums has evolved from one which was rooted in preservation to one which is rooted in museum administration. This can be seen when one looks at the discipline as a whole or when one looks at the evolution of a single house museum, which is often initially saved by preservation minded individuals, but which, as it becomes more mature, evolves into a museum institution which somehow is separated from the preservation mainstream.
There is a fundamental irony here, because in the aforementioned order of preserved buildings, few are the focus of more attention, effort and love than House museums, or their order, Historic sites. And among the preserved buildings, historic sites are the only ones where the public is invited in to hear their story. The only places where there is one-on-one communication between people on the values of the preserved place. How incredibly counterproductive that there be a rift of any kind between the leadership of this royalty of historic buildings , the top of the food chain, these historic sites, and the rest of the preservation community.
For consider the qualities of these places, and their derivative potential to influence the American public to embrace the cause of the family of historic preservation. They share with all preserved buildings the quality of tangibility, no small asset in a field where convincing people of the value of preservation by abstract thought is almost always ineffective. Historic sites are real places, where you can hear about preservation and witness it at the same time. Historic sites have the power to demonstrate preservation, to educate the public in both its philosophy and practice.
Historic sites have the quality of authenticity. Better stated, they have the inherent quality of authenticity, if it isn’t destroyed. In an increasingly virtual world, Historic sites may be the best remaining places for the public to come to understand the value of the authentic versus the reproduction, the value of the original versus the recreation, the value of balancing preservation with new construction, of keeping a progression of our built heritage in our towns and cities rather than wiping the slate clean every generation. And historic sites have the quality of being able to inspire. Through their authenticity, their tangibility , and the stories of the people who lived and worked in them, historic sites can rivet the attention, fire the imagination , inspire people to think thoughts that would not occur in ordinary settings, open eyes and open minds.
Do historic sites and historic preservation need to regain their common ground? We shouldn't even have to ask the question.
If we accept that the primary goals of Historic preservation at this time are building the movement and engaging the public, the correlation of these goals with the aforementioned qualities of historic sites becomes pellucid. Especially in view of the statistics of visitation of historic sites in this time of burgeoning tourism.
A recent study on the impact of visitors to historic sites in the Hudson River Valley by Marist College, in Poughkeepsie, New York, is revealing. David Listokin, professor at the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University in New Jersey, found that “Baby boomers are interested in their cultural roots...they have greater interest than their parents in things historic and in preservation.” According to Travel Industry Associates of America, 45% of adults planning a leisure trip in l996 were planning to visit historic destinations, ranking fourth in interest behind particular cities, relatives and outdoor water recreation.
Among families, visitation to historic sites ranks second, after ocean beaches and ahead of cities, theme parks and lake resorts. Forty percent of families tend to stop at historic sites. The reasons for this include the lower average cost of visiting historic sites, the increase in family travel and the increasing interest in educational experiences along with leisure travel.
In the Hudson Valley specifically, the study found that between 1.5 and 2 million tourists visited its 50 historic sites in l996. They spent between 70 and 130 million dollars, with a total economic impact of twice that.
In terms of demographics, some of the statistics may sound more familiar. For example, half the visitors were over 50 years old. 62% of visitors earned above $50,000 and had college degrees. But in terms of the youth market, only 4% were less than 25, and teenagers didn’t even make the charts.
The most frequent means of learning about the site visited were word of mouth, friends and family, or a prior visit. Newspapers, travel guides and brochures seemed to reach only 10-15% of visitors each.
On one hand, this sounds like a bonanza. On the other, these statistics point out an important reality of house museums, which are the predominant type of historic sites, today. They point out that with regard to historic preservation, the mass public is at the point that the professional preservation community was at 50 years ago. They correlate historic preservation with house museums. Somewhat differently from 50 years ago, however, it appears that they think of house museums primarily as a form of recreation and tourism, with some underlayment, perhaps, of education. While preservationists themselves appear to be jumping onto the bandwagon of tourism in droves as a way of increasing the visibility of preservation, so far, at least, it appears that among buildings preserved, the public pays the lions share of its attention to house museums.
It’s also worth noting here that among museums, if we accept historic sites into that order for a moment, other studies indicate that historic sites and history museums trail far behind art museums in their attendance.
So where is the disconnect? It would seem to follow that if the need from historic preservation’s point of view is to engage the public, and the public is already visiting house museums in large numbers, then the public should be investing in the field through exposure to its most visible and accessible manifestation. But this must not be happening, for if it were, the millions of visitors to historic sites each year would be coming away inspired to support the preservation movement, and its problem of lack of public engagement wouldn’t exist. Why hasn’t the preservation movement been able to capture the potential of its main exhibit? And how are house museums, and historic sites in general, failing to make the link to historic preservation for their visitors?
From the historic preservation side, I believe this has to do with a feeling in the profession, which is not easy to get anyone to admit to, that house museums, while fun to visit, are somehow at least superficial, and perhaps, at worst, irrelevant. This feeling, which is largely misguided and based on fragments of the truth, stems from the following . House museums are perceived as looking back, rather than looking forward. And historic preservationists perceive themselves as looking forward, in the sense that their mission is to have preservation integrated into the planning process for the future. House museums are looked upon as exclusionary, so protective of their contents that they are unwelcoming of the public, especially children, who could damage them. Preservationists see themselves as all-inclusive, wanting to welcome anybody and everybody who will embrace the field. House museum staffs are perceived as being narrowly focused on their particular, and somewhat esoteric, subjects, therefore having neither the time nor the interest to become involved in broader preservation issues. For preservationists, the field is increasingly broad, involving huge swaths of the landscape, thousands of buildings at once. Where is the “bang for the buck”, they ask, of focusing on the individual site? House museum volunteers and guides-- the individuals who give the institutions their public face-- suffer from the stereotype of being old and dithery, which is especially ironic, given that in the mass public’s eye, preservation itself is the realm of the old lady in tennis shoes.
From the house museum side, the basic facts would include the following. With few exceptions, house museums are chronically under-funded, and must deal with the solomonic problem of dividing scarce resources between their dual missions of preservation and education.
Since dealing with the preservation of the artifact can be such an egregiously evident necessity, education often gets the short end of the financial support stick, resulting in less than cogent interpretations by either volunteer or underpaid guides. Guides who are themselves directed by volunteer, lay staff, because operating budgets cannot afford full-time, professionally trained employees. Guide training, is often rudimentary or non-existent altogether,.
Most house museums suffer from inadequate research, both documentary and physical, on which to base their interpretations and programming, which is consequently off the point and ridden with inaccuracies and errors. Buildings in shoddy condition, stories poorly told: But still, the public comes, and still, those inherent qualities somehow shine through.
What to do?
Looking forward, the answer lies in planning , preservation, training, partnerships the youth market and the dollars to do it all with.
House museums must acquire planning skills, for without them the intelligent expenditure of funds, however meager, cannot occur. Historic structure and landscape reports, furnishing plans, collections conservation plans, interpretive plans, and based on all of them, master plans, are essential planning documents that must be produced to create a vision and a path to achieve it. Without them, it is next to impossible to develop rational preservation plans or to assure that funds will be allocated for educational programming. Without strong educational programming, I would suggest, the use of an historic building as an historic site may not be the best choice.
Good programming, including the basic interpretive
tour, school programs, and written and visual educational materials and
publications, are not possible without sound in service training for staff
and guides, and that training must look beyond the historic site to include
the larger preservation picture into which it fits. We must also examine
the formal education of site administrators. The majority of them now emerge
from museum administration courses, which do not typically include curriculum
offerings in historic preservation. This being the case, they are left
to their own devices to perceive the relationship of historic sites to
historic preservation. Many clearly do not, so why, under their leadership,
would
their staffs?
Partnerships are crucial to link house museums to the broader preservation movement. Too many house museums operate in isolation , both from each other and from preservation activities in their communities. There is no doubt that the demands of operating a house museum are enormous, but time has got to be found to get out into the community. For many smaller house museums, even partnerships with other sites linked by proximity or themes can automatically expand their programming, involvement, and diversity.
And speaking of diversity , it is critical to rethink the kinds of houses that become house museums and ensure that more houses representing cultural and economic diversity are preserved and interpreted. If historic preservation is fundamentally about memory, it is always important to ask the question: Whose memory? Unless the composition of house museums is diversified, how can we hope to attract the broad audience who must in the end, embrace the ethic of preservation.
Perhaps the most important part of this broad audience will be the youth market. For all the current efforts we may be making, young people form a small percentage of house museum visitation. We need to remember that at the present time, there are house museums where children are not welcome, or, if tolerated, are not provided with any programming designed for them. It is essential to get past this. Ways must be found to increase the exposure of young people to house museums, on a regular and repeated bases as their formal education progresses and they are able to appreciate the ever more complex information that house museums offer.
The ability to accomplish all of this, of course, depends in large part on having the funds to pay for it. Most of these funds will come from private individuals, some lesser portion from foundations and corporations. Competition for these funds will become increasingly fierce. It stands to reason that smaller and weaker house museums will lose out. It therefore appears that it would behoove us in the profession to take a hard look at the house museums that are currently in operation and determine if the highest and best use for some of them might not be in another role; either returning them to residential use or adapting them for some compatible purpose while preserving their architectural integrity.
The question of whether we have reached a saturation point with house museums is frequently asked. If one asked that question about historic sites, my response would be: Certainly not. Historic sites are primarily local amenities, and this is a big country, with tremendous diversity and much history to be celebrated. So I think there must be room for many more historic sites than the six to eight thousand that currently exist. Understanding that most historic sites are houses, the question of whether there should be more house museums is more difficult to answer. In some areas, particularly in the east, there would appear to be more than their communities can sustain, at least at the level of operation where they can have a positive effect on the public.
Analyzing and vetting the situation of both house museums, and, more broadly, Historic sites, is clearly a pursuit that would be appropriate at this millennium moment. Tomorrow’s talks will examine in greater depth some of the issues I’ve touched on this evening.
My hope is that this symposium will be a catalyst for others around the country examining the subject and leading to the creation of a coherent plan for the positioning of house museums in our country’s preservation, education and museum infrastructures.
It’s time, after all, that house museums
were recognized by each of these professions for the precious community
resources they are for all Americans.