Upon reading Antoinette J. Lee's article, "Historical Preservationists and Cultural Resources Managers: Preserving America's Historic Places," I could not help but chuckle when she briefly discussed government involvement in historic preservation. This is why: the following story appeared on WDTN, dealing with the transfer of the Patterson Homestead (where I currently intern) to Dayton History from the city of Dayton. The Homestead has been managed by Dayton History for years but it was donated to the city by the Patterson family and was therefore a city property-run. From my time there, I noticed this was a big problem; Dayton itself is a little too cash-strapped to really care for the home. Lee states that historic sites need to have compelling reasons for formal recognition that will hopefully translate into "modest levels of government protection and involvement...;" however, this government involvement and protection can prove a blessing and a curse. While protected in name, the physical structure of the site often falls victim to masses red tape. Government agencies hire contractors which have to go through a bidding process; this frequently proves a lengthy. Meanwhile, whatever repairs need to be done remain undone. Including chimneys, rather sizable branches pulled down in storms, and a long list of other maintenance-related tasks. In addition to this, the city of Dayton only has one painter that is allowed to work on any government-owned structure. The inefficiency of this was astounding! It took weeks to fix and paint a damaged wall (oh the joys of 200 year old homes and mold)... While I am unaware of the details concerning this transfer, the . In cases such as this, I really do feel it is better to have this site in the hands of a private organization. Does any one feel that in the case of historic structures, that private institutions can care for them better than public ones? Or is this a circumstantial case? (I allude to Karis' discussion of QUANGOs and Eltham Palace.)
On a different note, I can really relate to many of the elements she discusses in her article. I have learned a lot about the physical layout of Dayton from my internship. From a discussion on where "Slidertown" (a somewhat sketchy area of Dayton back in the day) may be located, to the path that Rubicon Creek followed before vanishing, to what buildings on the Patterson's farm stood roughly where. This might not seem terribly exciting to most people but having spent 3 years in the area, I greatly appreciated getting a sense of the what the area used to be like before BW3s, Ben and Jerry's, and Brown Street construction. I also gained some insight into the origins of familiar street names; I felt a greater sense of appreciation for the very noisy Cauldwell construction-- if only for learning a little about the family itself.
Lee's article discusses preservation historians and their work. I have found that I am an example of the type of reaction I can only assume that they wish to garner. It is easier to relate to a physical place than to an abstract imagining; the place is tangible, real, and if preserved and presented well, can transcend a sense of time (or history if you will).While "Historical Preservationists and Cultural Resources Managers: Preserving America's Historic Places" has quite a broad scope, I have managed to pull some items to which I can relate from the text. Certainly the Patterson Homestead has benefited from being associated with a very well-known Dayton family but I am certain other structures have not fared so well (such as Cincinnati's Albee Theater.)
No comments:
Post a Comment