打印

作者

来源

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS,Vol.41,Issue3,P.407-409

语言

英文

关键字

作者单位

University at Albany

摘要

Washington, DC, is an unusual city to select as a case study. As specified in the U.S. Constitution, Washington, DC, is subject to the authority of Congress in “all cases whatsoever.” As a result, for most of its history, the city has been unable to govern itself in the same manner as other local governments. It wasn’t until Congress passed into law the District of Columbia Home Rule Act in 1973 that city residents achieved a degree of control over local governance. However, because the act treats DC’s budget like that of a federal agency, local control over the district’s finances has continued to be questioned by members of Congress who claim it is unconstitutional.Cameron Logan suggests that living in a city regarded as a national monument made it especially difficult for inhabitants to think of the city as their hometown. Historic preservation strongly resonated with city residents, he argues, because it represented a way they were able to exert greater control over their surroundings.The book describes a series of preservation efforts undertaken in various neighborhoods, the first of which was launched in the Georgetown section of the city before the outbreak of World War II. The primary aim of the effort, guided by the Georgetown Homeowners Committee, was to enhance property values of single-family row houses. The group urged that Washington’s 1920 zoning act be amended to lower the allowable heights of structures in residential sections of Georgetown and prohibit erecting apartment buildings, flats, and hotels in those areas. The progressive transformation of Georgetown that resulted served to convey the group’s message that “choosing to repair an old house rather than buy or build a new one might not just be wise from a financial perspective, but also confer cultural distinction and social prestige” (p. 8).Georgetown’s experience inspired other neighborhoods to similarly push for limiting the allowed density of development. By the 1950s and 1960s, Georgetown-inspired restoration activity was well advanced in the Capitol Hill neighborhood (often regarded as “the next Georgetown”) and other areas.Another strategy supporters of preservation learned from Georgetown, we are told, was to hold house and garden tours displaying the distinctive qualities and evident good taste of living in restored properties. Logan reports that “between the 1950s and 1970s house and garden tours became the most publicly visible aspect of organized restoration activity” (p. 52), and that such house and garden tours were “typically held during spring, when gardens were at their best and when the residential real estate market picked up” (p. 53).Supporters of preservation also discovered and increasingly relied on the establishment of historic districts, and over time succeeded in making a substantial proportion of the city subject to historic districts. The expansive geographic coverage of historic districts in Washington is dramatically communicated by a map on page xiv. Other areas of the city where there was little possibility of profiting from renovating private properties—and therefore little obvious prospect for in-migration of middle and upper-income, White restorationists—received little attention from preservationists.Logan identifies 1965 to 1985 as “the heroic period of conservation,” during which preserving and restoring run-down architecturally and historically distinctive residential structures was viewed as a virtuous, public-spirited activity. The image put forward by preservationists during those years was of “urban pioneers” reclaiming and restoring row-house neighborhoods through sweat equity and community spirit. However, with the passage of time “the runaway success of the restoration and preservation movement in market terms robbed it of its animating moral vision” (p. xxii).Neighborhood-based preservation groups in Washington apparently “operated almost entirely and separately on their own” (p. 172) and became increasingly assertive in pursuing their aims. The activities of the Dupont Circle Conservancy are described as amounting to “an effort to curate the physical environment around Dupont Circle and in other nearby neighborhoods” (p. 179).Logan contends that “The impact of historic preservation protections on land value … has not been discussed in U.S. urban historiography,” and repeatedly suggests that historic preservation significantly increased the cost of housing in Washington for disadvantaged, less privileged residents of the city. Given the emphasis he places on the issue, I was surprised by the absence of factual data pertaining to housing costs. Likewise, readers will search in vain for data on the changing socio-economic and racial composition of neighborhoods targeted by preservation initiatives (except for brief mention that hardly any African Americans any longer live in Georgetown).The omission of factual data does not appear accidental. Rather than rely on data to prove his case, it appears Logan’s primary aim is to historically reconstruct how historic preservation was viewed at various points in time by its most fervent supporters, and to convey as accurately as possible the rationales they put forward to justify historic preservation initiatives. Equally apparent is his emphasis on describing how historic preservation was received in neighborhoods which were the focus of preservation initiatives, as well as how it came to be perceived by those who did not benefit from such initiatives.Logan’s findings are primarily drawn from archival sources, most of them held in public collections in Washington, DC—a research approach ideally suited to the research aims stated above. He consciously decided not to base his research on “oral accounts or the memories of protagonists” so as “to capture the views and actions of Washingtonians as articulated in the period (p. xxiv).” He notes that present-day discussions of the impact of historic preservation on urban communities frequently evoke expressions of concern regarding preservation-inspired initiatives and regulations that contribute to “gentrification,” a term that did not come into common use until the 1970s.Historic Capital also includes a series of case studies focusing on various plans and projects that raised significant preservation-related issues. These case studies are particularly valuable in that they highlight how perceptions regarding the aims of preservation changed over time. The first case study describes the redevelopment of the Lafayette Square area across from the White House. The plan, developed in the early 1960s and reportedly approved by Jacqueline Kennedy, called for retaining and reusing 19th-century row houses and “stylistically disparate buildings,” and for inserting new structures that respected the established historic character of the area.A second case study describes a 1963 plan produced by an Advisory Committee appointed by President John Kennedy that focused on reshaping Pennsylvania Avenue, the country’s ceremonial boulevard. Among other things, the plan called for demolishing the Old Post Office Building. The threat provoked a loud public outcry, a campaign to save the Old Post Office was launched and the building was spared. The controversy invigorated the preservation movement and, according to Logan, led to the formation of Washington’s first city wide preservation advocacy group, which was called Don’t Tear It Down! (DTID!).The most instructive case study relates to the controversy generated by a development project (called Metropolitan Square) that led to the 1984 demolition of Washington’s oldest commercial building, Rhodes Tavern (ca. 1799–1801). Other buildings on the project site were the Keith-Albee Theater (1912), the Metropolitan Bank Building (1905–1907) and Old Ebbitt Grill (ca. 1890). Of the four, the threat to the Rhodes Tavern generated by far the greatest public opposition. However DITD!, the entity whose role was to protect the city’s historically significant places, decided Rhodes Tavern was of less importance than the Keith-Albee Theater—a decision that undermined its reputation among grassroots preservationists because of its “willingness to enter into deals with the property development industry” (p. 174). In the end, all four buildings fell to the wrecker’s ball.The Metropolitan Square controversy revealed deep divisions within the preservation movement. It also raised fundamental questions which Logan frames as follows. Is the primary objective of the preservation movement to preserve heritage or to protect and enhance the design quality of communities? Should buildings and places be valued primarily for their historical associations or more for their architectural and urbanistic qualities? Who should decide what is worthy of preservation?Historic Capital is meticulously researched. Descriptions of the backgrounds and social/economic affiliations of individuals who played key roles in advancing preservation objectives are especially illuminating, although the amount of detail provided at other points may exceed the interest of some readers. The book will likely be of greatest interest to architectural and social historians. It could also be used in relation to advanced courses in urban studies and geography.