![]() ![]() How diverse communities value and experience particular places and memories may not necessarily conform to expert norms or dominant worldviews, and the field of preservation is now recognizing the need for platforms and practices that allow for discursive decision-making and shared agency among a multiplicity of stakeholders. Beyond whose stories are told and whose are excluded, there is also mounting concern for how multiple publics actually participate in the political processes of preservation. 3 There is likewise an increasing awareness within the preservation field of the ways in which narratives are reinforced by spatial encounters with the past, and thus there is greater scrutiny of whose narratives are represented-or not-in the built environment. There is a growing body of knowledge examining the socially constructed nature of heritage, whereby multiple publics ascribe value to places and such values change over time. Scholarship over the past quarter century has challenged this passive concept of heritage by asserting that heritage does not possess some sort of inherent value, imbued by our forebears and later discerned by architectural historians, archaeologists, and other experts. Even the word “heritage,” defined as “something transmitted by or acquired from a predecessor,” suggests that the past, through such bequeathals, has a certain authority over how we in the present see ourselves. Its affirmative role in spatializing history is cast as one of stewardship, suggesting that decisions about what to preserve, what represents our diverse stories, are largely driven by the actions of those who came before. Yet all too often, preservation is characterized as a reaction-to change, to deterioration, to encroaching development, to impending loss, to forces beyond its control. The preservation enterprise helps fashion the physical contours of memory in public space, and thus has the power to curate a multidimensional and inclusive representation of societal values and narratives. Historic preservation, as a form of public policy, seeks to enable such spatial encounters through heritage designation and management. Landscape, as a representation of history, is “not only observed, read or understood,” it is “practiced.” 1 For those working in the realms of historic preservation, planning, and urban policy, there is as much to learn from the pathologies of this power as there is from its judicious use. No matter how much historical narratives are challenged or reinterpreted in prose or imagery, spatial encounters bear repeated witness to particular ideas of self and community that are profoundly experiential. The decisive use of space has power: it determines which publics and stories can stake a claim in the landscape and be encountered. Spatial encounters within the built environment have power the narratives such encounters represent shape our understanding of who we are and who we can be. This requires professionals and institutions to consider systemic policy change with integrity, sensitivity, and intentionality.īringing together a broad range of academics, historians, and practitioners, this second volume in the Issues in Preservation Policy series documents historic preservation’s progress toward inclusivity and explores further steps to be taken. Recognizing how preservation and other land use decisions can both empower and marginalize publics compels greater reflection on preservation’s past and future and collective action beyond the project level. Community engagement is increasingly being integrated into project-based preservation practice, but the policy toolbox has been slower to evolve. ![]() Increasingly, the field of preservation is being challenged to consider questions of social inclusion, of how multiple publics are-or are not-represented in heritage decision-making, geographies, and governance structures.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |