April 22, 2025 • 49 mins
A new perspective on preservation is the topic of our conversation with Erica Avrami on her groundbreaking book "Second Order Preservation." This episode challenges everything you thought you knew about historic preservation, pushing beyond the binary "listed or not listed" mentality that has dominated the field for decades.
What happens when we shift from seeing preservation as merely saving buildings to understanding it as a powerful tool for social justice and climate action? Avrami reveals how our current policies often privilege certain histories while inadvertently erasing others. She questions whether our designation systems truly serve the broader public and introduces a framework that considers who benefits—and who is burdened—by preservation decisions.
The conversation extends beyond theory to practical paths forward, examining how we might reform preservation policies to better serve communities. Rather than abandoning preservation altogether, Avrami calls for a more intentional approach that evaluates the long-term impacts of our decisions and considers preservation as the freedom to transfer heritage across generations.
Show Notes:
- Further Reading:
- To help support the show, pick up a copy of the book through our Amazon Affiliates page at https://amzn.to/3FZ92en or even better, get a copy through your local bookstore!
- To view the show transcripts, click on the episode at https://bookedonplanning.buzzsprout.com
Follow us on social media for more content related to each episode:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/booked-on-planning/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/BookedPlanning
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bookedonplanning
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bookedonplanning/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Stephanie Rouse (00:00):
RDG Planning and Design is a nationally
recognized multidisciplinaryfirm offering professional
services in architecture,landscape architecture, interior
design, lighting design,strategic planning, urban and
comprehensive planning anddesign, graphic design,
engineering and integrated andpublic art.
Diverse in knowledge andexperience, they are united in
their pursuit to create meaningtogether with their clients and
(00:21):
in their communities, and bytheir drive to live responsibly
and do it well.
Decades of dedication tosuccess have taken them around
the world and today theircommitment to communication and
technology allows them to engageclients anywhere, from their
offices in Colorado, iowa,missouri, nebraska and Wisconsin
.
You're listening to the Bookedon Planning podcast, a project
(00:53):
of the Nebraska chapter of theAmerican Planning Association.
In each episode, we dive intohow cities function by talking
with authors on housing,transportation and everything in
between.
Join us as we get Booked onPlanning.
Welcome back, bookworms, toanother episode of Booked on
(01:16):
Planning.
In this episode we talk withauthor Erika Avrami on her book
Second Order Preservation,social Justice and Climate
Action Through Heritage Policy.
I first heard Erica talk aboutthese concepts last summer when
she spoke as the keynote for theNational Alliance of
Preservation Commission's forumconference.
I immediately added her book toour list for this year's
(01:36):
reading.
Jennifer Hiatt (01:37):
And second order preservation really makes you
take a hard look at the policiessurrounding preservation and
why we do the things we do.
I thought Erica's point that wedon't really consider who is
burdened well enough was veryeye-opening.
I, at least, really only usedto start thinking about the
benefits of historicpreservation, but I never
thought about who was burdenedon the other side of that
(01:58):
preservation.
Stephanie Rouse (02:00):
Yeah, having worked in the field of
preservation for so many years,it felt like we were always just
fighting for relevance, letalone having time to consider
our larger societal impacts.
But the book offered a reallythought-provoking divergence
from the embedded approach inpreservation that you preserve
the building first and then allthe other benefits are going to
follow.
Jennifer Hiatt (02:19):
So let's get into our conversation with
author Erika Avrami onsecond-order preservation social
justice and climate actionthrough heritage policy.
Stephanie Rouse (02:30):
Erica, thank you for joining us on Booked on
Planning to talk about your book.
Second Order Preservation,Social Justice and Climate
Action Through Heritage Policy.
Second order thinking was a newconcept to me, First order
being a focus on objects, secondorder thinking more broadly
about impacts.
Can you talk about how secondorder applies to the field of
preservation?
Erica Avrami (02:51):
Absolutely.
It's really shorthand forthinking about the implications
of decisions and in the contextof historic preservation, we
have often looked at this act ofsaving something as primary and
all the other benefits ascoming as a result of that
(03:13):
primary act.
So we have a building.
We don't want it to be lost ortorn down, we save that building
through designation and thenall of the economic,
environmental and socialbenefits can ensue as a result
of that protection.
What second order preservationtries to get us thinking about
is some of those longer termintentions.
(03:35):
All of our laws aroundpreservation here in the United
States talk about things likeeconomic stability, economic
vitality, incentivizing tourism,ensuring civic welfare,
environmental benefits in somecases, and so we don't
necessarily take those metricsinto consideration when we're
(03:55):
making the decisions about whatto save or what not to save.
And what Second Order helps topromote, I hope, is
consideration of thoseimplications and how to really
better incorporate those longerterm intentions into decision
making.
Stephanie Rouse (04:13):
Yeah, so many of our designation criteria are
on the architecture, the socialhistory, whether there's
archaeological influences, andthey don't really get beyond
that.
Maybe our ordinances say thegoals of our preservation are to
do all of these other things,but we never designate any
buildings for those specificgoals.
We really limit it to what isthis building architecturally
(04:34):
doing for the preservation field?
Erica Avrami (04:36):
Absolutely, and so thinking about the implications
of those decisions is whattakes us to that broader set of
intentions.
Jennifer Hiatt (04:44):
And can you walk us through how we got the
historic preservation policieswe have in place now, those
first order thinking policies,and why do you think those
policies have seen so littlechange over the years?
Erica Avrami (04:56):
So I want to be fair to the field and emphasize
the fact that we do have adiverse toolbox.
There's regulation, there'stransfer property rights, there
are different types of taxincentives, different kinds of
ownership structures, and so wedo have a diverse toolbox.
But so many of those tools arecontingent upon this idea of
(05:20):
being on a list or beingdesignated.
And that concept, though it'sbeen around in governments,
particularly Europeangovernments, for a few hundred
years, it really has shaped theway we think about the work of
preservation under the rubric ofgovernment significantly in the
(05:42):
modern era, and so everythingthat we do is really about is it
on the list or is it not on thelist?
And I think that concept, thatvery binary concept of is it
worthy of being listed, notworthy of being listed, has
really shaped policy today andinvolved at the time of a lot of
(06:04):
our kind of modern legislation1960s, for example, when the
National Historic PreservationAct came into play, the New York
City Landmarks Law came intoplay.
There really were a number ofdifferent interests involved,
but a lot of those interestsrepresented architecture,
architectural history, and so itwas the idea of curating the
(06:25):
built environment.
Even James Marston Fitch, whotaught historic preservation at
Columbia, who I hold, aprofessorship that's in his name
.
He published a seminal text onthe curatorial management of the
built environment and that ideathat somehow architecture was
like objects, that we werelooking at through an aesthetic
(06:48):
lens, also a social history lens.
I think that really influencedthis thinking of the materiality
, the aesthetics and the way inwhich architecture is really a
designed object that has afunction but isn't considered as
much as a socially dynamicspace.
(07:09):
And I think you know thepolicies then that kind of idea.
Are you on the list?
Are you not on the list?
The before and afterphotographs, all of those kind
of emphasize the material, theaesthetic, et cetera.
Stephanie Rouse (07:21):
Yeah, I think the only incentive that we've
had, to my knowledge, that goesbeyond is it on the list or not
on the list and we've lost itsince then was the federal tax
credit for old buildings, notnecessarily designated buildings
.
It wasn't quite as much as ifyou were actually on the list,
but it was one incentive thathelped with preserving an older
building, not a listed building.
Erica Avrami (07:41):
Absolutely.
You raise an excellent point andthe loss of that 10% tax credit
for older buildings.
What many people don't realizeis that that emerged during the
oil crisis.
The tax incentives for what wecall today historic tax credits
actually started asrehabilitation tax credits, and
(08:04):
they were rationalized inCongress in debates about these
laws.
On issues of embodied energy,there was an oil embargo.
Gasoline was very high, andthere was more and more research
about both the operationalenergy required to use buildings
as well as the embodied energyrequired to construct new
(08:26):
buildings, and so the reuse ofexisting buildings, particularly
in city centers, was seen as away to conserve energy, and so
the federal government endorsedthese rehabilitation tax credits
with a tiered system, startingat 10%, just as you said, for
older buildings, and then goingup to 25% if the building was on
(08:48):
the National Register, and sothat really had a different
orientation to it.
But over time, the tax creditshave evolved and
preservationists have reallyfocused on preserving the ones
specifically for historicbuildings, and the loss of the
10% tax credit, I think, issomething that we really need to
(09:10):
reconsider, particularly in thecontext of a climate crisis.
Stephanie Rouse (09:14):
Yeah, and I thought it was interesting in
that section of the book whereyou're talking about all of this
, how the foundation for theembodied energy argument for
historic preservation was alittle bit not super thorough or
the study that it was based onwasn't all that well-researched,
and we've just taken that andrun with it.
And still today, I mean we talkabout the greenest building is
the one that's standing and weharken back to that image of the
(09:37):
building as a gas can.
That was done during that time.
But it really comes down to notnecessarily just an old
building is a better building,but are you upgrading that older
building and making it moreefficient and tightening up the
envelope?
Because just having an oldbuilding isn't the most
efficient after all.
Erica Avrami (09:54):
Right Research that is emerging now, when we
look at this from theperspective of carbon not simply
energy, but carbon that's beingemitted we see more and more
studies that demonstrate thatdeep retrofit of existing
buildings and historic buildingsactually are what make them
better performers from a carbonperspective, not simply saving
(10:18):
old buildings.
And that means significantchange for historic buildings in
some cases, and that's going tobe challenging.
A because energy codes exemptmost historic buildings, at
least buildings that are on oreligible for the National
Register.
And the new decarbonizationlaws that are coming online, or
(10:39):
the greenhouse gas laws some ofthem do exempt historic
buildings, some of them don'tlaws Some of them do exempt
historic building and some ofthem don't, and so that arena of
legislation is still emergingand it's kind of coming up
through municipalities andstates.
So it's something I'm trying totrack and look at to understand
its implications.
Jennifer Hiatt (10:59):
Yeah, last year we actually interviewed the
authors of the book the Power ofExisting Buildings and it was
such a great insight in how wecan still very much honor and
respect the history ofsignificant buildings, older
buildings, while bringing themup to code and making them more
efficient buildings in the endof the day.
It was a very good read.
Stephanie Rouse (11:20):
So our focus on place-based and individual
building designation rarelytakes into consideration the
impacts that we'd see beyondjust saving that one building.
So what does deconstructing anapproach like this look like?
Erica Avrami (11:34):
You know I raise some thoughts in the book.
I don't have solutions yet.
We're working on those and insome ways I think solutions have
to be flexible.
And in some ways I thinksolutions have to be flexible we
need to be consideringdifferences of place and what
some of those kind of guidancesare.
But I do think being much moreintentional about what
(11:57):
preservation is supposed toachieve is important in that
pursuit.
If we're really interested inensuring distributive justice
meaning the decision to preservesomething has benefited people
without overly burdening otherpeople then we need to be
devoting resources to going backand studying places after
they've been designated for awhile and really looking at what
(12:20):
are the long-term effects ofthis process, whether it's
economic, environmental, social.
I also think we need to be moreintentional about what
designation is supposed toachieve for a community or for a
society.
Again, the building is saved.
But some people may beadvocating for saving that
(12:42):
building because they see itseconomic potential for tourism
development.
Others may be seeing theprotection of that building
simply as a place that they cancontinue to walk by and its
preservation protects a streetwall or a certain view shed, and
they want to see that survivein perpetuity, and so people
(13:05):
have different expectations ofhow preservation is supposed to
perform and how those buildingsor that heritage is supposed to
perform, and I'd love to seemore debates about that at the
time something is listed ordesignated and that we come back
and revisit those intentions tosee if indeed they were
achieved or not achieved.
You know, one way of doing thatis temporary designations.
(13:28):
What if, generationally, we hadto review a designation every
20, 30 years?
Other countries, for example,have graded listings.
The UK has grade one, grade two, grade three listings, meaning
certain grades.
You can do a lot more work onit without as much scrutiny
around.
(13:48):
Is it exactly the same type ofwindow or are you using
appropriate materials versusother buildings where more care
should be taken around, whatchanges are made and how it can
affect the heritage values,original form, original
materials, etc.
So I do think that there are anumber of options out there.
(14:12):
It involves really having morepublic conversations at the time
of that designation is beingconsidered about how we want
heritage to perform for people.
Jennifer Hiatt (14:26):
And you make the point in the book that we've
landed on a fear and victimmodel.
Basically, we're very afraid oflosing a historic building,
we're afraid of losing thehistoric character when you
don't put in those exact samewindows and what you call the
enterprise approach topreservation.
So how should we think aboutmoving away from that fear and
victim model?
Erica Avrami (14:44):
as you started talking about talking to people
moving on, One of the thingsthat emerges in the heritage
literature is this idea thatheritage is not a renewable
resource.
So that underpins this ideathat if we lose it, we will
never get it back.
I argue that heritage isabsolutely a renewable resource.
(15:05):
We keep creating heritage everyday we have.
You know, our heritage listsare long.
There are more than a thousandWorld Heritage Sites.
There's the National Registerwhen you think about actual
individual properties has morethan a million on it.
So it's not that heritage is nota renewable resource, that
(15:26):
heritage is not a renewableresource.
And so I think we need tounpack that a little bit and
recognize that this fear of lossisn't always about it can't be
replaced or there aren't otheroptions.
And I think this ties prettydirectly to notions of
authenticity, this idea that ifwe lose it, it will no longer be
authentic, or if we change ittoo it, it will no longer be
authentic, or if we change ittoo much, it will no longer be
(15:46):
authentic.
And I think that authenticityis a really thorny concept that
we rely on and that it has manymore dimensions that we're
failing to recognize through ourdesignation criteria, and that,
ultimately, the opposite ofauthentic is not inauthentic,
but rather just indefinite.
(16:08):
Right, you know this idea thatauthentic is somewhat singular.
It's what we see or what wethink is original, for example,
but it's okay.
So much of our heritage is not,you know, has so many aspects of
it that are not original thatwe need to, I think, be a little
more open and accepting ofbuildings adapting over time for
(16:33):
environmental, social andeconomic reasons.
That's why they've survived,that's why these older buildings
are still here.
It's because they have beenadaptable over time.
And if we don't think aboutpreservation as ensuring that
capacity to transfer acrossgenerations and instead focus on
(16:53):
no, we just need to keep itexactly how it is, then we're
going to be in trouble, right?
We need to focus on thatintergenerational transfer and
that intergenerational transferof the freedom to identify
heritage, to create heritage, toadapt heritage, and not so much
about this notion that theseare objects that we have to
(17:16):
steward from one generation tothe next.
Jennifer Hiatt (17:20):
On the heritage and authenticity.
One of the examples you use inthe book is the reconstruction
of the quarters that thesoldiers were living in in the
winter that awful winter of theRevolutionary War versus the
slave houses at ThomasJefferson's Monticello One.
We were like, yes, we stillneed to see this representation.
We know that we have gooddocumentation that it would
(17:42):
probably kind of look like this,so we recreate it.
And then the slave houses werelike they don't exist anymore.
We don't have enoughinformation.
It was so fascinating to thinkthrough anybody's thought
process of why one is acceptableand should be seen and why the
other was not.
It was just crazy.
That's what kind of led me tothe question.
Erica Avrami (17:59):
Yeah, no, it's.
That example truly derives frommy childhood because I grew up
right near Jockey Hollow and theMarstown Historical Park, which
is the oldest historical parkin the United States.
Our parks up until that pointwere really focused on nature as
heritage.
And so the site of thatencampment during the
Revolutionary War, like thosesoldiers huts, we went to them
(18:22):
all the time, you know, as kids,as teenagers, like friends,
smoked their first cigarette inthose huts and you know all
sorts of things would happen inthose huts and so they were part
of this landscape that I was sofamiliar with.
And it wasn't until I got mucholder and I was looking at
histories of reconstruction andthen following the debates at
(18:44):
Monticello about whether or notit was okay or, quote unquote,
authentic to reconstruct thequarters of enslaved peoples on
an 18th century plantation right.
I mean what is less authentic?
Not having that spatialencounter with the enslavement
(19:04):
of peoples or having a structurethat is in some ways
representative but maybe notexactly how it was originally,
and we're okay with that in allof these national parks, with
these soldier hutreconstructions.
Stephanie Rouse (19:18):
So it is a fascinating comparison,
absolutely, and I'm so glad itresonated with you fascinating
comparison, absolutely, and I'mso glad it resonated with you
and you point out that whenwe're trying to diversify the
stories that we're telling, theheritage that we're representing
, that just adding more diversesites to the National Register
or our local landmark registersisn't fixing the issue in the
field of preservation.
(19:39):
What other steps should we betaking to move beyond this first
order approach that we've beenstuck in?
Erica Avrami (19:45):
Yeah, I don't in any way mean to say that so many
of the efforts that arehappening to diversify historic
registers and to enhance thediversity of designated
properties, I think there's somuch amazing work that's
happening from the local levelto the national level to do that
and I think it is necessaryamazing work that's happening
(20:05):
from the local level to thenational level to do that and I
think it is necessary.
But that is an additiveapproach.
We are doing more, adding moreto the rosters.
It doesn't necessarily changethe systemic issues, which are
what are the rules of the game?
What are the criteria?
How are the Secretary of theInterior standards functioning
in ways that work for or againstbroader representation of
(20:28):
stories in our landscape?
It's not getting at thedistributive justice question
either, meaning how does thisdesignation of an historic
district impact?
Some community membersadvantage them or disadvantage
them If you're in that NationalRegister District and you don't
have to comply with energy codes.
(20:48):
Others do if they're outsidethat National Register District.
Fema responds differently forowners of properties that are on
the National Register thanthose that are not, and so that
kind of distributive justicequestion and those procedural
justice questions are reallyembedded in the work of
government, the rules, thestandards, the designation
(21:10):
criteria, the regulatoryprocesses All of those things
are ways that we take decisionsthat need to be rethought and
reformed, essentially in orderto ensure that we're not always
trying to just add more, butrather we're changing the
(21:31):
fundamental issues that areunderpinning why we have so much
more representation of white,male wealthy histories in our
landscape, as opposed to thosehistories that represent women,
people of color, lgbtqcommunities, et cetera.
Stephanie Rouse (21:52):
I think this is happening more at the local
level.
There's some larger cities Ithink Denver is a good example
where their designation criteriahas grown significantly.
I think they have like seven,eight, nine criteria that goes
beyond just the building as anobject kind of designation
criteria, where they're tryingto expand properties that could
be designated and recognizingother histories.
Federal level, I think, is waybehind on this and it just takes
(22:15):
so much work to move anything.
I mean it took us forever toget the Secretary of Interior
standards updated, so I think itneeds to start there, but how
quickly.
Erica Avrami (22:25):
Yes, and I take your point.
There are, though, the idea ofhistoric context themes and
trying to develop, for example,national historic landmarks that
are more representative of theAmerican public.
There's good work that has beendone.
There really is good work thathas been done, but when we look
at how you change policy on theground, particularly in the
(22:49):
context of more significantregulation right the National
Register there's limitedregulatory effect by being on
the National Register.
If I owned a building, I couldget it listed on the National
Register and then tear it downthe next day, as long as I
wasn't using federal monies forthat demolition.
If it's locally designated nothen it incurs more regulatory
(23:13):
process, and that's in partbecause so much of our
regulation land use, zoning,property taxes all that happens
for the most part on thatmunicipal level.
That's where the regulation isin many ways most stringent for
preservation, at that locallevel where commissions are
reviewing additions or changesto historic buildings, petitions
(23:36):
for demolition and thedesignation process.
Jennifer Hiatt (23:40):
Stephanie actually brought our first
thematic district to the city ofLincoln, as opposed to just an
area like our Haymarket.
The thematic idea was localgrocery stores.
Lincoln used to be well knownfor all these little corner
grocery stores, and so is thiswhere we got the idea, stephanie
, to do thematic.
How did you come to that?
Stephanie Rouse (24:29):
no-transcript.
Get all of the corner storesscattered throughout all these
older neighborhoods, designatethem under a discontiguous
district and then that opensthem up for the special permit
to be able to do other usesbesides just a single family
(24:49):
home in some of these one or twostory commercial buildings.
Erica Avrami (24:53):
That's great.
Oh, that's fascinating.
And I mean and that's anexample where this isn't simply
about there is a famousarchitect who designed that
building, or there's aparticular event that happened
at that place, or it'srepresentative of a particular
style You're really looking atthe social spatial dynamics of
those places and the ways inwhich they have served
(25:16):
communities.
And even if they're not servingcommunities today, what you're
doing is trying to enable theirlongevity and adaptation and
that's the transfer acrossgenerations issue right.
And the way in which creativetools around planning and
preservation intersect and allowcommunities and governments to
(25:37):
advance.
This kind of work is fantasticand I absolutely applaud it.
And while I may talk a little alot about some of the
antiquated issues in ourpreservation toolbox, I still
think that there are so manycreative ways in which,
particularly at the local level,municipalities are finding
(26:00):
interesting ways of chartingpreservation pathways.
There are things like legacybusinesses function differently
in different municipalities anddifferent municipalities are
looking at intangible heritagein different ways.
So I think there is a lot ofcreativity and I have a lot of
hope that our municipal levelwill continue to demonstrate
(26:23):
that really forward-thinkingpolicy landscape and keeping in
the theme of Lincoln's history.
Jennifer Hiatt (26:29):
I guess Stephanie and I were actually
also just talking about tryingto put together a red light
district walking tour orsomething.
But it's very difficult to dosomething like that because a
lot of the buildings are nolonger there.
But this is what seemed to mean example of survivorship bias
Like that.
History still exists in Lincoln, whether the building is there
to put a sign on that says thisis part of our red light
(26:51):
district.
So how does survivorship biasimpact how we identify and lift
up certain heritages or diminishand sweep away others?
Erica Avrami (26:59):
That's a great example, thank you.
And that idea of survivorshipbias in the book is really about
the way in which, traditionally, preservationists have done
surveys.
Right, you walk a neighborhood,you do a windscreen survey in a
car to sort of identify whatsurvives in the landscape, and
all too often political forces,building codes, forms of
(27:22):
discrimination, have influencedhow and why some buildings
survive and others don't, or whysome neighborhoods survive and
others don't.
Everything from redlining tothe fact that many histories as
you said, that red lightdistrict, many LGBTQ histories,
the history of emancipation,right Underground railroad
(27:46):
histories, for example so manyof those places and activities
had to be furtive, they had tobe secretive because of the
potential illegality or violenceor societal pushback against
those activities could haveincurred if they were more
(28:07):
public, and so, as a consequence, there are not a lot of records
, right, we create this ideathat, well, preservation needs
to be built on documentation andwe need good archives.
And do we have any drawings?
Do we have any photographs?
Do we have anything writtendescribing this place and those
places very specifically?
Did not, you know, try to stayunder the radar?
(28:31):
And so when we create thesestandards and preservation and
say you must be able to showthis evidence or rationalize
this based on this kind ofdocumentation.
And that documentation doesn'texist, then those stories are
disadvantaged in the canon ofhistory as it's represented in
the built environment.
(28:51):
They will be more vulnerable todemolition, they will not be as
represented on heritage rostersand I think that that's really
problematic because it justcenters certain histories above
others.
And in order to tell thatfuller story, we need to be
thinking about the implicationsof all of these rules and all of
(29:15):
these standards in order to bemore inclusive.
Jennifer Hiatt (29:19):
The example in your book that made me think of
mine was the house I believemaybe in New York City that was
potentially an undergroundrailroad safe place, but it
couldn't get listed, partly fortwo reasons.
One, there wasn't enoughevidence overall to show it was
an underground railroad stop.
That was the point that itwouldn't stand out as an
(29:39):
underground railroad.
And then some of thearchitectural features had been
removed, and it was at thatpoint that I did kind of want to
throw your book.
I'm not gonna lie, I was justso mad.
Why would we?
Why that doesn't make any senseto me, right.
Erica Avrami (29:55):
But part of it is that everyone's trying to play
by those rules of the game,right, that everyone's trying to
do their due diligence in termsof adhering to designation
criteria, periods ofsignificance, understanding
designation criteria effectively, and I want to respect that.
But at the same time, this kindof work is trying to lay bare
(30:16):
as so many other people'sprojects and research is trying
to lay bare that the system, therules of the game, and how we
enforce them and how weinterpret them, is not serving
the general public.
And if we want to better serve,if we're thinking about
preservation as a form of publicpolicy, if we want to better
(30:38):
serve that broader public, thenwe need to be very
self-reflective and look at someof those effects.
Stephanie Rouse (30:47):
Well, I think one of the issues with why we're
so set on following the rules,having all these standards being
pretty strict about what wedesignate and what we don't
designate, is we've beenfighting for relevance as a
field that historic preservationmatters, and there's all these
campaigns and we kind of latchonto this idea of we have
economic benefits or thegreenest building benefits.
(31:08):
But you point out that theburdens of historic preservation
are sorely under-researched.
Erica Avrami (31:13):
So can you talk about some of the burdens that
we tend to overlook, that havingthis kind of very strict
approach and listed or notlisted has yeah, I mean, I think
we've actually touched upon anumber of them right, that
burden to produce evidence, evenif information and stories have
been passed down acrossgenerations.
Is there enough originalmaterial?
(31:35):
Is it representative of theperiod of significance?
That's a burden on certainpublics who have been
disadvantaged, who didn't havethe access to capital, for
example, to maintain a propertybecause of redlining and urban
renewal, etc.
And so that, in effect,disadvantages them right in the
(31:57):
preservation process, whereasthose who have the documentation
have all that original material, had access to capital in order
to maintain a place.
Over time, they are advantagedin the process.
I mentioned earlier the work ofFEMA right in post-disaster
situations.
We're looking at a new era ofsignificant change in the built
(32:22):
environment due to the increasein frequency and severity of
weather events flooding, fire,drought, so many things and
particularly, for example,flooding, whether it's coastal
flooding, inland flooding.
We're seeing this increase andthat means we need to be
considering okay, how are weeither retrofitting for floods
(32:46):
in place?
How are we thinking aboutrelocation, whether forced or
voluntary relocation?
Are we just going to keepbuilding in the same spots over
and over again, using federalmonies to help support disaster
recovery, or are we going toconsider other ways federal
monies to help support disasterrecovery or are we going to
(33:07):
consider other ways?
And when we consider other ways,let's say, I want to put a berm
around my house, elevate myhouse and put a berm around my
house that may protect me fromflooding.
It will make my neighbors morevulnerable to flooding because
the water still goes somewhere.
And the same thing for, forexample, coastal communities
that have the resources to builda seawall Great, but the
(33:27):
community next door, the waterwill go somewhere.
And so, you know, the way wethink about these things is
really compounded by the climatecrisis, and so we see efforts
afoot to try and preserve orprioritize historic districts or
historic sites in the processof flood adaptation or climate
(33:50):
adaptation, for example, and Ithink we need to be considering
what those implications are fornot just those property owners
and those properties themselves,but also for others.
And that's sort of what I meanabout the benefits and the
burdens.
Are we giving more assistanceto a community because it's
historic and therefore we wantto ensure that it is elevated,
(34:14):
but how has that now burdened anadjacent community that isn't
elevated and is now morevulnerable to flooding?
Jennifer Hiatt (34:22):
In the book you also talk about Ahmad Fakih
Al-Mandi's destruction ofcultural property in Timbuktu in
2012.
It's a very famous case thatwas.
We used a very punitivepunishment system, as he well
the group that he representedtechnically created a bunch of
destruction, but we are actuallystarting to see resurgence of
(34:43):
these types of attacks currently, as well as we see more, well
as we see more war coming intothe world again.
So how could we begin to thinkabout utilizing restorative
justice practices instead ofpunitive justice practices as we
think about historicpreservation and what that type
of destruction means?
Erica Avrami (35:01):
That's such an interesting case, in part
because that case helped todevelop the International
Criminal Court's policy oncultural heritage, and what we
see in the legal arena is moreand more consideration of
cultural heritage as a humanright, which is important right.
(35:21):
It's important to recognizethat this is a critical and
undeniable dimension of thehuman experience.
Again, though, like I kind ofpush on this question of it's
about the freedom to transferthat heritage across generations
, not necessarily to save aparticular object, and I think
the restorative justice questionreally forces us to consider
(35:46):
what that means.
In that case there were, youknow, some restorative justice
efforts, even though it was verypunitive, as you said.
And there's mixed results as aconsequence of that process in
terms of what communities feltthey got out of it right and
what they didn't.
And what was super interestingwas, while that process was
(36:07):
happening, while the chargeswere being developed and
prepared for trial, the placeswere actually reconstructed
through a community engagedprocess, which kind of goes back
to that question of is heritagerenewable, right, like it can
be reconstructed.
And so part of what I argue isthere are these restorative acts
, and restorative not simply inthe preservation form of
(36:29):
restoration is an act ofrestorative justice.
The recreation of those placesso that people can spatially
encounter those conditions Inthe same way we did that for the
(36:52):
soldiers' huts, is important.
It's a form of restorativejustice for those who have not
been represented in the historywe encounter in the built
environment.
Yet reconstruction is sort ofthe last option in preservation
decision making right.
Reconstruction is sort of seenas oh well, if you again, if you
have enough documentation, ifyou you know, if you can
(37:15):
demonstrate how it was before,we can do this, and if you're
really meticulous about how youdo it and try and do it as
authentically as possible.
And I think so much of therestorative justice endeavor is
about enabling people to claimspace in ways that allow a
transfer of heritage that maynot be about a particular object
(37:40):
anymore, in part because theobject may be lost or have been
transformed so dramatically orcompletely obliterated by a new
office building for example.
And so how we claim space indifferent ways around that loss
and recognize that history,still recognizing its ties to
geography and to place, I thinkare important in the restorative
(38:04):
justice dimensions of our work.
And again it goes back to thatquestion of the rules.
We need to rethink some ofthose rules.
We need to think aboutreconstruction very differently
if our intention is restorativejustice.
Stephanie Rouse (38:18):
Yeah, because even if you do reconstruct and
are able to come up with asolution, you still can't
designate it anymore, becauseit's almost impossible to get a
reconstructed building listed,so you'll never be able to put
it on a list and you'll neveraccess all the extra benefits of
being on that list.
Erica Avrami (38:37):
Right.
And we encounter a very similarissue with moving buildings
that you know, even a buildingthat's in a flood zone or in a
fire zone and there's aninterest in relocating it again,
if it's on the nationalregister, it will go off the
national register.
You would have to reapply andmake a new case for it to be on
the register.
So yeah, I mean those.
Again, it's the rules of thegame and we need to kind of
(38:58):
think about some of those rules.
In the book I use this verysimplistic analogy of playing
soccer and how, as kids, youmight have played soccer in the
street, in somebody's backyard,not had a net, et cetera.
But as you kind of go up in thehierarchy of competitive sports
, there are more rules and thereare more standards that you
(39:19):
have to abide by.
And the same goes forpreservation standards that you
have to abide by, and the samegoes for preservation Societies.
People preserve all the time.
But if we want to do thatwithin the construct of public
policy, you know, under therubric of government, and in
ways that allow for us to accessthe resources the taxpayer
resources for lack of a betterway of saying that then we have
(39:40):
to abide by certain rules way ofsaying that then we have to
abide by certain rules and thoserules need to be standardized
so that it's equitable, right.
Everyone wants to know what arethe rules so that they can
access it, so that they can playthe game.
And that's where we bump upagainst attention that the more
we standardize those rules, themore we risk exclusion and not
recognizing the very diversearena of heritage that we are
(40:05):
seeking to preserve and thesocial spatial relationships
associated with them.
It's really about thinking howthose rules can be made more
flexible, how they can bereformed, and I give a quick
example of all the differentways in which the rules of
soccer have changed over decades, you know, and we should be
able to change our rules.
(40:25):
It happens in public policy allthe time where we make changes,
but as preservationists,there's just going back to that
question of fear that you raisedearlier, jennifer, that I don't
know if I fully responded to,but that sense of loss.
Right, it's not just about thebuildings, it's about our status
quo, and that there's this fearthat if we change the rules or
(40:48):
try to change the rules, thewhole house will come tumbling
down.
And how do we make changesabout designation criteria or
standards of reconstruction orrestoration or rehabilitation
without potentially having theseuncertain ripple effects.
And I think part of what thebook argues for in this concept
(41:11):
of second order preservation iswe can't always anticipate all
of those ripple effects, but wecan anticipate some of them.
You know, there are differentscenarios that we can play out
and consider and we can alsothink about this incrementally.
And I don't think anyoneanticipated, for example, when
they sought in the 1970s anexemption from energy
(41:32):
performance codes, all thesearguments about how modern
buildings were like the worstperformers, and that's the
reason why only historicbuildings should be exempt.
And now all of thosemid-century modern buildings are
being designated.
So you know again, it doesn'ttake a lot to bring a little
more forethought into our policymaking.
(41:54):
That example always makes mechuckle.
Did we just never think that amodern building might be
designated?
Did we just think that the onlyhistoric buildings that would
ever be on a list are, you know,quaint little homes and
palatial mansions and churchesand things like that?
Maybe, but I think there'senough intellectual curiosity
within our field to be able toanticipate some of these things
(42:17):
and seek avenues of policyreform that really would be
beneficial in the long term.
So, to follow that up, whoshould be leading the policy
reform and changing the rules?
I think you know, honestly, itneeds to be a coalition right.
It needs to be involvinggovernment, it needs to involve
(42:37):
universities.
I mean, we have now what wedidn't have in the 1960s, when
we saw a lot of this legislationcoming on board.
We had one historicpreservation program at Columbia
.
Now we have a number ofhistoric preservation programs.
We have more research that'semerging.
We have the capacity to do morepolicy research have a
(42:58):
significant role to play intrying to undertake some of that
work and get it to happen.
I think governments need to bemore accountable to this idea
that all we do is keepdesignating and regulating the
things that are designated andnot evaluating the effects or
implications of the things thatwe have already designated on
(43:19):
people as well as places.
I think that's a dimension ofgovernment accountability that
needs to be reckoned with.
Places I think that's adimension of government
accountability that needs to bereckoned with.
And I do think that the thirdsector, the not-for-profit and
philanthropic world, has a roleto play in that as well.
They tend to have moreflexibility, which is great, but
at the same time, when we'relooking at systemic issues right
(43:40):
how to change the rules of thegame what we're really talking
about is public policy, thosepolicy tools that government and
government institutions arecreating and enforcing.
And not-for-profitorganizations and philanthropic
organizations can be creative,they can do experimental work at
various sites, they can helpfund research, they can really
(44:03):
kind of spur some of that, butthey're not the ones doing the
regulating, if that makes sense.
So I do think that publicpolicy doesn't change without
government being part of it, andso that's why I do think it's
going to take a coalition anddifferent kinds of entities have
different strengths.
You mentioned some of theseadvocacy positions that have
(44:26):
been taken by not-for-profitorganizations over the years
about the greenest building andeconomic benefits of historic
preservation.
Often those are coming out ofnot-for-profit organizations
that are trying to perpetuatethe status quo and trying to
raise money and trying to defendour current position, and it
isn't always looking at it froma cost benefit analysis.
(44:48):
Those kinds of organizationscan't always afford to be
critical and talk about thedimensions of a case study or of
a policy that are notfunctioning well, because it
might actually make preservationnot look as good and therefore
influence their fundraisingcapacity.
So I think we need to be honestand open about what
(45:11):
not-for-profits can do when itcomes to policy reform.
While there are somefoundations and philanthropic
organizations that are gettingbehind this notion and, I hope,
hopefully more we need to alsorecognize the limitations of
some of our key partners.
They need to still be partners,but they may not be able to
lead the charge on policy reform.
Jennifer Hiatt (45:32):
I will admit even after reading the book.
But until this conversation,stephanie is the historic
preservation planner.
I am not.
I do have a history degree, Ilove history, but I am not a
preservationist overall.
So it seems to me from anoutsider's perspective that it
was going to be the nonprofitsthat would step in and maybe
lead the next bit of charge forchange and policy adherence.
(45:54):
But I feel like you havechanged my mind in this last bit
of conversation there.
Erica Avrami (46:00):
I think they have an important role to play and
certainly organizations like theNational Trust and other you
know more local organizationshave done really important work.
I mean the National Trust.
They've been continuing to lookat that question of
preservation and existingbuildings and carbon, for
example, and they weresupportive of the care tool, the
development of the care tool,for example.
(46:21):
So it's not to say that theycan't do really good work, but I
feel like we need to recognizethat there's the need for
coalition exists, becauseeveryone's coming with different
strengths and constraints andthat understanding those
differences and being clearabout those differences and not
sort of saying, well, you're thepremier preservation
(46:41):
organization, you should beleading this charge.
I don't think that that gets usto the place we need to be.
Jennifer Hiatt (46:48):
As a person who works in government and believes
in government, I'm really gladto hear that government will
still have a solid role to playin preservation for years to
come.
Erica Avrami (46:56):
That is my hope.
I believe in publicinstitutions I really do and I
believe that that can be done inways that doesn't simply bloat
or turn government institutionsinto bigger entities.
I do think that, again, beingcreative about our policy tools
and how we empower communitiesin different ways to serve as
(47:18):
partners and co-producers ofheritage is critical to that.
Stephanie Rouse (47:25):
And always our last question, as this is booked
on planning in addition to yourbook, which we recommend
everyone get a copy of, whatbooks would you recommend our
readers check out?
Erica Avrami (47:32):
So a book that I recently read that was written
by a colleague preservationplanner is Stephanie Ryberg
Webster's Preserving theVanishing City, where she talks
about the very complicatedhistory of Cleveland and the
efforts of preservation and howthat intersects with politics
and race and all sorts of things.
So I think that that's a reallyimportant way of understanding
(47:55):
locality and the very differentfactors that come into play in
questions of preservation.
And then my book and I evenmake an apology, sort of towards
the end of the book, that Itreat aesthetics somewhat
harshly in the context of thevolume because I'm really
looking at that social spatialrelationship, not at the object.
But one of the books that hasbrought me great joy in the last
(48:18):
year is the book on the Garrickby John Vinci, reconstructing
the Garrick, which was a LouisKahn building that was
demolished in Chicago, and thevery creative and interesting
ways in which activists cametogether to try and document and
salvage parts of that building.
And I think that it's sodemonstrative of the very
(48:40):
creative ways in whichpreservation can manifest.
Stephanie Rouse (48:44):
Two great books to add to, for sure, my list.
I'm a big, big reader anyways,but I'm always looking for other
preservation books too.
Erica, thank you so much forjoining us to talk about your
book.
Second Order Preservation,social Justice and Climate
Action Through Heritage Policy.
Erica Avrami (48:59):
Thank you both for having me.
It's been an honor and apleasure policy.
Jennifer Hiatt (49:05):
Thank you both for having me.
It's been an honor and apleasure.
We hope you enjoyed thisconversation with author Erica
Avrami on her book Second OrderPreservation, Social Justice and
Climate Action Through HeritagePolicy.
You can get your own copythrough the publisher at the
University of Minnesota Press orclick the link in the show
notes to take you directly toour affiliate page.
Remember to subscribe to theshow wherever you listen to
podcasts, and please rate,review and share the show.
Thank you for listening andwe'll talk to you next time on
(49:27):
Booked on Planning.
Thank you.
RDG Planning and Design is a nationally
recognized multidisciplinaryfirm offering professional
services in architecture,landscape architecture, interior
design, lighting design,strategic planning, urban and
comprehensive planning anddesign, graphic design,
engineering and integrated andpublic art.
Diverse in knowledge andexperience, they are united in
their pursuit to create meaningtogether with their clients and
(00:21):
in their communities, and bytheir drive to live responsibly
and do it well.
Decades of dedication tosuccess have taken them around
the world and today theircommitment to communication and
technology allows them to engageclients anywhere, from their
offices in Colorado, iowa,missouri, nebraska and Wisconsin
.
You're listening to the Bookedon Planning podcast, a project
(00:53):
of the Nebraska chapter of theAmerican Planning Association.
In each episode, we dive intohow cities function by talking
with authors on housing,transportation and everything in
between.
Join us as we get Booked onPlanning.
Welcome back, bookworms, toanother episode of Booked on
(01:16):
Planning.
In this episode we talk withauthor Erika Avrami on her book
Second Order Preservation,social Justice and Climate
Action Through Heritage Policy.
I first heard Erica talk aboutthese concepts last summer when
she spoke as the keynote for theNational Alliance of
Preservation Commission's forumconference.
I immediately added her book toour list for this year's
(01:36):
reading.
Jennifer Hiatt (01:37):
And second order preservation really makes you
take a hard look at the policiessurrounding preservation and
why we do the things we do.
I thought Erica's point that wedon't really consider who is
burdened well enough was veryeye-opening.
I, at least, really only usedto start thinking about the
benefits of historicpreservation, but I never
thought about who was burdenedon the other side of that
(01:58):
preservation.
Stephanie Rouse (02:00):
Yeah, having worked in the field of
preservation for so many years,it felt like we were always just
fighting for relevance, letalone having time to consider
our larger societal impacts.
But the book offered a reallythought-provoking divergence
from the embedded approach inpreservation that you preserve
the building first and then allthe other benefits are going to
follow.
Jennifer Hiatt (02:19):
So let's get into our conversation with
author Erika Avrami onsecond-order preservation social
justice and climate actionthrough heritage policy.
Stephanie Rouse (02:30):
Erica, thank you for joining us on Booked on
Planning to talk about your book.
Second Order Preservation,Social Justice and Climate
Action Through Heritage Policy.
Second order thinking was a newconcept to me, First order
being a focus on objects, secondorder thinking more broadly
about impacts.
Can you talk about how secondorder applies to the field of
preservation?
Erica Avrami (02:51):
Absolutely.
It's really shorthand forthinking about the implications
of decisions and in the contextof historic preservation, we
have often looked at this act ofsaving something as primary and
all the other benefits ascoming as a result of that
(03:13):
primary act.
So we have a building.
We don't want it to be lost ortorn down, we save that building
through designation and thenall of the economic,
environmental and socialbenefits can ensue as a result
of that protection.
What second order preservationtries to get us thinking about
is some of those longer termintentions.
(03:35):
All of our laws aroundpreservation here in the United
States talk about things likeeconomic stability, economic
vitality, incentivizing tourism,ensuring civic welfare,
environmental benefits in somecases, and so we don't
necessarily take those metricsinto consideration when we're
(03:55):
making the decisions about whatto save or what not to save.
And what Second Order helps topromote, I hope, is
consideration of thoseimplications and how to really
better incorporate those longerterm intentions into decision
making.
Stephanie Rouse (04:13):
Yeah, so many of our designation criteria are
on the architecture, the socialhistory, whether there's
archaeological influences, andthey don't really get beyond
that.
Maybe our ordinances say thegoals of our preservation are to
do all of these other things,but we never designate any
buildings for those specificgoals.
We really limit it to what isthis building architecturally
(04:34):
doing for the preservation field?
Erica Avrami (04:36):
Absolutely, and so thinking about the implications
of those decisions is whattakes us to that broader set of
intentions.
Jennifer Hiatt (04:44):
And can you walk us through how we got the
historic preservation policieswe have in place now, those
first order thinking policies,and why do you think those
policies have seen so littlechange over the years?
Erica Avrami (04:56):
So I want to be fair to the field and emphasize
the fact that we do have adiverse toolbox.
There's regulation, there'stransfer property rights, there
are different types of taxincentives, different kinds of
ownership structures, and so wedo have a diverse toolbox.
But so many of those tools arecontingent upon this idea of
(05:20):
being on a list or beingdesignated.
And that concept, though it'sbeen around in governments,
particularly Europeangovernments, for a few hundred
years, it really has shaped theway we think about the work of
preservation under the rubric ofgovernment significantly in the
(05:42):
modern era, and so everythingthat we do is really about is it
on the list or is it not on thelist?
And I think that concept, thatvery binary concept of is it
worthy of being listed, notworthy of being listed, has
really shaped policy today andinvolved at the time of a lot of
(06:04):
our kind of modern legislation1960s, for example, when the
National Historic PreservationAct came into play, the New York
City Landmarks Law came intoplay.
There really were a number ofdifferent interests involved,
but a lot of those interestsrepresented architecture,
architectural history, and so itwas the idea of curating the
(06:25):
built environment.
Even James Marston Fitch, whotaught historic preservation at
Columbia, who I hold, aprofessorship that's in his name
.
He published a seminal text onthe curatorial management of the
built environment and that ideathat somehow architecture was
like objects, that we werelooking at through an aesthetic
(06:48):
lens, also a social history lens.
I think that really influencedthis thinking of the materiality
, the aesthetics and the way inwhich architecture is really a
designed object that has afunction but isn't considered as
much as a socially dynamicspace.
(07:09):
And I think you know thepolicies then that kind of idea.
Are you on the list?
Are you not on the list?
The before and afterphotographs, all of those kind
of emphasize the material, theaesthetic, et cetera.
Stephanie Rouse (07:21):
Yeah, I think the only incentive that we've
had, to my knowledge, that goesbeyond is it on the list or not
on the list and we've lost itsince then was the federal tax
credit for old buildings, notnecessarily designated buildings
.
It wasn't quite as much as ifyou were actually on the list,
but it was one incentive thathelped with preserving an older
building, not a listed building.
Erica Avrami (07:41):
Absolutely.
You raise an excellent point andthe loss of that 10% tax credit
for older buildings.
What many people don't realizeis that that emerged during the
oil crisis.
The tax incentives for what wecall today historic tax credits
actually started asrehabilitation tax credits, and
(08:04):
they were rationalized inCongress in debates about these
laws.
On issues of embodied energy,there was an oil embargo.
Gasoline was very high, andthere was more and more research
about both the operationalenergy required to use buildings
as well as the embodied energyrequired to construct new
(08:26):
buildings, and so the reuse ofexisting buildings, particularly
in city centers, was seen as away to conserve energy, and so
the federal government endorsedthese rehabilitation tax credits
with a tiered system, startingat 10%, just as you said, for
older buildings, and then goingup to 25% if the building was on
(08:48):
the National Register, and sothat really had a different
orientation to it.
But over time, the tax creditshave evolved and
preservationists have reallyfocused on preserving the ones
specifically for historicbuildings, and the loss of the
10% tax credit, I think, issomething that we really need to
(09:10):
reconsider, particularly in thecontext of a climate crisis.
Stephanie Rouse (09:14):
Yeah, and I thought it was interesting in
that section of the book whereyou're talking about all of this
, how the foundation for theembodied energy argument for
historic preservation was alittle bit not super thorough or
the study that it was based onwasn't all that well-researched,
and we've just taken that andrun with it.
And still today, I mean we talkabout the greenest building is
the one that's standing and weharken back to that image of the
(09:37):
building as a gas can.
That was done during that time.
But it really comes down to notnecessarily just an old
building is a better building,but are you upgrading that older
building and making it moreefficient and tightening up the
envelope?
Because just having an oldbuilding isn't the most
efficient after all.
Erica Avrami (09:54):
Right Research that is emerging now, when we
look at this from theperspective of carbon not simply
energy, but carbon that's beingemitted we see more and more
studies that demonstrate thatdeep retrofit of existing
buildings and historic buildingsactually are what make them
better performers from a carbonperspective, not simply saving
(10:18):
old buildings.
And that means significantchange for historic buildings in
some cases, and that's going tobe challenging.
A because energy codes exemptmost historic buildings, at
least buildings that are on oreligible for the National
Register.
And the new decarbonizationlaws that are coming online, or
(10:39):
the greenhouse gas laws some ofthem do exempt historic
buildings, some of them don'tlaws Some of them do exempt
historic building and some ofthem don't, and so that arena of
legislation is still emergingand it's kind of coming up
through municipalities andstates.
So it's something I'm trying totrack and look at to understand
its implications.
Jennifer Hiatt (10:59):
Yeah, last year we actually interviewed the
authors of the book the Power ofExisting Buildings and it was
such a great insight in how wecan still very much honor and
respect the history ofsignificant buildings, older
buildings, while bringing themup to code and making them more
efficient buildings in the endof the day.
It was a very good read.
Stephanie Rouse (11:20):
So our focus on place-based and individual
building designation rarelytakes into consideration the
impacts that we'd see beyondjust saving that one building.
So what does deconstructing anapproach like this look like?
Erica Avrami (11:34):
You know I raise some thoughts in the book.
I don't have solutions yet.
We're working on those and insome ways I think solutions have
to be flexible.
And in some ways I thinksolutions have to be flexible we
need to be consideringdifferences of place and what
some of those kind of guidancesare.
But I do think being much moreintentional about what
(11:57):
preservation is supposed toachieve is important in that
pursuit.
If we're really interested inensuring distributive justice
meaning the decision to preservesomething has benefited people
without overly burdening otherpeople then we need to be
devoting resources to going backand studying places after
they've been designated for awhile and really looking at what
(12:20):
are the long-term effects ofthis process, whether it's
economic, environmental, social.
I also think we need to be moreintentional about what
designation is supposed toachieve for a community or for a
society.
Again, the building is saved.
But some people may beadvocating for saving that
(12:42):
building because they see itseconomic potential for tourism
development.
Others may be seeing theprotection of that building
simply as a place that they cancontinue to walk by and its
preservation protects a streetwall or a certain view shed, and
they want to see that survivein perpetuity, and so people
(13:05):
have different expectations ofhow preservation is supposed to
perform and how those buildingsor that heritage is supposed to
perform, and I'd love to seemore debates about that at the
time something is listed ordesignated and that we come back
and revisit those intentions tosee if indeed they were
achieved or not achieved.
You know, one way of doing thatis temporary designations.
(13:28):
What if, generationally, we hadto review a designation every
20, 30 years?
Other countries, for example,have graded listings.
The UK has grade one, grade two, grade three listings, meaning
certain grades.
You can do a lot more work onit without as much scrutiny
around.
(13:48):
Is it exactly the same type ofwindow or are you using
appropriate materials versusother buildings where more care
should be taken around, whatchanges are made and how it can
affect the heritage values,original form, original
materials, etc.
So I do think that there are anumber of options out there.
(14:12):
It involves really having morepublic conversations at the time
of that designation is beingconsidered about how we want
heritage to perform for people.
Jennifer Hiatt (14:26):
And you make the point in the book that we've
landed on a fear and victimmodel.
Basically, we're very afraid oflosing a historic building,
we're afraid of losing thehistoric character when you
don't put in those exact samewindows and what you call the
enterprise approach topreservation.
So how should we think aboutmoving away from that fear and
victim model?
Erica Avrami (14:44):
as you started talking about talking to people
moving on, One of the thingsthat emerges in the heritage
literature is this idea thatheritage is not a renewable
resource.
So that underpins this ideathat if we lose it, we will
never get it back.
I argue that heritage isabsolutely a renewable resource.
(15:05):
We keep creating heritage everyday we have.
You know, our heritage listsare long.
There are more than a thousandWorld Heritage Sites.
There's the National Registerwhen you think about actual
individual properties has morethan a million on it.
So it's not that heritage is nota renewable resource, that
(15:26):
heritage is not a renewableresource.
And so I think we need tounpack that a little bit and
recognize that this fear of lossisn't always about it can't be
replaced or there aren't otheroptions.
And I think this ties prettydirectly to notions of
authenticity, this idea that ifwe lose it, it will no longer be
authentic, or if we change ittoo it, it will no longer be
authentic, or if we change ittoo much, it will no longer be
(15:46):
authentic.
And I think that authenticityis a really thorny concept that
we rely on and that it has manymore dimensions that we're
failing to recognize through ourdesignation criteria, and that,
ultimately, the opposite ofauthentic is not inauthentic,
but rather just indefinite.
(16:08):
Right, you know this idea thatauthentic is somewhat singular.
It's what we see or what wethink is original, for example,
but it's okay.
So much of our heritage is not,you know, has so many aspects of
it that are not original thatwe need to, I think, be a little
more open and accepting ofbuildings adapting over time for
(16:33):
environmental, social andeconomic reasons.
That's why they've survived,that's why these older buildings
are still here.
It's because they have beenadaptable over time.
And if we don't think aboutpreservation as ensuring that
capacity to transfer acrossgenerations and instead focus on
(16:53):
no, we just need to keep itexactly how it is, then we're
going to be in trouble, right?
We need to focus on thatintergenerational transfer and
that intergenerational transferof the freedom to identify
heritage, to create heritage, toadapt heritage, and not so much
about this notion that theseare objects that we have to
(17:16):
steward from one generation tothe next.
Jennifer Hiatt (17:20):
On the heritage and authenticity.
One of the examples you use inthe book is the reconstruction
of the quarters that thesoldiers were living in in the
winter that awful winter of theRevolutionary War versus the
slave houses at ThomasJefferson's Monticello One.
We were like, yes, we stillneed to see this representation.
We know that we have gooddocumentation that it would
(17:42):
probably kind of look like this,so we recreate it.
And then the slave houses werelike they don't exist anymore.
We don't have enoughinformation.
It was so fascinating to thinkthrough anybody's thought
process of why one is acceptableand should be seen and why the
other was not.
It was just crazy.
That's what kind of led me tothe question.
Erica Avrami (17:59):
Yeah, no, it's.
That example truly derives frommy childhood because I grew up
right near Jockey Hollow and theMarstown Historical Park, which
is the oldest historical parkin the United States.
Our parks up until that pointwere really focused on nature as
heritage.
And so the site of thatencampment during the
Revolutionary War, like thosesoldiers huts, we went to them
(18:22):
all the time, you know, as kids,as teenagers, like friends,
smoked their first cigarette inthose huts and you know all
sorts of things would happen inthose huts and so they were part
of this landscape that I was sofamiliar with.
And it wasn't until I got mucholder and I was looking at
histories of reconstruction andthen following the debates at
(18:44):
Monticello about whether or notit was okay or, quote unquote,
authentic to reconstruct thequarters of enslaved peoples on
an 18th century plantation right.
I mean what is less authentic?
Not having that spatialencounter with the enslavement
(19:04):
of peoples or having a structurethat is in some ways
representative but maybe notexactly how it was originally,
and we're okay with that in allof these national parks, with
these soldier hutreconstructions.
Stephanie Rouse (19:18):
So it is a fascinating comparison,
absolutely, and I'm so glad itresonated with you fascinating
comparison, absolutely, and I'mso glad it resonated with you
and you point out that whenwe're trying to diversify the
stories that we're telling, theheritage that we're representing
, that just adding more diversesites to the National Register
or our local landmark registersisn't fixing the issue in the
field of preservation.
(19:39):
What other steps should we betaking to move beyond this first
order approach that we've beenstuck in?
Erica Avrami (19:45):
Yeah, I don't in any way mean to say that so many
of the efforts that arehappening to diversify historic
registers and to enhance thediversity of designated
properties, I think there's somuch amazing work that's
happening from the local levelto the national level to do that
and I think it is necessaryamazing work that's happening
(20:05):
from the local level to thenational level to do that and I
think it is necessary.
But that is an additiveapproach.
We are doing more, adding moreto the rosters.
It doesn't necessarily changethe systemic issues, which are
what are the rules of the game?
What are the criteria?
How are the Secretary of theInterior standards functioning
in ways that work for or againstbroader representation of
(20:28):
stories in our landscape?
It's not getting at thedistributive justice question
either, meaning how does thisdesignation of an historic
district impact?
Some community membersadvantage them or disadvantage
them If you're in that NationalRegister District and you don't
have to comply with energy codes.
(20:48):
Others do if they're outsidethat National Register District.
Fema responds differently forowners of properties that are on
the National Register thanthose that are not, and so that
kind of distributive justicequestion and those procedural
justice questions are reallyembedded in the work of
government, the rules, thestandards, the designation
(21:10):
criteria, the regulatoryprocesses All of those things
are ways that we take decisionsthat need to be rethought and
reformed, essentially in orderto ensure that we're not always
trying to just add more, butrather we're changing the
(21:31):
fundamental issues that areunderpinning why we have so much
more representation of white,male wealthy histories in our
landscape, as opposed to thosehistories that represent women,
people of color, lgbtqcommunities, et cetera.
Stephanie Rouse (21:52):
I think this is happening more at the local
level.
There's some larger cities Ithink Denver is a good example
where their designation criteriahas grown significantly.
I think they have like seven,eight, nine criteria that goes
beyond just the building as anobject kind of designation
criteria, where they're tryingto expand properties that could
be designated and recognizingother histories.
Federal level, I think, is waybehind on this and it just takes
(22:15):
so much work to move anything.
I mean it took us forever toget the Secretary of Interior
standards updated, so I think itneeds to start there, but how
quickly.
Erica Avrami (22:25):
Yes, and I take your point.
There are, though, the idea ofhistoric context themes and
trying to develop, for example,national historic landmarks that
are more representative of theAmerican public.
There's good work that has beendone.
There really is good work thathas been done, but when we look
at how you change policy on theground, particularly in the
(22:49):
context of more significantregulation right the National
Register there's limitedregulatory effect by being on
the National Register.
If I owned a building, I couldget it listed on the National
Register and then tear it downthe next day, as long as I
wasn't using federal monies forthat demolition.
If it's locally designated nothen it incurs more regulatory
(23:13):
process, and that's in partbecause so much of our
regulation land use, zoning,property taxes all that happens
for the most part on thatmunicipal level.
That's where the regulation isin many ways most stringent for
preservation, at that locallevel where commissions are
reviewing additions or changesto historic buildings, petitions
(23:36):
for demolition and thedesignation process.
Jennifer Hiatt (23:40):
Stephanie actually brought our first
thematic district to the city ofLincoln, as opposed to just an
area like our Haymarket.
The thematic idea was localgrocery stores.
Lincoln used to be well knownfor all these little corner
grocery stores, and so is thiswhere we got the idea, stephanie
, to do thematic.
How did you come to that?
Stephanie Rouse (24:29):
no-transcript.
Get all of the corner storesscattered throughout all these
older neighborhoods, designatethem under a discontiguous
district and then that opensthem up for the special permit
to be able to do other usesbesides just a single family
(24:49):
home in some of these one or twostory commercial buildings.
Erica Avrami (24:53):
That's great.
Oh, that's fascinating.
And I mean and that's anexample where this isn't simply
about there is a famousarchitect who designed that
building, or there's aparticular event that happened
at that place, or it'srepresentative of a particular
style You're really looking atthe social spatial dynamics of
those places and the ways inwhich they have served
(25:16):
communities.
And even if they're not servingcommunities today, what you're
doing is trying to enable theirlongevity and adaptation and
that's the transfer acrossgenerations issue right.
And the way in which creativetools around planning and
preservation intersect and allowcommunities and governments to
(25:37):
advance.
This kind of work is fantasticand I absolutely applaud it.
And while I may talk a little alot about some of the
antiquated issues in ourpreservation toolbox, I still
think that there are so manycreative ways in which,
particularly at the local level,municipalities are finding
(26:00):
interesting ways of chartingpreservation pathways.
There are things like legacybusinesses function differently
in different municipalities anddifferent municipalities are
looking at intangible heritagein different ways.
So I think there is a lot ofcreativity and I have a lot of
hope that our municipal levelwill continue to demonstrate
(26:23):
that really forward-thinkingpolicy landscape and keeping in
the theme of Lincoln's history.
Jennifer Hiatt (26:29):
I guess Stephanie and I were actually
also just talking about tryingto put together a red light
district walking tour orsomething.
But it's very difficult to dosomething like that because a
lot of the buildings are nolonger there.
But this is what seemed to mean example of survivorship bias
Like that.
History still exists in Lincoln, whether the building is there
to put a sign on that says thisis part of our red light
(26:51):
district.
So how does survivorship biasimpact how we identify and lift
up certain heritages or diminishand sweep away others?
Erica Avrami (26:59):
That's a great example, thank you.
And that idea of survivorshipbias in the book is really about
the way in which, traditionally, preservationists have done
surveys.
Right, you walk a neighborhood,you do a windscreen survey in a
car to sort of identify whatsurvives in the landscape, and
all too often political forces,building codes, forms of
(27:22):
discrimination, have influencedhow and why some buildings
survive and others don't, or whysome neighborhoods survive and
others don't.
Everything from redlining tothe fact that many histories as
you said, that red lightdistrict, many LGBTQ histories,
the history of emancipation,right Underground railroad
(27:46):
histories, for example so manyof those places and activities
had to be furtive, they had tobe secretive because of the
potential illegality or violenceor societal pushback against
those activities could haveincurred if they were more
(28:07):
public, and so, as a consequence, there are not a lot of records
, right, we create this ideathat, well, preservation needs
to be built on documentation andwe need good archives.
And do we have any drawings?
Do we have any photographs?
Do we have anything writtendescribing this place and those
places very specifically?
Did not, you know, try to stayunder the radar?
(28:31):
And so when we create thesestandards and preservation and
say you must be able to showthis evidence or rationalize
this based on this kind ofdocumentation.
And that documentation doesn'texist, then those stories are
disadvantaged in the canon ofhistory as it's represented in
the built environment.
(28:51):
They will be more vulnerable todemolition, they will not be as
represented on heritage rostersand I think that that's really
problematic because it justcenters certain histories above
others.
And in order to tell thatfuller story, we need to be
thinking about the implicationsof all of these rules and all of
(29:15):
these standards in order to bemore inclusive.
Jennifer Hiatt (29:19):
The example in your book that made me think of
mine was the house I believemaybe in New York City that was
potentially an undergroundrailroad safe place, but it
couldn't get listed, partly fortwo reasons.
One, there wasn't enoughevidence overall to show it was
an underground railroad stop.
That was the point that itwouldn't stand out as an
(29:39):
underground railroad.
And then some of thearchitectural features had been
removed, and it was at thatpoint that I did kind of want to
throw your book.
I'm not gonna lie, I was justso mad.
Why would we?
Why that doesn't make any senseto me, right.
Erica Avrami (29:55):
But part of it is that everyone's trying to play
by those rules of the game,right, that everyone's trying to
do their due diligence in termsof adhering to designation
criteria, periods ofsignificance, understanding
designation criteria effectively, and I want to respect that.
But at the same time, this kindof work is trying to lay bare
(30:16):
as so many other people'sprojects and research is trying
to lay bare that the system, therules of the game, and how we
enforce them and how weinterpret them, is not serving
the general public.
And if we want to better serve,if we're thinking about
preservation as a form of publicpolicy, if we want to better
(30:38):
serve that broader public, thenwe need to be very
self-reflective and look at someof those effects.
Stephanie Rouse (30:47):
Well, I think one of the issues with why we're
so set on following the rules,having all these standards being
pretty strict about what wedesignate and what we don't
designate, is we've beenfighting for relevance as a
field that historic preservationmatters, and there's all these
campaigns and we kind of latchonto this idea of we have
economic benefits or thegreenest building benefits.
(31:08):
But you point out that theburdens of historic preservation
are sorely under-researched.
Erica Avrami (31:13):
So can you talk about some of the burdens that
we tend to overlook, that havingthis kind of very strict
approach and listed or notlisted has yeah, I mean, I think
we've actually touched upon anumber of them right, that
burden to produce evidence, evenif information and stories have
been passed down acrossgenerations.
Is there enough originalmaterial?
(31:35):
Is it representative of theperiod of significance?
That's a burden on certainpublics who have been
disadvantaged, who didn't havethe access to capital, for
example, to maintain a propertybecause of redlining and urban
renewal, etc.
And so that, in effect,disadvantages them right in the
(31:57):
preservation process, whereasthose who have the documentation
have all that original material, had access to capital in order
to maintain a place.
Over time, they are advantagedin the process.
I mentioned earlier the work ofFEMA right in post-disaster
situations.
We're looking at a new era ofsignificant change in the built
(32:22):
environment due to the increasein frequency and severity of
weather events flooding, fire,drought, so many things and
particularly, for example,flooding, whether it's coastal
flooding, inland flooding.
We're seeing this increase andthat means we need to be
considering okay, how are weeither retrofitting for floods
(32:46):
in place?
How are we thinking aboutrelocation, whether forced or
voluntary relocation?
Are we just going to keepbuilding in the same spots over
and over again, using federalmonies to help support disaster
recovery, or are we going toconsider other ways federal
monies to help support disasterrecovery or are we going to
(33:07):
consider other ways?
And when we consider other ways,let's say, I want to put a berm
around my house, elevate myhouse and put a berm around my
house that may protect me fromflooding.
It will make my neighbors morevulnerable to flooding because
the water still goes somewhere.
And the same thing for, forexample, coastal communities
that have the resources to builda seawall Great, but the
(33:27):
community next door, the waterwill go somewhere.
And so, you know, the way wethink about these things is
really compounded by the climatecrisis, and so we see efforts
afoot to try and preserve orprioritize historic districts or
historic sites in the processof flood adaptation or climate
(33:50):
adaptation, for example, and Ithink we need to be considering
what those implications are fornot just those property owners
and those properties themselves,but also for others.
And that's sort of what I meanabout the benefits and the
burdens.
Are we giving more assistanceto a community because it's
historic and therefore we wantto ensure that it is elevated,
(34:14):
but how has that now burdened anadjacent community that isn't
elevated and is now morevulnerable to flooding?
Jennifer Hiatt (34:22):
In the book you also talk about Ahmad Fakih
Al-Mandi's destruction ofcultural property in Timbuktu in
2012.
It's a very famous case thatwas.
We used a very punitivepunishment system, as he well
the group that he representedtechnically created a bunch of
destruction, but we are actuallystarting to see resurgence of
(34:43):
these types of attacks currently, as well as we see more, well
as we see more war coming intothe world again.
So how could we begin to thinkabout utilizing restorative
justice practices instead ofpunitive justice practices as we
think about historicpreservation and what that type
of destruction means?
Erica Avrami (35:01):
That's such an interesting case, in part
because that case helped todevelop the International
Criminal Court's policy oncultural heritage, and what we
see in the legal arena is moreand more consideration of
cultural heritage as a humanright, which is important right.
(35:21):
It's important to recognizethat this is a critical and
undeniable dimension of thehuman experience.
Again, though, like I kind ofpush on this question of it's
about the freedom to transferthat heritage across generations
, not necessarily to save aparticular object, and I think
the restorative justice questionreally forces us to consider
(35:46):
what that means.
In that case there were, youknow, some restorative justice
efforts, even though it was verypunitive, as you said.
And there's mixed results as aconsequence of that process in
terms of what communities feltthey got out of it right and
what they didn't.
And what was super interestingwas, while that process was
(36:07):
happening, while the chargeswere being developed and
prepared for trial, the placeswere actually reconstructed
through a community engagedprocess, which kind of goes back
to that question of is heritagerenewable, right, like it can
be reconstructed.
And so part of what I argue isthere are these restorative acts
, and restorative not simply inthe preservation form of
(36:29):
restoration is an act ofrestorative justice.
The recreation of those placesso that people can spatially
encounter those conditions Inthe same way we did that for the
(36:52):
soldiers' huts, is important.
It's a form of restorativejustice for those who have not
been represented in the historywe encounter in the built
environment.
Yet reconstruction is sort ofthe last option in preservation
decision making right.
Reconstruction is sort of seenas oh well, if you again, if you
have enough documentation, ifyou you know, if you can
(37:15):
demonstrate how it was before,we can do this, and if you're
really meticulous about how youdo it and try and do it as
authentically as possible.
And I think so much of therestorative justice endeavor is
about enabling people to claimspace in ways that allow a
transfer of heritage that maynot be about a particular object
(37:40):
anymore, in part because theobject may be lost or have been
transformed so dramatically orcompletely obliterated by a new
office building for example.
And so how we claim space indifferent ways around that loss
and recognize that history,still recognizing its ties to
geography and to place, I thinkare important in the restorative
(38:04):
justice dimensions of our work.
And again it goes back to thatquestion of the rules.
We need to rethink some ofthose rules.
We need to think aboutreconstruction very differently
if our intention is restorativejustice.
Stephanie Rouse (38:18):
Yeah, because even if you do reconstruct and
are able to come up with asolution, you still can't
designate it anymore, becauseit's almost impossible to get a
reconstructed building listed,so you'll never be able to put
it on a list and you'll neveraccess all the extra benefits of
being on that list.
Erica Avrami (38:37):
Right.
And we encounter a very similarissue with moving buildings
that you know, even a buildingthat's in a flood zone or in a
fire zone and there's aninterest in relocating it again,
if it's on the nationalregister, it will go off the
national register.
You would have to reapply andmake a new case for it to be on
the register.
So yeah, I mean those.
Again, it's the rules of thegame and we need to kind of
(38:58):
think about some of those rules.
In the book I use this verysimplistic analogy of playing
soccer and how, as kids, youmight have played soccer in the
street, in somebody's backyard,not had a net, et cetera.
But as you kind of go up in thehierarchy of competitive sports
, there are more rules and thereare more standards that you
(39:19):
have to abide by.
And the same goes forpreservation standards that you
have to abide by, and the samegoes for preservation Societies.
People preserve all the time.
But if we want to do thatwithin the construct of public
policy, you know, under therubric of government, and in
ways that allow for us to accessthe resources the taxpayer
resources for lack of a betterway of saying that then we have
(39:40):
to abide by certain rules way ofsaying that then we have to
abide by certain rules and thoserules need to be standardized
so that it's equitable, right.
Everyone wants to know what arethe rules so that they can
access it, so that they can playthe game.
And that's where we bump upagainst attention that the more
we standardize those rules, themore we risk exclusion and not
recognizing the very diversearena of heritage that we are
(40:05):
seeking to preserve and thesocial spatial relationships
associated with them.
It's really about thinking howthose rules can be made more
flexible, how they can bereformed, and I give a quick
example of all the differentways in which the rules of
soccer have changed over decades, you know, and we should be
able to change our rules.
(40:25):
It happens in public policy allthe time where we make changes,
but as preservationists,there's just going back to that
question of fear that you raisedearlier, jennifer, that I don't
know if I fully responded to,but that sense of loss.
Right, it's not just about thebuildings, it's about our status
quo, and that there's this fearthat if we change the rules or
(40:48):
try to change the rules, thewhole house will come tumbling
down.
And how do we make changesabout designation criteria or
standards of reconstruction orrestoration or rehabilitation
without potentially having theseuncertain ripple effects.
And I think part of what thebook argues for in this concept
(41:11):
of second order preservation iswe can't always anticipate all
of those ripple effects, but wecan anticipate some of them.
You know, there are differentscenarios that we can play out
and consider and we can alsothink about this incrementally.
And I don't think anyoneanticipated, for example, when
they sought in the 1970s anexemption from energy
(41:32):
performance codes, all thesearguments about how modern
buildings were like the worstperformers, and that's the
reason why only historicbuildings should be exempt.
And now all of thosemid-century modern buildings are
being designated.
So you know again, it doesn'ttake a lot to bring a little
more forethought into our policymaking.
(41:54):
That example always makes mechuckle.
Did we just never think that amodern building might be
designated?
Did we just think that the onlyhistoric buildings that would
ever be on a list are, you know,quaint little homes and
palatial mansions and churchesand things like that?
Maybe, but I think there'senough intellectual curiosity
within our field to be able toanticipate some of these things
(42:17):
and seek avenues of policyreform that really would be
beneficial in the long term.
So, to follow that up, whoshould be leading the policy
reform and changing the rules?
I think you know, honestly, itneeds to be a coalition right.
It needs to be involvinggovernment, it needs to involve
(42:37):
universities.
I mean, we have now what wedidn't have in the 1960s, when
we saw a lot of this legislationcoming on board.
We had one historicpreservation program at Columbia
.
Now we have a number ofhistoric preservation programs.
We have more research that'semerging.
We have the capacity to do morepolicy research have a
(42:58):
significant role to play intrying to undertake some of that
work and get it to happen.
I think governments need to bemore accountable to this idea
that all we do is keepdesignating and regulating the
things that are designated andnot evaluating the effects or
implications of the things thatwe have already designated on
(43:19):
people as well as places.
I think that's a dimension ofgovernment accountability that
needs to be reckoned with.
Places I think that's adimension of government
accountability that needs to bereckoned with.
And I do think that the thirdsector, the not-for-profit and
philanthropic world, has a roleto play in that as well.
They tend to have moreflexibility, which is great, but
at the same time, when we'relooking at systemic issues right
(43:40):
how to change the rules of thegame what we're really talking
about is public policy, thosepolicy tools that government and
government institutions arecreating and enforcing.
And not-for-profitorganizations and philanthropic
organizations can be creative,they can do experimental work at
various sites, they can helpfund research, they can really
(44:03):
kind of spur some of that, butthey're not the ones doing the
regulating, if that makes sense.
So I do think that publicpolicy doesn't change without
government being part of it, andso that's why I do think it's
going to take a coalition anddifferent kinds of entities have
different strengths.
You mentioned some of theseadvocacy positions that have
(44:26):
been taken by not-for-profitorganizations over the years
about the greenest building andeconomic benefits of historic
preservation.
Often those are coming out ofnot-for-profit organizations
that are trying to perpetuatethe status quo and trying to
raise money and trying to defendour current position, and it
isn't always looking at it froma cost benefit analysis.
(44:48):
Those kinds of organizationscan't always afford to be
critical and talk about thedimensions of a case study or of
a policy that are notfunctioning well, because it
might actually make preservationnot look as good and therefore
influence their fundraisingcapacity.
So I think we need to be honestand open about what
(45:11):
not-for-profits can do when itcomes to policy reform.
While there are somefoundations and philanthropic
organizations that are gettingbehind this notion and, I hope,
hopefully more we need to alsorecognize the limitations of
some of our key partners.
They need to still be partners,but they may not be able to
lead the charge on policy reform.
Jennifer Hiatt (45:32):
I will admit even after reading the book.
But until this conversation,stephanie is the historic
preservation planner.
I am not.
I do have a history degree, Ilove history, but I am not a
preservationist overall.
So it seems to me from anoutsider's perspective that it
was going to be the nonprofitsthat would step in and maybe
lead the next bit of charge forchange and policy adherence.
(45:54):
But I feel like you havechanged my mind in this last bit
of conversation there.
Erica Avrami (46:00):
I think they have an important role to play and
certainly organizations like theNational Trust and other you
know more local organizationshave done really important work.
I mean the National Trust.
They've been continuing to lookat that question of
preservation and existingbuildings and carbon, for
example, and they weresupportive of the care tool, the
development of the care tool,for example.
(46:21):
So it's not to say that theycan't do really good work, but I
feel like we need to recognizethat there's the need for
coalition exists, becauseeveryone's coming with different
strengths and constraints andthat understanding those
differences and being clearabout those differences and not
sort of saying, well, you're thepremier preservation
(46:41):
organization, you should beleading this charge.
I don't think that that gets usto the place we need to be.
Jennifer Hiatt (46:48):
As a person who works in government and believes
in government, I'm really gladto hear that government will
still have a solid role to playin preservation for years to
come.
Erica Avrami (46:56):
That is my hope.
I believe in publicinstitutions I really do and I
believe that that can be done inways that doesn't simply bloat
or turn government institutionsinto bigger entities.
I do think that, again, beingcreative about our policy tools
and how we empower communitiesin different ways to serve as
(47:18):
partners and co-producers ofheritage is critical to that.
Stephanie Rouse (47:25):
And always our last question, as this is booked
on planning in addition to yourbook, which we recommend
everyone get a copy of, whatbooks would you recommend our
readers check out?
Erica Avrami (47:32):
So a book that I recently read that was written
by a colleague preservationplanner is Stephanie Ryberg
Webster's Preserving theVanishing City, where she talks
about the very complicatedhistory of Cleveland and the
efforts of preservation and howthat intersects with politics
and race and all sorts of things.
So I think that that's a reallyimportant way of understanding
(47:55):
locality and the very differentfactors that come into play in
questions of preservation.
And then my book and I evenmake an apology, sort of towards
the end of the book, that Itreat aesthetics somewhat
harshly in the context of thevolume because I'm really
looking at that social spatialrelationship, not at the object.
But one of the books that hasbrought me great joy in the last
(48:18):
year is the book on the Garrickby John Vinci, reconstructing
the Garrick, which was a LouisKahn building that was
demolished in Chicago, and thevery creative and interesting
ways in which activists cametogether to try and document and
salvage parts of that building.
And I think that it's sodemonstrative of the very
(48:40):
creative ways in whichpreservation can manifest.
Stephanie Rouse (48:44):
Two great books to add to, for sure, my list.
I'm a big, big reader anyways,but I'm always looking for other
preservation books too.
Erica, thank you so much forjoining us to talk about your
book.
Second Order Preservation,social Justice and Climate
Action Through Heritage Policy.
Erica Avrami (48:59):
Thank you both for having me.
It's been an honor and apleasure policy.
Jennifer Hiatt (49:05):
Thank you both for having me.
It's been an honor and apleasure.
We hope you enjoyed thisconversation with author Erica
Avrami on her book Second OrderPreservation, Social Justice and
Climate Action Through HeritagePolicy.
You can get your own copythrough the publisher at the
University of Minnesota Press orclick the link in the show
notes to take you directly toour affiliate page.
Remember to subscribe to theshow wherever you listen to
podcasts, and please rate,review and share the show.
Thank you for listening andwe'll talk to you next time on
(49:27):
Booked on Planning.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.