Whose History?: Preservation vs. Gentrification

Chapter 1 of Andrew Hurley’s book, Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities, sets up his argument that historic preservation in cities is the most viable (albeit underutilized) form of urban renewal. Historic urban centers, done well, can create a booming local heritage tourism industry, bump up real estate values, rehabilitate slums, and boost the local economy.

In theory, these are undeniably noble goals, but in practice, historic revitalization efforts often disproportionately favor the white middle class over the working class and racial minorities. Historic districts often boast architectural features frozen at the point of what is considered the neighborhood’s “golden age.” More often than not, these “golden ages” were only golden for the rich, male & heterosexual WASPs of the world. Unsurprisingly, historic preservation’s underlying goal is often the same as urban renewal as a whole: reverse white flight as much as possible and steal white families and their money back from the suburbs.

Often times, these historically significant neighborhoods are “reclaimed’ from their most recent residents – often poor racial minorities. Scattered from one neighborhood as “blighted” districts are torn down and replaced with a highway, they lose yet another home through gentrification. This cycle begs the question – whose history actually matters here? Undoubtedly, historical preservation privileges the white history of cities. Thinking about it more pessimistically, historic preservation freezes the look and feel of neighborhoods at a time when white supremacy reigned supreme. Pushing out racial minorities recreates the racial and ethnic makeup of the times too.

I sincerely doubt that redevelopers have this in mind. Rather, they are simply seeking to participate in the upward mobility of the city they live and work in, create safe communities, and earn some money in the process. However, historical revitalization without critical thinking and constant concern for whose story we are telling and how our work impacts current residents does more harm than good.

Hurley’s response to this critical question is greater historical interpretation of historic districts that makes room for the dynamic and diverse nature of cities over time. Interpretation needs to be honest and deal with hard truths. Sanitized notions of a district’s history may make a quick buck, but it will fail to create a meaningful, integrated community. To avoid alienating certain residents of a community (read: recent black renters and home-owners) in favor of newcomers (read: white middle class rehabilitators), history cannot simply be ornamental like the facades of historic buildings. It needs to undergird the community, asking tough questions and ensuring every member has a connection to its past and a stake in its future.