So I’m finally back in the saddle again—my apologies for abandoning the blog for 5,000 years. I’m likely going to ramble a bit while my head is still spinning with all that I’ve been up to, so bear with me. Bottom line: I firmly believe that the best way to keep up one’s enthusiasm and energy is to do cool stuff outside of your routine and comfort zone (i.e. volunteer on all those projects that will never pay you) and travel whenever possible. Chicago is a huge city with a zillion things happening, but it’s damned difficult to have perspective on what’s really happening in the rest of the country when I’m here in my big, urban bubble with my big, urban ideas. During the month of August, I spent a couple of weeks traveling down south again, and then way up to northern Idaho looking at different initiatives and talking with people who were doing all kinds of green and/or preservation work. Perhaps the coolest thing is that many of the people engaged in these activities probably wouldn’t necessarily describe it that way (and/or don’t WANT to describe it that way)—a good sign, in my opinion, as it makes me think that preservation and environmental upgrades are less and less becoming unusual projects.
Where I stayed in Idaho. Is this a little out of my comfort zone? Well, let's just say when I see a stuffed animal laying face down, I instinctively flip it over in case it secretly needs to breathe. That said, I loved staying here and love and understand the people who live here. Spending time in more rural areas of the country over the past few years has opened my mind in countless ways, and this trip proved to be no different. Kind of amazing stuff.
As I’ve discussed at (mind numbing) length, part of the problem with both historic preservation and green initiatives is they often seem inaccessible to people. Either the work or products are too expensive or there is some stigma attached to them. I remember reading about Greensburg, Kansas, a town that was completely flattened by a tornado that decided to go green when it rebuilt. Some residents left and others had ethical qualms with the change as they worried it was promoting some kind of radical tree-hugger agenda. Yes, my eyes want to roll, too, but hey, life is different there. The resident of Greensburg who lead the green charge instead pitched his idea as “good old-fashioned thrift and independence.” Yeah, he basically Palin-ed it, but it totally worked, so good for him. In fact, the more I think about it, this man is a damned genius.
So we can't save everything. Greensburg, KS was totally wiped out after a tornado blasted it to bits. Because one local had the foresight to rebuild green and used rhetoric and reasoning that other locals would respond to, the new town is now a environmental model, despite a general distrust of the environmental movement. Brilliant and awesome.
Idaho is another place that doesn’t exactly take kindly to outside advice and ideas about how one should live their life. Property rights are a huge issue and people don’t like to be told what to do. Period. Barns and properties crumble constantly, there is no visible application of building safety codes, and there seems to be little concern from neighbors or government regarding this. It’s just part of the culture, and obviously rural areas don’t need as much regulation as densely populated ones because if that building falls, fewer people will be smooshed by it. At least that’s why I assume there is more regulation in larger cities. At any rate, I was fortunate to stay with a couple I know from doing restoration work a few years back with the University of Oregon—Kathryn does preservation work just over the Washington state boarder, and Ron manages three state parks in northern Idaho. They both do amazing preservation work, and the state parks that Ron manages are also incorporating all kinds of useful green measures, though unlike many green initiatives, they aren’t advertising it to the world and patting themselves on the back in a public way. Not all state parks do this kind of work, believe me, but Ron’s smart enough to understand the benefits and is respected enough locally to make them happen—a golden combo. I’ll talk more at length about those initiatives in another blog, but wanted to make the point that it matters what kind of language you speak to people.
From what I could gleen, if you own property in Idaho, you may do with it whatever you wish. The result is amazingly beautiful crumbling structures that I love to photograph but very little historic preservation. On the other hand, this is part of the rural culture, so would saving these buildings be saving the cultural history or destroying it? Just some off-topic food for thought.
I’m still sorting out everything I’ve seen over the past weeks, but it seems to me that the only way to make headway in communities is to understand your audience, speak a language that is comfortable to them, and then show them the benefits in a way that matters. Governmental regulation is scorned by so much of our country–a more local and sensitive approach just makes a heck of a lot more sense and progress. Some places want to hear about job creation, but aren’t interested in the idea that they are using less oil. Some places might think it’s tacky to discuss saving money and would rather discuss environmental benefits. Some states have more severe water shortages, so focus on how various strategies will result in water saving measures. Whatever. Just make whatever needs to be done make sense to those who live there. I’m an urbanite, through and through. I like jargon and I like being “right,” but I tell you what, I also like results and expanding my understanding of the world. And seriously, people who think they know everything are rigid, annoying, (and wrong), so they are wasting their breath and everyone else’s time. So let’s check our egos or comfort zones at the door and get it done. Time’s a-wastin’.
Carla –
I really enjoyed this post. I have a thesis that preservation has suffered from being too centric (read, feds write it, we follow it) and regulatory in nature (read, overzealous local historic districts), and the movement has largely grown top-down. The sister environmentalist movement grew exactly the opposite way, and in undeniably larger and more successful in mission. I don’t see it as coincidence. Bottom up works. Grassroots is the only long term way to change minds. Folks turn off whenever I try to talk about federal tax credits, SISR standards and certificates of appropriateness. Snooze. It’s just a bad basis to work from. This locally focused, tailored, cater-to-the-audience approach should be more (most?) productive.
My favorite anecdote on this front came from my conversation with one of the most conservative journalists in North Carolina. He was turned off by what he saw as preservationist intrusions on private property. When I explained the many benefits of historic preservation, he concluded, “I don’t know about historic preservation. I just love old houses.”
So, so, so true and well put, Aaron. I went on a grassroots rant yesterday (my poor cousin just wanted a beer and got so much more)–regulation vs. inspiration. And it extends to those who work in the field as well. We get into preservation work because we’re inspired by it, then we often get stuck in the mires of paperwork once we are qualified to work in the field and are completely detached from what we really care about. And for the very same reasons you list above. Thanks for writing!!
Great post, Carla. I agree that regulation can be overbearing and go over the heads of most people. However, I try to focus on the end results–for example, the beautiful late 19th century, in-town neighborhood I live in has retained much of its character because it was designated as a local historic district 30 years ago. I hear complaints all the time about that “pesky historic preservation commission,” and we need to carefully pick our battles when it comes to what is reviewed, but most HDs were started in response to a serious development threat and have accomplished a great deal. Those of us preservationists who have worked in the public sector (including me) often have frustrating moments of trying to get property owners on board–again leads to picking our battles–but how else could we do it effectively w/out the standard governmental paper trial? Some people will never want any regulation in their life, so communities who want to protect their resources need to have the regulatory ammo for consistency’s sake. For those just starting out in field and working in the public sector, in can be quite a shock–it happened to me–but it helps if you can build a personal connection to the community work in. Unfortunately, as a “public servant” you can only go so far in expressing your own preservation opinions and beliefs when dealing w/the non-believers…it might work against you in court!!
That said, I personally feel that education and outreach is key. The focus should be on getting people on board before they try to tear out their windows or build a 20-foot fence in front of their house. We need more thoughful, rational explanation as to why there’s regulation in the first place, with a focus on all of the positive results.
Oh–and try to prevent the appointment of commission members who are power-hungry control freaks. That can really kill a historic district’s reputation…..