The role of the government in preservation seemed to have gone through a roller coaster ride of its duties since the idea of preservation started. It started out that the government (of a town or city) would purchase land they deemed historically important to that specific city or town. Eventually as the nation grew places of national importance were being made aware by the publix to the government and in 1906 the Antiquities Act was set up to protect historic and prehistoric remains from looters and vandals; it could be said that this was the national governments first big role in preservation. Today it seems to work in a very similar manner, that local people need to bring it to the attention of the government in order to get a site preserved or at least put on the list of nationally historic places. I personally feel that this system works, but also has its many flaws. It works well because the guides that are put in place as to what constitutes a historic place are looked at, and if they meet the requirements a 'higher power' other than the local people or local government are able to protect the site from destruction, and deterioration. On the downside it is up to the local people to bring these sites to the national government's attention; if no one is looking out for these places then they will eventually be lost forever.
The building that I chose to research was the Charles Allis Art Museum on Prospect Avenue and Royall Place in Milwaukee. This building, built in 1909, was home to Charles Allis, secretary-treasurer of Allis-Chalmers Company; an agricultural manufacturer and large armaments manufacturer during WWII. Being a native of West Allis; a city named after the company and Allis family, I am a little biased and think its pretty cool that Charles Allis' house was preserved. However beyond the person I can't see anything outrageously special about the house. It is every well kept (maybe due to it being put on the National Register of Historic Places in 1972), but much of the front of the house is covered with foliage and the corner view is somewhat blocked by the signage for the museum.
I think it is a very awesome building having taken a closure look at it now, however it blends in and is somewhat dwarfed by the buildings that surround it. Speaking honestly, I have been to some of the apartments on Royall Place right next to the Charles Allis Museum and have not noticed it til this assignment. If Charles Allis had not donated his estate and collection to the city of Milwaukee when he died I do not imagine that this building would be standing today.
I agree with you that the government's role has been quite a roller coaster. When I first read about section 106 & 4(f) I didn't understand the federal's role in it. After looking farther I began to understand that the community is responsible to bringing a historical site to the attention of the national government.
ReplyDeleteI also believe there is a nice balance for the Charles Allis Museum and the surrounding apartments. Although it is slightly lost in the hubbub around it the whole act of discovering that is historic is quite fun. My question for you is if the vines on the house were original to the architecture or have they grown over the years? In my experience houses with vines are designed with them in mind before they are built. It might be that they are not covering up anything but actually staying true to the original design.
I do not think it is a downside having people tell the government what they think should be saved and then having the government act on those inquiries. Uncle Sam is for the people, so to have the government listen and act to what the people want is the US at it's best.
ReplyDeletePresident Theodore Roosevelt loved the Grand Canyon so much that he used his power to get Washington to protect it. From that he help start the Grand Canyon Game Preserve in 1906 which eventually turned into U.S. National Monument .
So, letting the people make the decision on what to save is not a downside.
How do you think preservation efforts might be different if the national government decided what would be preserved without the input of the people? Although it is the responsibility of the people to look out for buildings, I think it would also be a benefit for the government to keep an eye out for buildings with historical significance. The more people who are involved with preservation efforts, the more likely many at-risk buildings will be saved.
ReplyDeleteWho has the bigger voice?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if we "the people" don't speak out or don't realize they need to speak out where will preservation get us?
One of the interesting instances in Milwaukee's preservation in the last year was the Garden Homes Local Historic District and the debate over whether or not to tear down one of these homes to put in a playground for the local children. So here the local neighborhood is saying we want a playground, but what happens next.
The link connects to part of the discussion on
PLAYGROUND VS. HISTORIC PRESERVATION
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/91438139.html
Here is also the link to what was resolved:
http://milwaukee.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=147119&GUID=1734D985-83D0-4F4D-A6AC-CA6B2EA62EE9&Search=