And that’s what we tried to convey to The City of Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission (HRC)

David Rotenstein has an interesting post that discusses how an
architect, who serves on a local historic preservation commission,
thinks historic preservation is either about preserving stories OR
preserving buildings, but, apparently, not both. Of course, as many of
us know, it is both, but for some people with authority in the field, this
kind of binary thinking can be used to justify the demolition of a
heritage place, with deep meaning to a local community, under the
assumption that the story of the place can be "preserved" via other
means--e.g., documentation, museum exhibits, etc.
After all, isn't this how the "document and destroy" mitigation
outcomes from Section 106 are justified?
But, are we really trying to "preserve" the stories of heritage places?
Should we not, instead, be focused on sustaining or even growing
them? Severing the story of a place from the place itself transforms the
story into an artifact, disconnected from a living community, fixed and
immutable. This is what happens when the building/place is
demolished and its story is "remembered" in an archive or museum. It
is no longer part of living heritage. It has died. And, community and
individual identity related to this relationship between people and place
also dies.
These experiences point out how so much of historic preservation
practice--especially as it is driven by federal preservation policy--fails
to recognize the important dimension of people's embedded
experience in place. We need a greater recognition of heritage
psychology and environmental psychology in historic preservation
practice and policy, including an understanding of people's emotional
attachment to place and the relationship between heritage places and
identity.
#environmentalpsychology #psychology #historicpreservation

****************************
These kinds of articles, critiquing the #socialjustice issues in local
#historicpreservation #policy are becoming more common. For many
years, David Rotenstein has been sharing his experiences intersecting
with local historic preservation policy, especially how de-facto policies,
which have institutionalized the historical omissions of people with
minoritized identities, are in dire need of change. We need more
practitioners, like this, who are willing to speak up for what's right.
Even more, we need leaders in #localgovernment to recognize these
issues and start acting on them.