My thoughts on week 7 readings

Chapter 6 in Glassberg’s Sense of History highlighted the fact that historic preservation in locations which have witnessed multiple historical experiences, as most locations have, necessarily involves the preservation of one history over any others. While this issue emerged in Nolan’s article last week, Glassberg presents an even more compelling example in the McKnight neighborhood of Springfield, Massachusetts. McKnight’s recent white residents wished to restore the neighborhood houses to the architectural style of the late 19^th Century when the houses were first constructed, while the long time African American residents preferred to bring back the neighborhood as was in the 1950s and 60s. Architectural details such as aluminum siding and chain link fences separated the two styles to be preserved.

            The issue is so much more poignant in Glassberg’s example because, unlike Monticello or Montpelier, the McKnight neighborhood is a living community, not just a designated historic site. No director or team of curators can therefore make a professional decision about what interpretive framework to pursue. Also, a “post-modernist” approach such as that attempted by the Montpelier staff is impractical due to the fact that almost everyone seems to view neighborhoods as organic whole whose unique “character” depends on preserving all aspects of the community as consistently as possible, and in reconciling those aspects that are not in line with the overall atmosphere. Unfortunately, no two people, much less different social groups, seem to be able to agree on what that atmosphere should be, relying instead on a mixture of personal priorities unique to each individual. Given the complexity involved in the issue of historic neighborhood designation, it is definitely one in which authority sharing with the public should be maximized, since almost nothing is more likely to produce an emotional response than one’s own home and the environment surrounding it.