Public History in Urban Spaces

            The readings this week focused on the role of public history in the revitalization of inner cities. Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities by Andrew Hurley examines ways to make historic preservation more effective in the revitalization of America’s inner city neighborhoods. He argues that urban communities can benefit from preserved neighborhoods through allowing the public to interpret them at the grass roots. After our discussion concerning Funeral last week, I paid particularly close attention to negative affects of historic preservation of urban areas and Hurley’s suggestions through case studies of successfully implementing preservation in cities.

           

            One in particular, that when Americans began preserving areas of inner cities rather than demolishing and rebuilding them, the process represented elitist old money. Rather than preserving historic buildings for economic reasons, elite Anglo-Americans chose this method in urban areas to highlight the Golden Era of specific areas. So while a house built in a prosperous neighborhood in the 1890s survived many different eras and types of residents—from wealthy nuclear families to low-income boarders—the preservation advocates chose to highlight the house at what they considered its grandest. The preservation projects did not embrace the community of the neighborhood, and rather isolated historic districts. In the Funeral project, it is important that we research and celebrate the entire life of the house, including different ethnic groups from different socio-economic backgrounds. In The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History, Dolores Hayden reminds public historians to restore meaningful shared meanings for urban spaces during similar projects.

           

            The first section of Hayden’s book emphasizes the need to find a way to interpret the work each group can contribute to the presence of the past in specific spaces in urban areas. Hurley uses several case studies to similarly emphasize the point that public historians must acknowledge shared themes that resonate with diverse audiences connected to certain spaces. Additionally, Hurley discusses the relationship between scholars and communities during public history projects. Maintaining a positive relationship is vital in completing a successful project; this point certainly applies to Funeral, where the community could easily become isolated, offended, or uninterested depending on their relationship with the scholars and artists involved in the project. One piece of advice that resonated with me is to set your academic agendas aside for those that emerge directly from the community.