Why Old Places Matter by Tom Mayes
Old places matter because they provide continuity; memory; individual, civic, state, national, and universal identity; beauty; history; architecture; sacred ties, creativity, learning opportunities, sustainability, a tie to our ancestors, community, and economic value. With so many reasons to keep old buildings standing, its hard to understand why we keep tearing them down and replacing them with inferior construction that lasts a fraction the time of its predecessor. Most of these reasons to keep our old buildings have been publicized and discussed for decades. We began to preserve in 1853 because of the feel good benefits—preserving history, beauty, ancestry, and ties to our ancestors. About 15 years ago we started to recognize the monetary benefits, and about ten years ago the sustainable benefits. Somewhere along the way the emotional benefits of identity and sacred ties were added to the conversation. Yet, with all this time, historic preservation is still thought of as a superfluous undertaking that blocks progress. Author Tom Mayes in a series of essays during his time at the American Academy of Rome put together his argument for why old places matter under each one of these benefits which I have summarized below.
Architecture helps us understand the slow process of history and allows us to participate in cycles of time that expand beyond our short lifespan. We can see the changes in style and taste represented in buildings decade after decade as the trends changed. The hand crafted elements show the spirit of the original builder, a craft that we do not see in today's structures. We see deep layers of existence and understand history better when we stand in the place where it happened. I once toured the Hermitage, Andrew Jackson's home outside Nashville. Just walking through the house and seeing how he lived gave me a better understanding of our nations 7th president.
Architecture can also help stabilize us in a changing world. We bond emotionally with places which help us stay balanced and adjusted knowing the places we grew up, lived, and visited are still there. Historic sites create continuity with the past, embodying traditions passed down generation after generation or more recently from this generation. According to Hoelsher and Alderman there is an "inextricable link between memory and place." I personally cannot conjure of a single memory that is not grounded in the place where it happened.
"Continuity is bringing the relevance of the past to give meaning to the future."
What is interesting is how the history of place is different over time and among people. It is interpreted and reinterpreted based on how our own concepts of who we are change over time. Preservation of old buildings "affords the opportunity for citizens to regain a sense of identity with their own origins of which they have been robbed by the sheer process of urbanization" according to James Marston Fitch. I also understand this quote as many of the homes my family lived in when they first arrived in Omaha are underneath a freeway now. To a certain extent I feel robbed of my families history resulting from poor urban planning decisions that keep me from seeing the places they lived.
Unfortunately the interpretation of history and place can promote a very selective, exclusive and narrow view of U.S. history. The places that are saved tell the story of the values of those that saved them. The preservation of southern plantation houses neglected to tell the story of an entire group of people when they ignored the fact that slavery was a very real part of their history. Fortunately, this is being corrected in recent years as the field of preservation tries to right the wrongs of 170 years of preservation activities. A more inclusive history, representing everyone involved in our nations past is being told through preservation efforts at existing and new sites.
"A stronger ethic of appreciating, saving, and using old places is needed to get laws and policies and goodwill to help people retain places that matter."
These old buildings are living symbols of identity, continuity, memory, and inspiration in our lives. They help us understand history and process the hard truths we have tried to ignore and in turn it makes us a more informed, inspired, and thinking citizenry. When we lose our local landmarks we lose community assets that stabilize neighborhoods and community identity. But we are not trying to save old places for the places themselves, its for the people who come into contact with them. Most of why old places matter is not tied to economic gain but result in increasing the quality of life for the residents of our cities and towns.
Finally, old places matter because they are the greenest building you will find. We see so many campaigns to build green because it will help save the environment, forgetting that the buildings that exist are the most sustainable options. They can teach us about sustainable features because they employ local building traditions respecting regional cultures and climates that have been perfected over centuries. They can also teach us about adaptation and resiliency, having survived without modern technology for over a century. Even the U.S. Department of Energy found that commercial buildings constructed before 1920 use less energy per square foot than buildings from any other decade.
As Mayes says, we need to change our assumption of demolition to one of reuse. For too long we have ignored the value of old places as a community asset, providing a host of benefits we cannot quite quantify. We have waged battles on whether an old building should or should not be demolished under the basis of its history or architecture. But what if we started including findings when a building is under review for demolition that related to memory, belonging, continuity, and identity, all factors that influence the social well-being of our citizenry.