In a message dated 98-05-22 08:22:35 EDT, [log in to unmask] writes:

<<  But while we preservationists
 are making those arguments to each other and to the garden club, buildings
are
 being lost for economic reasons. That's why the premise that "too much time
is
 being spent making the economic case at the expense of the other reasons for
 preservation" misses the point. In the Platonic world of the ideal the
 economic arguments have little or no significance. But in the real world of
 the bulldozer those who have the authority to make decisions (elected
 officials, building owners, bankers, the real estate community) listen first
 to the economic arguments. >>

I believe the critical point in the above statement is that the arguments
regarding the merits of preservation, economic or otherwise, appear to be held
within a relatively closed group of adherents and that there does not appear
to be a widespread strategy within the preservation community of communicating
to the non-adherents, such as building owners. Communication needs to go
beyond making the motions of a statement, but require a two-way understanding
between the parties involved in the dialogue. It requires that the
preservationists make the effort to reach beyond their ideological
inclinations and attempt to develop working relationships with the opposition,
at least, to the extent that meaningful dialogue can occur with a minimum of
antagonism.

The disparity in communications occurs not only between the preservationists
and those representing the economic leverage of property ownership, but also
occurs between the preservationists and the builders and craftspersons. An
objective is to bring all parties that would have an influence over the
disposition of an historic property into an environment whereby they can learn
to be comfortable expressing contrary viewpoints, without fear of unpleasant
retribution. There needs to be, for the sake of the properties, an alignment
of trust relationships and a respect for whomever we would consider to be the
opposition. The idea is to stop having an oppostion not by bludgeoning them or
through ethnic cleansing, but through co-optation, compromise, or by learning
to present effective arguments to moderate all of our values. Relationship
building takes time, it takes being in physical proximity to each other, and
it will not occur in legal and formal surroundings. A golf course is an
example of a traditional setting for relationship building.

The second point that interests me in the above statement is that the context
of the discussion has to be in forms that make sense and are comfortable to
the world-view of the opposition. In the case of building owners and bankers
it is “economics” that makes sense. To the builder it is an appreciation of
process management, materials, and skill. My experience leads me to believe
that many preservationists to their own detriment are blinded to the merits of
these opposing viewpoints which do exist in the real world. In particular I
find that the graduate programs in HP do not instill an appreciation of the
role of either the banker or the craftsperson. Beyond this, I believe that
there are communication tools that preservationists can use to encounter and
engage in dialogue with the "other". Unfortunatly, I believe that the
constituency of Preservation-L will not, possibly out of a need to protect
vested interests of pride in profession, allow a free and open exchange.
Common problem solving tools such as the busting out of crazy ideas, or
stressed re-framing of viewpoints are not allowed here.

As to economic arguments, I would particularly be interested in a discussion
that would focus on how the top 1% of the population, which controls 60% of
the wealth, relates to the historic preservation movement. I'm of the
impression that preservationists are not in control of their destiny and that
insular behavior (talking to ourselves) may result from a relatively
unconscious sense of economic helplessness. We have to wait until someone with
money has an idea to pay for the preservation project, otherwise we get to
tread water and complain, which puts us at the mercy of economic arguments.

I may be completely wrong in that I assume that if one is a working
preservationist then they are not likely to be in the top 1%. If anyone on PL
is in the top 1% then please call me, I have an old world that I need to save,
and I am willing to talk on your terms.

][<en Follett