The state of Washington is a large geographic area full of diverse and interconnected histories. Resources in this state range from tall buildings within urban centers like Seattle to archaeological sites representing indigenous cultures in sparsely populated counties. Washington is full of small historical societies, museums, Main Street programs, and local governments that support historic preservation in different ways.

How do these disparate groups help one another reach their common goals?

Planning the Plan

In 1992, the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP, the state office for historic preservation) began coordinating a series of focus groups and committees to produce a state preservation plan. The state plan, like those in other states throughout the nation, is key to the success of preservation statewide because it provides an outline of priorities conceived by the community it is designed to help.

State preservation plans foster partnerships among preservationists, both within the process of the plan's creation, and as an elemental component of the plan's mission. State plans also help create an encompassing sense of purpose and identity among the various groups, agencies, and individuals who are a part of the preservation and heritage community.

Most preservation offices, volunteer groups and historical museums are small and focused, and generally understaffed and underfunded. Coming together to discuss common concerns and goals creates systems of support.

Goals, Part I

The first state preservation plan adopted in 1995 identified goals that would benefit most preservation and heritage groups. These included:

· Supporting and strengthening local historic preservation efforts

· Enhancing historic preservation education and outreach

· Forming new partnerships to expand the historic preservation community

· Incorporating cultural resource protection as part of land use planning process

· Stimulating economic development and revitalization through historic preservation

These goals led to the development of tasks that would help individuals implement the big ideas. Tasks included:

· Initiating demonstration projects

· Developing historic preservation curriculae for Historic Preservation Month (May)

· Initiating a public/private effort to support a clearinghouse to document, analyze, and distribute information on preservation issues including, but not limited to tourism, property values, job creation, school funding, and economic development

· Building stronger ties with organizations representing local government interests in order to share information on the positive impact historic preservation can have on communities.

· Being involved in the work of the state Land Use Commission in order to include a historic preservation perspective.

Most all of these goals and tasks were fairly broad, which makes accessing success relatively difficult.

Goals Part II

State preservation plans are encouraged by the National Park Service (NPS), which is the federal agency charged with preservation oversight. The National Register and the historic preservation tax credit program both fall within the Park Service's bailiwick. Ideally, state preservation plans consider objectives for a five-year period, and proceed as a series of plans that build on the lessons of the previous five years. Washington state's first plan scoped out the state's goals for 1995 to 2000.

Economic and social conditions in Washington changed significantly in those years, especially in Western Washington. The tech boom of the late 1990s, and the bubble of wealth that ensued altered philanthropy in our region, which ramified into expanded nonprofit opportunities. Large foundations grew from skyrocketing wealth, and Microsoft alone generated about a thousand millionaires during its sharpest rise in the 1990s - many of these people stayed in the Seattle area and have chosen to support a number of causes. Wealth, and an increase in development pressure (especially in Seattle and quickly growing suburbs), has an integral relationship with preservation. Conversely, quiet economies also effect planning. Socioeconomic conditions are a consideration while scoping out new state plans.

The OAHP is now (April, 2003) in the midst of revamping its earlier plan by engaging preservation and heritage groups across the state in a series of workshops. These sessions involve a great deal of brainstorming around key questions affecting the preservation community. These include foundational considerations such as:

· Why is historic preservation important?

· If you didn't know the value of historic preservation, what would convince you of its importance?

· What are the most important historic places or sites in your area, which are in jeopardy and what are the threats?

· What successes have you had in preserving the past? How did you do it and what would you do differently?

· What current trends will affect historic preservation in the future? Which one is most critical and why?

· What are the most critical actions that can be taken to preserve our heritage? What actions could you or your organization take?

· What needs to be done to make sure the plan is implemented and how should you and others be involved?

· What type of support (other than money) do you need for historic preservation in your area?

Answers to these questions were considered at each regional workshop, and will provide the foundation for the new state plan.

Key to Success

While the OAHP is the lead agency coordinating the state plan, the community of preservation and heritage groups will be responsible for its success. This is not a work plan for the state office. The ideal plan will identify very specific action items achievable during a five year period, with start and ends dates, that are the responsibility of specific groups, agencies, and individuals. An implementation strategy will direct specific actions, and help measure the success of the plan at the end of the five-year period.

During the workshop held in Seattle, many people expressed strong interest in better partnerships between groups, better press on preservation successes, better communication between the community and policy makers, and better land use codes that support preservation activity.

The likelihood of great and measurable success has been increased by the development of Washington's statewide, the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, now located in the Stimson Green Building in Seattle (First Hill neighborhood). Dynamic leadership there, in the form of Executive Director Lisbeth Henning, and increased fundraising and lobbying efforts by that organization will certainly facilitate more and better-coordinated work throughout the state.

The growth of a strong preservation ethic, that is, one that makes preservation a convention, rather than a "special consideration," is the job of all preservationists, paid and volunteer. The state plan, and other efforts that bring preservationists together around these issues, are instrumental to this effort.

Though organizations and individuals all have their specific "turf," the geography of preservation support is fluid, and does not stop at the edge of municipalities. The success of one group reinforces preservation broadly. The preservation of the Davenport Hotel in Spokane, for instance, brings attention to the value of preservation throughout the state and region. The rescue and rehabilitation of the Cadillac Hotel, helps demonstrate that perceived "lost causes" should not be dismissed out of hand. Hope abounds, and, as is often said, a rising tide floats all boats.

View last month's Public Policy article

Back to Top