PROCEEDINGS OF THE

US/ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

U.S. PRESERVATION IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, USA • 6-9 APRIL 2000

The United States National Experience

James A. Glass, Ph.D

I have been asked to speak today about the national experience of the United States with
historic preservation and to comment on the national preservation structure in this country.  I
speak from the several vantage points as an observer and student of the American preservation
experience:  as a professor of historic preservation at Ball State University for 8 years, a
member since 1997 of the Board of Advisors of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and
as a board member since 1995 of Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana. I have also served
as a Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer for Indiana, a preservation project manager for
an East Coast engineering and architecture firm, a project supervisor and historian for the
Historic American Buildings Survey, staff historian for a local historic preservation commission,
and author of a doctoral dissertation and book describing the events leading up to the passage
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and legacies of the act.  I also recently
presented a paper on the recent history of the preservation movement in Indiana,
"Preservation Comes of Age in Indiana" for the Indiana Historical Society.

We should start with two fundamental observations about the preservation movement in the
United States:  (1) it is predominantly private in composition and impetus, driven by the
aspirations of millions of individual persons and thousands of non-profit organizations and (2)
what gets preserved in the United States is largely by virtue of which historic places capture the
enthusiasm and passion of grassroots activists and organizations.  These two truisms run
counter to the systems that operate in much of the rest of the world, as is evidenced by the
presentations that we've just heard.

In the remainder of this paper, I hope to persuade you of the validity of these observations by
describing in more detail the nature of the American preservation movement, the participants
in movement, and their respective roles in preserving the historic built heritage of the nation.

Who Makes Up the Preservation Movement in the United States?

UNITED STATES NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES
COMITÉ NATIONAL DES ETATS UNIS DU CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
US/ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
U.S. PRESERVATION IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, USA • 6-9 APRIL 2000

To begin with, one should acknowledge the sage observation of the late Charles Hosmer,
historian of the movement, that the American preservation movement is a fabric made up of an
ever-increasing number of threads--each thread representing a distinct organization, initiative,
or program started by an individual or group of people.  Hosmer said that no thread, no matter
how old, ever dies, it simply continues, sustained by a sometimes decreasing number of
adherents, while new concepts of preservation, organizations, and initiatives are constantly
being born and operate in addition to the older "threads."[1]  We can see the validity of
Hosmer's point if we take a brief historical review of the history of the United States experience
in preservation.

The movement began in the mid-19th century with house museums -- the most prominent and
influential of which was that created in 1858 at Mount Vernon, home of George Washington,
first president of the United States, by a private, non-profit organization, the Mount Vernon
Ladies Association of the Union.  Mount Vernon established three ideas simultaneously: that
the homes of patriotic heroes like Washington should be preserved, that they should be
preserved as museums, open to the public, and that preservation of such shrines was the
natural province of women.  The success enjoyed by the Mount Vernon Ladies in raising money
for Mount Vernon and publicizing it ensured that hundreds of ladies organizations throughout
the country adopted the concept of saving a local residence associated with a patriotic figure
and forming a volunteer group to acquire, restore, and open the structure to the visitor.[2]

In the eastern United States, a multitude of the residences or other surviving structures
associated with the Founding Fathers, early Presidents, military heroes of the American
Revolution or the early Republic were preserved in this way.  In Indiana, one of the first house
museums was founded in 1917 by a local chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution
to save "Grouselands," the Vincennes, Indiana home of General William Henry Harrison, a
military hero and later ninth President of the United States.  In other cases in the state, house
museums were instituted by male-led organizations, but women served as managers and
docents for the home, such as the James Whitcomb Riley "national shrine" in Lockerbie Square
of Indianapolis and the home of President Benjamin Harrison in the near northside of the
capital city.[3]

For the most part, these now thousands of house museums continue to operate and attract
thousands of visitors per year.  New house museums are still being formed, following the lead
established long ago by Mount Vernon.

UNITED STATES NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES
COMITÉ NATIONAL DES ETATS UNIS DU CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
US/ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
U.S. PRESERVATION IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, USA • 6-9 APRIL 2000

A second major thread in the present movement dates to the 1920s:  the museum village.  One
of the first was the hodgepodge of landmarks from the industrial and literary history of the
United States collected and moved to Dearborn, Michigan by the eccentric founder of the Ford
Motor Company, Henry Ford.  Side by side in this "Greenfield Village" stood the Menlo Park,
New Jersey laboratory buildings of Thomas Alva Edison, inventor of the incandescent light bulb
and the phonograph; the home of popular song composer Stephen Foster from Kentucky; the
residence of dictionary creator Noah Webster from Massachusetts; and the bicycle shop and
residence of the Wright Brothers, founders of the airplane, from Ohio.  Millions visited Ford's
assemblage of historic structures, and the prototype for scores of historical villages, or
"heritage squares" was created.[4]

A second and possibly even more influential museum village was founded by the heir to the
Standard Oil fortune, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., in the 1920s and 1930s:  Colonial
Williamsburg. Rockefeller's village preserved surviving buildings from before the 1790s in the
old colonial capital of Virginia and reconstructed all those demolished since the 1790s in order
to recreate the exact setting where the events leading to the Declaration of Independence and
American Revolution took place. The objective was to provide visitors with an inspirational and
patriotic experience. Colonial Williamsburg has enjoyed a phenomenal popularity among
visitors since the 1930s and has spawned numerous progeny across the eastern United States,
such as Old Sturbridge Village in Massachusetts, Strawberry Banke in Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, and the Plimouth Plantation in Plymouth, Massachusetts.[5]

In Indiana, local philanthropist Eli Lilly created his own museum village in the 1960s:  Conner
Prairie north of Indianapolis, visited by thousands of school children annually to learn about life
in a hypothetical Hoosier community of 1836.  In New Harmony, Indiana, Historic New
Harmony, Inc., led by its benefactor, Jane Blaffer Owen, preserved and opened to the public
during the 1950s and 1960s key buildings of the Rappite and Owenite settlements of the early
19th century.  West of Indianapolis, entrepreneurs in Parke County have more recently created
"Billie Creek Village," a collection of houses, barns, and covered bridges moved there from the
surrounding region and open to visitors.[6]

A third thread, which came to the preservation movement considerably later than the first two,
was the commercial tourist square, a product partially of the Main Street USA segment of
Disneyland, the enormously successful theme park created in the 1950s by movie/cartoon
impresario Walt Disney, in Anaheim, California.[7]  Business leaders and city planners in several
cities across the nation noted the tourism revenue generated partially by Main Street USA and
began by the late 1950s to generate plans for small, often rectangular "squares" composed of

UNITED STATES NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES
COMITÉ NATIONAL DES ETATS UNIS DU CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
US/ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
U.S. PRESERVATION IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, USA • 6-9 APRIL 2000

surviving historic commercial buildings or residences that could be converted into restaurants
and shops to attract tourists to downtowns.  One of the earliest plans for such a square was in
Indianapolis: Lockerbie Fair (later Square), a 1950s concept that would have created a
Disneyland-like commercial attraction in the neighborhood of Hoosier poet James Whitcomb
Riley.  Lack of investor interest ultimately prevented the commercial version of Lockerbie from
coming into existence.[8]  In Denver, during the 1960s, business and civic leaders marked off a
two-block area of the downtown commercial district for partial preservation and called it
"Larimer Square."  Shops and restaurants were installed in surviving commercial structures,
while new development was permitted on the sites of historic buildings outside the boundaries
of the square.  Another extremely successful example of the commercial historic district
concept was Pioneer Square in Seattle, a section of nineteenth century office and retail
buildings that was rehabilitated in the 1960s and 1970s for both shops and office space.[9]

Probably the most pervasive "thread" of the contemporary preservation movement is that
formed by the back-to-the city movement beginning in the 1960s and 1970s that resulted in
thousands of historic neighborhoods (districts) being restored and rehabilitated by people
wishing to live in historic residences.  This sweeping movement, which over the past 35 years
has touched almost every city and town in the country, began in the late 1950s and early 1960s
with a handful of federally subsidized redevelopment projects that emphasized rehabilitation of
historic residences in downtown neighborhoods.  In such urban projects as College Hill in
Providence, Rhode Island and Society Hill in Philadelphia, historic 18th and early 19th century
dwellings were saved and re-sold to private homebuyers who were persuaded that downtown
living was desirable.  In Columbus, Ohio, during the early 1960s, an old German neighborhood,
called "German Village," was earmarked for preservation, and pioneering lovers of Victorian
houses began to purchase and restore residences in the district.[10]

By the early 1970s, a national trend had begun to take hold in most of the major cities of the
nation, as young professionals and "empty nester" couples began to discover the delights of
nineteenth century architecture and craftsmanship in the run-down neighborhoods of
American cities and restore homes in those areas using "sweat equity."  The motivations for
these urban pioneers were three-fold:  they were frequently looking for an affordable
alternative to purchasing a new house in the suburbs, they often wanted to live downtown,
where they worked; and they nearly all had a passion for Victorian houses, which had been
despised by mainstream American culture during the 1950s and 1960s.  In the Manhattan and
Brooklyn sections of New York City, in the Back Bay district of Boston, in the west side
neighborhoods of Philadelphia, in the Western Addition of San Francisco, Lincoln Park area of

UNITED STATES NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES
COMITÉ NATIONAL DES ETATS UNIS DU CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
US/ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
U.S. PRESERVATION IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, USA • 6-9 APRIL 2000

Chicago, and the Garden District of New Orleans, the back-to-the-city movement took hold and
set a trend that spread through the 1970s in much of the rest of the country.[11]

In Indianapolis, for example, the urban pioneers transformed Lockerbie Square's run-down
worker's cottages into appealing downtown domiciles close to places of work.  Other
renovators changed the Old Northside and Woodruff Place, which were dotted with large
Italianate and Queen Anne residences, into comfortable, pedestrian-scaled neighborhoods with
a special atmosphere.[12]

Contemporary with the back-to-city movement and drawing from a similar psychology, was the
commercial adaptive-re-use, rehabilitation thread of the preservation movement.   The impetus
for the adaptation of vacant, endangered historic buildings to different, economical uses came
mainly from architects and a few developers interested in trying an alternative approach to
development in downtowns, one that exploited the unusual spaces, materials, and
craftsmanship found in abandoned old factories, railroad depots, and warehouses.  One of the
first commercial successes came in the mid-1960s with the conversion by architects Wurster,
Bernardi and Emmons of an old chocolate factory in San Francisco into a collection of retail
shops and restaurants, Ghirardelli Square.[13]

The idea caught on, and by the early 1970s, varied projects were catching the attention of both
the architectural and preservation communities, such as the adaptation of famed nineteenth
century architect Henry Hobson Richardson's New London, Connecticut railroad station by
architects Anderson Notter Associates, Inc. for shops and a restaurant; adaptation of the former
Chickering piano factory in Boston by architects and developers Robert Gelardin, Simeon
Bruner, and Leland Cott into apartments and studios for artists and craftspersons; and the
adaptive use by the Rouse Company of Boston's historic Faneuil and Quincy Markets and
adjacent warehouses into a new downtown retailing concept:  the festival marketplace.  In Salt
Lake City, local developer Wallace A. Wright, Jr. transformed the abandoned streetcar barns of
the city into a successful retail complex for local shoppers.[14]

The pace and popularity of adaptive use accelerated considerably during the late 1970s and
through the 1980s, after Congress adopted federal income tax incentives to stimulate the
rehabilitation and adaptive use of historic commercial buildings.  Locally, in Indianapolis, these
tax incentives spurred local attorney and developer Tom Charles Huston to adapt a vacant 1871
former wholesale building into professional offices and an office furniture store, called
Morrison Opera Place, in 1979 and 1980.  During the mid-1980s, a $50 million investment by
local developer Robert Borns transformed the historic Indianapolis Union Railway Station into a

UNITED STATES NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES
COMITÉ NATIONAL DES ETATS UNIS DU CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
US/ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
U.S. PRESERVATION IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, USA • 6-9 APRIL 2000

festival market place.  Elsewhere downtown, Mansur Development Corporation stripped off the
aqua blue metal siding from a former Sears department store and restored the Art Deco facade,
while adapting the building to a retail and office complex.[15]

Nationally, billions of dollars were spent by private investors and developers on historic,
income-producing structures by the 1990s, and rehabilitation developers became a major force
within the preservation movement, driving the "adaptive use" tread.

Harnessing, giving guidance to, and sometimes instigating the further propagation of these
later, thick and pervasive "threads" in the preservation fabric have been non-profit
organizations and government agencies, most of which have arisen in the last 35 years.  These
organizations/agencies are also threads in the preservation movement, although more often
cast as stimulators of preservation by others, rather than preservers themselves.   These include
the chief advocate for preservation by private initiative, the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, chartered by Congress in 1949; the myriad of local preservation non-profit
organizations that have come into being since the 1960s to save threatened landmarks,
neighborhoods, and commercial districts; the National Park Service, which since 1966 has
coordinated a national system of promoting preservation efforts by State governments, local
governments, and private organizations; the fifty State Historic Preservation Offices, or SHPOs,
which carry out the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and administer
the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit program within each of their States; statewide non-
profit preservation organizations, such as Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana and the
Georgia and Connecticut Trusts for Historic Preservation, which promote preservation at the
local, grass-roots level; local historic preservation commissions, which afford protection from
demolition for historic structures in designated historic districts; and the national network of
Main Street organizations, which promote the revitalization of downtowns in smaller towns and
cities across the nation.

How Does the American Preservation Movement Function?

How do all these threads interact and accomplish preservation?   Let us first consider the role of
government, a major, if not dominant player, in the many of the other member nations of
ICOMOS.  The Federal government, through the National Park Service, plays a coordinative,
indirect role with respect to preservation efforts by private individuals, developers, state and
local governments, and non-profit organizations.  The National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, the implementation of which the Park Service oversees, established a National Register of
Historic Places, intended to be a national inventory of what is "worthy of preservation"; a

UNITED STATES NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES
COMITÉ NATIONAL DES ETATS UNIS DU CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
US/ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
U.S. PRESERVATION IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, USA • 6-9 APRIL 2000

system of surveys to identify additional historic properties and districts eligible for inclusion in
the National Register; and a system of matching grants to the fifty states to encourage
preservation by local governments and private non-profit organizations.  In addition, under the
tax legislation passed by Congress in the 1980s, the Park Service oversees and sets guidelines
for the States administering the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit.[16]

To assist the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), the Park Service also has published and
distributed a set of professional standards and guidelines for rehabilitation, the "Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation," that have served not only to guide tax credit
rehabilitation efforts, but have become an informal national philosophical guidance for the
preservation and adaptive use of historic structures in the United States.  Another federal
agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, created by the National Historic
Preservation Act, oversees a protective review of federally financed and licensed construction
projects by the SHPOs.[17]

The SHPOs carry out the mandates of the National Historic Preservation Act and in many states,
function as the only statewide presence promoting historic preservation.  They coordinate and
often carry out a comprehensive survey of historic places in their state; nominate historic
properties to the National Register; distribute grant monies to promote survey, registration,
educational and restoration projects by private and statewide non-profits and local
governments; review under Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act all federally funded and
licensed projects in their state to assure that affected historic properties are taken into account,
and process applications from developers and other owners of commercial historic properties
for the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit.  In addition, most SHPOs carry out preservation
mandates given them by their state legislatures, including establishment of state registers of
historic sites; state restoration grant programs; state rehabilitation tax incentives; and
archaeological site protection laws.[18]

Local governments, which exercise much of the police powers of government in the United
States, provide the sort of direct regulation of demolition and exterior alterations to designated
historic landmarks and historic districts that national governments often exercise in the rest of
the world.  There are now over 1,000 historic preservation commissions or preservation review
boards in the nation, most of which are established by local town or city ordinance and review
changes to the historic character of districts or individual properties.[19]

The protection against demolitions and the adherence of new construction and exterior
alteration projects to design guidelines that encourage preservation of the historic character of

UNITED STATES NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES
COMITÉ NATIONAL DES ETATS UNIS DU CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
US/ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
U.S. PRESERVATION IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, USA • 6-9 APRIL 2000

the area and harmonization of the new with the old, frequently encourages more private
investment in designated districts and even an enhancement in property values over time.  [if
you have time while in Indianapolis, be sure to see the wonders in revitalization of historic
neighborhoods that have occurred in the local historic districts of Lockerbie Square, Old
Northside, Fletcher Place, Chatham-Arch, Herron-Morton Place, and Ransom Place (an African
American historic neighborhood)].

In the United States, non-profit advocacy organizations tend to play a far more significant role
than government in stimulating preservation activity among the "threads" of the movement.
Local non-profits are formed by grass root preservationists, who often take the lead in defining
what should be preserved in each community.  The local groups pursue financial assistance
from government programs and support from state and national non-profit organizations in
their battles to save cherished landmarks and districts.  In 1999, there were 144 such local non-
profit preservation organizations in Indiana, most of which have been formed during the last 25
years.  Examples include Historic Madison, Inc.; ARCH, Inc., in Fort Wayne; Preserve to Enjoy in
Columbus, Indiana; the Morgan County Preservation Society; South Bend Heritage;
Bloomington Restorations; and the Wabash Valley Trust for Historic Preservation.[20]

In many states, statewide preservation non-profit organizations also provide encouragement

and professional assistance to local non-profits; assist local preservation advocates in forming
organizations; lobby state administrations and legislatures for laws to provide financial
assistance to local preservation projects and protection to state-owned historic properties; and
engage in preservation projects of their own.

Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, for example, the largest statewide organization in
the country by way of endowment and professional staff, engages in an ambitious program of
encouraging local efforts in preservation through a decentralized system of seven regional and
field offices.  Using revolving funds to save endangered historic properties that cannot be saved
through the conventional real estate market; a statewide revolving loan fund to assist local
organizations to preserve landmarks; a statewide survey project to identify historic buildings
and districts; and an aggressive effort at encouraging local preservationists and governments to
establish preservation commissions and ordinances, Historic Landmarks has compiled an
impressive record over the last forty years.[21]

At a national level, the National Trust for Historic Preservation acts as a voice for the private
sectors of the preservation movement generally and for non-profit preservation organizations
in particular.  Although the American National Trust owns over twenty historic museum

UNITED STATES NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES
COMITÉ NATIONAL DES ETATS UNIS DU CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
US/ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
U.S. PRESERVATION IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, USA • 6-9 APRIL 2000

properties of national importance, paralleling the property-owning emphasis of the English

National Trust that was its original inspiration,[22] the Trust in the United States now directs
most of its energies toward encouraging preservation efforts at the local, grass-roots level of
the movement.  It does this through annual preservation conferences; formation of new
statewide non-profit organizations, a nationally-circulating magazine, Preservation;
demonstration projects for new preservation strategies; and lobbying Congress for new
legislation to encourage private investment in historic properties and additional appropriations
for the Federal-State governmental programs.  A separate national lobbying organization,
Preservation Action, devotes its energies exclusively to tracking preservation-related legislation
in Congress and organizing a grass-roots lobbying network to push for enhanced incentives for
preservation.

Developers--both for-profit and non-profit--form an important bloc in the preservation

movement that pursues the rehabilitation of commercial historic properties, yet as a group are
not organized nationally.  Developers tend to lobby as individual firms in their respective states
with legislatures and to a more limited extent, through Preservation Action and the National
Trust for improved and expanded tax credits for rehabilitation.

Main Street organizations and their managers, which number in the thousands across the
country, work together in statewide alliances or organizations and with the National Trust,
which founded the Main Street revitalization concept in 1976.[23]

The largest segment of the preservation movement, like the developers unorganized as a bloc,
are the homeowners who live in historic neighborhoods throughout the nation.  These people
number in the millions, and many do not necessarily think of themselves as preservationists,
but they are at the heart of the  preservation movement today in the United States.  Their
restorations and desire to live in old houses has made preservation a familiar concept in nearly
every community, in contrast to the house museum and museum village threads of the
movement prior to the 1970s, which were experienced by most Americans by getting into a car
and driving out of their communities.

Summary

To sum up the United States national experience in historic preservation, we can say that
historic preservation is a decentralized movement in this country, an intricate fabric composed
of a multitude of threads representing interwoven organizations, agencies, and
individuals.  Government's role is in the background--it is not at center stage as in Europe and

UNITED STATES NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES
COMITÉ NATIONAL DES ETATS UNIS DU CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
US/ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
U.S. PRESERVATION IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, USA • 6-9 APRIL 2000

other parts of the globe. Government in the United States supports the effort of the private
sector, which takes the lead in most situations.  That private sector is made up of millions of
homeowners and other owners of historic buildings who preserve historic structures either for
the satisfaction of living or working in a historic environment or as an investment (or for
both).   It is also composed of thousands of local non-profit preservation organizations that act
as advocates for landmarks and districts; of statewide non-profits who coordinate and
encourage local efforts; and of developers who take on the preservation of commercial
properties.

Although much of the American public, raised and still residing in post-World War II suburbs,
still thinks of historic preservation as house museums, museum villages, or projects preserving
the heritage of the socially elite, the reality is quite different.  In terms of the number of people
involved, the number of buildings and districts preserved, and the number of communities
revitalized, the preservation movement today is about conserving old neighborhoods,
rehabilitating and adaptively using downtown buildings, and using our physical heritage for
contemporary needs wherever it is found.

__________

[1]    These observations were passed on to me by Charles Hosmer in several meetings I had with him in the
summers of 1985 and 1986.

[2]    See Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., Presence of the Past (New York:  G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1965), pp. 41-101.

[3]    Ibid, p. 137; James A. Glass, "Neighborhood Evolution," Lockerbie Square Historic Area Plan - 1 for the
Lockerbie Square Historic District (Indianapolis:  Department of Metropolitan Development, May, 1978), pp. 29-30.

[4]    See Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., Preservation Comes of Age:   from Williamsburg to the National
Trust (Charlottesville:  University Press of Virginia, 1981), Vol. I, pp. 237-59.

[5]    Ibid, pp. 153-92, ?

[6]    Brochures:  "Conner Prairie an Earlham Museum" [undated]; "The Story of New Harmony," [typed hand-out
for tours, undated].

[7]    See Wendell W. Phillips, Jr., and Louis C. Long, "Lockerbie Fair:  a Problem, an Area, an Answer"
(Indianapolis:  Metropolitan Planning Department, 1959[?]). 

[8]    Glass, "Neighborhood Evolution," pp. 35-37.

[9]    Larimer Square and Pioneer Square are both discussed in the 1976 publication, Economic Benefits of
Preserving Old Buildings (Washington, D.C.:  National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1976), pp. 4-31, 125.

UNITED STATES NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES
COMITÉ NATIONAL DES ETATS UNIS DU CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
US/ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
U.S. PRESERVATION IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, USA • 6-9 APRIL 2000

[10]    The College Hill revitalization project is described in the 1959 planning report that was used to guide
it, College Hill: a Demonstration Study of Historic Area Renewal (Providence, R.I.:  City Plan Commission, 1959,
1967).  See also James A. Glass, "The National Historic Preservation Program, 1957 to 1969" (Cornell University
doctoral dissertation, 1987), Vol. I, pp. 48-49.  The information about German Village was gleaned from newspaper
clippings in the Lockerbie Square files of the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission, Indianapolis.

[11]    For comment on the back-to-the-city movement, see James A. Glass, "Historic Preservation Comes of Age in
Indiana," [forthcoming chapter in book The State of Indiana History, to be published by Indiana Historical Society in
2001], pp. 8-9 [of manuscript]; Documentation of the back-to-the-city movement is found in the back issues
of Preservation News, the newspaper of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, from 1970 to 1981.

[12]    Glass, "Historic Preservation Comes of Age," pp. 8-9.

[13]    A description is found in David Gebhard, Rober Montgomery, Robert Winter, John Woodbridge, and Sally
Woodbridge, A Guide to San Francisco and Northern California (Santa Barbara:  Peregrine Smith, Inc., 1976), pp.
51-52.

[14]     Economic Benefits, pp. 59-61, 68-73, and 134-37.

[15]    Glass, "Preservation Comes of Age," pp. 23-25; personal knowledge.

[16]    See James A. Glass, The Beginnings of a New National Historic Preservation Program, 1957 to
1969 (Nashville:  American Association for State and Local History, 1990), pp. 7-63.

[17]    Ibid.

[18]    Ibid, pp. 59-63; personal knowledge.

[19]    Membership brochure, undated, National Alliance of Preservation Commissions.

[20]    See Glass, "Preservation Comes of Age in Indiana," p. 34; taped interview with J. Reid Williamson, Jr., June
14, 1999.

[21]    Glass, "Preservation Comes of Age," pp. 21-33.

[22]    See Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, Vol. II, p. 840.

[23]    Glass, "Preservation Comes of Age," pp. 19-20.

UNITED STATES NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES
COMITÉ NATIONAL DES ETATS UNIS DU CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES