Lackawanna Heritage Valley Founders Circle Recognition

Heritage Trail workshop set at silk mill

Provided as a community service by the Cumberland Times-News, Cumberland, Maryland, United States of America Quick Links: [ Regional News Index ] [ CTN Home Page ] [ Contacting Us ] Tuesday, May 30, 2000Heritage Trail workshop set at silk mill LAURA H. VOGELTimes-News Staff Writer LONACONING -- Mike Lewis, the most recent patron saint of the Lonaconing Silk Mill, is taking another step toward his vision of a heritage Mecca anchored in Lonaconing. He has planned a two-day conference Friday and Saturday, called Coal Heritage Trail Community Workshop, designed to bring together key players from the local, state and national levels for the purposes of pooling resources and discussing the multifaceted future of the mill. Lewis, a member of the Georges Creek Promotion Council, believes that the silk mill will one day serve as the focal point for the Route 36 corridor. "We have such a strong national history here," he said. "We want to develop that. The Coal Heritage Trail is just the first leg of that initiative." The Coal Heritage Trail is a proposed scenic corridor that would incorporate much of the history of Western Maryland, focusing on Route 36. "People tend to forget that we were the westward expansion," said Lewis. He said that when immigrants came over to Ellis Island they were told to go to Lonaconing for work. "As far as I know, what I've been told, is that we have the last remaining intact silk mill in the world," he said. "We have national and international history right here in our own back yard." The workshop will take place in Lonaconing. There will be visits to the silk mill as well as the armory and Dan's Mountain State Park. ewis hopes to create an umbrella organization of networking to pull from when it is time to leverage resources. With all of the past efforts of preserving the silk mill, he said, this one has the most promise for a future. "We have been preparing for years how to couch the silk mill in this broader context," he said. "Other efforts have focused entirely on the silk mill itself, but I truly believe that it is just a platform to develop the Coal Heritage Trail. We have got a lot of support for the next three to five years to make this happen, from people who have made this happen in other areas." The weekend workshop will be kicked off with words from Speaker of the House Casper Taylor Jr. and close with a public presentation called "Achieving our Goals" which will outline the work that will be done in the break-out sessions as well as solidifying an action plan. The keynote speaker of the weekend is Doug Faris, superintendent of the C&O Canal. "I truly believe that in five years people will travel to Mountain Maryland and ask us 'How did you do that? How did you become this successful?' " said Lewis. "All things are possible, but first you have to dream them." Lewis invites all historical groups along the proposed corridor from both Garrett and Allegany counties to attend. Anyone interested in attending the conference, acquiring an agenda or learning more about Lewis' objectives can call Lewis at (301) 463-6772. Quick Links: [ Regional News Index ] [ CTN Home Page ] [ Contacting Us ] [ Top ] Copyright © 2000 Cumberland Times-News

Lonaconing Silk Mill Adaptive Reuse Feasibility Study

Silk Mill Adaptive Reuse Feasibility Study

Project Description

Project Name: Lonaconing Silk Mill Adaptive Reuse Feasibility Study

Project Location: East Railroad Street, Town of Lonaconing, Allegany County, Maryland

Project Description: Allegany County will, in collaboration with its project partners, enter into a professional services agreement with a consulting firm, certified private non-profit organization or team experienced in restoration of historical buildings for commercial, educational or industrial reuse for the production of an adaptive reuse feasibility study to determine the most viable approach to adaptively reuse the former Klotz Throwing Mill, now know as the Lonaconing Silk Mill.  

Background: In 1999 the Maryland Department of Planning and the Appalachian Regional Commission provided funds to the Friends of the Potomac to sponsor two “Community Partner Workshops” to help carry out the Potomac American Heritage River Initiative in Maryland.  One of these workshops was the “Coal Heritage Trail Workshop” held in Lonaconing on June 2-3, 2000.

The Coal Heritage Trail Workshop included a work session on “preservation and adaptive reuse strategies for silk mills and other historic buildings” that was followed by a facilitated discussion of options for the preservation of the Lonaconing Silk Mill.  In this session, local leaders worked with historic preservation, adaptive reuse, and sustainability experts from the four-state region as a first step in preparing a community-based strategy for the future of the Mill.

Eventually, a workgroup formed after the Coal Heritage Trail Workshop developed an action strategy that described:

• the values of the Mill;
• community issues and concerns;
• possible future uses of the Mill;
• private and public sources of funding assistance; and
• next steps.

One of the key recommendations in the action strategy called for an economic feasibility study with adaptive reuse options for the Silk Mill.

Process: The Scope of Services for the proposed adaptive reuse feasibility study will focus on a) a determination as to the percentage of the building that must be dedicated to commercial, educational, industrial or other economic uses in order to make preservation and conservation feasible; b) a determination of specific commercial, educational, industrial or other economic uses that would be supported by local, regional, or tourist-generated market demand; c) an analysis of improvements that must be funded to maintain the integrity of the building and allow for reuse; and d) the identification of a public or private owner/developer for the property.

Project partners consist of the National Park Service, National Capital Region; the Town of Lonaconing; the George’s Creek Promotion Council; and Heritage Conservancy.  This group will provide representatives to a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) that will help select the consultant and work with the consultant’s staff to facilitate the project.  This group would also work to coordinate implementation of the recommendations of the study.

Project Cost: ARC $10,000

Local Cash: $15,000

In Kind Services: $  5,000

TOTAL: $30,000 

Schedule: Project Approved 10/01/01

Solicit Proposals 10/15/01

Contract Award 12/01/01

Start-Up Meeting 12/15/01

Preliminary Draft Meeting 04/26/02

Final Draft Meeting 06/28/02

Final Report 08/01/02

Scope of Work:

Statement of Intent: The County intends to procure an adaptive reuse feasibility study for the former Klotz Throwing Mill in Lonaconing, MD, which is intended to determine the most economically feasible and historically sensitive method of maintaining the integrity of the structure and site, including project planning, property improvements, property ownership, marketing, and management.  

Task 1.0 Project Planning

1. County develops a Request For Proposal (RFP) for the project.
2. County and Project Advisory Committee (PAC) select and hire a professional services firm to undertake the economic feasibility study.
3. Start-up meeting between Consultant and PAC to clarify objectives and processes.

Task 2.0 Development of Information

1. Consultant communicates with selected local leaders.
2. Consultant identifies community, building and site assets, including natural, cultural, and historical considerations.
3. Consultant assesses relationship of site and building to heritage projects in the County and in the region.
4. Consultant reviews existing documents relating to potential for redevelopment of the Mill from previous efforts.
5. Consultant evaluates information assembled.

Task 3.0 Identification of Limitations and Challenges

1. Consultant identifies potential impediments to adaptive reuse of the building and the site, including accessibility, infrastructure, zoning, fire safety and code compliance, site constraints, environmental requirements, etc.
2. Consultant analyzes relevant trends in economic and heritage-based development.
3. Consultant identifies community concerns and potential local impacts of adaptive reuse.
4. Consultant evaluates and summarizes limitations and challenges.

Task 4.0 Economic Data

1. Consultant develops recommendations, and a capital budget, for common area and building system improvements required for basic marketability.
2. Consultant develops a recommendation on the mix of specific commercial and non-commercial spaces that would allow for feasible redevelopment.
3. Consultant develops a pro forma operating budget based on assumptions of redevelopment and mixed use occupancy.
4. Consultant develops assumptions for sale proceeds or rent payments needed to sustain operations of the property.

Task 5.0 Action Strategy

1. Consultant prepares draft report on findings, including preliminary recommendations for reuse, associated budgets, and necessary next steps.
2. Consultant attends preliminary draft meeting to present draft report to the PAC and to discuss goals for an action strategy to be included in the final report.
3. Consultant prepares an action strategy consisting of a description of financial packaging goals, including grants, loans, donations, tax credits, and other incentives, plus a listing of specific public or private sources of financial assistance.

Task 6.0 Final Product

1. Ten (10) copies of a draft final report, including updated reuse recommendations and the action strategy, will be presented to the PAC for review and comment.
2. Consultant attends final draft meeting with the PAC to solicit final input.
3. Five (5) copies of the final report, Lonaconing Silk Mill Adaptive Reuse Feasibility Study, will be presented to the County, including a version in reproducible computer disk format, including all narratives and supporting materials required to meet the intent of the Scope of Services.

END

Meeting with John Cosgrove, ANHA Glenn Eugster, NPS-NCR January 18, 2006

Meeting with John Cosgrove, ANHA

Glenn Eugster, NPS-NCR

January 18, 2006

Goal:  Inform the strategic future of Alliance of National Heritage Areas and the heritage area movement

Focus:

1. 1. Heritage area movement today
2. 2. Directions for the future

Trends:

* Public embrace of heritage

* Heritage area activity at all levels of the government and in the private sector

* Number of National Heritage Area designations

Issues/ Matters of Concern:

* Disconnect between NHA’s and heritage area movement

* The deal versus the reality (6-year self-help efforts versus designations forever). Backdoor forever designations.

* NHA quality assurance 

* Capacity building: helping people help themselves protect and prosper

* Impact on NPS funding 

* Goal of NPS heritage areas—what does success look like?

Options:

1. 1. Articulate/ clarify/ reach agreement on the goal of NPS heritage areas/ movement

a. Link heritage areas movement not just NHA’s.

Link seemingly independent NPS heritage areas through enabling and 

Empowering leadership, communication and coordination.  

Although the focus of the heritage areas program seems to be on coordinating the Congressionally funded heritage areas, it would be useful for your office to work across NPS offices to link together other heritage area efforts.  For example, in NCR it would be useful if your office could share information between heritage areas and the NPS-lead Potomac American Heritage River Initiative, and other non-traditional NPS units--such as the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail.

Expanding communication, through periodic newsletters, topical 

Teleconference calls, and perhaps periodic forums, to include these other heritage areas NPS could increase the insights, experiences and best management practices available to all of us to conserve these special places.

b. Assess heritage areas as an alternative way for NPS to preserve, enjoy, conserve and interpret natural, cultural and recreational values.  

Heritage areas were originally proposed as an alternative to traditional NPS park, and other, designations.  Advocates stressed how this approach would ultimately save money, reduce land federal acquisition, leverage non-federal dollars, and be more effective overall.

As the number of heritage areas, and the funding they require, continues to increase, it seems to be an appropriate time for NPS to assess the effectiveness of this approach.  Is this an effective designation for NPS to use?  Has the experience of some of the older heritage areas achieved the expectations that advocates and NPS leaders had for this approach when it was created? What are the tangible benefits, to NPS, of heritage areas versus other types of NPS

designations and management arrangements?

Since many of the NPS heritage areas have been operating for a considerable period of time, there is a depth and breadth of experience that would be useful to tap.  Such experience might be useful in shaping future NPS or Congressional initiatives and priorities for heritage areas.

c. Implement the results of the amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act Public Law 96-515, Section 506.  

This little known provision was included in the amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1980. The amendment said, “The Secretary shall undertake a comprehensive study and formulate recommendations for a coordinated system of cultural parks and historic conservation districts that provide for the preservation, interpretation, development and use by public and private entities of the prehistoric, historic, architectural, cultural, and recreational resources found in definable urban areas throughout the Nation”.  Most importantly the legislation called for recommendations for funding by public and private entities and management by various levels of government.  The report was to go to President and Congress within two years.  

It appears that the legislation may not have been acted on. If it  wasn’t one option is to make an effort to get it implemented.

d. Work with Congress to create a Heritage Lottery, or other, Fund to give grants to a wide range of projects involving the local, state, regional and national heritage of the U.S.

The Heritage Lottery Fund of the United Kingdom was created by Parliament in 1994 to distribute a share of the money raised by the National Lottery for Good Causes.  To date the Fund has awarded 3 billion pounds to more than 15,000 projects across the UK.

Heritage Area Panel Draft Outline

Heritage Area Panel

Draft Outline

Glenn Eugster 10-11-03

Message #1.  The story of water, and how we need it, use it, are affected by it, enjoy it, and celebrate it is an important element of existing heritage areas.  The past, present and future use of water is part of the history of many heritage areas.

Ten Views of the Same Scene

1. Water for power (Lowell)

2. Water for drinking

3. Water for transportation (D & L Canal)

4. Water as a threat (Johnstown Flood)

5. Water for recreation (hiking, paddling, sailing, fishing, etc.)

6. Water for food (anadromous fish and agriculture 

7. Water for industry (Wheeling)

8. Water for education (“Bridging the Watershed” Potomac American Heritage River)

9. Water for living resources (living resources, crabs, rockfish, and watermen)

10. Water for livelihood (Crisfield watermen)

11. Water for celebration

Message # 2. Heritage Areas is an approach that has evolved from water-related conservation and land use programs/ movements.

Historic Preservation Programs (brief examples of how these movements have contributed to heritage areas and a different view of water)

Coastal Zone Management Programs

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Wetlands

Flood loss reduction

Water quality protection and restoration (Skipjack sailboat symbol on Chesapeake Bay)

Message #3. Communities, cities or regions can use water as an organizing principle for a heritage area approach

• Water is often a focal point, linear corridor, or a unifying feature.

• Water and land interfaces are often the most diverse and revealing heritage areas.

• Water is often a reason why a place is where it is, or why something happened, or happens, where it does.

• Water and heritage areas require an integrated approach to objectives, programs and achieving one vision.  Elaborate on multiobjective and program integration approaches.

Message #4.  Local examples of success reveal innovative approaches to using water as an organizing principle for heritage areas.

Case Study Example

Chesapeake Bay Program and Watershed: Connecting good civics, culture and science

a.  Pocomoke River (the river as a unifying element and a catalyst for heritage projects)

b. Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Area (capacity building and improving the delivery of heritage services in a region)

c. Beach to Bay Indian Trail National Recreation Trail/ Scenic Highway (linking the Atlantic Ocean and the Chesapeake Bay along a Native American route for cultural tourism)

d. Atlantic Flyway Byway (using the culture of habitat and migratory birds for recreation, local conservation and eco-tourism)

f.  Potomac American Heritage River Initiative (telling the story of water at Great Falls Park for interpretation, education, and stewardship)

IV. Lessons Learned

1. Human ecology plus physical and biological sciences

2. Past, present and future use of water, and everything else, all are a part of the heritage continuum

3. Heritage is an approach that is relevant to all agencies and organizations.  Most effective unifying technique known to modern man

4.Water is central to the future of our communities, cities and regions.  If we intertwine heritage with water our work will be more successful, relevant and important.

Possibility of Parks Unbounded

May 1998
Possibility of Parks Unbounded
by Paul M. Bray
The long, uneven and continuing experiment in the social invention of parks to preserve natural and cultural resources for future generations and foster their beneficial enjoyment today ranks as one of the finest of human collective efforts.
It is timely and useful to think about the idea of parks in light of the increasing attention paid to bioregional, cultural landscape, greenway, heritage area and ecological planning and management. As Professor Gordon Nelson has pointed out, 'In the past, we have thought about parks as the major approach to special places'.1 Yet, many new approaches, particularly in the USA, are being tried with at best indifference to their park lineage. Some like the heritage area approach in the USA have specifically rejected association with the idea of park.
Why hasn't the many limed park idea become the predominant guiding force to realize growing and increasingly complex and intersecting environmental, social and economic goals' Why haven't we created a new generation of parks of people and nature' What do we lose when new approaches fall far from the trunk of park tradition' This article addressing these questions draws primarily from the United States experience, but there is global relevance as ecological and cultural planning and management is a global challenge and phenomenon.
Park Tradition
Part of the answer may lie with the paradox of parks as both an island fortress separate and apart from their natural and human communities while also being an important, creative guiding, unifying and integrating force in urban and regional planning.
Frederick Law Olmsted's urban parks like Central Park in New York City were refuges, clearly separate and apart from the remainder of the city without the simplest reminder that the park was in a thriving metropolis.2
Yet, Olmsted did not believe that an individual park was complete in itself. He envisioned park systems including parkways as the organizing element for cities. In the words of Louis Mumford, 'Park planning cannot possibly stop at the edges of the parks. The park system is thus the spearhead of comprehensive urban planning.'
Galen Cranz in her history of urban parks in the United States points out that, 'Park administrators claimed that zoning was a natural outgrowth of their work, since parks presented the first major commitment to a relatively fixed land use. Charles Eliot, landscape architect, represented common opinion when he claimed that parks should be used as the basis for city planning. (After securing open areas and replacing derelict structures, Eliot recommended multiplying playgrounds and open landscaped areas and, above all, providing every family dwelling with a piece of arable ground.)'.3
The dynamic notion of urban parks that Eliot and Mumford advanced was not realized as urban parks administrators played an increasingly minor role in urban planning. Instead of parks as a defining force, they have, in effect, been, '...one, but only one, of the physical elements that a planner could use to help give identifiable shape to a community.'4
Changing needs and conditions
The marginalization of the urban park continues today even as the idea of park expands beyond the public estate or facility to encompass entire urban settings. The park's integrative functions -historical, social, political, aesthetic-have been called upon to help guide the rebirth of traditional cities. Cranz identifies this as the 4th era of urban parks which began in the 1960s. 'There was a fluidity at their perimeters, so that park flowed into city and city into park. This went with the characterization of the park as an epitome, or ideal reflection, of the city and with the use of parks for experiences of the pattern and flow of urban life-for the contemplation of the city itself as a work of art.'5
In Lowell, Massachusetts, the canals, mills and other physical features related to its 19th century industrial history were the making of a National Historical Park. But even when the park plan became the urban plan as in the case of urban cultural park plan for Lowell, there is a general inability to accept the notion of the city as a park. Traditional park administrators either were unable or unwilling to participate in the larger arena.
For certain traditionalists in the United States parks are green spaces, period end of discussion. And the urban planners, city officials, historic preservationists, local boosters and others in places like Lowell that hitched their wagon to urban cultural parks or heritage areas appeared to have little if any attachment to the idea of park except that it seemed to be working for them.
The idea of park represented in natural parks has also been driven by the idea of being parks with gates. Yet, Yellowstone National Park, the icon and epitome of a natural park, has increasingly become a prime example of the region or ecosystem as the park.
For example, management of far ranging wildlife herds like Yellowstone's bison is based on ecosystems and not the political boundaries of a park. Whether civilization arguably stops at the park's border or exists within it as it does with European national parks, parks and their viability depend upon and influence a wide range of natural, social and economic factors.
At a Forum on the growing intersection of park experience between Italy and USA in February 1997, Prof. Roberto Gambino opined that nature parks as islands are obsolete. He commented that:
They can't be any longer considered as nature sanctuaries , different and separate from their territorial context, since they are nodes of broader ecological networks need- ing to involve the whole territory. They can't any longer be considered as special areas conceived essent- ially for public enjoyment, since they are always (at least in Italian and European experience) inhabited territories and cultural landscapes, where the public enjoyment must be admitted or permitted only when and if it can improve and doesn't trouble ecological, cultural and economic local balance.5
Three alternatives exist for the nature park: to be substituted by broader environmental policies applied in regional systems, to be nodes in highly connected environmental networks or to be the framework for whole natural and cultural landscapes. While examples of these alternatives have been tried, there has been little discourse on what should be the preferred alternative.
Expanding the park idea
My approach would be to build on the park notion using accumulated tradition and experience to create an expanded park idea that will give us the city or region as a park.
Too much has been invested and learned from the evolution of the park notion to ignore it at this time of challenge and opportunity. The idea of stewardship, methodologies of organization in institutions like the U.S. National Park Service and of management, bodies of law and professional practice and the wonderful educational and communications approach that developed in the U.S. National Parks under the rubric 'interpretation' are too valuable not to be used to full advantage. And let us not forget that parks as we have known them are the premier icon of positive public endeavor.
Heritage area example
But all to frequently we ignore this tradition when, for example, greenways and heritage areas are created. In the United States we have a growing and diverse collection of 'heritage areas', the proponents of which have tried to distance this very park like initiative from being perceived as park making.
Heritage areas are multi-resource urban and regional settings with a coherence or distinctive sense of place based on factors like rivers, lakes, transportation systems (canal and historic railroad lines) and cultural heritage. They have been called partnership parks because of the diversity of stakeholders (including private land owners, NGOs and multiple units of governments and functional governmental agencies) involved in the planning and management for the area's intersecting goals of preservation, recreation, education and sustainable economic development like cultural and eco-tourism. Successful heritage areas keep current residents in the forefront in terms of ownership, control and celebration.
Heritage areas have evolved with both their proponents who have generally not had much experience with parks in any form and traditional park professionals who are fearful of new unfunded responsibilities being at best ambivalent at connecting this new model of park with traditional parks. In fact, Alvin Rosenbaum who took over leadership of the National Coalition for Heritage Areas has made it a cause to separate heritage areas from the notion of park. He associates the park model with boundaries and rules and regulations and eschews both for a notion of protecting qualities of place through heritage development which seems to be primarily related to tourism development.6
In New York State which initially adopted the park idea in creating a system of heritage areas called urban cultural parks in 1982 has recently dropped the name urban cultural park in favor of calling designated areas 'heritage areas'. Now that U.S. Congress has created a number of heritage areas connected to the National Park System, the National Park Service in trying to organize the national heritage areas has, as an example of how not to learn from your successes, rejected the idea of organizing heritage areas into a system. These and similar actions reflect a notion of park that is frozen in time.
Adaptability of the park idea
But one of the finest aspects of the park planning model has been the ability to evolve and adopt to change. Galen Cranz identifies four eras of urban parks: the greensward, reform playground, recreational facility and open space.7 Each responded to the needs of the time of their creation and each has adapted to be integral features in the eras the succeeded the time of their creation.
The Adirondack Park which was created in 1892, has 130,000 permanent residents within its 6 million acres and encompasses the largest wilderness area east of the Mississippi River. It has been called a park in the painful process of becoming a park since its creation and contested terrain because of conflicts between some park residents and environmentalists. This has been a frustrating and daunting circumstance over the Park's long history. But the benefits from the contentious history are undeniable.
As a writer of an Adirondack Park Centennial essay pointed out, 'the park's most renewable and enduring (economic) resource turns out to be the park itself'. The Park made each individual hamlet and attraction in this vast park part of a vision much greater than itself and thereby strengthened a tourist economy. Being a park has kept the Adirondack Park high on the State's conservation agenda leading to continuing additions to the public land holding in the Park and development out-of-door recreational facilities.
In National Parks for a New Generation, the Conservation Foundation reported that in the 1960s and 1970s the idea of a park in the USA was itself broadening in so called greenline parks, human settlements are viewed as integral to the landscape to be protected and interpreted, rather than as intrusions on the natural scene.'8 Parks have been in fact reinvented since the 1960s. But the denial by many that we have been park making costs us the benefit of the full advantage of our valuable park tradition.
When future generations look back at efforts to create heritage areas and greenways and to manage countryside and cultural landscapes for values of bio-diversity, sustainable development and recreation, I think they will see these approaches as an evolution of park making. I simply suggest that if we had greater awareness of this fact our chances of success would be enhanced by being more directly able to tap into the rich park tradition that we have available to us.

End Notes:
1. Nelson, Gordon. 'Special Places: Planning and Management', Parks: New Directions in Resource Planning, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1989.
2. Hiss, Tony. The Experience of Place, (New York: Vintage Books, 1990. Hiss points out that Olmsted and Vaux established the design principle of: 'The separation of parks from the city. This is done by planting the edges of the park thickly and by forming berms, or hills, just inside the edges of the park and planting the berms with trees'.
2. Cranz, Galen. The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982), p. 246.
3. Cranz, p. 247.
4. Cranz, p. 138.
5. Gambino, Roberto. 'Italian Parks and European Networks', (Rome, Italy: Unpublished 1997).
6. Rosenbaum, Alvin. 'Heritage Development', (Unpublished 1996).
7. Cranz, pp. 3-154.
8. National Parks for a New Generation. A Report of The Conservation Foundation. (Washington 1985), p. 117.
Reference
Partnerships in Parks & Preservation (Proceedings and Bibliography), National Park Service, Albany, New York, 1991.

A plan for one big historic family

Posted on Fri, Dec. 02, 2005

A plan for one big historic family

By David Moltke-Hansen and Kenneth Finkel

Philadelphia's past is on the cusp of change. After decades of
experimentation and tentative toe-dipping, there's now real promise that
this region can become America's historical capital. For the first time,
our community of museums, research libraries and historical organizations
is poised to act as a single, cohesive whole and seek federal designation
as a National Heritage Area.
This federal designation will be anything but automatic. No matter how
important our historical assets, many stakeholders will have to stretch,
as never before, across philosophical and geographic divides and
institutional interests to envision a bold and comprehensive future for
Philadelphia's past.
This process has already proved itself and reaped benefits in other cities
and regions that are developing themselves as heritage areas and corridors
- Pittsburgh; Lowell, Mass.; and, in the immediate vicinity, the
Schuylkill River Basin. In every case, planning alone has been a valuable
community-building exercise that has generated new thinking and
transformative action. It's exactly what the Philadelphia area needs.
For every 20,000 residents, this region has roughly one historic site and
two historical organizations. Our museums, libraries and archives hold
tens of millions of historic objects. Our communities are stewards to
thousands of sites on the National Register of Historic Places; 500 state
historical markers, and more than 100 National Historic Landmarks. We
preserve historic districts, streetscapes and landscapes everywhere, a
testament to our deep and ongoing commitment to history.
Defining our National Heritage Area begins with an inventory and builds to
a shared vision that will encompass the sweep of our history. We'll
transcend our traditional focus on the 18th century, augmenting the best
sites and stories from the 19th and 20th centuries. We'll go beyond the
celebrations of great anniversaries and men to develop programs that last.
To succeed, we'll need to agree on common-sense operating principles:
synchronized opening and closing times, coordinated programming at
historic sites, joint media plans, and combined marketing and fund-raising
for clusters of related institutions. We'll need to create or strengthen
our organizational infrastructure to accelerate our advance toward our
goals.
Why bother? Over the centuries, this region invented America and then
forged its future. Philadelphia innovation began long before Benjamin
Franklin stole thunder from the gods and created the lightning rod. And it
has continued beyond the time University of Pennsylvania engineers broke
ground for our present information economy with the invention of the
computer. Now, for the sake of our past and our future, we need to create
an enduring, robust plan to use, enjoy and broadly share our remarkable
legacy of innovation.
Why now? The time is ripe for a new vision. On the one hand, we are
convinced of this by the combined potential of information technology,
social change, new constituencies for culture, and the rise of the
creative economy. On the other hand, we've witnessed the revival of
Philadelphia in the 1990s and the continuing power and popularity of
heritage tourism.
It won't be easy. We'll have to turn away from the smaller issues and
toward the larger ones. Boards of directors will need to learn how
simultaneously to serve their organizations and the region, sometimes by
combining with related institutions. Instead of dedicating ourselves to
the pieces of the past about which we are individually passionate, we'll
need collectively to draw on our assets, add value, attract visitors and
foster growth. Then our wealth will be transformed from stumbling block to
building block. No longer will we suffer the poverty of plenty - too few
visitors and uses for our many sites.
Some stakeholders already have begun to embrace such a holistic approach.
There's a consortium for special-collection libraries, another for the
Civil War, and several collaboratives seeking to improve educational
outcomes. Over the last few years, private and public funders have
encouraged and supported these approaches to heritage development. Others
like the trends they see and are poised to join in forging deep and
lasting collaborations that will be the rule, not the exception.
We have to remember that the idea propelling this vision has to be so
broad, so grand and so audacious that it captures not just our
imagination, but also the imagination of those around us. We have to be
guided as well by Carnegie Corp. president Vartan Gregorian's wisdom,
offered to the historical community a few years ago: "Philadelphians need
to realize that modesty is a private virtue but a public vice." There's no
time for bashfulness as we define our National Heritage Area and secure
Philadelphia as America's historical capital. If we want gold, we have to
have brass.
David Moltke-Hansen is chair of the Civil War History Consortium. Kenneth
Finkel is chairman of the board of the Conservation Center for Art and
Historic Artifacts.