Valorizing heritage

Material Information

Valorizing heritage discourse and regime in the historic preservation policy subsystem of Colorado
Koziol, Christopher
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
242 leaves : ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
1900 - 1999 ( fast )
Historic preservation -- History -- Colorado -- 20th century ( lcsh )
Historic preservation -- Law and legislation -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Historic preservation ( fast )
Historic preservation -- Law and legislation ( fast )
Colorado ( fast )
History. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
History ( fast )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 234-242).
General Note:
School of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by Christopher J. Koziol.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
55488784 ( OCLC )
LD1190.P86 2003d K69 ( lcc )

Full Text
Christopher J. Koziol
A.B., University of Chicago, 1980
M.U.P.P, University of Illinois Chicago, 1985
M.Arch, University of Illinois Chicago, 1986
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Public Administration

2003 by Christopher J. Koziol
All rights reserved.

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Christopher J. Kczici
has been approved
d, 60,03

Koziol, Christopher J. (Ph.D., Public Administration)
Valorizing Heritage: Discourse and Regime in the Historic Preservation
Policy Subsystem of Colorado
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Allan Wallis
This dissertation focuses on how public policy regarding historic
preservation developed and changed over a ten year period in the state
of Colorado. As historic preservation is a policy subsystem that cuts
across governmental levels, involving both issues of spatial governance
and sectoral interests, the study also explores the influence of ideology
as expressed through local politics. The literatures of policy discourse
and urban regimes are utilized to frame both the case and to reevaluate
existing scholarly discussions among historic preservation scholars.
As a case study, the research is specific to one state in the 1990s.
While strongly influenced by federal policy design, the Colorado case
was also shaped by incidents specific and unique to the specific
situation. The state developed a grant program as both an incentive
and subsidy for preservation. However, the program also forced an
ongoing public discourse on what kinds of projects merit the investment
of public funds. This discourse expressed conflicting values. The
expression of these values was then used by the actors to sort out
differing material interests.
The research reported here supports three conclusions. 1) Actors in the
preservation policy subsystem can be classified into four types relative
to their distinctive approaches to historic resources. In one dimension,
the classification system assesses the actors position regarding the
intrinsic value of a resource versus its associational value; and along
another dimension the actors position regarding market valuation. 2)
Public discourse in the field of preservation is shaped by existing
ideological commitments of those with established political power.

However, the way this power is realized differs between the community
and state-wide scales. 3) There is a tension between the policy
framework of federal preservation programs and state-level policy
The implications of this case are further discussed in the context of the
role of lay citizens in a policy subsystem that has come to be largely
restricted to established policy actors. Future research is recommended
for exploring the applicability of the categories established here in other
political and policy contexts.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates
thesis. I recommend its publication.
Allan Wallis

To Kaki, without whom this would not have been possible
(and she knows it, as do I).
To Peter and Alison who were tolerant of me throughout
(and now will know that DAD means more
than well Do it After the Dissertation).

I am most grateful to those in the historic preservation community
who have been most generous with me in sharing their time, insights
and knowledge. While I have been critical of both aspects of the
preservation movement and of some of the decisions made in the
cases explored in this study, I admire the efforts and caring of all those
who have sought to make the present and future better by a valorization
of the past. This gratitude is especially extended to the staff and
advisors of the Colorado Historical Society, who knowing that I was
studying them, were always willing to help.
Academic colleagues here at Colorado State University were
quietly supportive even when I questioned my own resolve to finish.
Likewise, colleagues around the country and world offered words of
advice and encouragement when it was most needed. To all of you,
accept my heartfelt thanks.

My graduate students at Colorado State University have been a
source of inspiration, and together we have been able to commiserate
about finishing. To them I say, I wont forget what it is like.
My doctoral committee has been most insightful. Most importantly
they pushed me to say it clearly, which I had not been doing, and for this
I am most appreciative. John Buechner stepped in with insight and
caring after the untimely passing of Franklin James. Jody Fitzpatrick,
who I asked to be on the committee as a methodologist, proved to be
someone who also helped me push the argument. Clark Strickland and
Michael Holleran, both also participant observers offered substantive
insight and passion for the field. Allan Wallis, my committee chair,
patiently put up with my various intellectual diversions and distractions
for many years. Together they taught me how to do it. Thank you so
Finally, my friends and family (immediate and extended), have
given me the support I needed, and yes I did need it. Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you.

1. INTRODUCTION....................................................1
Organization of the Work........................................6
Introduction, Literature and Methodology....................7
Dimensions of the Case.....................................10
Theoretically Framing the Case.............................12
Case Study Research Questions and Exposition...............19
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE...........................................25
Preservations Past............................................26
The Ideology of Heritage Management in Europe and America.... 27
Mapping Ideology / Explaining Policy...........................32
Privatism................................................ 46
Ideology, Discourse, and Interest..............................59
Urban Regimes and Urban Preservation.......................66
Regime Theory Beyond the Central Business District.........70
3. METHODOLOGY....................................................74
Research Design................................................76
Research Questions.........................................76
Research Methods...............................................81

Published Public Records....................................89
Individual Project Records and Recollections................90
Media Accounts..............................................91
Descriptive and Comparative Sources.........................92
Critical Incidents and Embedded Cases.......................93
4. REINVENTING THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.................................96
Direct Democracy: A Game of Chance............................102
The Hand They Were Dealt.....................................110
Managing the Start-up: Grants and Standards from Other
Accounting, Accountability & Contracts........................122
Funding Needs..............................................125
Review Process.............................................126
Commanding Resources.......................................127
Changing Expectations.........................................138
Why Real Estate Became Less Important......................139
Adapting, not Adopting, the Federal Legacy....................141
Target Populations.........................................143
Financial Tools and Administrative Rules...................144
The Upshot.................................................146
Fort Collins Embedded Case....................................148
Is There a Regime in the House?...............................154
5. REACHING OUT OR REACHING IN?..................................158
Buddy, Can You Spare a Dime?..................................161
Understanding the Entrepreneurialists.........................166
More Planning or Less?.....................................171
The Byways Program.........................................173

The Economic Benefits Study................................175
Colorado Heritage Area Partnerships........................177
Initiative Grants..........................................181
Its a Question of Standards...................................183
Tourists and Traditions: From Georgetown, Silverton, and
Leadville to the Culebra Villages...........................185
Two Successful Mining Towns..............................185
Not All Mining Towns are the Same..........................189
Heritage, Yes; Tourism, Maybe..............................190
The Social Production of Target Populations....................194
6. MOVING BEYOND THE NEW PRESERVATION...........................199
Significance of Findings.......................................202
Classifying Policy Actors..................................202
Political Power at Different Governmental Levels...........203
The Disconnect Between Federal Policy and Local Politics..204
From Preservation as Cultural Resource Management to
Heritage Stewardship...........................................205
The Power of Place Alternative...............................212
Future Research: Institutional Design of Heritage
Future Research: Integration of Historic Preservation into
Spatial Planning...............................................219
Appendix A Informed Consent Form.............................224
Appendix B Interview Outline.................................226
Appendix C -Interviewees.......................................229
Appendix D Historical Fund Rules.............................230

1.1 - Preservation Discourse Matrix......................................15
4.1 - Discourse Matrix as Related to Federal Influence on the
Colorado Program.................................................101
4.2 -- State Historical Fund Timeline..................................116
5.1 -- The Entrepreneurialist Challenge................................168

1.1 -- Amount of State Historical Fund Grants.........................11
1.2 - Associational Versus Intrinsic Value...........................16
1.3 -- Monetarized Versus Non-Monetarized Value......................17
1.4- Outline of Case Study Chapters...................................19
2.1 Two Dimensions of Value.........................................34
2.2 Public Benefits of Preservation................................51
3.1 Data Strategy...................................................85
4.1 Initiative Lexicon..............................................109

In October 1990, self-identified historic preservationists" gathered
with local law enforcement officers, church clergy, and Colorado Governor
Roy Romer on the steps of the State Capitol to denounce a pending
statewide ballot initiative legalizing casino gambling in three historic
mining towns. Each had their own reasons for being there. Romer called it
a slippery slope; a minister representing the Colorado Council of
Churches warned that this would be just the beginning of vice; the head of
the Colorado Sheriffs Association cautioned that crime and traffic would
rise; and the preservationists avowed that more harm would be done to
the historic nature of these towns than any good that might come of a
provision in the initiative setting aside for preservation a portion of the
state tax on gambling. However, a month later this coalition had lost.
At the Gold Coin, free champagne was poured shortly after
10 p.m., with corks popping and bubbly spewing over the
crowd. At the Black Forest Inn in Black Hawk, more than 500
celebrated the vote twice the town population. The
gambling amendment led by a 3-2 ratio throughout the night.
Still, Steve Mackin, president of the Cripple Creek Chamber
of Commerce, said he wasn't going to declare that gambling
had won "until the fat lady sings loud." The Rev. Gilbert J.

Horn, executive director of the Colorado Council of
Churches, said he was "saddened that Colorado has
decided to go the way of Reno and Atlantic City, which have
suffered all the indignities that accompany legalized
gambling. "Gambling teaches the wrong lessons about how
life should be lived," he said. "There aren't any quick fixes or
miracle cures, and it's absolutely shortsighted to rely on
gambling for economic development." (Lopez, G. and
Garner, J., Rocky Mountain News, November 7, 1990, p.8)
One can assume that the governor went on governing, the clergy
went back to preaching, and the sheriffs continued their policing. However,
things had changed for preservationists. That one little clause in the
initiative, that a portion of the state tax "shall be used for the historic
preservation and restoration of historical sites and municipalities
throughout the state had become a part of the Colorado Constitution. This
fund would not be subject to all the uncertainties of annual budget
appropriation or mere partisan political whim. In no American state had
preservation, however that may be defined, been given constitutional
recognition, and the free reign that this type of legitimation had initiated,
before or since.1 While this case is not typical, it provides a wonderful
natural experiment into what can occur in the ill-defined policy domain of
1 While there is no single database that confirms this contention, overviews by both the
National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Council of State Legislatures
support this contention.

historic preservation when certain, usually present, constraints are
In this dissertation I ask three questions:
1) How does preservation policy in Colorado compare to the national-
level policy subsystem?
2) How ideologically consistent and politically stable and strong is the
coalition supporting preservation ?
3) How well served by the policy design that has been realized, and
hence supportive, are preservation constituencies?
In the American policy arena historic preservation2 is Janus-faced.
It has become a politically popular feature of local planning and design
policy, while evoking a sense of outrage among some advocates of
property rights and of design freedom; it can create a sense of
community, while also occasionally irritating deep wounds from the past;
and it is caught between a sense of ineffable values and the need to be
economically viable. It is ill-defined as a public policy subsystem and is
programmatically variable from place to place. While public and political
support for historic preservation in the United States has grown
2 The widely inclusive provisional definition of historic preservation used here embraces
policies and actions, both public and private, for purposes of retaining and conserving
districts, sites, buildings, structures, objects, and landscapes, usually in situ. Later
sections of this dissertation make further distinctions. (See National Register Bulletin
#15.) While historic preservation is the most common term in the United States, cultural
heritage management is frequently used in other countries and in international

remarkably from 1965 to the present, the nature of what constitutes
preservation has been far from stable.
Given the confusion regarding the definition of preservation,
policymakers and scholars who have attempted to understand the field
have frequently begun their efforts by attempting to bound it. Most have
argued that one aspect or another is superior to all the others. However,
utilizing the research presented here, I argue that there are discernible
lines of discourse between differing understandings of preservation, and
that while no one understanding is correct, that taken together the
resulting patterns of meaning and interest are essential to understanding
the policy processes of historic preservation.
Policy processes are viewed as the product of complex
social relationships through which 'political communities
articulate ideas and frames of reference which then guide
the way collective resources (allocatory power) and rules
(regulatory power) are deployed (Giddens, 1984). These
ideas and the frames of reference within which they become
embedded (policy discourses) carry power into the fine grain
of action (the practices of agency), performing persuasive,
justificatory, coordinative and directive work. In these
practices, policy agendas are reinterpreted and remoulded,
to create different discourses which have the potential to
maintain alternative sources of power and act recursively on
the original frames of reference and transform them (Healey,
1999, 27).

This dissertation is concerned with policy, ideology, and power.
Hence, I assume that policy actors are not just assigning value to the
world around them, but actively valorizing it. Klamer and Zuidhof (1999)
argue that valuation is the measurement of existing values. They define
valorization as that changeable process by which value is ascribed to an
object. They offer a telling anecdote.
Specific values are constructed, or come about through
certain processes. Think of a cupboard that is old, decrepit,
and dysfunctional, and that stands in the way. You, the
owner, are about to throw it out when an acquaintance walks
in who happens to be an antique dealer. The acquaintance
identifies the style of the cupboard, surmises that is from a
well-known nineteenth-century carpenter shop (how the
fame of the shop survived over time must be a story in itself)
and estimates the market price in the cupboards current
state to be around $7,000. Suddenly the worthless cupboard
has become valuable, and it becomes so in many different
ways. Learning about the objective exchange value, or
economic value, you may change your opinion about the
chest. You appreciate it now as antique; you may want to
learn more about that famous carpenter shop to learn to
appreciate the cupboard even more. You may grow attached
to the cupboard and use it as a showcase for visitors with
a nice story about your original ignorance. Who knows the
cupboard may become your personal link to history (Klamer
and Zuidhof, 1999, 46).
Logically, one could explore valorization in historic preservation
policy through any of a variety of methods. However, the undeveloped

state of critical social theory3 as applied to historic preservation suggests
that any attempt to test an existing theory on historic preservation would
be both detached from the existing literature, and be seen as irrelevant to
the existing professional discourse. Additionally, any discussion of
preservation that stays exclusively within the current boundaries of the
professional literature could easily succumb to a narrow vocationalism.
Hence, this study includes a case that is intended to make the case for a
new framework for looking at historic preservation. The specific case of
preservation policy in Colorado is a significant part of this dissertation,
nevertheless it remains but a touchstone for a wider ranging concern.
Upon introducing the case, I use it in later chapters as an extended
example arguing for the analytical map that I develop.
Organization of the Work
This dissertation is organized into three groups of chapters. This
introduction, together with a review of the relevant literature (Chapter 2)
and a further discussion of research methods (Chapter 3) sets the basis
for the empirical portion of the study (Chapters 4-5), as well as providing
3 Critical social theory is used here to refer to a broad range of studies and not just
derivatives of the Frankfurt School and Habermass work. Agger (1998) discusses this
broader definition.

the basis for extending and generalizing these findings to wider practical
and academic contexts. The final chapter (Chapter 6), reflects back on the
relevance of these findings to the existing literature, to application in other
geo-political contexts, and to further research needs.
Introduction. Literature and Methodology
The bounds of relevant literature are set fairly wide, and beyond
that which is specifically addressed at historic preservation and heritage
policy. The historic development of federal preservation policy is an
important context for subsequent discussions, for as will be demonstrated,
contemporary historic preservation policy in the United States can not be
critically discussed without an understanding of the changing federal role.
However, beyond the historical account, much, but not all, of the
preservation specific literature is so domain specific, as to not benefit from
wider theoretical perspectives. The literature used here to establish the
insights of the empirical discussions includes that of social theory,
planning, and public policy. However, in order to address my research
questions, I also turn to a specific literature, that which attempts to explain
local politics in the context of discursive practices.

The empirical study employed four qualitative data collection
techniques: document analysis, participant observation, semi-structured
interviews, and open-ended interviews. In collecting the data, two varieties
of purposive sampling were undertaken: theoretical sampling, and critical
case selection (Patton, 1990).
As the case revolves around a public and governmental process,
policy documents, grant records, and meeting minutes were readily
available, and used for the purpose of this study. Newspaper accounts,
although sporadic, provided an overview of the beginnings of the State
Historical Fund, as did several key secondary sources on the origins of
limited stakes gaming in Colorado.
For further insight, semi-structured interviews were conducted with
approximately fifteen key stakeholders, initially categorized as being in
state government, in local government, policy advocates, or consultants.
Although no effort was made to randomize this sample, an effort was
made to broaden its degree of representation through purposive sampling.
This population was considered elite interviewees, as these individuals
were well-informed persons who, on the basis of their experiences with
the policy and program implementation processes, were rich sources of

information relevant to the research questions. Several were further
engaged, either formally or informally, in open-ended interviews.
Specifically, I use the case of Colorado in the 1990s to demonstrate
that the range of political actors with an interest in historic preservation
and the agenda for historic preservation are subject to change, and that
this change is mediated by political discourse (Beauregard, 1993). In this
case, the political actors with an interest in historic preservation identified
and differentiated themselves. They were provisionally considered to be
part of a single policy community. However, principal actors pursued
slightly different objectives, shifting the discourse on preservation. I group
these discourses, and their resultant discourse coalitions (Hajer, 1993)
into four categories: 1) internal 'curatorial debates; 2) preservation and
real estate; 3) preservation and economic development (including
tourism), and 4) preservation and identity. I then analyze the way these
clusters of interests and discourses could and did affect the material
outcomes. The case is then recontextualized into the ongoing policy,
planning, and management issues of historic preservation.

Dimensions of the Case
In 1990 and 1991 respectively, citizens approved, by ballot
initiative, a constitutional amendment to permit limited stakes casino
gaming in three municipalities the Limited Stakes Gaming Law (C.R.S.
0-3.4-180.9) and the General Assembly of the State created an income
tax credit for historic preservation projects. These two actions changed the
face of preservation in Colorado
The gaming amendment required the state legislature to develop a
grant fund for historic preservation. They did so by creating the Colorado
Historical Society State Historical Fund (12-47.1-1201). However, not
only was this law initiated by those not professionally concerned with
preservation; it was actively opposed by many who considered
themselves preservationists, partially because during this period they were
focusing their political efforts on the tax credit legislation. The opposition to
the Fund was short-lived, and its impact much greater than initially
presumed. Now operating since 1991, the Fund has awarded more than
$120 million in more than 2,300 preservation grants to local governments
and non-profit organization grantees through June 2003, and is widely and
highly valued by preservationists in the state. During this time, the Fund
has survived several legislative challenges.

Table 1.1- Amount of State Historical Fund Grants
1993 144 $3,126,257
1994 197 $5,768,714
1995 236 $9,227,204
1996 255 $11,837,671
1997 118 $6,032,037
1998 181 $10,368,215
1999 221 $12,036,819
2000 273 $16,733,897
2001 98 $6,418,983
TOTAL 1,723 $81,549,797
Source: Clarion Associates, 2002b, p. 12
Notes: Year 2001 numbers are partial
Together, the establishment of the grant fund and the tax credit
have created what is arguably the most generous state financial subsidy
to preservation in the country. A political accident created an environment
which motivated new stakeholders to become interested in preservation.
This in turn began to challenge existing and comfortable notions of the
field of preservation. A careful study of subtle change affords insight into
the discourses and decisions that affected one organization. However, this
case potentially reveals wider issues in the role of historic preservation in
planning and public policy (Yins (1984) revelatory case). The case is

analyzed and presented through the process of explanation building. The
explanation is distilled into a bi-axial map, and used to discuss several
embedded cases.
Theoretically Framing the Case
The empirical discussion of this case required a broad but focused
theoretical framework. Colorado preservation policy in general, and the
State Historical Fund in particular, proved to be a rich case for
understanding the contemporary governance of the cultural heritage.
The study begins with a largely descriptive account of the workings
of the Fund, and the various coordination difficulties managers of the Fund
encountered. These facts of the case alone stand as a possibly interesting
policy anecdote. The existing preservation-specific literature provides
some further insight into the workings of a case like this by demonstrating
that shifts in the policy instruments available to subsystem actors expands
those actors options, and hence the policy outcomes. However, based on
the evidence presented in this case, I argue that the mere availability of
options in the form of more tools in the toolbox neglects the inability of
subsystem actors to implement the program in the way some of them

would have preferred. This sets the basis for identifying models that can
better account for political and economic interest.
Regime theory provides a valuable framework by providing a
means for beginning to understand the importance of coalitions of interest
in defining the terms of debate and discourse in this case. For example, I
found that through the period of this case individual policy subsystem
actors were increasingly operating in a political and economic
development context removed from the 'professionally comfortable
hierarchy of a federally oriented system. On its own, this insight would
have been valuable if one were writing a historic account of state
preservation programs. However, with theoretical framing, this
intermediate conclusion propelled the study forward in its focus on how
power is distributed between those with influence derived from
preservation related resources, and those who are engaged in the
collaborative arrangements through which local governments and private
actors assemble the capacity to govern (Mossberger and Stoker, 2001).
The overarching conclusion of the dissertation is that the study of
historic preservation is advanced by applying a theoretically informed
examination of power and governance. When this is done, distinctions
between governmental, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and

commercial enterprises are given conceptual clarity in a way not
accomplished elsewhere in the preservation literature. Similarly, differing
ideological perspectives can be addressed more systematically when
interest is considered along with the use of language.
Ultimately, the argument presented in this dissertation concludes
with a simple matrix (Figure 1-1) that is discussed fully in the final chapter,
where I propose further research based on the findings and understanding
underlying this matrix.

Figure 1-1 Preservation Discourse Matrix
Use '
. Intrinsic
'Public good'.
- Exchange
, Private good
Market Orientation
Matrix Conceptualizing the Relationship Between the Dominant Theories
Informing Preservation Policy

The lines of the argument are simple. The interest groups empirically
elicited in the analysis of the case of preservation policy in Colorado are
mapped along two dimensions. In the first, a standing debate among
preservationists is assessed in a new way. Preservationists have long
discussed whether an artifact or site is more important for reasons intrinsic
to that thing, or because of the associational values brought to it by those
who are doing the valuation. This, the debate between essentialists
(intrinsic value) and populists4 (associational value) has been documented
before, albeit not referenced with these terms, and is discussed further in
the literature review.
Table1-2 Associational Versus Intrinsic Value
Associational Value Intrinsic Value
Social / Cultural Physical
People-oriented Resource-oriented
Renewable Finite
Interpretively flexible Asset specific
Affective Objective
4 The term populist is used here as by Burke (1992) defines popular to include both
dominant ideologies, for example, patriotic and nationalist tendencies, on the one hand;
and identities of resistance (e.g., class, gender, race, etc.) on the other. See Chapter 2.

This established associational/intrinsic debate among those
concerned with preservation, and the role of heritage in society more
generally, has been supplemented by a new set of discussions in the
literature on how market-oriented the benefits of preservation are
expected to be. The underlying policy question might be Can we, and
should we, subject cultural heritage to economic reasoning? This
question has been more perplexing to preservation advocates, and much
current strategic thinking among preservationists has focused on whether
to see emerging political pressure to assign monetary values to
preservation as an opportunity or as a threat.
Table1-3 Monetarized Versus Non-Monetarized Value
Monetarized Value Non-Monetarized Value
Exchange Use
Instrumental Fundamental
Private good Public good
Exclusionary Inclusive
Economistic Humanistic

By eliciting these two dimensions one arrayed along an axis from
intrinsic to associational, and the other along an axis from monetarized to
non-monetarized -1 do not purport to claim that this array is exclusive, or
essential, to a consideration of historic preservation. The oppositions are
developed and juxtaposed to provide a heuristic; first, to help critically
frame the ongoing professional discourse on preservation; second, to
consider how market ideology has affected this debate that in the past
frequently ignored both the political and economic context of practice;
finally, to analytically distinguish between these axes in a way that helps
structure these distinctions.
I argue that groups advance their interests through the reproduction
of existing meanings, and that change in the terms of a policy debate can
be an indicator of a changing balance of power. The two axes, and hence
four matrix cells, form a map. This mapping, in turn, contributes to future
policy discussions by distinguishing between varying understandings by
different interest coalitions, each attempting to define the meaning of
historic preservation. In this, I follow the guidance of a philosopher
participating in a recent conference on heritage values, sponsored by the
Getty Conservation Institute. These approaches themselves are part of
our cultural heritage and embody different value systems. Public

knowledge of the various philosophical approaches to conservation will
contribute to a more varied public examination of values (Jensen, 2000,
Case Study Research Questions and
Three sets of research questions guide the development of the
case study, the exposition of which is accomplished over two chapters.
Table1-4 Outline of Case Study Chapters
Chapter 4 Reinventing the Federal System Chapter 5 Reaching Out or Reaching In?
Descriptive period Focuses on early implementation period. Focuses on period of administrative reform in the late-Nineties.
Critical incident State Historical Fund accident Auditor's report and legislators' critique
Embedded case(s) Fort Collins Georgetown, Leadville, Silverton, and San Luis
Theoretical relevance Relates categories of populism, essentialism, and privatism. Relates emerging entrepreneurialism to essentialism and privatism.

The research questions both guide an account of what happened in
the course of implementation and the responses and thoughts of some of
the actors involved. In addition to the descriptive material, each chapter
also includes an embedded case, and attempts to relate the empirical data
back to the theoretical framework.
1. How does preservation policy in Colorado compare to the national
policy subsystem?
Both the State General Assembly, and subsequently, state
managers were required to implement a vaguely specified ballot initiative
(the grant program) and a law loosely based on a federal program (tax
credits). As the implications of various managerial decisions became
manifest through successive grant rounds, and tax years, additional
stakeholders potential applicants, consultants, preservation advocates,
and state and local officials became increasingly involved with
preservation policy in a variety of ways. How did the management of the
Colorado Historical Society (agency responsible for both programs) relate
national policy concerns to emergent local issues?
2. How ideologically cohesive, politically strong, and institutionally stable
is the coalition supporting preservation?

A policy innovation alone does not necessarily mean that a whole
policy subsystem will be redefined. How well did the preservationists
traditional appeal to context, significance, and integrity hold up as
priorities changed? This question is asked in the wider political context of
economic change in Colorado. Several scholars have demonstrated that
real estate interests play a significant role in American preservation policy.
Is this inclusion of real estate value sufficient to explain the interests
involved in the Colorado case? Economic development theorists have
suggested that as some industries recede in economic prominence (such
as ranching, mining, and farming in Colorado) local leaders attempt to use
alternative strategies to counteract such trends. What evidence exists that
the Fund is being used to further economic development? By whom?
3. How well served by the policy design that has been realized, and
hence supportive, are preservation constituencies?
Some theorists of culture and society have distinguished heritage
from history on the grounds that the former is a contemporary
manipulation of the past (Graham, Ashworth, and Tunbridge, 2000). This
attempt to relate the past to the present often serves attempts to define
identity. How do the findings reported in this dissertation relate to this

theoretical perspective? Is the presence (or absence) of a sense of group
identity important in a situation where interest groups are prominent?
First, I establish (in Chapter 4) that the extant preservation
bureaucracy, and its political constituency, had to respond to the infusion
of significant new funds. This group tried, and largely succeeded, in
establishing procedures that allowed historic preservation to proceed as a
policy subsystem as already defined in federal law. However, despite this
early ability to control the preservation discourse, subsystem participants
were already addressing the entry of new stakeholders in the system.
Second, I demonstrate (in Chapter 5) that the facts of the case can be
productively viewed as linking public and private sector interests through
discourse and material interest. Third, using the matrix of interests
developed in addressing my second point, I situate my findings in an
emerging body of literature that has noted the relationship of historic
preservation to economic development. Each of these chapters includes
embedded cases, of a smaller geographic scale than the state, and a
critical incident that illustrates the evolving pattern.5
5 An embedded case is one where even though a case study might be about a single
public program, the analysis might include outcomes from individual projects within the
program (Yin, 1984, 44).

In Chapter 6,1 summarize the argument and resulting model,
suggest future tests for the model, and reflect back on the state of
preservation policy. There I discuss how my conclusions are significant in
three distinct areas. These are, 1) within the field of preservation policy, 2)
in the field of political theory specific to the concept of regimes and policy
discourse, and 3) in the field of policy analysis regarding the emergent
tension between the framework of the federal preservation programs, and
state-level policy objectives.
From the outset, this case study was intended to forward the
understanding of the preservation policy subsystem in the United States.
As there has been no succinct typology to characterize differing positions
among policy actors, I submit that the distinction of four types
characterized as essentialist, populist, privatist, and entrepreneurialist
constitutes a useful means for beginning future studies of preservation
policy. Figure 1-1 and Table 2-1 summarize the characterization.
Urban regime theory has proven to be a robust framework for
analyzing urban electoral coalitions. Several researchers (discussed in
Chapter 2) have attempted to extend the framework to begin to account
for the role of historic preservation in urban coalitions. While my attempt
here to do the same at the state-level was ultimately problematic, urban

regime theory remains useful and robust in accounting for situations like
the embedded case of Fort Collins in Chapter 4. The concept of discourse
coalitions proved to be more robust at the state policy level, and
contributed to the typology of policy actors used throughout.
While policy analysis plays a continuing role in national level policy
discussions, it is not as frequently employed at the state level, at least in
the preservation policy subsystem (Beaumont, 1996). In this study I
conclude that this difference is more than a mere lagging in the use of
analysis. The case demonstrates that nationalism interest in what is
referred to here as essentialism and privatism, does not fully encompass
the range of interests present at the state level. Hence, policy analysis that
seeks to explore the interests of populists and entrepreneurialists in the
preservation policy subfield may prove to be more robust.

This chapter is a focused review of literature relevant to
understanding the case and advancing the argument of this dissertation. It
is divided into three major parts.
First, I provide an historic overview of historic preservation ideology
and practice, from nineteenth century European debates through the
introduction of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. This
discussion establishes both the ideological and policy context for late
twentieth century developments.
Next, I introduce the scholarly literature on ideology, political
discourse, and regimes that is employed here. Focused primarily on
regime theory, this section sets the context for understanding the
dynamics of the case. Ideology is first experienced as discussion and
discourse. The terms of the debate are shaped by various contenders,
sometimes acting alone, but often in coalition.

In the final section, I relate the review back to the preservation
discourse matrix introduced in Chapter 1. Here, I elaborate on the
distinction between populism and essentialism, discuss the role that real
estate and privatism began to play in historic preservation in the United
States, and the implications for both federal and local policy. The
exposition continues with a discussion of contemporary attention to
economic value and the ensuing spirit of entrepreneurialism. In the final
sub-section I look at recent popular and scholarly reconsiderations of the
role of identity and place in heritage and historic preservation.
Overall, this chapter covers the national context of preservation
through the present, general themes articulated among preservationists,
and enough of the literature on political discourse and institutional and
spatial practices to allow for a more thorough exploration and utilization of
these literatures in the case study chapters.
Preservations Past
In this section, the issues expounded and discussed by
preservationists and the lines of this discussion, as it developed in the
United States, are brought into focus. This literature affords an important
historical context for understanding the typology developed in Figure 1-1.

The Ideology of Heritage Management
in Europe and America
James Marston Fitch (1982) sets the context for understanding the
philosophical, or more appropriately, ideological6, bases of the
preservation movement. In what he calls the curatorial management of
the built world Fitch expands on that approach to historic preservation
that stems from artifact conservation and curation. As early as 1980,
Fitch, the founder of the historic preservation program at Columbia
University claimed that,
[t]he term historic preservation is functionally obsolete. It
describes a state of our activities that would have been more
accurate 25 years ago when preservationists were engaged
in heroic battles to save isolated artifacts on the landscape.
In the period since, there has been a qualitative change in
our attitude toward preservation, and we have begun to
realize that what we are engaged in is a curatorial battle to
save the built world (Fitch, 1980, 140).
This assessment of preservation as a field that has evolved over
time is echoed elsewhere in the literature. William J. Murtagh, a former
6 While there have been many discussion of whether ideology is necessarily reflective of
bias, or false consciousness, I adopt a somewhat less judgmental definition. According to
the World Book Encyclopedia 2002 Ideology is a system of thought based on related
assumptions, beliefs, and explanations of social movements or policies.... Ideologies do
not rely equally on factual information in supporting their beliefs. People who accept an
entire thought system usually reject all other systems concerned with the same content.
To such people, only conclusions based on their ideology seem logical and correct. Thus,
people strongly committed to an ideology have difficulty understanding and
communicating with supporters of a conflicting ideology.

Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, has attempted to
summarize trends in preservation in Keeping Time: The History and
Theory of Historic Preservation in America (1997). Themed collections of
articles (National Trust, 1980; Williams, et al., 1983; Stipe and Lee, 1987;
Lee 1992; Stipe 2002) contribute to more detailed aspects of the
preservation movement in the United States.
American preservation educators, and the introductory texts they
often use (Murtagh, 1997; Tyler, 1994), point to Europe as a reference for
preservation planning and practice. The most common personification of
the controversies and progress in preservation is in the comparison and
contrast of nineteenth century French architect Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-
le-Duc and his English contemporary, social critic John Ruskin. Viollet-le-
Duc is most commonly remembered, and often vilified by later
preservation professionals, for his commitment to creating a completed
state which may have never actually existed at any one time.
This is the particular philosophy of what might be termed
overzealousness: the replacement and enhancement of
original fabric to produce a finished project which epitomizes
the age and aesthetic of the period of its original creation.
This overzealousness can easily be observed in Viollet-le-
Ducs work at Carcassonne. Here the patina of time has
heightened the perception of authenticity, confusing the
twentieth-century observer into accepting Violet-le-Ducs late

nineteenth century additions as original construction of the
Middle Ages (Murtagh, 1997, 16).
In contrast, Ruskin is more generously portrayed in another of
these introductory texts.
Who are we to restore a former glory? Ruskin asked. In his
mind, restoration was comparable to erasing the character
evident in the face of an older person through plastic
surgery, trying to make the person look young again. The
beauty in age lines should be respected rather than
artificially changed. We often want to make older buildings
look too perfect, to restore them to a state where they look
more like museum pieces than buildings used daily. We
have a tendency to clean old buildings too much, to strip
them of their age and character, to make them look too new,
and to turn them into spectacles, rather than allow them to
look old and merely befriended. Ruskin saw restoration as
that same type of artificiality, which he termed indiscreet
zeal for restoration (Tyler, 1997, 21).
While this division, called the scrape anti-scrape debate, has
now occupied the ideologues of preservation for over one hundred years,
it has become at best a touchstone for the professionalization of
architectural conservation (Jokilehto, 1999), and at worst a sterile origin
myth for the bureaucratic practice of historic preservation (Boyer, 1994a;
Cosgrove, 1994).
The American experience proves to be both derivative of European
debates, but also exceptional. In a recent discussion of the American
spatial planning tradition, Fishman (2000) distinguished governmental

action in the United States from that of Europe, based on two distinct
aspects of European history, centralism and feudalism. He cites the
French tradition as that of centralism.
Throughout the nineteenth century the model state for
planning was Napoleonic France. There one saw a
centralized government that could exercise its control at all
levels from the city block to the whole nation. This state was
led by skilled and dedicated bureaucrats pledged to uphold
the prestige and power of the government. The French state
could utilize its corps of experts trained at the great state
schools to follow consistent doctrines of engineering and
urbanism (Fishman, 2000, 3).
The feudal tradition is most apparent in the English situation.
Ail physical planning ultimately involves the control of land
use, and hence a limitation on the rights of property. In
Europe these limitations were consistent with an older,
feudalistic concept of property in which property rights were
always limited by the claims of superiors (Fishman, 2000, 3).
In his interpretation, Fishman turns to the work of Alexis de
Tocqueville in Democracy in America to account for what is different in
As he [Tocqueville] argues, the very power of a European
centralized government tends to produce apathy and
passive resistance among the governed because it operates
without public knowledge or discussion. By contrast, the
absence of a controlling central power invites collective
action outside a bureaucratic hierarchy....Although the
specific planning problems differ, the basic themes of the
urban conversation are always the same: how to justify

public action to a society that is deeply individualistic; how to
support long-term investment strategies in a society built on
short-term gains; how to justify the taxation of private profit
for the common resources and the common good. This
urban conversation, rather than any central government-
has been the ultimate source of the authority that generated
the outpouring of investment in roads, bridges, waterworks,
schools libraries, and other public facilities that so
astonished Tocqueville (Fishman, 2000, 4-5).
The distinction that Fishman makes is equally valid for cultural
heritage. American-born, British-based cultural geographer David
Lowenthal (1992), addressing a gathering of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation attempted to decipher what was unique about preservation in
the United States. He declared that Americans have "two unusual faiths.
First, recency still humbles Americans. He argues that American
preservationists place too much stock in European ways. He
disapprovingly points out that the publication that spurred passage of the
National Historic Preservation Act, With a Heritage So Rich, termed
Europes older vision an authoritative guide to American preservation
aims and acts. However, he continues: [mjore useful is a second article
of faith. Americans really try to learn from others. We cannot just adopt
foreign heritage traits they are embedded in whole ways of being ...
American openness is a rare virtue. Europeans may pay lip service to
foreign ways, but they mistrust them at heart (p.157). Following

Tocqueville and Fishman, he avows, Americas preservation ethos is
better diffused that any other major nations. Why? Democracy; belief in
equality; our federal system; knowledge that success needs public accord
(p. 159).
Mapping Ideology / Explaining Policy
The editors of a recent reader on critical urban theory argue,
Context circumscribes policy in three ways. First, it defines
priorities. The historical situation in which policy makers find
themselves causes certain issues to become salient to the
public and therefore to be at the top of the agenda....Second,
broad cultural and ideological currents constrain the
alternatives that policy makers can consider....Third, short of
fundamental restructuring of the whole economic and social
system, only certain policy choices are capable of
implementation within any territory....In sum, there are
objective preconditions to the adoption of a particular policy
approach that simply may not be present (Fainstein and
Campbell, 2002, 2-3).
As introduced in Chapter 1, persons and groups identifying with
preservation can, and have, assigned widely varying meaning to the
preservation project. This section of the literature review attempts to
advance this observation by relating specific incidents and historic facts in
the preservation literature to the categories developed in the discourse

The four categories introduced in Chapter 1 are: populism,
essentialism, privatism, and entrepreneurialism. These categories are
derived from two types of binary distinction (2X2 = 4). Along one
dimension, some preservationists hold that the value of what they
preserve is due to human attachments and associations, as opposed to
those who see value as being intrinsic to the objects being preserved.
Along another axis the dichotomy is between those who hold whether or
not value can be ascribed a market price, that is, whether it can be
monetarized. Individual policy actors make both distinctions. Hence, there
are four distinct options and hence four types.

Table 2-1 Two Dimensions of Value
Market indifferent Market oriented
Accepting non-monetary value Seeking monetary value
The Populist holds that value
resides in a relationship between
artifact and beholder, and cannot
or should not be subjected to
market forces.
The Entrepreneurialist agrees with
the populist that value is in the eye of
the beholder, but has no qualms
about commercializing the
attachments people have for historic
The Essentialist sees value as
inherent in artifacts, and not
reducible to market valuation.
Hence, they often see
themselves as the specialists
best able to identify value and
ascribe appropriate policy action.
For the Privatist, a building, artifact
or site has intrinsic value, but unlike
the Essentialist, believes that he who
holds title can and should be able to
exploit this value in the marketplace.
While a premise of this study is that actors in each of these
categories can not effectively act alone, and the categories themselves
are ideal types, and that it is unlikely that any one policy actor wholly
embodies all attributes of a single type, I proceed by discussing each type
in order.

Both home grown sentiment, and the imported debates of Europe,
contributed to a specific tendency of United States preservation thinking
and policy. Patriotism, as expressed through an interest in the founding
fathers was an American variant of nationalistic expression so common to
Europe. This particular form of identity politics instills a sense of common
heritage, and common purpose.
From about 1850 to 1900, American preservationists held
buildings to be worthy of attention for transcendent rather
than intrinsic reasons. As shrines to historic personages,
these structures were symbols of patriotic fervor before any
consideration of their aesthetic quality. Preservationists of
the time were motivated by a brand of chauvinistic fervor that
sometimes strikes us as naive today, or by social and
cultural impulses of which they themselves were not always
fully aware. Their accomplishments were substantial, yet
part of the legacy early preservationists bequeathed to us
includes a rather narrow vision of how historic buildings
should be presented to the general public (Murtagh, 1997,
Historian Eric Hobsbawm is more pointed in his general critique of
the use of heritage.
As poppies are the raw material of heroin addiction, history
is the raw material for nationalistic or ethnic or
fundamentalist ideologies. Heritage is an essential, perhaps
the essential, element in these ideologies (Hobsbawm 1993,

Nationalistic and ethnic are not always the same and have
proven to often times be in opposition. However, taken together, as
applied to the study of heritage, they represent a populist dimension.
Populism as I use it here, has a specific meaning, and its use is meant to
encompass two usually distinct phenomena. Peter Burke notes that
European culture has long dealt with ambiguity in defining the people. He
sets the contrast.
In the first place, it signifies everyone in a particular city,
region or nation, as opposed to other peoples. As the
Roman lawyers used to say, the safety of the people is the
highest law, Salus populi suprema lex. In the second place,
the term people signifies the members of the subordinate,
as opposed to the ruling classes, as in the classical phrase
distinguishing the Roman Senate from the people, Senatus
Populusque Romanus (Burke, 1992, 293).
He goes on to argue that these two definitions are each historically
linked to differing politics. The first, appealing to identities of consensus,
is associated with nationalism. The second, appeals to identities of
resistance, and has included both the movements of ethnically
disenfranchised populations, and the working class. Keeping in mind that
these two definitions result in different political movements, they are here
classified together as populism, a term used in this dissertation to
designate an emphasis on the cultural politics of heritage.

Diane Barthel (1996) makes a similar case in the American context
with her Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historic Identity.
Describing the social alliance that supported preservation in the late 19th
and early 20th centuries, she argues:
...preservation was not simply a case of rich vs. poor, upper class
versus new working class. Instead, interest in preservation was
shared by two major status groups. Social elites looked back to the
past to legitimate their present power and to maintain it in this new
context, while culturally progressive forces, an identifiable status
group of artists and intellectuals, saw in preservation an alternative
to the human and natural costs of industrialization. Each group
opposed the new industrial bourgeoisie, whose enterprises were
destroying both the traditional countryside, and the traditional social
hierarchy. Thus the past can be made to serve a range of political
purposes even as it gives rise to identifiable taste cultures
(Barthel, 1996, 33).
M. Christine Boyer, first in Dreaming the Rational C/Yy (1987), and
then in The City of Collective Memory (1994b) is less sanguine about the
multiplicity of taste cultures and more explicitly links the use of heritage to
political objectives, that are biased in favor not only of a traditional ruling
class, but also more interestingly in support of an emerging professional
class that uses science and technical expertise to advance its own
Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996) in particular explore how differing
social and political positions create tensions within the field of historic

preservation. In Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a
Resource in Conflict the authors extend the consideration of heritage to
include cases in which the interests of those who have been largely
absent from most discussions of preservation are explicitly considered.
While they consider several different European and non-European
situations, the Canadian context is most similar to that found in the United
States. They argue that this settler society seeks to incorporate not just
the different interests of aboriginal peoples and different migrants, but in
an increasing number of instances attempts to promote this inclusivist
management philosophy as being of marketable value in its own right.
The canonical origin myth of preservation in the United States
portrays the Mount Vernon Ladies Association of the Union organizing in
1853 to save Washingtons homestead. The group petitioned Congress for
the proposed purchase of Mount Vernon by the citizens of the United
States, in order that they may at all times have a legal and indisputable
right to visit the grounds, mansion, and tomb of Washington. Defeated in
Congress by a government unready to take on a permanent curatorial
function, Association founder Ann Pamela Cunningham successfully
began raising philanthropic funds for the purchase of this site (Tyler,

Coming about one-hundred and thirty years after Cunninghams
effort, Dolores Haydens (1995) account of the importance of place in
politics of identity contributes to an understanding of how the physical
landscape may be used in shaping cultural identities not in-line with
dominant interpretations of the past. Of the policy and planning scholars
reviewed here, she comes closest to articulating a grassroots politics of
preservation with her Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public
The historian who confronts urban landscapes in the 1990s
needs to explore their physical shapes along with their social
and political meanings. Learning the social meanings of
historic places by discussing them with urban audiences
involves the historian in collaborations with the residents
themselves as well as with planners and preservationists,
designers and artists. It engages social, historical, and
aesthetic imagination to locate where narratives of cultural
identity, embedded in the historic urban landscape, can be
interpreted to project their largest and most enduring
meanings for the city as a whole (Hayden, 1995, 13).
The greater part of this book recounts the experiences of groups of Los
Angelinos engaged in these types of projects. Drawing on the theoretical
writing of Henri Lefebvre, Hayden attempts to valorize not just heritage,
but the very places in which the events and experiences of the past
occurred. In this, she links a commitment to interpreting the past in a
critical context with how that interpretation can be carried out through a

contemporary pedagogy using the landscape itself. She thus attempts to
link history (time) to space.
So populism in preservation cuts across conventional ideological
lines in a significant manner. On the one hand, from Pamela Ann
Cunninghams Mount Vernon Ladies Society, to First Lady Laura Bushs
Preserve America initiative preservation populists attempt to construct
identities of consensus. On the other hand populism is also about the
identities of resistance Hayden encourages and the Getty Conservation
Institute (GCI) seems to endorse when they argue,artifacts are not static
embodiments of culture, but are rather, a medium through which identity,
power, and society are produced and reproduced....Thus the meaning of
heritage can no longer be thought of as fixed, as the traditional notions of
intrinsic value and authenticity suggest (Avrami and Mason, 2000, 6).
Essentialism, as used here, follows Uffe Juul Jensens
characterization, according to the essentialists, objects or kinds of objects
acquire their identity from their inherent nature (Jensen, 2000, 41).
Hence, unlike the populists, who are at least ostensibly open to some kind
of democratic sorting of which parts of the accumulated heritage are worth

preserving, essentialists are more attentive to defining objective criteria
and in advancing preservation and policy processes that are able to
differentiate mere sentiment from documented evidence. The upshot of
this is that professionalism was becoming more important, at the expense
of amateur and popular enthusiasms. The resulting structure is both
largely hierarchical and bureaucratic. The gist of this professionalization
(and its limitations) is nicely encapsulated in Jensens presentation to a
group of scholars assembled by the Getty Conservation Institute. He
refers to both the appeal to Ruskin and to positivist science as forms of an
essentialism, in which value is inherent.7
We might try to escape the risk of making cultural heritage a
dangerous ideological tool embedded in myths and grand
national narratives by limiting the scope of cultural heritage.
We can do this, for example, by defining cultural heritage as
material objects as artifacts, buildings, and so on created
by our predecessors. And of course, such objects play an
important role in any culture.
However, he does not fully accept the validity of this move from
populism to essentialism.
Limiting heritage in this way seems harmless enough. This
strategy will not work, however, because selection and
presentation of artifacts of the past are never neutral. These
7 In the Ruskinian tradition which is still alive the particularity and value of an object
inhere in the material used by the craftsperson (Jensen, 2000, 43).

processes are always carried out from a standpoint that
embodies particular values and ideals. Therefore, there does
not seem to be any way to escape the fact that any culture
or community plays an important role in determining, and
thereby constructing, its own cultural heritage (Jensen, 2000,
Historically, Americans have also been somewhat ambivalent about
extreme populism or extreme essentialism. Not oblivious to either the
chauvinistic excesses at home, or the often incendiary nationalisms of
Europe, nineteenth and early twentieth century American preservationists
were quick to search for a less politically volatile basis for their endeavors.
Particularity and science were a valuable support for making this
Following Ruskin, and the English aesthetic moralists, American
preservationists developed an appreciation for particularity, and an
aversion for speculative reconstructions. In this, they sided with Ruskin
against Viollet-le-Duc. However, Ruskinian piety, whether accepted at
face value, or subjected to more critical scrutiny, was hardly an absolute
defense against more Worldly critics, even at the beginning of the
twentieth century (Wright, 1980). So it was that archaeological science
became a valuable complement to aestheticism in American culture during
this period. Science, and a culture of professionalism, proved to be an

asset for preservationists entering a new era. The practices that focused
attention on the authenticity, integrity, and significance intrinsic and
essential to the artifact in question helped legitimate preservation practice.
In 1889, Congress made its first expenditure of public money for
preservation, $2000 to protect the Casa Grande ruin in Arizona from
treasure-hunters. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an 1888
statute permitting condemnation of property for public use could be used
for the purpose of preserving historic sites, but only if they were of value to
the whole nation. This first step of federal government involvement led to
passage of the Antiquities Act of 1906 which added scientific value to its
definition of benefit. Federal involvement in preservation began with a
distinction between popular initiatives like those of Cunningham, and
governmental actions based on science by way of the construct of what
would be called significance, a property of artifacts, but interpreted by
experts and professionals (Tainter and Lucas, 1983).
This distinction between populism and essentialism is found at the
regional level as well. Canonic preservation texts describe late nineteenth
century preservation activity in New England as being akin to
Cunninghams in its voluntarism, but imbued with a greater sense of
Ruskinian ideology. The founding of the Society for the Preservation of

New England Antiquities (SPNEA) is characterized by Murtagh (1997) as
the culmination of earlier expressions of popular patriotism fused with a
moral aestheticism. He touts:
Finally, one must remember that early leadership in the
preservation movement was characterized by its reliance on
private citizens, not on government, and especially not on
federal government. Governments contributions to
preservation have been made primarily in the twentieth
century. It should be further noted that most, if not all, of this
private concern for our national patrimony came from such
affluent Americans as Appleton, who, throughout his career
volunteered his services to the SPNEA, which he had
founded. Therein lies yet another distinction of the American
preservation movement. Outside the United States,
government agencies have exercised responsibility for
preservation leadership since the 1840s (Murtagh, 1997, 37-
This emphasis on the popular participation is an ongoing and
significant part of defining roles that have been considered exclusive to
expertise residing in the public sector in other countries (Elkin, 1987).
Often within the preservation literature, as demonstrated by Murtagh, this
tendency is extolled as civic virtue, without fully analyzing specific
variations. Preservationists largely saw preservation as being linked to
popular and voluntary activity. While this position held ideological sway, it
was sometimes eroded in its extreme forms, through government, at
various levels, accommodating the popular pleadings for protection of

monuments and heritage. For example, Michael Holleran (1998) argues
that in Boston between about 1870 and 1930 the most important driver in
the nascent preservation movement were the changeful times
themselves. Industrialization and urbanization increasingly motivated
citizens, and eventually their governmental institutions, to seek some
semblance of permanence in a rapidly changing built environment.
At Mount Vernon and Casa Grande the threats were respectively
neglect and vandalism; in nineteenth and early twentieth century Boston,
the threat was urban growth. Volunteerism provided Americans with the
most politically and ideologically agreeable approach, however as the
scope of the preservation project became broader than the stewardship of
individual monuments, it was increasingly difficult to assure collective
action. This resulted in an increasing separation between an object
oriented preservation movement, and those whose interests in controlling
change were being better served through local government land use and
zoning restrictions.
William Sumner Appleton was not concerned with such
large-scale environments but with a scattered set of ancient
houses, and he institutionalized a purist preservationism that
helped drive people with broader and more heterogeneous
interests elsewhere. At the same time, the city planning
movement, also newly organizing, was expanding from its
engineering and landscape architecture origins to

encompass all aspects of the urban environment (Holleran,
Hence, while one can find adequate accounts of the preservation
movement in chronicles such as Murtagh (1997), Lee (1992), and others;
these often focus on purist preservationism, championing historic figures
like Appleton and his successors, while cursorily praising amateurs like
Cunningham, and altogether ignoring local land use controls as outside
the preservationists purview.
While the debates of preservation purists continue to this day,
critical discussions of the relationship of historic preservation to real estate
in the United States are few. However, Costonis (1974) sets the stage for
a move from regulatory toward market solutions with Space Adrift:
Landmark Preservation and the Marketplace. More recently, Byard (1998)
indirectly added some critical insight to the discussion with his monograph
on the Architecture of Additions: Design and Regulation. Hamer (1998)
discusses the preservation of multiple buildings through the use of historic
districts in History in Urban Places: The Historic Districts of the United
States. The legal aspects of United States preservation policy as they

relate to property have been covered from a variety of perspectives
(Duerksen, 1983; King, 1998; Hutt, etal, 1999).
Robert Stipe (1987), in setting up his argument on how United
States federal preservation policy is organized around carrots and sticks,
The American system of preservation is more easily
understood if one accepts at the outset that the core of the
problem of preserving old buildings and neighborhoods is
simply a matter of economics. If preservation efforts are to
succeed, respect for what is called an owners bottom line is
of paramount importance (p. 5).
He goes on to distinguish this as an approach particular to the
United States.
Unlike many other countries, in which land tends to be
regarded as a scarce resource to be treated with care and
respect, Americans always tended to view real estate as a
marketable commodity whose principal purpose is to provide
capital gains or income to its temporary owner. This view of
land tends to insure that most of our important buildings, and
the neighborhoods in which they are located, are lost as the
result of two extreme economic situations, each being
equally damaging (p.5).
These two extremes are an overheated market and a stagnant
one, the former leading to demolition and land clearance, the latter to
neglect and blight.

While Stipe doesnt label his approach as privatism, both the policy
and programs he describes are clearly related to how another scholar
defines this phenomenon. Concretely, the policies of privatism consist of
financial incentives to private economic actors that are intended to reduce
factor costs of production and encourage private capital accumulation,
thus stimulating investment, ultimately serving private and public interests"
(Squires, 2002, 242).
For example, the National Trust for Historic Preservations
economic turn has principally taken the form of real estate economics, as
embodied in Donovan Rypkemas Trust publication The Economics of
Historic Preservation: A Community Leaders Guide (1998). As federal
preservation policy has already developed a clear distinction between
resources on public lands, and those in private hands, the Trust has
accepted this and ideologically reinforces a form of privatism. Squires
(2002), following Warner (1987), helps explain how insidious the ideology
of privatism is in policy agenda setting, and affords a perspective on how
easy it is for local governments and organizations like the National Trust to
incorporate economic justifications in more and more of their discussions
of preservation.

Consistent with free market, neoclassical economic theory
generally, theory and policy in economic development and
urban redevelopment circles have focused on private
investors and markets as the appropriate dominating forces.
Private economic actors are credited with being the most
productive, innovative, and effective. Presumably neutral
and impersonal market signals are deemed the most
efficient and therefore appropriate measures for determining
the allocation of economic resources. Given Adam Smiths
invisible hand, the greatest good for the greatest numbers is
achieved in nurturing the pursuit of private wealth (Squires,
2002, 241).
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) was a
turning point in establishing an official preservation policy that was to
concern the government in privately owned properties, and it marks the
beginning of the new preservation policy stream. What began as a
popular movement became increasingly influenced by other policy actors
with differing perspectives.
James A. Glass (1990) directly ties the passage of the NHPA to
popular disenchantment with activities of the Bureau of Public Roads, the
Housing and Home Finance Agency, and the General Service
Administration (GSA). Specifically, the federal highway construction
program, Urban Renewal policy, and the abandonment of historic federal
buildings, were the targets of late nineteen-fifties and early nineteen-
sixties preservation advocates.

The NHPA established a financial commitment by the federal
government to both lower level governments and private owners investing
in historic preservation. These incentives were in the form of grants-in-aid.
The principal recipients of the grants were the states and the non-profit
National Trust. Grants to non-governmental property owners of nationally
registered properties were authorized in the legislation, but this grant
category seldom amounted to much because annual appropriations were
so meager (Fowler, 1987). The next landmark of legislation in historic
preservation policy came with the Tax Reform Act of 1976. This revision to
the federal tax code created a program of indirect incentives to
accompany the grants program.
The decisions to use investment tax credits for off-budget economic
stimulation allowed for a great expansion of preservation activity in the late
...cumulative statistics concerning the use of the tax credit
system for preservation reveal that 18,736 certified
rehabilitation projects were approved by the Park Service
from October 1, 1976 through September 30,1987. The
reported investment in such projects totals a staggering $12
billion dollars ($12,102,200,000). This represents a
combined level of activity and investment resulting from the
Tax Reform Act of 1976, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of
1981 [ERTA], and the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Murtagh,
1997, 74).

The theoretical assumptions of welfare economics are used in
much work focusing on the impacts of preservation. The logic for this
approach is set forward in the U.S. Advisory Council on Historic
Preservations report The Contribution of Historic Preservation to Urban
Revitalization (1979). What is argued there is that there are several types
of public benefit; among these:
Table 2-2 Public Benefits of Preservation
The formation of new businesses Stimulation of private investment
Stimulation of tourism Increase in property values
Enhancement of quality of life and sense of community pride Dilution" of pockets of deterioration and poverty.
Increase in property and sales tax Job creation
Source: ACHP, 1979
By and large, economic studies grounded in this tradition have
attempted to quantify the public benefit streams resulting from the
incentive-based supports of private projects by inventorying spillover
benefits to the local economy (Rypkema,1994; Listokin, etal, 1997). As
such, they support the ideological premises of privatism.

Schuster et al (1997), considering the use of policy tools for
preservation, make a valuable distinction between direct and indirect
incentives. A government grant, as in the case of the federal grant-in-aid
program, is a direct incentive, whereas tax incentives, such as deductions,
rebates, and credits, are indirect. The authors speculate that beneficiaries
may be assumed to prefer indirect incentives, for reasons of choice and
flexibility; whereas government officials may prefer direct grants to assure
administrative control. They also note that direct incentives may be
directed toward other than individual property owners. Such is the case
when the public sector supports the programmatic activities of lower levels
of government or non-governmental organizations. The relevance of this
distinction became apparent in hindsight when one considers the direction
that preservation policy would take by 1980.
In 1976, in addition to the Tax Reform Act, Congress also passed
another significant piece of legislation, tying funding for the administration
of the federal historic preservation program, including grants-in-aid, to a
dedicated revenue source, the oil depletion allowance for off-shore
mineral leases. As noted above, the President and Congress had been
reluctant from the outset to fund historic preservation from general
revenues. By fiscal year 1979, the Historic Preservation Fund had grown

to over $52 million. However, the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980
reversed the growth of direct appropriations to the Historic Preservation
Fund by more than half ($24 million by 1984), while leading to an even
more generous tax credit program in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of
1981. This provided for 25 percent tax credits on certified historic
structures, 20 percent on buildings 40 years and older, and 15 percent on
a building 30 years old and older. The burden of certifying buildings fell to
both the State Historic Preservation Offices and the National Park Service,
both of which had been increasingly underfunded by a Congress and
President intent on reducing the federal budget.
Somewhat less generous, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought
down the number of certifications requested. However, the National Park
Service and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) staffs had already
become as much reactive tax credit certification agencies as the proactive
preservation survey and planning groups they seemed to be striving to
become following the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The late
1980s were a time of fiscal austerity at both the NPS and at SHPO offices.

One interesting development since the passage of the NHPA is the
growing sentiment among preservationists that not all market benefits of
preservation accrue to the owners of historic real properties. However, it
seems these additional benefits are not fully public benefits either. Rather
they are a form of direct economic benefit that can be realized by
associating with a popular sentiment and economically exploiting it. In a
policy environment where heritage tourism is a growing business sector,
preservation depends on how people combine the traditional economic
factors of land, labor, and capital. But it also depends on how they
manipulate symbolic languages of exclusion and entitlement (Zukin,
2002, 329). As used here, entrepreneurialism shares many of the
characteristics of privatism, with one very significant difference.
Entrepreneurialists seek to realize a gain not from direct property
ownership, but from using peoples associations to heritage for economic
So, although the following quote appears similar to the argument
made by Stipe,(and introducing the section on privatism), the gist of the
remark embodies a much broader sense of the market and monetary
benefits of preservation.

First, heritage costs money....Second, heritage is worth
money and also earns it, even if this economic value was not
the reason for its creation nor the prime justification for its
maintenance....These two simple propositions alone make it
essential that heritage is approached as an economic
phenomenon and part of a wider economic system (Graham,
Ashworth and Tunbridge, 2000, 130).
The Getty Conservation Institute, a major international non-
governmental organization in the preservation field, became interested in
the role of economics in thinking about heritage value.
Material heritage traditionally has been valued and
conserved because of its cultural attributes the beauty,
artistry, stories, or other collective meaning associated with a
place, building, or object. Economic values and motivations
are, however, important factors in the conservation of
heritage as well. In contemporary society, economic
considerations often take center stage, strongly influencing
how heritage is valued and how conservation decisions are
The Research on the Values of Heritage project aims to fill a
gap in the conservation field's body of knowledge and to
advance our ability to work constructively with economic
ideas, tools, and forces. This project builds on the
substantial body of work in cultural economics (which draws
heavily from ecological economics), as well as the
conservation field's growing awareness of the importance of
values, markets, and other social forces in our workand
the need for an integrated approach to conservation. ().
The conferences, reports (Mason, 1998; Avrami and Mason, 2000; de la
Torre, 2002) and case studies resulting from this initiative provide a

valuable resource in understanding current discussions and controversies
among preservation leaders.
Apart from the welfare economics commonly employed by
defenders of privatist investment in preservation, concepts borrowed from
environmental economics are being employed as a means of extending
the understanding of welfare economics to account for benefits and costs
not fully accounted for in market transactions or explained only as residual
spillover benefits.
Two recent arguments are notable. One expands upon how private
property owners may be more dependent upon their neighbors than they
admit, and the other sees cultural resources as cultural capital, or
stocks that presumably can be converted into revenue flows by the
entrepreneurial cultural capitalist.
In, The Conservation Game: The Possibility of Voluntary
Cooperation in Preserving Buildings of Cultural Importance, Lewinsohn-
Zamir (1998) proposes game theory as an explanatory mechanism for the
behavior of market actors in acquiring, and maintaining historic properties.
She contends that actual games around preservation may be other than
the prisoners dilemma game, so frequently invoked by game theorists.
Rather, she contends, that given adequate incentives, the game may be

more appropriately considered as an assurance game, whereby actors
are inclined to cooperate, as long as they are assured that others are
predisposed to do likewise. Her approach shows a great deal of promise,
and is relevant to issues of how governmental incentives for market-
oriented preservation activity have to do with maintaining an investment
climate as much or more so than supporting individual properties.
However, there has yet to be thorough empirical research into the
relevance of the model she proposes.
David Throsby, a key participant in the GCI Values project, has
attempted to situate the economics of heritage in a wider social and
political context through an additional concept, cultural capital."
We could characterize conservationists as interpreting
heritage items as stores of cultural valuethat is, as things
that have been inherited from the past which are valuable in
themselves and which yield value to those who enjoy them
in one way or another, both now and in the future.
Economists in turn can readily comprehend that artifacts,
artworks, buildings, sites, and so on have the characteristics
of capital assets and that the depreciation, maintenance,
restoration, and so on of such assets can be analyzed as
economic processes. Given that heritage as capital has
some characteristics (such as the production of cultural
value) that are different from those of other sorts of capital, it
seems that a notion of cultural capital to describe heritage
might be able to integrate its principal economic and cultural
characteristics (Throsby, 2002, 101).

Lewinsohn-Zahirs and Throsbys characterizations are useful in
beginning to relate current discussions of the economics of heritage to a
broader appreciation for other strains of contemporary economic thought.
American preservation practice has become deeply enmeshed in an
ideology of privatism, and as a result the value of heritage resources is
often conflated with real estate valuation alone. Game theory and
environmental economics may provide new avenues of exploration ones
that extend beyond the usual constraints of both welfare and neo-classical
Mossetto (1994) takes a different tack than most of the economists
cited so far. First, he develops an elegant, inter-temporal model of the
changing mode of valuing building conservation in Western society. He
begins with the pre-nineteenth century notion of conservation as a
decision based on the object as a purely private good. He then argues that
more recent definitions of preservation, as opposed to what he calls
conservation, have become more complicated. The cultural heritage is no
longer a strictly private good. It becomes a semi-public one, whose nature
is affected by non-excludability and non-rivalry of consumption. Public
interest comes into account together with the information asymmetry
typical of artistic goods, causing strategic anomalies like free-riding

consumer behavior and information-based rent-seeking (Mossetto, 1994,
84). Mossetto concludes that the ideological nature [of contemporary
preservation] contrasts sharply with economic reality and the results of its
application to reality are strongly affected by some sort of value judgment.
Ultimately, he concludes that economic analysis alone does not suffice.
Ideology, Discourse, and Interest
What is not addressed in the above preservation discourse matrix
is how this typology is operationalized in political practice. Do privatists
always associate with entrepreneurialists because of mutual interest in
markets, or are entrepreneurialists as likely to ally themselves with
populists? These questions and others must be addressed empirically, but
not without a guiding framework. The framework employed here is regime
To begin, the literature on urban regimes provides excellent
guidance for documenting how local governmental preservation activities,
at least those in the United States, have been influenced by property
interests. Constructing a preservation policy that largely operates through
tax credits, differential zoning and land controls, and the creation of
premium land rents, cannot avoid being of interest to those who stand to

benefit from property ownership and development. However, as was
demonstrated elsewhere in this review, the ideology of privatism has been
in competition with various forms of essentialism and populism within the
workings of the governmental sector. The type of context setting urban
theory that Fainstein and Campbell (2002) suggest helps explain why
federal government officials, and NGOs like the National Trust for Historic
Preservation and the Getty Conservation Institute, became increasingly
inclined to discuss economics.
While the nineteenth century rise of professionalism and the
curatorial ideal, as espoused by Fitch, are clear in the literature, how these
beliefs influence both political discussion and policy outcomes is left
unclear. Within much of the existing literature specific to historic
preservation, internally referential ideology is uncritically accepted as
sufficient cause for decision-making and policy implementation (Tainter &
Lucas, 1983). Among those who explicitly identify themselves as
preservationists the tripartite criteria of context, significance, and
integrity8 are often held up as self-evident pillars of meaning and
8 Historic or prehistoric context, significance, and integrity are discussed further in the
National Park Services National Register Bulletins, particularly numbers 15, 16, and 39.

A further scan of the literature reveals that there are also a small
number of scholars specifically interested in heritage and historic
preservation who have attempted to connect the rhetoric and substance of
preservation to issues of economic interest and power by way of language
and culture.
[T]he same heritage artefacts may preserve a record of
cultural creativity, provide an instrument of political
manipulation and present a source of economic enrichment.
Societies may literally stand or fall by the effectiveness of
their political use of heritage, while that material is
simultaneously the subject of tourism and economic
commodification. The agents of these different uses pursue
quite distinct and potentially conflicting agendas aimed at
particular markets. The recorders of cultural creativity, taking
an altruistic stance on their task as guardians of artistic or
historical treasures, may look askance at ideological or
commercial exploitation, while the shapers of national
identity may be indifferent to international tourism markets
and lack the commodifying entrepreneurs business acumen
to exploit them. Nor are the heritage producers necessarily
in harmony with each other within any one use category, for
all markets are segmented. Underlying the often multiple
dissonances of use is the simple reality that those who
preserve, manage and interpret heritage are rarely those
who put it to use. Nor need the objectives of these producers
and of the users be shared. There is in any case no clearcut
user objective, since all users have their own motives, goals,
and institutional positions (Graham, Ashworth, and
Tunbridge, 2000, 94).
The work of Graham, Ashworth, and Tunbridge inform many of my
arguments. Their careful attention to what they call dissonance provides

the groundwork for critiquing the debate on inherent significance so
prevalent in most of the rest of the preservation literature. However, the
breadth of their concerns, which are literally global, and their intellectual
grounding in the academic discipline of geography, leave lacunae in their
considerations of individual national situations, including the United
States, and in their attention to the specific political and policy processes
that involve dissonance.
Alexander Reichl, reflecting on his own empirical study of New
York, and its comparison to Atlanta and New Orleans, considers a
dimension still in need of scholarly attention:
This study of historic preservation demonstrates the need to
consider the specific political arrangements by which
development takes place. It also reveals the importance of
the political discourse underlying these arrangements to
(re)define and justify the development agenda. A broader
understanding of the regime concept is necessary, extending
beyond the traditional calculus of economic trade-offs to
encompass the political discourse that is constructed in the
service of pro-growth politics. Regimes are built not only on
tangible exchanges, but also on particular definition of the
political agenda that unites the coalition members. It is in this
context that awareness of the changing role and meaning of
historic preservation is required. What can be concluded
about preservation today is that when it is politically
advantageous to do so, pro-growth forces are drawing on
the past to build the citys future (Reichl, 1997, 531).

The intellectual genesis of Reichls empirical work is in community
power studies as they emerged in the fields of political science and
sociology. The question on the agenda for these researchers was the
relative participation of different interest groups in governance and the
setting of urban policy. Elite theorists (Hunter, 1953; Bachrach and
Baratz, 1962; see also Harding, 1995) argued that relatively closed groups
of political leaders dominated urban government. Pluralist theorists (Dahl,
1961; Polsby, 1980; see also Judge, 1995) countered that multiple and
fragmented interests regularly interact in such a way as to encourage
outcomes in which a variety of interests are balanced. Despite an
extensive array of case studies through the 1960s and 1970s the
theoretical controversy of community power studies had seemingly run its
Two related but distinct critiques soon emerged, shifting focus from
the politics of who wields power, to the economic rationale that drives
these actors. Within this tradition, the public choice theorists argue from
the point of view of rational self-interest. For example, Peterson (1981)
has argued that American cities are destined to follow an economic
development strategy, and that this ultimately serves the interest of the
city as a whole. Cities are rational actors optimizing economic benefits

within the constraints present. The principal constraint is to provide an
adequate tax base. Others, while not disagreeing that the tendency of
many local governments is to pursue such a strategy, shift the focus.
Molotch (1976) proposed the notion of the growth machine, in which a
specific class of landowners drive policy decisions.
The growth machine thesis in some ways further refines elite
theory but it focuses on the broad field of urban development
and not just on what effects local government decisions in
this field. It is deliberately voluntaristic. Logan and Molotch
emphasize the role of individuals and interest groups
because they want to challenge the structuralist accounts
that had dominated the field and made it seem that human
actions were immaterial to social change....Logan and
Molotch borrow from classical Marxism in distinguishing
between use-values and exchange-values with regard to
property. Most people value their land or buildings for the
day-to-day uses they get from them but a small group of
owners are mainly interested in making financial gain from
their assets. These rentiers lie at the core of the urban
development process (Harding, 1995, 42).
Building upon this whole body of earlier work, new life was pumped
into the debate with Clarence Stones (1989) landmark study of Atlanta,
the same city that Hunter first considered some twenty-five years earlier.
Stones contribution was to reframe the understanding of community
Regime analysis views power as fragmented and regimes as the
collaborative arrangements through which local governments and private

actors assemble the capacity to govern. The primary reason for the
fragmentation of power is the division of labor between market and state
(Elkin 1987, 18). Both local government and business possess resources
needed to governlegitimacy and policy-making authority, for example, in
the case of government, and capital that generates jobs, tax revenues,
and financing, in the case of business.
Stone (1993) described the regime concept as originating in a
political economy perspective that rejects both pluralist assumptions that
governmental authority is adequate to make and carry out policies, as well
as structuralist assumptions that economic forces determine policy.
Regime analysis, observed Stone, explores the middle ground between
(p. 2), conceptualizing the regime as the organism that mediates
between causal variables in the environment and policy outcomes.
Although regimes represent the way in which local actors mediate external
pressures such as economic change, the focus in regime analysis is on
the internal dynamics of coalition building, on civic cooperation (Stone
1989, 5) or informal modes of coordination across institutional boundaries
(Mossberger and Stoker, 2001, 812).
The important point for the discussion at hand is that a prima fascia
argument can be made that preservation policy, as developed in the U.S.

federal system of the 1970s-1980s, reflects the conditions initially
postulated by Elkin (1987). Neither government, nor market, can act alone
in advancing their respective agendas. The specific applications of this
insight to preservation are reviewed below.
Urban Regimes and Urban Preservation
The regime theorists concept of the role of the regime being a
spatially situated (albeit urban in most discussions) vehicle for multi-
sectoral coordination made it an ideal candidate theory for Reichl (1999) in
his extended case study of the historic preservation and redevelopment of
Times Square. However, as he noted, Although the regime approach
provides the essential analytic basis for a theory of urban politics, its
specific formulations reflect an overly narrow understanding of political
processes. By focusing on tangible, material trade-offs between the
business community and its coalition partners, the regime framework
remains bound to traditional conceptions of politics and power that
needlessly circumscribe the scope of political analysis (Reichl, 1999, 14).
His point is similar to many of the critiques collected by Lauria (1997) in
Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a
Global Economy. The thrust of these collected essays is that the regime

framework, as developed by Stone and his adherents, downplays the
broader ideological context as well as the issues of economic restructuring
that affect local economies as well as nation states. While these essays
provide a range of possible correctives, Reichl, for his part, focuses on a
relatively modest amendment to the regime perspective. Referencing
Robert Beauregards Voices of Decline: the Postwar Fate of U.S. Cities,
Reichl argues that
the regime framework should be broadened to encompass
the realm of political discourse in addition to the traditional
focus on political exchanges involving tangible benefits.
Urban regimes are constructed not only around direct
material interests and trade-offs, but also around a shared
discourse that defines and justifies to a particular urban
agenda. A stable governing coalition requires a unifying
vision, or representation, of urban policy that, in turn,
structures the nature of material exchanges (Reichl, 1999,
However, it is Reichls empirical contribution to the relationship of
historic preservation ideology and practice to contemporary city building
that more specifically informs the current work. Reichl noted a decided
shift in both the rhetoric of development and in its implementation in Times
Square. He notes the importance of the concept of historic preservation
to Mayors Koch and Dinkins in maintaining the support of middle-class
professionals, and in the change in the rhetoric of what that concept

meant between one failed plan in the 1980s, and the plan that was finally
implemented in the 1990s.
The earlier development called for a series of modern office towers
to help provide an economic engine for the development that would in turn
both clean up the urban street life of west 42nd Street and provide a
safer venue for a handful of restored Broadway theaters. It was the
political questioning of the need for the massive office development that
eventually accompanied a change in what historic preservation was to
be. Soon redevelopment planners directed their architect, Robert Stern, to
re-package the plan so as to retain more existing buildings, and to
restore the urban streetscape itself as the attraction. What was perceived
as meriting preservation expanded from several jewel boxes, to include a
cleaned-up sense of urbanity, albeit, as Reichl notes, one in which the
neon XXX signs of the peep shows were omitted.
On a more critical note, while Reichl does an admirable job
demonstrating how easily design rhetoric can be manipulated, and how
malleable a concept such as 'historic preservation can be, he doesnt
develop the correlation between preservation rhetoric and development.
The reader may be convinced that there is some relationship, but not
exactly how or why it came to be.

In the last several years Reichl has not been totally alone in
attempting to relate the regime concept to the historic preservation policy
subsystem. Harvey Newman (2001), remaining true to Stones initial
formulation (and city, Atlanta) updates Stones critique in time, to argue
that Atlantas governing coalition may have benefited from social
learning, without extending beyond Stones framework (as does Reichl
when he employs the concept of discourse). Newman accepts the value of
Stones work on regimes without much critical skepticism. Most interesting
about his work is the fact that it is focused on the late 1980s and early
1990s, a time period that suggests that although Atlanta may have been a
late adopter, its political leaders, like those elsewhere were willing to
incorporate preservation into their agenda, when it became apparent that
it served their development interests.
Historic preservation has not been a failure in Atlanta.
Rather the movement was powerful enough politically to
engage the members of the governing coalition in a process
that provided social learning about the benefits of historic
preservation. The result was a new preservation policy as
well as recognition that preservation and development were
not necessarily at odds. Historic preservation could be
profitable and would also contribute to the diversity of the
citys environment by keeping the best of the old along with
newer development. Even if the resulting policy could not be
described as the product of a heritage machine, Atlantas
new ordinance embodied the kind of preservation-based
redevelopment that has been typical of other US cities.
Advocates of preservation become active and successful

participants in the citys governing regime (Newman, 2001,
Regime theorys attention to the middle ground between market
and state, and agency and structure, provides a solid basis for linking
institutional arrangements to expected outcomes through human action
(Mossberger and Stoker, 2001). This is most clearly made manifest in
preservation through the connection of public programs and policy to the
ideology, discourses, and interests that under gird them.
Regime Theory Beyond the Central
Business District
This review would be remiss if it did not consider a very significant
aspect of how the concept of regime is usually employed in the literature.
To date, the canonic texts of urban regime theory have focused on center
city development coalitions. However, Imbroscio makes an interesting
point about the intellectual heritage of the regime approach, and how it
may prove to be robust in a spatially larger, albeit more specific, context.
The origins of the regime approach can be traced to Charles
Lindbloms (1977) seminal work on political economy at the
national level. Following Lindblom, urban regime theorists
begin with the premise that urban political processes are
largely the consequence of the division of labor between
state and market as that is manifest in cities of capitalist
democracies like the United States (Elkin, 1987, 18; also see

Stone, 1989, 6-7). On one side of this division is the state (or
in this case, the local state), which provides the city with a
range of collective goods and is popularly controlled via
elections. On the other side is the market, which provides
economic investment and development for the city and is
controlled by private business (Imbroscio, 1998, 234).
This more generalized formulation suggests the possibility that
regime theory may provide insight beyond its established quarters.
However, Mossberger and Stoker (2001) warn that there are several
pitfalls in attempting to use any theoretical framework in new situations.
Specifically, they draw on the work of Sartori (1991) and apply it to regime
theory. They cite four categories of pitfalls: parochialism, misclassification,
degreeism, and concept stretching. While each pitfall is possible, my
application of urban regime theory to a field that might more
conventionally be viewed through the lens of policy subsystem analysis,
as suggested, for example, by Baumgartner and Jones (1991), most
pointedly raises the prospect of concept stretching. Concept stretching,
according to Mossberger and Stoker (2001), consists of removing aspects
of the original meaning of the concept so that it can accommodate more
cases. Applying this to their critique of regime analysis, they suggest that
in cases where, for example, there are no private sector actors in a
governing coalition, the researcher consider rising on a ladder of
abstraction (Sartori, 1991, 254). Upon discussing such a case, they offer:

The appropriate strategy in this case is to rise to a higher
level of abstractionperhaps the concept of networksthat
lacks the more specific connotation of urban regimes as
government-business partnerships. Intergovernmental
networks and concepts such as picket-fence federalism have
been used before to describe central-local or federal-local
relationships between bureaucratic actors (Mossberger and
Stoker, 2001,817).
However, having established this caution, and discussing the
concept of policy networks, the authors also note that higher level
abstractions say even less about how or why coordination may occur
(p.821), and hence have less explanatory power. While several have
attempted to develop and deploy various empirically derived typologies of
regimes, Mossberger and Stoker (2001) sift through the literature, and
offer core criteria" for identifying regimes.
partners drawn from government and nongovernmental
sources, requiring but not limited to business participation;
collaboration based on social productionthe need to bring
together fragmented resources for the power to accomplish
identifiable policy agendas that can be related to the
composition of the participants in the coalition;
a longstanding pattern of cooperation rather than a
temporary coalition (p.829).

These criteria are used in framing the present research (See
Chapter 3). So while extant regime case studies have largely focused on
municipal electoral coalitions in urban areas, Stoker and Mossberger offer
a more theoretically derived series of operational measures for identifying
regimes in other situations.

This dissertation provides an in-depth case study of a grouping of
events, actors, and circumstances taken to be related to each other, and
so bounded, as the case. Case studies remain controversial among
social scientists. They are said to suffer from a variety of methodological
shortcomings, ranging across concerns such as validity, ability to be
generalized, and objectivity. However, despite an oft recited list of
scholarly misgivings, they continue to occupy an incontrovertible place in
both the literature of spatial politics and policy discourse, the stuff of this
Case studies are considered to be most applicable when one
desires both discovery and richness.
Case studies have a pedigree in the methodological
literature, however, and even those that involve purely
qualitative shoe leather research and street ethnography
often contribute more to a real understanding of urban
politics than the best multivariate statistical research
[Eckstein 1975; Yin 1984; Freedman 1991; Feagin, Orum,
and Sjoberg 1991; Collier 1993]. Case studies excel at
description, and descriptions are primary in all research; they

inspire explanatory theory and furnish its grist (DeLeon,
1997, 20).
Richard DeLeon, the author of Left Coast City: Progressive Politics
in San Francisco, 1975-1991 (1992) is particularly attentive to the role of
the case study in the development of regime theory. Pointing to Stones
(1989) empirical work, and his own (DeLeon, 1992), he argues Critics
might object that a sample of one case offers a slim basis for generalizing
results to other cities. If statistical inference were the goal, that would
indeed be a real limitation. Case studies have a different aim, however,
which is to gain insight into the conjectural patterns of linking many
variables in one city and to describe them accurately in terms that might
apply to other cities (DeLeon, 1997, 21).
DeLeon uses King, Keohane and Verbas Designing Social Inquiry:
Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (1994) as his principal
reference, and discusses their recommendations in the specific context of
urban politics, and even more specifically, urban regime theory. Following
these authors, he suggests that research design has four parts: the
research questions, the theory, the data, and the use of the data. Beyond
the design, research methods are defined as the planned operational

procedures used to collect and analyze data in implementing a research
design (Deleon, 1997, 19). I follow his outline here.
Research Design
Research Questions
The research questions asked here are three, with each
operationalized through sub-questions.
1. How does preservation policy in Colorado compare to the national-
level policy subsystem?
2. How ideologically consistent, politically stable, and strong is the
coalition supporting preservation?
3. How well served by the policy design that has been realized, and
hence supportive, are preservation constituencies?
DeLeon suggests that questions be (1) important in the real world, (2)
make a specific contribution to the scholarly literature, and (3) increase
our ability to learn more about the world based on the results (p.18). I
submit that each of these questions meets these criteria. My success in

convincing others of this will be tested in the body of the case
Here, I, like DeLeon, use King, Keohane, and Verbas definition of
theory: a reasoned and precise speculation about the answer to a
research question including a statement about why the proposed answer
is correct (King, Keohane, and Verba, 1994, 19). I have staked these out
as individual, theoretically-derived proposed answers, each linked to
one of the research questions. For example, in addressing the first
question, I turn to Stoker and Mossbergers minimal definition of a regime
to formulate a tentative answer.
Before 1990, preservationists in Colorado worked within the
constraints and opportunities established in federal law. The creation
of the Fund introduced financial incentives into what was previously a
policy domain characterized by information and regulation at the state
level. Hence, this new opportunity was seized by partners drawn from
government and nongovernmental sources. Their collaboration was
based on social productionthe need to bring together fragmented
resources for the power to accomplish tasks. Members of the coalition

had identifiable policy agendas and demonstrated a longstanding
pattern of cooperation.
To the degree that this expected finding can be substantiated, I argue that
the minimum specification for a regime existed. Then, turning to my
second question I follow Reichls (1997, 531) contention that regimes are
built not only on tangible exchanges, but also on particular definitions of
the political agenda that unites the coalition members. It is in this context
that awareness of the changing role and meaning of historic preservation
is required.
Neither the essentialist model of preservation, nor the federal tax policy
generated privatist model of real estate oriented preservation (taken
alone or together) account for the complexity of discourse underlying
preservation policy in Colorado in the 1990s. However, including
consideration of the articulations of stakeholders related to the politics
of identity and demands for local economic development provides a
more complete range of discourse coalitions.
These theoretically derived propositions lead to the sub-questions,
which I attempt to formulate so as to direct the data gathering and analysis
in concrete ways.

1) How does preservation policy in Colorado compare to the national-
level policy subsystem? For the first research question:
1a) Both the State General Assembly, and subsequently, state
managers were required to implement a vaguely specified ballot
initiative. As the implications of various managerial decisions became
manifest through successive grant rounds, additional stakeholders --
potential applicants, consultants, preservation advocates, and state
and local officials became increasingly involved with the Fund (and
with its directors and managers) in a variety of ways. How did the
management of the Fund begin to change over time?
1 b) The grant fund also exists in a web of other historic
preservation policy instruments, including governmental registers, tax
credits and local regulation. How was the Fund integrated into the
existing web of policy instruments?
2) How ideologically consistent and politically stable and strong is the
coalition supporting preservation ? For the second research question:
2a) A policy innovation alone does not necessarily mean that a
whole policy subsystem will be redefined. How well did the
preservationists traditional appeal to context, significance, and
integrity hold up as priorities changed?

2b) Several scholars have demonstrated that real estate
interests play a significant role in American preservation policy. Is the
inclusion of real estate value sufficient to explain the interests
involved in the Colorado case?
3) How well served by the policy design that has been realized, and
hence supportive, are preservation constituencies? For the third
research question:
3a) Economic development theorists have suggested that as
some industries recede in economic prominence (such as ranching,
. mining, and farming in Colorado) local leaders attempt to use
alternative strategies to counteract such trends. What evidence exists
that the Fund is being used to further economic development? By
3b) Some theorists of culture and society have distinguished
heritage from history on the grounds that the former is a
contemporary manipulation of the past (Graham, Ashworth, and
Tunbridge, 2000). This attempt to relate the past to the present often
serves attempts to define identity. How do the findings reported in
this dissertation relate to this theoretical perspective?

Together, these questions and sub-questions constitute an effort to
conduct a theoretically informed and informing empirical inquiry. The
ensuing data strategy is thus intended to flow from this conceptualization.
Research Methods
Data for this dissertation consists of several categories of
qualitative information, and supporting secondary quantitative information
when appropriate. As this study is by necessity a post hoc undertaking, I
confronted a number of complications regarding memory and
reinterpretation. By relying on multiple data sources, several analytical
approaches, and a systematic, but open, sampling strategy, I gathered
and analyzed the relevant data. I organized and maintained the data
through the establishment of an interview protocol, memo writing, coding
strategy, and analytic database for the purpose of establishing a chain of
evidence. This systematic scrutiny provided a resulting opportunity for
synthesis and theory building.
Robert Yin (1984) has noted that case study research requires a
clear orientation on the part of the researcher. It is the researchers
responsibility to purposefully pursue information relevant to the
investigation. I have organized this dissertation, and by extension, the

overall design of this study to provide a contextually rich body of data for
analysis. The principal strategy I used in analyzing data gathered from
multiple sources in my effort to reconstruct the discourses of the time is
thematic analysis.
Thematic analysis is a process for encoding qualitative
information. The encoding requires an explicit code. This
may be a list of themes; a complex model with themes,
indicators and qualifications that are causally related; or
something between these two forms. A theme is a pattern
found in the information that at minimum describes and
organizes the possible observations, and at maximum
interprets aspects of the phenomenon....The themes may be
generated inductively from the raw information or generated
deductively from theory and prior research (Boyzantis, 1998,
In the course of exploring each of my three general research
questions I used my interview recordings (and edited transcripts and
indices), field notes, and published records to provide raw data, in an
evolving process of synthesis. I used NUDIST N-Vivo software to maintain
an organized data structure throughout my analysis.
While some authors (Weiss, 1998; Miles and Huberman, 1984)
encourage the immediate coding of data to inform further interviews and
data collection, others are more open to a less rigid process, the one I
follow here.

In the effort to have systematically collected and analyzed
data and valid analyses, a researcher could reduce and
confine a study within valid, but insignificant parameters.
Rigidly trustworthy research may be limited by the methods
devised to ensure trustworthiness. It could make qualitative
researchers into nothing more than objective observers and
coding specialists. It could lead to premature coding, forcing
data within a theoretical framework, closing off alternate
conceptualizations and precluding discovery of hidden,
secret, unrecognized, subtle, unimportant data,
connections, and processes. Research that tests hypotheses
has the built-in ethnocentrism of its field (Rossman, 1985,
Before analyzing my data I began a codebook with certain themes
already established. These were derived from a close reading of both the
preservation and community power study literatures as filtered through my
research questions. However, as noted by Straus and Corbin (1990) the
value of such an a priori exercise is highly dependent upon the theoretical
sensitivity of the researcher. These codes provided a starting point, but I
also allowed myself the opportunity to add new coding as glints of
patterns suggested themselves.
Ultimately, I condensed the themes that I identified into four
overarching approaches to preservation. So pervasive were the
ideological commitments embodied by these differing ways of organizing
experience, I chose to represent them as four contrasting approaches:
essentialism, privatism, entrepreneurialism, and populism. In the

continuing examination of the data, I further refined these themes into a
typology based on contrasting notions of value and the degree to which
value is intrinsic to the thing being valued.

Table 3-1 Data Strategy
Data Source Sampling Strategy - Analysis Concept
Interviews Key informant interviews Five central key informants from differing structural positions Open-ended discussions with the purpose of fact checking and refining the protocol for first-round interviews
Additional interviews Sample based on reputation and personal knowledge (12 -1 to 2 hr. interviews) Thematic analysis using preliminary coding derived from guiding propositions
Observation Meetings of grant review committee and CHS Board subcommittee Attendance at meetings in 2001-03 Field notes compiled for thematic analysis
Participation and informal discussion relative to my role as a participant observer No formal strategy Review of personal notes, records, etc..
Published program level public records Review of key program documents at 3 year intervals: 1991,1994,1997 and 2000; and additional ones based on interviews. Thematic analysis using preliminary coding derived from guiding propositions
Program records and meeting minutes Intervals based on grant rounds Descriptive statistics of grants, local partners, related programs
CHS Records Published studies, reports and plans Review of documents for relevant information Thematic analysis and referencing
Individual project records and recollections Critical incident sample based on first round interviews and media accounts Illustration of themes
Media and other secondary accounts Media accounts Three periods Proximate to initiative Early implementation (1991-93) Subsequent implementation (1994+) Thematic analysis using preliminary coding derived from guiding propositions

Other grant programs
secondary sources
Temporal snapshot 1990 v. 2000
Descriptive statistics of
preservation related incentives
(e.g., grants, loans, tax
assistance) in other states, with
a specific focus on grant
A principal source of information for this dissertation was
interviews. Interviews of key informants, who have an intimate knowledge
of the initiation of the State Historical Fund, were unstructured and open-
ended. These interviews served the purpose of creating a faithful
representation of the period surrounding the initiation of the State
Historical Fund. Interviews with key informants took between one and one-
half to three hours to complete.
The remaining interviewees were additional individuals with
reputations for involvement with Colorado preservation policy. These
interviews took between one hour and two hours. The individuals are
representative of several structural and institutional positions: state
government, local government, advocacy organizations and private
The individuals I interviewed are elites, and as such they were
expected to have well formed ideas and conceptual abilities regarding the

program in question. Marshall and Rossman (1989) argue that
interviewing such subjects is quite different from survey interviewing, and
is more akin to a conversation with a purpose.
Elites, in general, resent the restrictions placed on them by
narrow stereotypical questions. They desire a more active
interplay with the interviewer. In the course of the elite
interview, considerable variation will occur in the degree of
control, with the respondent occasionally assuming the
questioners role. Elites respond well to inquiries related to
broad areas of content and to a high proportion of intelligent,
provocative, open-ended questions that allow them the
freedom to use their knowledge and imagination (p.94).
I used an interview outline to guide me through this process, but
allowed for an exchange of ideas as well. Appendix B provides an outline
of the questions I used for interviews. Upon establishing the relationship of
the interviewee to the program (Q1), I individually allowed them to answer
the research questions I asked myself (Q2-11). Additionally, I afforded the
interviewees the opportunity to make a summary assessment of the
performance (best features / worst features) of the State Historical Fund
(Q12-13). Finally, I used this first round of interviewees as a resource for
identifying issues and persons I had not yet considered in my research
As a researcher who is familiar with the State Historical Fund, the
sampling of my first interviewees was based on my knowledge of the